Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
PR icon.png

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

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

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

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



Everyday life[edit]

I'm Not Your Hero[edit]

With a lot of work already done to this for a DYK nomination and given a B-class rating from the DYK reviewer, I think there is a chance that this can be a featured article. With the decent amount notability of the subject (promo single release, charts, live performances and critical reception) and all I research I've been able to do, I feel every bit of important info both major and minor, has been used here, the writing is great, and the images all have fair licenses with correct source information. However, if anyone has any idea of improving the prose or adding any additional information to get this up to FA status, that would be great!

Thank you, 和DITOREtails 20:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 September 2014, 22:23 UTC)----

William Wurtenburg[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some advice on improvements I could make before I bring this to FAC. My writing in particular has been a weak point in the past, so copyediting advice would be extremely helpful. Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 29 August 2014, 02:43 UTC)----

Let Me Hold You[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been putting a lot of work on it for about five days now and I see potential in it to be a GA. The Commerical performance and Composition sections seem to trip me up as far as getting this to GA-status. I've been a part of expanding hip-hop articles to GA-status for quite some time now and I like to see this be another addition to it. I await your opinions on what should be done to this article.

Thanks, ~~DepressedPer (talk) 07:46, 28 August 28, 2014 (UTC)~~

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 August 2014, 07:46 UTC)----

Lightning (Final Fantasy)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I hope to bring this article to Featured Status, and need input from other editors on it. There are probably multiple things that need addressing before I take it to FAR. If you can think of any constructive edits at once, do them, but if you think discussion is needed, place it here or on the article's talk page if it's rather weighty. I'm grateful for your suggestions.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the prose has some awkward stretches, such as in the third paragraph of the intro. I'm gonna copyedit a bit if you don't mind. Tezero (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Do all you think is needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2014, 17:08 UTC)----

Diego Costa[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made over 100 edits to it and would like to know if it is within the realms of being nominated as a Good Article. There are only a few articles which I have ever edited in a lot of depth, this being one of them, and thus I would be grateful to be notified on how to improve it.

Thanks, '''tAD''' (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 August 2014, 02:27 UTC)----

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)

Comments from NickGibson3900[edit]


  • "Oxford were strong pre-race favourites, having won 16 of the last 17 races." - third mention of last 17 races. Sentence is not needed.
    It's only the second mention. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is Goldie wikilinked but not Isis?
    There's no article for Isis. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Comments from EdwardH[edit]

  • Prices should generally not be included, per WP:NOTCATALOGUE.
  • What was The Map Network? What did it do?
  • Many terms are mentioned, but not defined. For example, what are "Privacy by Design principles", the Infomediary model and the vendor relationship management model?
  • How does the "Small Data Meetup Group" relate to Personal?
  • Information in the History section is not ordered chronologically.
  • Many paragraphs are only one or two sentences long. These should be merged into larger, cohesive paragraphs. Try and fit information into paragraphs which follow the summary or news styles.
  • Names of magazines should be in italics.
  • There are too many quotes in the article which are just speculation. E.g., "Mashable posed the question: 'Never Fill Out a Form Again?'" and the CEO's claim that "the average American consumer would soon be able to realize over $1,000 per year".
  • Use straight quotes instead of curly quotes, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
  • Avoid using sources from the company. For example, the CEO's claim that "Personal has helped to popularize the concept of 'small data'" is not at all reliable unless backed up by third-party sources.
  • The products and services sections needs more information about the actual products themselves and less on the media's reponse.
  • Information is organised haphazardly. For example in the Data Vault section, there are four one-sentence paragraphs between description a description of how it works and a paragraph on the product's features. These paragraphs would be better adjacent to one another.

Regarding notability, I think it would be better if more sources were solely about the company, rather than mentioning it incidentally when talking about personal data management. However, I think there is just enough about it to call it notable. EdwardH (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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


Ashita, Haru ga Kitara[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article a GA. It's something I've not done before, a J-pop song article. Any comments on how to make the article better would really help me and of course, the article. Thanks, Ryoga (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 September 2014, 13:24 UTC)----

Believe in Me (Bonnie Tyler song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to drive this article towards the quality of a Featured Article one day in the near future. The article is already listed as a Good Article, and I have demonstrated my dedication to improving the article through my quick edit responses to suggested improvements. I would appreciate copy edit work being done if needed, but more importantly, advice on what information may need to be added in order to improve the article's quality even more, and how far away the article is from being eligible for another quality scale promotion.

Thanks, Bonnietylersave (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 30 August 2014, 14:24 UTC)----

Sleeping Dogs (video game)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because me and Tezero will nominate the article for FA in 2 weeks, so feedback would be much appreciated! Thanks, URDNEXT (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 29 August 2014, 09:40 UTC)----

Batman: Arkham Origins[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA alongside Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, but as it wasn't received as well as those two games the coverage is less and I feel like it is missing something. A fresh set of eyes would beneficial in making sure it is as complete as possible so it can be nominated.

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

I'll take a look at the article. By the way, Darkwarriorblake, is there any way you could give some feedback to the Sleeping Dogs (video game) peer review too? That would be much appreciated. Thanks!

  • Lead feels too short for FA. Specially the 2nd paragraph.
  • A paragraph for gameplay would be nice.
  • The opening of the 2nd paragraph kinda bugs me for some reason. I think it needs rephrasing.

More comments inbound. URDNEXT (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree about the lead. Dunno if it was this way when I was reviewing for GA, but if so, that was an unfortunate oversight on my part. Considering the size of the page, four full paragraphs would not at all be unreasonable. Tezero (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 August 2014, 22:40 UTC)----

Miagao Church[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to expand the article and to take it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Thanks, Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 August 2014, 15:48 UTC)----

Payday 2[edit]

I've basically reconstructed this article from an outdated mess. Looking for advice on improvements such as explaining gameplay (since I have about 400 hours into the game and am very poor at explaining it) and writing reception.

Cheers, Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I recommend you base the lead on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. And reception on Skyrim. NEXT (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Skyrim could also be a decent starting point for Gameplay. Any of our FAs on individual games, really. Tezero (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that, for Gameplay, you should also try looking at the two GA Shin Megami Tensei: Persona games, 3 and 4. They deal with multiple gameplay concepts in a comprehensive way. As to the reception, I think one of the GA Silent Hill games or Tales of Symphonia. I would probably also condense and reference the different game versions and DLC content. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I want to condense the versions and DLC content, but until the Crimewave Edition comes out, I cannot, since there is little information on it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

8/28/2014 15:30 Update[edit]

I did some padding to the intro and reception. Any specific thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks promising, since it's missing gameplay, DLC, and reception. I'd like to also mention how the Sleeping Dogs review is almost over, the only issues bow are date formats because me and Tezero are on our phones and can't open the refs. I'll start working on Payday as soon as Dogs passes, which could be today, for all I know. Is there anyway you can help us, Zero Serenity URDNEXT (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Web Series[edit]

Produced as an ad, the series might be worth having it's own section. You can watch it here and decide if it's worth mentioning. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 August 2014, 17:26 UTC)----

Harvey Thomas Strosberg[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It is my first wikipedia article Thanks, Martinscriminalcode (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)martinscriminalcode

(Peer review added on Monday 25 August 2014, 18:01 UTC)----

The Widower (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It needs a clean up.

Thanks, GiraffeBoy (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 August 2014, 16:07 UTC)----


Previous peer review

It has been over five years since the last peer review and a year since the last Good Article nomination, which it failed to be listed. Despite the fact that this article as been listed as a level-4 vital article, there has been no progress on improving the article to GA or FA status.

