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.
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
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.



Citizen Kane[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some work to get it ready for FA status.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 15:10 UTC)----

Captain America: Civil War[edit]

Need a peer review to keep up with GT status of MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 15:58 UTC)----

Capon Chapel[edit]

I've nominated this article for a peer review because I would like to receive necessary feedback that will allow me to further improve this article for submission to a Featured Article review. Any and all guidance would be greatly appreciated! -- Thanks, West Virginian (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 April 2015, 21:06 UTC)----

Chetro Ketl[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because after a successful GAN I would like to get more feedback on the article regarding its current quality in relation to the FAC criteria. I plan to leave this PR open until May 31, so if you plan to review or add comments here please do so several days prior to that date so that I will have enough time to adequately address concerns.

Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

First batch. More to come:

  • Etymology
    • Rightly or wrongly a convention – not, as far as I can see, backed by the MoS – has grown up that regardless of what has already been said in the lead a topic or person should be introduced in context at first mention in the main text. Thus "the 1849 Simpson expedition" would be better as something on the lines of "the first American expedition in 1849"
  • Background and discovery
    • "the Mexican–American War of 1846–1848" – I'm pretty certain the MoS asks for date ranges to be in the form "1846–48".
    • "especially well preserved room" – I get in tangle with hyphens, but I think you want one in "well-preserved" here. You might canvass other views on this point.
  • Excavation
    • "caused the Smithsonian to withdraw their support" – I don't at all object to the plural pronoun, but I understood that especially in AmEng corporate entities are usually referred to in the singular.
    • "Department of Archeology and Anthropology" – are you sure about the spelling here? The university's site appears to use the spelling "Archaeology"
    • "Gordon Vivian, father of R. Gwinn Vivian, Edwin Ferdon, Paul Reiter, and Florence Hawley" – I'd put "father of R. Gwinn Vivian" in brackets rather than just commas: at present it reads as though the old boy had rather a lot of children.
    • "charcoal found therein" – a bit fustian, except for lawyers; perhaps just "in it"?
    • "Archeologists theorize" – unanimously? If not, who?
    • "most-accurate" – hyphen definitely not wanted here, I think#
    • "1929–1933 group" – date range, as above
    • "no copper bells as expected" – ambiguous: was it the bells or their absence that was expected? And in either case, why would they or it have been expected?
    • "both of which are considered unique" – by whom?
  • Description
    • "archeologists believe" – all of them? If not, which?
    • "are still present there" – does "present" add anything here?
    • "which is located in" – here and immediately below, "located" is another word that seems to add nothing, and could be dispensed with.

More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 16:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim riley! I think I've adequately "processed" the first batch ([1]). I chose to avoid individual attribution wherever possible, as that is an issue that I've been bounced around a bit on lately, with some asking for more and others asking for less. If in-text attribution is needed in any particular spots I'll happily add them, but for the most part I am trying to learn to minimize them, or at least avoid all but the most necessary ones. I look forward to your next comments, but by no means should you feel rushed, as their is no need to hurry. Thanks for taking the time to help me with this! RO(talk) 16:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Second and concluding batch
  • Construction
    • An explosion fueled by rainfall is a strikingly mixed image
    • "The last significant construction" – what did it signify? It is a pity to use "significant", which has its own meaning, as a mere synonym of "major" or "important"
  • Agriculture
    • I didn’t quite get the hang of this: you start off with an unequivocal statement, without citation, and then say that some authorities dispute it. I’d be happier with something on the lines of A & B say x but C & D say y.
  • Abandonment
    • "de-population" – both the AmEng dictionaries I consulted (Mirriam-Webster and Collins) omit the hyphen
  • Footnotes
    • Note 6 – "buried below grade" puzzled me; if it is a technical term, a blue link or parenthetic explanation would be welcome.
  • General
    • One thing I found kept striking me throughout, becoming distractingly repetitive, was the continual use of the false title "archeologist Name Surname": in one paragraph we meet archeologist Robert Powers, archeologist David R. Wilcox, and archeologist Frances Joan Mathien. I quite see that you need to put these experts in context at first mention, but could some variety be introduced here and there by, e.g. writing "in a 2003 study of artifacts from Pueblo Bonito, Frances Joan Mathien writes…", or "in a 2015 symposium Stephen Plog comments…"?