Thanks, —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 August 2014, 14:11 UTC)----

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]

@SNUGGUMS: - anyone out there? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, Ritchie. Here's some starting comments.....
  • Are the listed subgenres of rock really needed? Since they're known as a rock band, we can just simply say that.
Some are, some aren't. Power pop is cited explicitly, and I think hard rock probably could go in somewhere around Live at Leeds to explain the contrast between itself and Tommy. Let me come back to this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "an English rock band formed in 1964"..... that formed
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "For much of their career they have been regarded"..... needs a comma after "career"
Are you sure about that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "most important British rock acts"..... English, let's be more specific here
I would rather stick with "British", as that is what the sources use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "one of the world's best-selling bands of all time, having sold more than 100 million records"..... why is this not mentioned within the article body? Should probably be under an "achievements" section or something in body.....
  • "hit singles" in "A string of hit singles followed" is WP:PEACOCK
I don't think it is - it's factually correct. Their follow-up singles could have been chart flops, but they weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant the word choice of "hit"- "successful singles" would be less POV Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Try splitting "The Who resumed regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey, to a positive response, and were considering the possibility of a new album, but these plans were stalled by Entwistle's death in June 2002" into two sentences
Whereabouts would you consider a good splitting point? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say after the "positive response" bit, so replace "and" with "they". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The founding members passing an exam isn't really needed, just say they all attended the same school and grew up in Acton, London
(Without wishing to sound like a grizzly old fart who was programming on the ZX Spectrum before Katy Perry was even born...) The eleven plus exam was the cornerstone of the Tripartite system of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the 40s to the 70s and was an important stage of anyone's life. The result of passing or failing the eleven plus could completely change a child's future as it determined which secondary school they went to. (Just compare Norton Knatchbull School to The North School). Passing the eleven plus was a notable achievement (only about 1 in 4 did) and allowed all three to have a better shot in life. Had any of them failed it, the Who as we know it would probably not have existed. Fletcher's book on Keith Moon devotes a couple of pages to this topic (Moon failed his). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would've included that on their individual pages rather than here Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove "so" from "He was unable to afford his own instrument and so built one at home", and place a comma after "instrument"
Removed "so" but I don't think the comma is necessary Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "a more accomplished musician"..... experienced musician would be more encylcopedic
Gone with "better" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Early career
  • There should be a space after the comma in "in late April at the Oldfield,the band met Keith Moon"
First singles and My Generation
  • Do we really need "first singles" in the section title?
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out
  • For those who don't recognize Daltrey and Moon's faces, it would be helpful to indicate in the photo caption which is which
  • "had held off recording it"..... just say delayed recording
  • "a fairly disastrous tour"..... I think unsuccessful will do
Tommy, Woodstock, and Live at Leeds
  • "In August, he gave a major interview to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in which he described in intricate detail an album project he was working on, the plot of which eventually became the Tommy album" is quite a mouthful. Try simplifying to something like "In August, he described to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in detail what would become the Tommy album".

More to come later on.....Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

See I'm little late here. Here's the review (from bottom to top):

  • refs 37, 268, 269, 273–no need for capitalizing the article's name
  • the 'Awards and accolades' could use some expansion; you can write whether they have won a Grammy, or that the band has entered the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, for example.
  • second paragraph of the 'Legacy and influence' could benefit from some copyediting. The quotes read monotonically to a certain degree; all of the musicians are repeating themselves by saying "The Who are the greatest band of all time!". Why not paraphrase some of the quotes, or incorporate in what way the group influenced the bands that followed (musically, lyrically, visually, etc.)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Isn't there some rule that we're supposed to use a recent photo (for BLPs, I think).
Not as far as I know (but that doesn't necessarily mean anything) - the lead says "their best known line-up...." and lists the members in the picture, two of whom are deceased. Given this, I'm surprised nobody challenged it, but coverage in books and sources suggest the (not quite) original four is where the article should spend most time, and I think the picture should follow suit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For much of their career they have been regarded: what about now?
The last source marking this claim is dated May 2013, which I think is recent enough not to invalidate the claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • more than 100 million records: what about cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs?
You can't say "albums" as that doesn't include singles (and before Tommy the Who were singles first, albums second), "albums, singles and EPs" is too long, "albums, cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs, reel to reel, librettos, sheet music" is too long, and "units" is industry jargon that the layman reader won't understand. What word can you use? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"having sold more than 100 million copies of their recordings"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • single billed as the High Numbers the single was billed as the High Numbers?
"billed" is redundant. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • specialising in auto-destructive art by destroying guitars and drums onstage: I'll have to read the rest of the article, but did they really specialize in such a thing? It makes me think of Hendrix---he had a reputation for smashing and burning guitars, but only actually did it something like three times.
The Who smashed their gear occasionally through 1965, most of the time in 1966 and 1967 (eg: Montrey, Smothers Brothers, the montage of equipment smashing on The Kids are Alright film), and tailed it off in 1968 because it was getting two expensive. Certainly on their first US tour, Townshend was smashing five guitars a day. In short, yes. (all in Marsh's book, can get specific cites with page numbers if required). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
But "specialising in"? Maybe "featuring"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, let's go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • support by pirate radio and television: but not mainstream radio? How did they manage to get on TV?
In 1964, the only "mainstream radio" in the UK was the BBC (independent commercial radio did not exist until 1973), and its coverage of pop music was extremely limited. They got on TV because they had a single in the charts and they got the record deal for the single through somebody seeing them gigging at the Marquee and writing a rave review about it. They then became closely identified with ITV's Ready Steady Go throughout 1965 and 66, hence the "television". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I won't be the only one who has no clue about these circumstances (no commerical radio?) Perhaps in the lead it should just be "radio", and then "pirate radio" in the body, where it can be explained. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes in 1964 we didn't have commercial radio, we'd only just gone up to three black and white TV channels, you needed shillings for the electric meter, I had to get up at half ten at night half an hour before I went to bed, work down mill 37 hours a day for tuppence a year and when we got home our dad ... sorry, I'm rambling. I've removed "radio and television" entirely, while the pirate radio connection is important, I don't think it'll hurt to restrict it to the body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it not worth mentioning that Tommy and Quadrophenia were rock operas (and double discs)? "Rock opera" is a term associated with the Who, isn't it? I might also mention that Quadrohenia was recorded with quadrophonic sound in mind.
The trouble is, "Tommy" the rock opera could be confused with the orchestral version, the film, the musical, or something else. I'll have a think about "rock opera" (and it goes back to 1966 for the Who). I don't believe Quadrophenia was specifically planned with a quad mix, do you have a source for that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying---"rock opera" is a term strongly tied to the band, but the lead never mentions it. The Quadrophenia arilce quotes Townshend in the lead: "The whole conception of Quadrophenia was geared to quadraphonic". The infobox there also claims the album was prog, which is an awful broad interpretation of prog, if you ask me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Quadrophenia is assessed as C class, has numerous cleanup tags and needs serious work. I wouldn't trust anything in that article. I will improve it some day (unless somebody else does). I've put "rock opera" next to Tommy as the two terms are unquestionably related. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • was released in 1979 along with the retrospective documentary: this makes it sound like the releases were related to each other. Were they?
Not really. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 that drew mixed reviews: was the fact that it drew mixed reviews significant enough to mention it in the lead? Was it a big deal?
From Rolling Stone : Much to the horror of their fans, the five-man lineup of 1979-1982 had suddenly swelled to 15 people. Making matters worse, Pete Townshend played acoustic guitar all night. Steve "Boltz" Bolton handled electric duties. It didn't sound much like the Who, and fans derisively labeled it "The Who on Ice." A search for "The Who on ice" (inside quotes) brings back similar strongly negative reviews (although not all are as reliable as Rolling Stone). No other Who tour before or since got such negative press coverage, so in that context, "mixed reviews" is, I think, generous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Is "mixed reviews", then, an accurate (or helpful) way to describe it? It makes one wonder why it's even being mentioned. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's because the tour was substantially different and there were no tours for years either side of it, but to be honest, I don't think it really matters for the lead. As an added bonus, we can loose a comma, which generally makes the FAC regulars happy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • a tour of Quadrophenia in 2012: sounds like they toured a place called Quadrophenia
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • before announcing their retirement in 2014 after a final album and accompanying live shows.: yet Townshend and Daltrey are still listed as current members in the Infobox
Reworded so this makes more sense - they've announced they will be doing a final tour but they've done a "final tour" 30 years ago, so until multiple sources say the Who has irrevocably and permanently split, or one or both of the founding members dies, then we can change the infobox, but per WP:CRYSTAL, not before. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

More later. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The three founder members: is "founder member" a BrEng thing? I'm used to "founding member" (but I'm Canadian). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is, but "founding members" doesn't sound out of place, so let's go with what will fit with most readers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Daltrey, Townshend and Entwistle,: given that this is their first mentions in the body, I'd used their full names, and link them
The problem here is that I have had previous reviews telling me the opposite, ie: WP:LASTNAME applies for every second and subsequent use, lead or body (see Talk:The Yes Album/GA1.
WP:LASTNAME doesn't actually say anything about the lead, and Funkmonk was actually telling you the same thing I am. WP:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That's not a requirement, but it's definitely a very common approach, especially considering the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Ther's inconsistency in that you link, for example, albums, songs, terms such as auto-destructive art, and basically everything else linked in the lead except for the band members. If you feel strongly enough about it, I'm not about to oppose it at FAC, but I do think it's good practice. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Kudos on The Yes Album, by the way---one of my favourites! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am convinced that not too long ago I got reverted with a summary of WP:OVERLINK / WP:LASTNAME after putting a name in both the lead and the body. However, I'm blowed if I can find it, so ... full names in and lead and body it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cliff, had played saxophone: but had ceased by the time Townshend went to Acton? If not, drop the "had".
"Had" removed (sources documenting him playing professionally up to at least the mid 1960s, well into the Who's career). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Townshend's father, Cliff, had played saxophone and his mother, Betty, had sung in the entertainment division of the RAF during World War II, while Entwistle's father, Herbert, played trumpet, and his mother, Queenie, played piano.: fairly long sentence, might be worth copping in two. "saxophone", "trumpet", and "piano" are WP:OVERLINKing.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and so built one at home: holy shit!
It's perfectly true (or at least verifiable to two official endorsed band biographies). What the article doesn't say (but one source does), though, is that the glue gave out on the first gig and it collapsed in pieces. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • both left school aged 16: as in they dropped out, or they graduated?
The source says, verbatim, "At the age of sixteen, John and Pete left Acton County School". It means "graduated" in the sense they reached the minimum school leaving age without getting expelled, but that's more US English. "Left school" (with the implication that the subject got to standard leaving age and started work) is recognisable British English. These days with kids going off to get a BTEC in hairdressing it's starting to become anachronistic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, is there some way to word this to make it clear they didn't drop out? Because, like I said, that's the impression the wording gives to a North American (WP:COMMONALITIES). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I ran this past my other half yesterday (who grew up in the US), and the long and short of it is the UK does not have the equivalent of a High School Diploma, the closest thing being compulsory subjects at GCSE, and (certainly in my case) after my last exam, I never went to school again (and in Moon's case, he simply stopped going and looked for work). Anyway, back on track, I've simply said "After Acton County", as what they did after school is more important (in Entwistle's case, the job allowed him to buy a proper bass, Townshend has repeatedly said that art school changed his life). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • fitting in as an outsider: as a geographical outsider, or personality-wise? A North American would assume the latter.
I would say both - he came from a different area and was of a different social class. Does that make sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but you might want to make that explicit. North Americans tend to move frequently---I went to three elementary schools in different municipalities, and it never made me an "outsider". It would not cross a North American's mind that such a thing would make one an "outsider" unless that was explicitly stated. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed to "fitting in at school". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Through Townshend's mother, the group obtained a management contract with local promoter Robert Druce, who started booking the band as a support act, and they became increasingly influenced by bands they were supporting, including Screaming Lord Sutch, Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers, Shane Fenton and the Fentones, and Johnny Kidd and the Pirates.: another long sentence I'd like to see cut up.
I've reworded this bit, and cut out a few other superfluous terms. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • more of a lead instrument: in what way? He did solos?
That's what the source says, verbatim. I think the problem with the sources is they assume you've heard the Who's music before reading the book and trust you're familiar with stuff like this and this (is the last two of those a reliable source, I wonder)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the actual video might---not so confident a promo would be acceptable. What I meant, though, was about his playing at the time in the narrative. Was he playing all over the place then, or did it develop over time? Does the video say, I wonder? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled out a few more book sources to talk about Entwistle's style, though most of it's ended up in "Musical Style" as you might expect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Early career[edit]
  • By the time the Detours had evolved into the Who: is this evolution? They dropped the one name and took on the other
Changed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sandom claims that Townshend: WP:CLAIM
Fixed (also did a "noted" per WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED elsewhere) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the band met Moon for the first time: first mention in the body, so should be full name & linked
See above comment Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • but wanted a full-time role: wanted a full-time role with the Beachcombers?
I think he just wanted to play music professionally, regardless of which band. Reworded in any case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The way it's worded, it could be parsed as "he wanted a full-time role [with the Beachcombers]". Maybe "he wanted to be a full-time drummer" or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so - that article says they formed in the late 1960s when the Who were well up and running. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking another break here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First singles and My Generation[edit]
  • He signed the group to his production company: do we have a name for this?
I'll have a hunt round for sources. You would have thought an original label for "I Can't Explain" would have it, but it doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a (one-sentence) explanation of pirate radio would be helpful. If you don't know the history, it sounds fringe & underground, & unlikely to contribute to Top Ten Success.
I've dropped in a brief explanation of why pirate radio was important, and changed the link to the more descriptive pirate radio in the United Kingdom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The single also reached the top 10 in the UK: if it was rejected for the US market, then what does "also" refer to?
Removed (it refers to being their second top ten hit)
  • who enjoyed clubbing: meaning they enjoyed clubbing together?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean "clubbing" was unclear, I meant following "The Who were not particularly good friends either, apart from Moon and Entwistle" it wasn't clear if Moon and Entwistle were good friends because (or so) they clubbed together, or they just happened to be friends, and tangentially both enjoyed clubbing. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lambert and Stamp claimed...while Talmy claimed: "claim"
Fixed, although to be honest, exactly what is the issue with "a claimed x but b claimed y" other than "The MOS says so"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The rationale at WP:CLAIM is "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • it saw a proper remix: as opposed to what kind of remix? Also, there are reviewers who maintain that "saw" here would be inappropriate anthropomorphism (I don't buy it, but don't be surprised if it comes up).
Reworded. I think a proper remaster would be the right term here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reaction Label: is "Label" part of the label name?
Mistake, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and replaced with "Waltz for a Pig": was the "Substitute" single replaced with "Waltz for a Pig", or just the B-side?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • collection of songs called "Quads": does "collection of songs" man something like an EP? In that case, should "Quads" be italicized?
I would guess so. 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out[edit]
  • Moon detonated his drum kit: this was live, wasn't it? I might mention it.
The music was mimed, but the explosion was obviously real. 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I mean, wasn't it broadcast live? This seems to strongly imply it: "...nationally televised performance of "My Generation" with a literal bang that singed Pete Townshend's hair, left shrapnel in Keith Moon's arm and momentarily knocked The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour off the air." A filmed performance wouldn't knock anything off the air, I imagine. And those other details might be worth mentioning (shrapnel in Moon's arm?) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
See below. The Smothers Brothers show was released on The Kids are Alright film and several other Who documentaries. Needless to say it's been bootlegged all over YouTube (just do a search for "The Who Smothers Brothers" and you'll find one), and you can easily see the explosion and resulting carnage, but it did not knock the show off the air. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • but had been banned that August: the album, or pirate radio?
Added link to Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 and reworded (the ban happened first, then the album was recorded) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • a mini rock opera called "Rael" whose closing theme ended up on Tommy': meaning the closing theme appeared on both albums?
Yes - it's musically identical. It also turned up in the Live at Leeds performance of "My Generation". Do you need a {{cite audio}} for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant it's not clear if this meant the ending was dropped from the album and then included on Tommy. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded this so it makes more sense and explains exactly what songs use the same music. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing about Hendrix upstaging the Who with their own schtick at Monterey?
I thought I added a quote from Tony Fletcher's book about Hendrix being "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing". Maybe it was another article. Let me come back to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added quite a bit more information about the 1967 tours, which account for the comments re Monterey and the Smothers Brothers show above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't there something about Townshend refusing to have the Who follow Hendrix? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Something like that - it was more that the Who wanted to go on first and argued. I don't think Hendrix cared. I've popped a bit in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Tommy, Woodstock and Live at Leeds[edit]
  • came directly from Townshend's studies of Baba: meaning he wrote them while studying with Baba, or they were inspired by Baba's teachings?
The latter (Townshend and Baba never actually met; there is some irony in a member of "the world's loudest band" being influenced by someone notable for taking a lengthy vow of silence)
You might want to state that---I mean, this comes not long after the Beatles went to India, so it's easy to assume Townshend was studying with Baba. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'd still like to see "interested in the teachings of Meher Baba" made more explicit. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and "Pinball Wizard" was written to attract the interest of New York Times journalist Nik Cohn: why?
Reworded so it's more obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Today, Gibson manufactures: this'll date.
They've been making Townshend SGs for about 15 years now, but I see your point. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"subsequently" coud be interpreted as "not long after". Maybe "From 19XX, Gibson began manufacturing..."? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd need a source for that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm taking so many breaks. If I forget to come back, give me a ping. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tend to be busy in real life, so I wouldn't worry about it too much - there's no deadline in finishing this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I think everything's been addressed one way or another, or at least almost everything has. Shall we tackle the 70s? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'm sorry I keep cutting out like that. I actually have been pretty busy lately, but I'd still like to get in what feedback I can on the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Lifehouse and Who's Next[edit]
  • tired of not getting enough of his own songs on Who albums: maybe "more" instead of "enough"---after all, what's "enough"?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
As above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • thought of a suitable follow-up to Tommy': could be interpreted as a sudden thought that came to him, or as Townshend spent time thinking of something
Reworded. I've gone with "how the Who could make a studio album" as Live At Leeds had been released at this point in the narrative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • creating various layers of synthesizers: meaning he multitracked synthesizers?
Yes, you couldn't get polyphonic synths until the mid 1970s. What wording should be changed / improved here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • had a nervous breakdown, and Lifehouse was abandoned: I think it reads better as "had a nervous breakdown and abandoned Lifehouse"
Not sure. That implies Townshend specifically abandoned Lifehouse, whereas I think it was a group decision that the project was not going to work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the available Lifehouse material: I feel like "available" isn't the right adjective
Reworded (and taken out the adjective, thus side stepping the issue)
I thought it was, but a quick look at the source reveals it was the Record Plant on Seventh Avenue. Added "Record Plant" and changed link. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • in New York, which had to be abandoned: they had to abandon New York?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • were released as a traditional studio album, Who's Next': a release date would be nice
It was August 1971 (added and sourced)
  • reaching No. 4 in the US pop charts and No. 1 in the UK: "in" the charts and not "on" the charts? Is this an ENGVAR thing?
Changed to "No. 1 in the UK and No. 1 in the US". I don't think we need to say "in / on the charts" as it's not done anywhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Townshend was credited with "VCS3 Organ" and "ARP Synthesizer" on the cover.: this sounds more like info for the album article than for the band article
Removed (the previous sentence describes it in more detail) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • , produced by Moon: the solo was produced separately from the tracks? That raises a number of questions for the reader; personally I'd drop it and leave the details to the album article.
That's what's cited on the back cover - "violin on Baba O'Riley produced by Keith Moon". [1] Moon's own article (a GA) talks about the circumstances more. I've taken out "produced by Moon" from this sentence, but left the remainder. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • they opened the Rainbow Theatre: not opened at?
Reworded (now slightly shorter). Also rewritten so that the text doesn't say on 4 November they played at the venue for 3 nights. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Quadrophenia, Tommy film and The Who by Numbers[edit]
  • for the first part of 1972: how long is a "part"?
Clarified (also added name of abandoned album started in May 72) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • had left significant amounts of money unaccounted for: what, they left mystery money lying around?
The source says, specifically, "In 1972, Daltrey had New Action's books audited and discovered huge sums of money unaccouted for." I've toned this down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and examines the relationship with his family and the mod culture: Jimmy or the album examine this?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and rehearsals were interrupted due to an argument which culminated in Daltrey punching Townshend and knocking him out cold: "and" seems to imply that this was related to the tech issues or the synthesizers---was it?
According to the source, the group were rehearsing "5:15", the tapes malfunctioned, Townshend got cross and started having a go at whoever was in earshot, which happened to be Daltrey, who, being the better fighter, punched Townshend in self defence. How might we get that in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • described this gig as one of the worst of all time: worst gig, or worst Who gig?
Worst gig, full stop, according to the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • that the Canadian Mounted Police were called: I'm Canadian. I'd say it's unusual to shorten "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" to "Canadian Mounted Police". I'd either unshorten it, or use RCMP (or "the Mounties"---but I'm not sure if that's unencyclopaedic or not).
Okay, you might be able to help with my understanding here. I though the RCMP were the national police, at a higher level than the provincial or municipal police, so you had the standard Montreal PD, then the RCMP above that - the implication here being that they caused so much destruction that they required top level enforcement. It's not in the article, but according to one source, Moon trashed an antique painting and he, Townshend and some roadies rammed a table through an adjoining wall, before sending it out of the window. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me; I didn't think about that, but yeah I guess calling in the Mounties for trashing a hotel room sounds pretty over-the-top. Perhaps because it involved high-profile foreigners? The details of law enforcement are definitely well outside my expertise. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth just briefly qualifying the status of the RCMP (eg: "the highest level of Canadian law enforcement") - since I had to ask, anyone else outside Canada probably would too. They did destroy irreplaceable antique furniture! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was going to suggest something like [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]], but the article on it says "It is unique in the world as a national, federal, provincial, and municipal policing body". I have no idea what the difference between "federal" and "national" is, and I had no idea they also functioned on a provincial and municipal level. I guess that muddies the water a bit---even if your sources calls them national police, they may have (naturally) simply assumed they were acting at a national capacity (until a few minutes ago, I would've, too). Maybe just leave it at Royal Canadian Mounted Police (expanded)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I missed this: "the RCMP does not provide provincial or municipal policing in either Ontario or Quebec". So I guess [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]] would be accurate. And if they destroyed antique furniture & paintings, wouldn't that be worth saying so? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, now done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • to a standing ovation from the audience: seriously?! It's been twenty years since I last saw it, but I remember it as horrifying
It's in the source here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not accusing you of making it up. It just blows me away. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the 70s for you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • $2M in box-office receipts in its first month: MOS:NUMBERS says "M" may be used "after spelling out the first occurrence", but (a) the "first occurence" is in the lead; and (b) I don't think it's a good idea in an article in which big numbers like this don't appear frequently
  • reaching number 2 on the Billboard albums chart: sometimes there's "No.", sometimes "number"; should choose one or the other
Should all be "No." + non breaking space + number - that's my preferred format. I blame IPs.
  • were restricted to a one-off show: "restricted" sounds like someone actively disallowed the shows; I imagine from the context that they just didn't have time
  • a one-off show at Charlton Athletic Football Ground in May: worth redlinking Charlton Athletic Football Ground?
That's The Valley (London), but it's not linked on first use. Now fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • lightened by "Squeeze Box", another hit single: how did "Squeeze Box" lighten things? By being a hit single, by being light in tone?
I've reworded this entire sentence, and added some other examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • reintroducing Tommy to the set: songs from Tommy, or performances of Tommy?
Clarified Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Entwistle considered the Who's live performances to be at their peak at this time.: any word on what the other members thought?
Townshend was fed up with all of it. Added that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Another break---sorry. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: - okay, I think I've covered all the points now. I'm busy over the weekend, so there's enough time to tackle as much of the remainder as we can manage. Thanks for all the help you've done so far, hopefully if a few others chip in it'll make the FA review a much easier ride. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Who Are You and Moon's death[edit]
  • While recuperating: a surprising choice of words, given that we're told his reason to take time off was to spend time with his family.
  • he discovered that Allen Klein: who? And why would this disillusion him?
  • who both liked the Who: just "liked"? Weren't the Who a primary influence? I seem to remember Lydon making snide comments about the band doing "their Who things" or something.
  • he passed out in a doorway: just like that? Was he drunk?
  • Moon was so out of shape: what, he'd gained a lot of weight? It says so later, but you might want to make it explicit here; for those who know how he ends up, "out of shape" could mena something to do with his consumption habits
  • Having not played: "Not having played" seems to roll off the tonguue more smoothly, I think
  • The film was shelved: because of the shitty performance? Best to make it explicit
  • biggest and fastest seller to that date: was it surpassed by a later recording?