That's all from me. I learned a lot from this article, and enjoyed reviewing it. Please ping me when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 April 2015, 21:45 UTC)----

Rebel Heart (Madonna album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this as a GA and eventual FA, but I want feedback on the prose part of it and general structuring. Feel free to be as brutal as you can. Thanks, —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 April 2015, 07:15 UTC)----

Dump months[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it started strong when I created and developed it at the end of 2013, and has not needed too much more except updating as facts have changed and evolved. It is as comprehensive as it can get, and I think it could go places. But I'd like some outside eyes on it first.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 April 2015, 19:26 UTC)----

Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)[edit]

The critical consensus seems to be that "Last Gasp" is a not-so-great episode of a very impressive programme. I have my eye on FAC, and I would appreciate any advice which help me tip it over the line. All comments very much welcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • The three links in the first sentence create what's maybe not a sea of blue, but it looks a little odd to me. Maybe drop the link to anthology series.
  • I'm not a big fan of having so many parentheticals, but maybe you prefer this to working the actors names in to prose.
  • She was brilliant- she had maturity beyond her years
Check for dash spacing.
Changed. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pemberton noted that he and Shearsmith had been "dying" to work with Greig
I'd prefer to avoid that one-word quote for a paraphrase.
Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • was inspired by a person Pemberton had seen on children's programme
Unless there is a good reason that eludes me now, I'd swap out "person" for "someone".
Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There might be too much reliance on direct quotes in this section.
  • Why are there no citations in this section?
As is fairly standard in articles of this sort, the plot is just my retelling of the episode. Any citation would simply be to the episode itself, which isn't particularly useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Themes and analysis
  • In South African newspaper The Star
Seems odd to leave out the definite article here, but maybe that convention is acceptable.
I prefer the current phrasing- the addition of the "the" would change the tone slightly, even if (in this case) it wouldn't change the meaning significantly. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • the most cynical of series 1.
I think linking "cynical" might be a WP:OVERLINK.
Given that I'm identifying cynicism as a theme, I think the link is useful- if you feel strongly (or anyone else says the same), I will happily remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • David Upton, writing for PopMatters, called it "easily the most acerbic and most overtly comic" episode of the first series.
Maybe this is a BrEng convention that I am not aware of, but in the US we say "the first season", and the "series" applies to all episodes in toto.
Yeah, that's British English- we don't really use "season" unless we're referring to US programmes. "Series" can be used to refer to the whole programme ("show" is something of an Americanism, by the way), but it generally refers to what you would call a season. See this page, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The acting in the episode was praised by Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward
This seems backwards; I'd say: "Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward praised the episode's acting".
I've had a fiddle, but I'll have to adjust the rest of the sentence, too, so nothing worked out. I'll have a think... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • On the day it was shown, "Last Gasp" was selected as comedy "pick of the day" in the Daily Express,[23] but, the following day, an extremely critical review of the episode by Virginia Blackburn was published in the newspaper.
Do you feel this needs to be changed? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Viewing figures
  • I assume this is the preferred term to "ratings", which we would use in the US.
    • I've never come across "ratings" used in that way in British English- "viewing figures" does seem to be preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Charity auction
  • The money from the auction was to be donated to Give It Up,
I think we can we omit "to be" here, as I assume this did in fact happen?
Funnily enough, I don't have a source saying that it did happen. I've rephrased, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a tight article that reads quite well overall. There might be too much reliance on direct quotes, particularly in the Themes and analysis and Reception sections, but most of the quoted stuff is pretty creative and maybe defies paraphrasing. Nice work! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review- I will get to your comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've dealt with some of the smaller issues; I will massage the prose a little to trim down the quotes. You're certainly not the first person to mention this to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 April 2015, 15:19 UTC)----

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be an FA before it turns 20 this year. I know the prose is not good yet, but it is sitting in the queue for a copy edit at GOCE. I want to see what other problems may exist, and what suggestions you may have. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

A few minor comments regarding the prose, which I believe you can resolve yourself.