  • can ever take his place".: Is there a period in the original? Given this is quoted as a full statement, if there's a period in the original, the period should go inside the quote.
  • at the Cannes Film Festival in France, in Scotland, at Wembley Stadium in London, in West Germany, at the Capitol Theater in Passaic, New Jersey, and in five dates at Madison Square Garden in New York City.: this reads unnaturally, as it alternates between <specific place> in <country>, and just <country>.
  • unassigned, or festival seating: "unnassigned, or festival, seating"? Otherwise it reads as "festival seating" vs "unassigned"—unassigned what?
  • on MTV on its first day of airing: on the video's first day of airing?
  • "Eminence Front" was a hit: from which album?
  • realising his role as a visionary: I think "realizing" is one of those words to avoid
  • In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing.: is this supposed to imply Townshend was pining for Moon's playing?
  • There was resentment, too: resentment from the rest of the band? This is an unannounced shift from the Townshend perspective
  • "farewell" tour of the US and Canada: why the scare quotes? And why not Britain?
  • ending in Toronto on 17 December: whoo, T'ranna!
  • paid for himself and Jones to be released: do we know how much he paid?
  • as White City: A Novel : this is an album, and not an actual novel? Might want to make it clear
  • Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: What did you want me to do?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Like everyone else, suggest anything and everything that would make the article fail an FA review. Bad prose, missing facts, dodgy formatting, content that could be misunderstood - anything, really. I've been out all weekend so I'll deal with comments in the week to come. I would like to get a brown star but the man hours it seems to require always seem to be prohibitive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(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)

Doing... I'll take the privilege of reviewing this article.

Here's what I found so far:

  • Lead could use some expansion.
  • An infobox containing info and a picture of the person in question could help (if not, then picture will do).
  • Is there a birthdate for the person?
  • Any mention of his previous life before his time in prison and with politics?
  • Add the date you put the references in the article.
  • Who wrote the articles you have links for?

What I've found so far is good and is somewhere close to start-class quality if the changes are made. Keep up the work. DepressedPer (talk) 07:32, 28 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)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Why is "St. Mary's Way Redevelopment" in quotation marks?
  • What was in the area before?

This article is pretty short...and as a future development might be hard to get enough substance to this but good luck. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 23 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)

This isn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. From a quick look, the basic information seems to all be there, sources are all formatted alright (though some links are dead and I can't speak to the reliability of them all), and as a whole the page looks nice enough aesthetically. I would suggest that you find sources for the uncorroborated statements (everything with a citation needed tag and all paragraphs that don't end with a citation) and seeing if you can expand on his "Minimalist style" and, to a lesser extent, acclaim as a musician. I mean, this guy is being ranked as one of the greatest guitarists of the 21st century (I remember being shocked that he'd made it into It Might Get Loud with the Edge and Jimmy Page, but few others were), and my impression is that he's highly esteemed as a catalyst of the garage rock revival (it's basically him, the Strokes, and maybe the Libertines who started it all) and of minimalist music in general. I'm sure there's more out there that this page could include in that vein. Good work so far, though.

(Oh, and if you're a White Stripes fan, can you point out to me how the Elephant cover is supposed to look like an elephant? I've repeatedly stared at it intently over years and years and I don't see it.) Tezero (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I've looked through the article and here's what I found:

  • Lead and infobox could be expanded more.
  • A image of the poster could help, if possible.
  • Premise could use some expansion (go into detail of this 'struggle').
  • ^Production: How did this come into fruition.
  • ^Reception: Add. reviews could help boost this article a little.
  • Citations need to include the writer of the article if shown in the link (last= and first=), The work it came from along with the publisher (which you have in the citation), and the date you referenced the source.

It's going to take a long time for this article to upgrade from stub class but if you put the effort into it, I can see this as a start-class quality article. DepressedPer (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

I can't complain about my own article not getting reviewed while I haven't the others, so here you go.

  • Obviously, references. There's a "citation needed" tag, and a few paragraphs do not end with citations.
  • Credits should be listed chronologically, not reverse-chrono.
  • Biography needs to be better-organized. Ideally, it would be divided into at least two subsections, but even if not, the information should be presented chronologically (for example, why is the info about his education after that of his entire career so far?).
  • Is any more information about Iris or his software-engineering career available? Paragraphs this short are discouraged.
  • The lead needs to be rewritten to summarize the article better, and most importantly expanded. It doesn't list any of the games he's worked on or his pre-game history, for instance.
  • Is his last name really "Sega"? (What nationality is that?) Might want to include a note somewhere that it's not related to the game company's name.
  • Can you find reliably sourced information about his musical style?
  • Nothing egregiously stands out about sources - MySpace, LinkedIn, and the normally unreliable publications raise eyebrows, but they're all being used as first-party sources so that's fine.
  • In what context is he known as "Necros"?

Tezero (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Basically the same as Tezero above, with one addition.

  • You should probably de-link the red links. It makes the article look neater in the long run. The links can be added if/when an article is created.

ProtoDrake (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Geography and places[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because. I want to get the parts of the article translated from the Danish Wikipedia da:Hadsund

My wish is (section name from the Danish Wikipedia)


  • Navn
  • Indtil 1700
  • 1700-1854
  • 1854-1910
  • 1910-1970
  • 1970-1985 Industribyen
  • Historiske indbyggertal
  • Geografi
    • Hadsund Centrum
  • Uddannelse
  • Erhverv
    • Største arbejdspladser
    • Største private virksomheder

Hope someone will assist. Thanks, Søren1997 (talk // contributions) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 September 2014, 17:03 UTC)----

Keswick, Cumbria[edit]

A town is rather far from my usual GA/FA territory (viz music, lit and theatre mostly), and I am not at all sure how good my current effort is. I should be very glad of any comments to help me improve the article further and to decide whether it has GA or FA potential or neither. Tim riley talk 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto comments[edit]

On the whole, good, although not FAC stuff quite yet. I went ahead and fixed some ref formatting issues and left some hidden comments about others I wasn't sure of. I'm sure after the usual suspects have had a pick and a ponder, this will be the usual winning Riley stuff!


  • Recorded where would be the natural question one would ask upon reading this.


  • "There is clear evidence of the presence of prehistoric man in the area" -- personally, I would give "Kewick" again as it is a new para in a new section. We do it for persons, so the same rules should apply here.
  • "The antiquary W G Collingwood, commenting on finds in the area, wrote that they showed that..." -- that/that awkwardness.
    • Yes - lost the second "that"
  • Second para: Would it be correct to finish a para with a cite?
    • Puzzled: I have, surely?
      • That's a note; after 5 years, I'm still not sure of the rules, would a cite not be needed regardless of the note? Cassiantotalk 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I intended the cite within the note to cover what went before, and looking at it again I think it does, but am quite happy to duplicate it if wanted. Tim riley talk 20:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Oh I see, no not really. I think that would cover it. Cassiantotalk 20:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

More to come... Cassiantotalk 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Thanks for the first batch. Tim riley talk 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

20th century and beyond

  • Last para starts with "the town" as opposed to Keswick.
    • Looking again I think this is all right. A solid phrase rather than a pronoun. If I had said "It", that would be open to objection, I agree. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "The Crosthwaite Free Grammar School was built in 1566, adjoining the churchyard; it had up to 200 pupils, of both sexes." -- I know discipline in schools was strict in those days, but not that strict, surely!?
    • Would you care to suggest an alternative phrasing? I'm wholly open minded on this point, as indeed on all points. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I will try: "The Crosthwaite Free Grammar School was built in 1566 and had up to 200 pupils, of both sexes; the building adjoins the [which] churchyard" maybe? Some may call this overtly nick-pickity, but I think another order would sound better. Cassiantotalk 20:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
        • That's fine with me – now adopted verbatim. Tim riley talk 20:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Why do we repeat ref 44 in close succession?
    • Overtaken by events: ref 44 was potentially not a WP:RS (see the article talk page) and I have replaced all refs to that site. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Up to here, sorry for the intermittency. Cassiantotalk 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No rush, and be as spasmodic as you like. I'm glad of your comments in whatever sized portions. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The others have beaten me to it. I see no other issues Tim, great work as usual. Cassiantotalk 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very nicely done. I could not help thinking about Chincoteague ... I've wandered around England quite a bit in my time, and spent a few hours here once. I remember very little about it, though. Still, I shall make a point of looking around more comprehensively should fate place me back in the area. Only a very few comments.

  • "several important developments" This might not be clear to all readers. Developments tend be building stuff in the US.
  • I should put the cheese lovers together, and the dissenters at the end.
    • Ah, well to tell you the truth I started and finished with the cheese lovers so as to deny the dotty old Flom the last word, having which always carries excessive weight. Not quite utterly neutral? I hope it will squeeze past GAN or FAC reviewers if I get that far. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Middle ages
  • "original Barons" just drawing attention to the capitalisation. I guess they were Men in those days.
18th and 19th
  • Is there no article on the rail line? Our rail buffs must be asleep at the switch!
    • Very good point. I have done a bit of peer reviewing for one top-notch railway buff and will go and prod him gently. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, Hellfire and damnation! Of course there's an article and it was boneheaded of me not to think of looking for it! Shall link instanter. Tim riley talk 19:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • " Jacobite rising of 1715." this particular segment seems year-heavy. I might take "of 1715" outside the pipe and make it "the previous year".
Lake poets
  • " Wordsworths had moved" unsure why the "had"
    • I'm not sure either, and have blitzed it. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reminder to use convert templates for distances.
    • Off to consult the manual, and will do the deed once I have worked out how. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "many memorabilia" this seems to be a rather uncommon phrase, per google. Perhaps "much memorabilia"?
    • Blitzed the adjective altogether: just as good without. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for these points, Wehwalt. All attended to except my cheesy bit of top-spin. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cliftonian's thoughts[edit]


  • "from the 11th century, when Edward I of England granted a charter" I presume this is a typo and we mean the 13th century?
    • A slip of my quill. Shall amend. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "with the Lake Poets, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Robert Southey" do we mean the Lake Poets in general, or just these two?
    • The latter, and I oughtn't to have put the comma in after "Poets", which makes the sentence say the former. Shall correct. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Later: have redrawn a bit, to avoid any possible ambiguity. Tim riley talk 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Do we know which royal charter and/or which year?
    • It was Edward I's market charter of 1274. I'm not sure I want to add the details here and then repeat them where they already are, in the History section. Can you think of a concise way of addressing the point? Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "During the Roman Empire" seems slightly odd wording to me; perhaps "During the Roman period", "In Roman Britain" or similar might be superior.
    • Happy with "In Roman Britain". Will alter. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "against the marauding Scots"—I suspect usage of the definite article here might be taken by some as an undue slight on the Scots as a whole. Suggest losing it ("against marauding Scots" does not have the same connotation). Ditto "with the Scots finding richer ... targets"; perhaps "with Scottish attackers" or similar
    • an undue slight? Shall adopt your wording nonetheless. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why not wikilink Edward IV?
    • Indeed, and it shall be done. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We refer to "Wad mining". I know we have made clear in the previous paragraph this is graphite but I think it would be clearer for the reader just to use the modern term.
    • Fair point. (I wrote that bit while in Cumbria and must have breathed the local air too deeply – graphite is still widely called wad here.) Shall alter. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why not wikilink the River Greta?