  • "Raj asks his father if he can go on a train trip across Europe with his friends; he agrees" — can be rephrased as "One day, Raj asks his father if he can go on a train trip across Europe with his friends; his father agrees."
  • "Shah Rukh Khan was initially not interested because of the romantic nature of the role; he was having success playing villainous roles prior to that." — do you mean "prior to this film."?
  • Some of the lines have "Shah Rukh Khan", some have "Shah Rukh", some have "Khan". It's best if you standardise it to "Shah Rukh". Same case with Aditya Chopra. Some have "Aditya". Some have "Chopra". Best to call both Yash Chopra and Aditya Chopra by their first names.
That is tricky because we usually refer to people by their last names, but here there are some people with the same last names, so that is when I revert to their first names. I will try to do better, but perhaps the copy editor will also improve it.
@Bollyjeff: I have used the full names of SRK and the Chopras for you. If you wish to revert them, do so by all means. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is correct. I am asking for help here. BollyJeff | talk 16:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick question — Is there a reason why Saif declined the role?
I don't think it is not known why.
@Bollyjeff: You can add a footnote about it using this source from DNA and from MTV, both of which state he declined the role for unknown reasons. If you want to add more facts in the legacy section, you can use this source from Bookmyshow. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Chopra asked for two assistants, his brother Uday Chopra, and his friend Karan Johar, who also acted a small part in the film. He got those, plus assistant director Sameer Sharma" — can be rephrased as "Aditya's brother Uday Chopra, Karan Johar and Sameer Sharma worked as assistant directors in the film. Karan Johar also played a small role in the film as Raj's friend."
  • "Sharmishta Roy was the art director.[30] Manish Malhotra was in charge of costume design, with help from Karan Johar and others. While he had many new ideas, Chopra wanted to keep the clothing style simple; he did not want it to distract from the story". Better to keep them in "Casting" section.
  • Can you wikilink "Indianness" to Indian Culture for those who might not know of the term?
  • It would be great if there was a quote in the legacy section like "Mother India" and "Chandralekha".
  • Do check with any WP:NBSP, WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues in the article, if any, to be on the safe side ("Saif ki side toh Kareena hota hain na?" lol).

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Sorry, been busy! Let me look at this tomorrow or Tuesday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "Earning over INR1.06 billion (US$17 million) in India and INR160 million (US$2.5 million) overseas, it became the highest grossing Bollywood film of the year, and one of the biggest hits of all time in India. It won 10 Filmfare Awards, the most for a single film at that time, and won the National Film Award for Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment. The film's soundtrack was one of the biggest sellers of the 1990s, and songs from it are still popular at weddings." -rep of biggest
  • "The success of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge led to the targeting of non-resident Indian audiences by other film makers, which deemed lucrative for them." -makes little sense, reword
  • imitators -imitations?
  • I'd word it as "Non resident Indians and put (NRIs) in brackets.
  • The plot overall could do with polishing up to improve the quality of prose, it reads too much like a narrative in parts..
  • " After his mother Pamela agreed that the story was solid, he decided to make this his directorial debut.[9] Aditya Chopra's intent was to make a wholesome story that people could watch repeatedly. He wanted to show that unlike the typical story "- rep of "story"
  • Link British Film Institute
It is already linked twice elsewhere
  • Is there a link for Consulate General of Switzerland in Mumbai?

The article is stronger in the lower sections I feel. The prose throughout most as Sandy would say is rather "rambling". It reads too subjectively and just lacks the finesse of a higher end article. It needs several decent copyeditors going through it. That for me is its biggest concern right now, the general comprehension has improved though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The hard part seems to be getting "several decent copyeditors". At WP:GOCE you get one; and their skill is what it is. My plan is to do that first, and then ask some of your preferred copyeditors to take another pass at it. BollyJeff | talk 13:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Pinged, read one section, saw this: " ... causing Aditya Chopra to keep continue pursuing Khan" ... keep continue redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It was not ready for your keen eyes yet, Sandy. I hope you don't mind if I call you later, though. BollyJeff | talk 15:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup, still a fair way to go. I'll try to give it an initial copyedit later in the week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 16 April 2015, 02:30 UTC)----

Saturday Night Live (season 34)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve it to featured list status, and would like to be aware of what other (maybe even uninvolved) editors think of any article issues, and the article's writing.