Religious worship

  • Perhaps say "Eastern Orthodox" rather than just "Orthodox"? Slightly clearer in my view.
  • Do we know for how long Muslim worship has been accommodated?
    • No. It took the very helpful man in Keswick's information centre long enough to dig out even this exiguous information, and I don't fancy my chances of unearthing any more. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Have there ever been other religions in Keswick? Do we know anything about pre-Christian worship?
    • Almost certainly, and naturally the Stone Circle has been the cause of wild surmise - Druids and all that, but surmise it remains. No other pre-Christian religions are recorded in the sources. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Regular events

  • How old are the beer, film and jazz festivals and the agricultural show, do we know.
    • The agricultural show is long established, and the others more recent, I think. I 'll see if I can dig any dates out. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Later: Done, so far as the Agricultural Show is concerned (and added some new info published this very day, if you please!) Shall rummage for the other dates. Tim riley talk 17:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Remove link from River Greta and link further up
    • Yes.

Lake Poets and other Keswick notables

  • "probably the best-known resident of Keswick was Sir John Bankes" I think "probably" would do better at the end—"was probably Sir John Bankes" but this is just my opinion
    • Happy with that. Will do. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • wikilink Fitz Park higher up in "features" and remove the link here
    • Indeed.
  • Wonderful ending.
    • Thank you! I like a good peroration when I can get one. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Overall I think this looks very good—perhaps not ready for FA yet, but I think a GA nomination would be successful with very little trouble. The article is enjoyable, thorough and informative and I enjoyed reading it. I hope these thoughts help. Cheers, and keep well. Cliftonian (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this, Cliftonian. Your comment and Cassianto's above chime with my own feeling, viz that GAN is probably the route to take. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Later: all suggestions attended to as above. Tim riley talk 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Dr. comments[edit]

Perhaps mention some of the notable landmarks like the museum in the lead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)#

Very good idea. I struggle with writing leads, and suggestions like that are most welcome! Tim riley talk 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • With the dissolution of the monasteries, between 1536 and 1541, Furness and Fountains Abbeys - the Furness and Fountains Abbeys? I believe you and Cass prefer to use the definite article.
    • Good gracious, no! That would be like referring to "the Westminster Abbey" or "the St Paul's Cathedral". Tim riley talk 22:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "and at 2014 " ="as of 2014 still continues to be published every Friday"
    • Horrid Americanism: I hate "as of..." Tim riley talk 22:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The geography section is rather undeveloped I believe. Nothing about geography, only a bit on geology and climate. I think first you should state where Keswick is located and its distance from four of five other towns, see Aarhus for instance. You can find distances on google here by clicking directions and entering a town. I've added some details myself to help. Then there really needs to be a description of the local terrain, is the area, flat/hilly, are there mountains or hilly areas in the vicinity? Should be OK now with the additions I've made. One thing though can you check the course of the Greta, the channel I mention I don't know if that is it or not. Google maps shows the Derwent river I think passing along the north side of the city and then there's a channel going south to the west of Keswick into the Derwentwater, it might be the Greta. Not keen on the climate table, can you use a more standard one like in Copenhagen?
    • Thank you very much for the additional geographical material, duly tweaked. I have no idea how to do a table like the Copenhagen one, and I don't think this could be seen as a stumbling block at GAN or FAC. Tim riley talk 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Transport is generally put towards the bottom of city articles, I don't think it belongs under geography. I'm a little concerned that a lot of sections don't follow the general ordering of city articles. Regular events and Keswick culture/notables really belongs under a combined Culture section. -I hope you don't mind but I've reordered a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Very happy with your valuable additions and rejigging. First rate stuff, and I'm in your debt. Tim riley talk 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not keen on the infobox box image. Most of it is dark/obscured and only catches the building at an angle. I'd rather see wider general image like the panorama one. Would you be open to a montage image like Paris? Something like File:Keswick,_Cumbria_Panorama_2_-_June_2009.jpg at the top and then say four images of notable landmarks in the town underneath?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Will continue later. I've added a list of listed buildings. You might want to mention the Grade I listed Greta House, now part of the school and give some architectural details from the listed site. I know you mention it already in the notables section. I also think you should add some architectural detail about the Grade II* listed Church of St John and Church of St Kentigern and The Moot Hall in the Landmarks section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Updated that bit. No longer part of the school. Details added. Tim riley talk 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There's some terrific stuff here. Plenty to keep me out of mischief tomorrow. The only downside is that your substantial (and most welcome) additions mean you can't do the GAN review which I was rather hoping you might. No matter. Tim riley talk 15:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, actually with a bit of strengthening in places I think you could skip GA and go for FA. Let's just ensure it's as comprehensive as possible first though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost nothing from SchroCat[edit]

Very slim pickings from me: a couple of minor tweaks undertaken earlier: feel free to revert anything you don't like. As to the rest…

16th and 17th centuries

  • "Wad mining continued": you've told us this is graphite, so is there any need to retain the ancient name, or would the modern equivalent be better?
    • It would, and now is. Tim riley talk 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

20th century and beyond

  • I wonder why The Manchester Guardian is unlinked, but The Daily Telegraph is?
    • Because I'm a careless old codger. Now amended. Tim riley talk 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FN32 needs sorting out
    • It did indeed, and now has been. Tim riley talk 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

All ship-shape and riley-fashion apart from those two really insignificant questions. Pip pip! – SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, SchroCat, both for tweaks and suggestions. Tim riley talk 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • " civil parish within the Borough of Allerdale in Cumbria, historically in Cumberland". This sounds clumsy to me. Why 'within' rather than 'in' (ha revenge for you jumping on my 'amongst'!) and I am not sure historically is grammatically correct in that context. How about "civil parish formerly in Cumberland and from 1974 in the Borough of Allerdale in Cumbria"?
    • I chuckled at that, and I plead that I inherited that wording from the text as it was before I began interfering. Shall follow your suggestion to the letter. Tim riley talk 17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The town is situated just north of Derwentwater, and 4 miles (6.4 km) from Bassenthwaite, both in the Lake District National Park." As you mention the National Park, I think you should say whether Keswick is in or just outside it.
  • " Eilert Ekwall (1960) and A D Mills (2011), both for the Oxford University Press, and Diana Whaley (2006), for the English Place-Name Society" This sounds as if these bodies endorsed the theory. Perhaps "in books published by"
  • " prehistoric man" sounds dated. I would prefer prehistoric occupation.
  • Collingwood is far too dated to be RS on the archaeology of Keswick. Searching on "Keswick neolithic" in Google Scholar gives more up to date sources.
  • "The last major influences on the area before reliable historical records began" What is the point of this qualification? I would delete it.
  • "absorbed by the Kingdom of Scotland until 1092" The ref should be Haywood pp. 104-5.
  • In the lead you say that Keswick was first recorded in 1276, but this is not stated in the main text, and you say Fountains based a steward in the town in the early 13th century.
  • "The buying and selling of sheep and wool was no longer centred" Should not this be "were" centred?
  • "but evidently that use did not begin until the late 18th century" I would delete "evidently" as superfluous.
  • "During the 18th century and into the 19th..." I got confused in this paragraph as it appears to jump around with dates. McAdam constructed roads - must be late 18th or early 19th centuries but when? It goes on that this made the Lake District accessible by coach, yet a few lines later it says that coach services started in the 1760s, which must be before McAdam. The Grand Tour impossible during war in Europe - McAdam's improvements must have been so late that this means the Napoleanic war, so why link to a list of 18C wars? "Nonetheless, by the middle of the century" Which century? Coach services had not started in the middle of the 18th so presumably the 19th.
  • "bargain prices, such as six shillings" Presumably for the middle classes. Many workers earned less than that a week.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for these points, Dudley: really precise and helpful, and I so glad you were free to look in. I'm looking forward to grappling with your points tomorrow (my last day in Keswick, and able to use the very fine archive in the library, until late September) Tim riley talk 15:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Any prospect of major expansion of the town was ruled out" It might be just me but this has a regretful tone, which I am sure you did not intend! Maybe instead give a very brief summary of the restrictions on development the National Park entailed.
  • What a great picture that panoramic view is!
  • "These fells were formed during the Ordovician period" I think it is best to give a time period as well as saying Ordovician as most people will not know when this was. However I see that the source gets it wrong as Ordovician is 485-443 million years ago and the leaflet says 500 million. Natural England here is a better source, though even this has a typo as it says 495-443.
  • "Climatically, Keswick is in the North West sector of the UK" What does this mean? Is it a Met Office classification?
  • I would make 'Ownership and governance' a sub-section of history. It is all historical.
  • "The first known official record of the town" Was there an earlier unofficial mention? Where does before 1216 come from?
  • "Land to the south and west were part of Greenwich Hospital's forestry and farming estates until the 19th century.[65] In 1925 the National Trust acquired 90 acres of land in this estate, including the foreshore woodland, the gift of Sir John Randles" Did Randles buy it from the Hospital? I would take "acquired" to mean purchased - suggest just saying he donated it.
  • Is it known how long the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School survived?
  • That's it from me. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Lake District Louie[edit]

  • I would move the quote box to the left in the Middle Ages section.
  • I removed a stray "e" at the end of the 18th & 19th centuries section. Did this "e" fall off the end of another word somewhere?
  • I added a couple of dates in refs, and I suspect that other refs are missing dates of publication (the access dates are, IMO, of less importance than the publication dates), that can be found in, or divined from, the sources.
  • Landmarks: Why does Grade II* get an asterisk (*) -- but only sometimes -- while Grade I does not? What is the purpose of the asterisk? I can assure you that most American readers will not know anything about the Grade scale for buildings. I would assume that it has something to do with designating it as some kind of historical landmark, but that is all I could guess. Therefore, I think a blue-link would be helpful in both cases.
  • What is a "a double flight of steps"? Are they double wide, double high, or two different sets side by side? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Minor matters from BB[edit]

I'm at the tail end of a distinguished company of reviewers, so not too many points. But:

  • The slogan "Keswick: famous for pencils" makes me want to giggle, but: "evidently that use did not begin until the late 18th century. Why do we need evidently?
  • "at 2014" sounds strange to me, rather than "in". (Late in the article you have "as at")
  • Is it correct to refer to the lake as "the Derwentwater" (as in "from the river to the Derwentwater to the east of Portinscale")? I have only heard of it as "Derwentwater".
  • Conversely, I would expect to read: "The River Greta, a tributary of the Derwent..." rather than "River Greta..." etc
  • I assume you will pipelink the various listed grades to Listed Building
  • Moot Hall: "a double flight of steps inside" – I see an outside double-flight. It's more usual to call internal steps "stairs"
  • Churches: "Until 1838 Keswick had no church within the town boundaries..." but then: "Another parish church, the Church of St Kentigern on Church Lane, is also Grade II* listed. Dated to at least the 14th century...". And what about the Weslyan chapel opened in 1814?
  • "...the chancel windows, designed by Henry Holiday, also date to that year" – not clear what year.
  • "More than 250 barrels of beer, lager and cider are on offer, accompanied by music from live bands." Sounds a trifle promotional. Likewise: "In July one of the town's best-known annual fixtures begins..."
  • "Before the Lake Poets the best-known resident of Keswick was probably Sir John Bankes, a leading Royalist during the English Civil War." I don't think an encyclopedia should offer this kind of conjecture; the language needs to be more neutral, e.g. "Among the well-known residents of Keswick before the Lake Poets was..." etc
  • Education: I'm not clear as to how the schools mention in the historical summary tie in with contemporary provision. For example, does the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School still exist or did it evolve into something else? Twelve day schools in the town by 1833 suggests a very generous provision, but I imagine most of these were dame schools with only a few pupils – can you clarify? Can you confirm there are no private schools in the town, and also say what is the responsible LEA?
  • Population: I would like to have a better account of the stages by which the towns population grew from the 1000 mentioned in the 17th century, and the present-day 5000. For example, what was population in the mid-19th century, or at the time of the 1914–18 war (which would give a context to the 117 war dead)? Also, can we have some demographic details. Is Keswick a popular retirement base with an ageing population, is it mainly families, etc? Some idea of the make-up of the poplualtion would definitely help to form an image of the town.
  • The parliamentary constituency that includes Keswick is mentioned in the infobox but not in the text. Might be worth mentioning who the MP is (hee hee hee).

That is my lot. Aside from my light reservations expressed above, I found this at least as informative as the "Let's move to..." page which features in the Saturday Guardian. A little further attention should see it safely into FAC territory. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 August 2014, 16:05 UTC)----


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)----


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)
@Ugog Nizdast: No, that's good. Like you said it would make upcoming GA review easier, which will be beneficial for me. Anyway, I will try my best to overcome citation problem.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  07:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then remember to clear/address all the tags before the review starts. Feel free to remove the unnecessary ones. I think most of the citations you can get from the individual articles linked. -Ugog Nizdast (talk)
Yes check.svg Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  15:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: Indeed table is important and useful, have restored it. I do not know who removed it(must be an IP user). Actually, I get very less time to check article. Also I have made copy edit request here. I might ask you to review this particular article. This will help me to save my time.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  15:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bad copy-editor is good that you made a post at the GOCE. By the way, I'm halfway through my review of the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: Tell when you are done. Will nominate it only after you ask me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  09:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There is really no need for that. But anyway, now that you say this...I'll try to finish this faster so that you can close this review and do the GA nom. Be aware that GA nominations can take terribly long to get a willing reviewer, right now according to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Old nominations, the oldest ones are greater than almost six months. Be prepared to wait. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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


William H. Seward[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC in due course and would be grateful for comments.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I've done the first one. You might want to take a look at the licensing, I'm not certain on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. I think we should put the uncropped Brady in as well - a major photographer is always worth including. I'd also consider the salt-paper print, particularly as "Each item includes subject's original signature in ink." - meaning that gives us Seward's signature as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is the uncropped Brady? We have the signature in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
File:William_Seward,_Secretary_of_State,_bw_photo_portrait_circa_1860-1865.jpg is almost the uncropped Brady. I suspect we'd be best off recropping from (By the way, just a suspicion, but I think this may have originally been intended to be oval-mounted given the composition; don't think we should try and fake that, though.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
So uncropped or recropped?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd crop the junk around the edge, you know, the frame and the big white thing that has no detail under it, but keep as much of the photo proper as exists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
How's File:Seward by Brady.tif?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Henry Inman painting of Seward; companion to the Frances Seward image. Presumably also 1844
I've lost one of them. The one you mention is from 1859, in his second term. I've included it. He really aged in those few years ...--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:WSeward.png - this is a copyvio: PD-Art only applies to two-dimensional works, so the frame must be cropped. (I think we're safe enough on the Inman images as the frame there is flat with no detail.)
I know. I've been meaning to crop it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For the Emancipation Proclamation painting, it might be worth considering this engraving based on the painting: instead of a rather bad reproduction of the original. But one could argue either way.
That's actually rather interesting. It's a point I omitted in the article, but it's not the engraving being based on the painting, it is the painting being based on the engraving. And they are not the same. Look at them both carefully. Lincoln is much more the center of attention in the painting, and the pen has been transported from an inkwell by Seward's hand, to Lincoln's own hand. The engraving was published first, and Lincoln's friends objected to he and Seward being portrayed as co-equals, basically, so when it went up on the wall of the Capitol, Lincoln became very much first among unequals. I may hijack them both for the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you upload the tif? My browser keeps giving me an error when I try to do anything with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll sort it out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
While that shows Seward, and Lincoln for that matter, it would take too much explaining for a caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? What about "In an allegory for the Fugitive Slave Act, John A. Logan, c. 1859, stops Seward, Lincoln and Charles Sumner from interfering with escaped slaves being returned to their masters. Puck, 1864." - I'd imagine it'd take a little research to get the wording precisely correct, but I don't think it's impossible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll play with it. Good idea. I'll work on the images later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you also upload that? I'm getting the sam error from Safari.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Doing restorations before uploading. Might take a little bit. About a third through the first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2014, 21:40 UTC)----

HOP Ranch[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to Good Article quality. I am interested in any recommendations whatsoever whether they are grammar, appropriate tone, reference formatting, etc.