Thanks! StewdioMACK Talk page 12:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • This season is notable for its take on the 2008 presidential election, which saw the show's ratings rapidly increase and a number of award nominations.
That needs a rework. I'd say, "This season is notable for its coverage of the 2008 presidential election, which led to a significant increase in the show's ratings and a number of award nominations."
  • This season consisted of 22 episodes rather than the usual 20
I think you ought to specify that "this season" means season 34. I know it's kinda self-evident, but the start of an article should introduce terms as though the lead is not there.
  • This made it the longest season since the show's second season. The season
Copyedit to avoid three "season"s in these two sentences.
  • which typically have started during the final weekend of September or in early October.
It's always good to include a citation at the end of each paragraph.
  • Mad TV ended in 2009 after its fourteenth season due to low ratings and a dip in quality brought on by budget constraints and mediocre writing.[2]
This strikes me as too POV to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. I watched Mad TV religiously, and that season was easily their best, IMO.
  • I see two citation needed tags here, and these should be dealt with asap.
  • Midway through the season ..."
This paragraph needs a source.
  • before the goodnights
This might be too informal.
  • Queen Latifah appeared as Gwen Ifill and Tina Fey returned as Sarah Palin in a parody of the Vice Presidential Debate
Missing comma/run-on. The article could use some double-checking of the punctuation in general.

It's not bad overall, but it needs a copyedit for prose and punctuation, and lots of unsourced material needs to be verified and cited. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 April 2015, 12:41 UTC)----

Epic theatre[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like feedback as to what exactly, a reader, would like to learn about Epic Theatre. I have deleted the sub header "Dialectical" Theatre because I thought it was redundant. And I have added more about why Epic Theatre came about. I would like to know where else I should add substance.

Thanks, Marisela Grajeda Gonzalez (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Marisela Grajeda Gonzalez

Hi Marisela. Here is my feedback:
  • Your lead section is a bit lengthy. I think you can turn some of the content into additional section, particularly the last paragraph on what Brecht was rupturing from.
  • As to organization, you might consider using sub-headings under Techniques, so that your readers might better navigate to certain techniques of interest.
  • Your use of notes and sources confuses me a bit. I'm not sure that how you cited is standard for Wikipedia or not. You may want to consult Amy. I just use the reference maker and it gives me the numbers like your notes section has.
  • To answer your question about content, you cover the basics well. I think you could add information on the epic theatre practices of others you list in the lead, particularly Piscator. Did his theatre differ from Brecht's? If so, how? I also think gestus needs to be explored at least a bit in your techniques section, even though you list it in the lead and direct to its own page.
  • Your readability is is excellent. It was very easy to understand what you were discussing and you incorporated quotes nicely.

Keep up the good work! Jcbjaw12 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marisela:
  • I agree with Jcbjaw12's comment that the lead section could become separate sections. I would suggest at least creating a specific Brecht section since he was the most popular user of the form.
  • Three things I'd find interesting to add to this article if you thought it appropriate: expanding on Verfremdungseffekt and it's use in epic theater, any specific actors associated with Epic Theater, and what popular theater was like before and during the emergence of Epic Theater.
  • You have a great number of books cited and quotes noted, are there any relevant websites or journal articles online that people reading the wiki article can reference immediately?
  • As it is this is a very informative and well written article.

Croussos (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • The lede serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects; for that reason, I think that the current lede could be broken into separate sections.
  • Complacent doesn't need to be bolded.
  • Epic theatre does not need to be bolded.
  • "The term epic theater comes from Erwin Piscator who coined it during his first year as Director of Berlin's Volksbühne (1924-1927)." The phrase "epic theater" should be surrounded by quotations.
  • Please see Wikipedia:Quotations on how to incorporate quotations into articles.
  • "One of the most important techniques Brecht developed to perform epic theater is the Verfremdungseffekt, or the "alienation" effect." Be careful with puffery.
  • Again, epic theatre does not need to be bolded.
  • The first paragraph reads like a large chunk of text. Can you split it up a bit?
  • This section definitely needs more citations; I don't see any.
  • Subheadings may be useful here.