Thanks, Dnforney (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 August 2014, 05:38 UTC)----

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)

General comments from Nikkimaria
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be longer
  • Dead links should be fixed
  • Try to avoid having a one-sentence subsection
  • A number of repeated links throughout, some in very close proximity
  • Mix of US and UK spelling - for example, you have both "criticized" and "criticised"
  • Before going to FAC, make sure the references are consistently formatted, so similar sources look similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Peacemaker 67's review[edit]

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.
Yes check.svg Done. SUPERB suggestion, sir. I actually wrote my article on the 43rd Indiana Infantry Regiment (my GGGF's regiment) that way, but didn't even think of that idea, here...
  • 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.
Yes check.svg Done. I think so, anyway (LOL)... Expanded the list of battles and campaigns; also added a paragraph about Matthews' contributions (which can be deleted, if need be).
  • 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)

Thank you! I'll keep plugging away from time to time, as circumstances permit. Thanks again for all your help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A huge thank you[edit]

A huge "thank you" to all of you who have contributed to this article, whether through changes to the article itself, feedback and insights in this peer review, or both. Peacemaker 67 (together with the other reviewers, as well) has left several excellent comments, which I will be looking into over the next several weeks and months. Many of the templates and other things he speaks of are altogether new to me (I'm not really a very "advanced" WP editor, unfortunately--I tend to write and edit at a very 'basic' level, LOL!), so I will have to take time to learn those, as well. Unfortunately, I am now neck-deep in a major book project of my own that's expected to keep me occupied for a year or more, so I will have to slow the pace here on my end considerably, and work on all of these things listed here as I have time and energy to do so. In the end, I have learned a great deal about what goes into making a truly "good" article in this encyclopedia, and I hope over the following months to bring 33rd Alabama up to the standards expressed here. Again, my deepest thanks to everyone who had contributed, or who choose to contribute in the future, to this article or this peer review. Cheers to you all! God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to get some expert input before I send it to FAC, as getting the content right beforehand is prudent....

Thanks, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: I'd expect to see QS Telescopii talked about somewhere in the article; it's a well-studied polar. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Made the article now. Just need to flesh it out a bit to summarise and add to constellation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 August 2014, 04:26 UTC)----

Language and literature[edit]

List of Bleach volumes[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FL. Beside this article, three sub-articles about Bleach chapters should be nominated as well. Any feedback and suggestion is welcome.

Thank you for your time, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC))

You should do the sub articles first to build a stronger case for the general list. Aside from that, the series is incomplete, making it difficult for FLC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I rearranged summaries for the Fullbring arc and Thousand Year Blood war, including the latest volume 63. I also added a few sentences about release of digital editions for NA and Japan in the main list. Although series in incomplete I dont see why the list shouldnt get a FL status if it meets a criteria. For example, D.Gray-man and Naruto are still ongoing and their chapter lists are FL. Cheers (Nightwolf87 (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC))

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 August 2014, 14:03 UTC)----

Arab street[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been rather impressed with how it turned out, and I will be seeking GA status for it at least. I think it handled a potentially touchy subject with great sensitivity and includes a lot of perspectives.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 August 2014, 03:14 UTC)----

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]

D.P. Thomson[edit]

I've listed this article -D.P. Thomson - for peer review because…

This is my first article, moved live after comment from a Teahouse host, who suggested that ...

a) ... the text might not sound wholly objective in places So I've tried to reword but comments would be welcome.

b) ... that citing essentially self-published works by the subject of the article might be questionable. I've tried to substantiate most statements from third-party published works, though it seems to me that, when saying that so-and-so wrote on x-y-and-z topics, to reference those book/pamphlets (and which copyright library has them) offers not opinion but verifiable fact - but then I'm new to this ...

c) I don’t think I've formatted the 'Categories' section correctly. I see that unlike the others, which tend to work by surnames, this article comes under ‘D’ - D.P. Thomson - and not ‘T’.

d) There may be other formatting issues I've missed.

e) I'm not wholly sure about the content I've gone for: especially the 'theology' and 'significance' paragraphs which are intended to address 'notability' and why DPT was thought 'a leader ...' as his denomination's General Assembly said. However if a more factual approach would be better, a chronological list of (major) campaigns and/or a list of his 100-ish publications in the National Library of Scotland could be provided.

Reviews welcome...

Thanks, Ian Badenoch (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 29 August 2014, 19:36 UTC)----

Social sciences and society[edit]


The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the list is now modified and edited based on the mentioned criteria for featured lists. Please check for possible problems before nomination for Featured list.

Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 29 August 2014, 06:58 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)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Cowlibob, Just a couple of quickies from me:

  1. The lead is quite long and full—probably slightly overly so, with just a bit too much indo in there. It could possibly do with some of the film plots being taken out: the film articles hold the info for people interested, and it's not important enough to include on a filmog page;
@SchroCat: Trimmed lead it's now less than 650 words. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. If Splash was big hit, how come Big was a "breakthrough" role?
Clarified. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. There is a little peacockery present, and you should lose words and phrases like cult and surprise hit;
Removed all of these I think. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. There are no citations in the lead, which will need to be addressed
@SchroCat: Firstly, thanks for the helpful suggestions. For this point, the lead was previously fully cited but another user cited WP:LEAD and said that we should aim for little or no citations as long as the content was cited in the main article which it is and that the text would be easier to read that way. You would feel there should be citations in the lead. This would entail about 30 references, is that ok for a lead? Cowlibob (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Its about sticking a balance between the two and WP:CITELEAD is clear that they are allowed when needed and point out that "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Where the information cannot be directly found in the body of the page you need a cite, so saying he was in Bosom Buddies doesn't need a cite (because we have that in the table), going on to say that "His role ... led to guest appearances on a variety of long running television shows" does need a citation, as we don't know it was his appearance led to those appearances (it could have been a good agent, a friend on the production team etc). Saying a film is low-budget needs a cite: mentioning Hanks's appearance in the film isn't a problem, but the budget is. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see, will work on that principle. Cowlibob (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Tables. You need to do something with the sort so that the films do not sort on A or The. Roles should sort on surname, not first name.

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed sorting issues and added citations. One issue came up after adding sort template the n/a listings are sorted as n when it would be preferable that those listings be moved to the bottom, do you have suggestions on how to do this? Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't use n/a as I don't like the differently coloured cells (just not needed), or the fact it centres the text when everything else in the column is left aligned. I also find it slightly misleading because n/a isn't defined. Does it mean "Not available"?. If you look at the Greek Wedding entry, the data isn't "not available": Hanks didn't appear in the film, so there is no data to be available. I tend to go for a dash for any empty cell. Your call whichever choice you go for: in FL terms, both are acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The only other thought I have is to include Hanks's activities from other media - theatre work or radio etc. the title can be tweaked to cover the new additions (and technically it's not actually a filmography already, as it includes television work, so the addition of other media isn't an issue). - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: It could potentially be renamed as "on screen and stage" but so far he's had one Broadway appearance (Tony nominated but still one). Another thing, to avoid peacockery which words would you advice to use if a film is a box office hit or flop or somewhere in between which are encyclopaedic. The same for if the performance was critically acclaimed or panned. Cowlibob (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't refer to the success (or otherwise) of a film: that's what the film's own page is for. Ditto for performances, although yes, you should include the awards info, which is straight reportage of an event, rather than the print opinions of critics, if you get my drift on the difference... - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Yes that would be my preference as well but had seen it in other Filmog FLs. Is it ok to rename article as "on screen and stage" despite only one Broadway appearance. He did appear in city-based theatre productions before films if that counts for anything.Cowlibob (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd add as many as possible, regardless of where the performances took place: it's a bit Broadway-centric to ignore all the others, which is often where an actor learns his or her trade. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Still working on finding reliable sources for his theatre appearances. For his first theatre appearances, it seems he worked at a theatre company for three seasons playing various roles which I'm trying to find out. The last theatre appearances before films seems to be similar in that he played various roles as part of a company with a couple being cited and others seemingly unknown. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The table doesn't have to be complete to pass FL requirements, as long as you've completed it to the best of the available sources. You can always use the {{expand list}} template to highlight the point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Lotus[edit]

Just a few questions really.

  • Can the credits where he was only a producer have their own table? I feel like that would be better for navigation for users wanting to see things he did as the producer and not have to search through his filmography. That way the whole "credited as" column can be removed, as I don't see the necessity of it now when that's what the "notes" column is for.
@Lady Lotus: It was originally separated but I didn't want to repeat films and the current sort I think works as it shows the reader films he acted in first, then additional roles in films he acted in and then producer roles. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would remove "Premieres in Winter 2014", that's not necessary and not normally stated in a filmography
Removed. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not saying that Box Office Mojo and AllMovie aren't reliable sources, but with how big his career is, I'm sure there are more reliable sources out there.
I could probably find New York Times sources for most of the films, do you think that would be better? Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I bet you could find more after that, like Variety, Collider or LA Times. I like a variety of reliable sources, but that's not a necessity to have. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would adjust the width of the tables to add in more images LADY LOTUSTALK 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Will work on adding more images. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]