I am concerned about grammar and style in this article; while it is clear that you have put a lot of effort into research, I think it could benefit from a copyedit and additional sourcing. I also notice that you use "theater" and "theatre" interchangeably throughout the article. Can you pick one and use it consistently? Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 18:31 UTC)----

Impossible Princess[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because since this article is listed as GA, I would like help in making at FA. I have done extensive research like a maniac on the album (and all featuring songs) and I've listed it as a FA but was not promoted. After months of research and correcting, I think it would be helpful if I have some advice from other Wikipedians to improve this from GA to FA.

Thanks, GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 03:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • Minogue collaborated with new record producers and composers for the album, including Dave Ball, Ingo Vauk, Brothers in Rhythm, Manic Street Preachers and Rob Dougan.
I think I know what you mean, but maybe rework this to avoid calling them "new".
  • focusing on dance music and infuses strong elements of trip-hop, rock and drum and bass.
infuses → infusing
  • This became Minogue's first musical effort to contributed on all the lyrics and composition of the album.[2]
to → that she
  • and was certified Platinum
Not sure platinum should be capped here.
  • Minogue promoted the album by releasing a series of tracks
Where these singles? If so, maybe mention it.
  • The album has been recognized as one of Minogue's greatest triumphs and a big step forward in terms of musical composition.
Is the "big step forward" also Minogue's, or the industry?
  • calling it one of the most underrated albums in pop history.
That's a pretty big claim to leave out the source/in-line attribution.
  • accused the staff of PWL for creating "cheap" and "dated" music
the staff of PWL → their staff; for creating → of creating
  • It achieve critical acclaim
achieve → achieved
  • Minogue began a personal relationship with French photographer Stéphane Sednaoui.[10] Together they embarked on a series of trips across the United States and South East Asia.
Combine these to flow better; e.g., "In XXXX, Minogue had began a personal relationship with French photographer Stéphane Sednaoui, and together they embarked on a series of trips across the United States and South East Asia."
Recording and production
  • Each morning, Minogue would present lyrics to Seaman from the night before.
You haven't yet introduced Seaman, so the reader will not know who they are.
  • Bradfield contacted Minogue's A&R Pete Hadfield
Same as above
  • "[...] It's been the most exciting time to be able to write my own lyrics, my own songs and watch these songs grow and morph into this and that and in what I'm really pleased with".[20]
There is no need for the brackets or the introductory ellipses.
  • how to produce, composed and "change and distort" songs
composed → compose
  • It combines trip-hop,
it → Impossible Princess
  • composed the bridge section of the track by using a synthesizer.
by using a synthesizer → on a synthesizer
  • The fourth track "Did It Again" used a similar approach
"Did It Again" is in apposition, so should be set off with commas.
Lyrical depiction
  • Why not just "lyrics"?
  • Minogue is credited as the co-writer to all the songs on the album
Earlier you say, "Minogue participated in co-producing and co-composing certain tracks off Impossible Princess", which seems to contradict this statement.
  • "Too Far" wrote the song at a local cafe she regularly visited.[35]
Do you mean it was written?
  • She commented the she wanted Sednaoui to "take all off her" and "not some of her."[41]
Check for typos and/or mis-transcribed words. I'm seeing a lot of them here.
  • Minogue is telling herself off
Not encyclopedic
Packaging and title
  • projected by color lighting
Do you mean "colored lighting"?
  • The photo shoot ran for a week
ran for → lasted
  • Some unreleased photos were featured in Minogue's books but most remain unpublished.
How could they be unreleased if they were included in a publishes book?
  • "I've told not to be frustrated"
Missing words?
  • Minogue contemplated in using one of her magazine appearances
Remove in

I'd go through more sections, but I see lots and lots of little errors that need to be corrected before any major work is undertaken. It's not too bad right now, but I do get the sense that a language barrier might be showing in some of the prose. I'd ask for some help with the copyediting before taking this back to FAC, as right now there are too numerous glitches that would prevent its passing. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 03:38 UTC)----

SSX 3[edit]

Now that the article has achieved GA status, I'm looking to get it up to FA. I'm looking for any flaws in its writing or anything that I should add. I'm also wondering if it would be worthwhile to add more information about the ports to the GBA and Gizmondo, such as reception and gameplay.

Thanks, BlookerG talk 11:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a very, very good article! A problem I immediately saw was the lack of consistent date formatting: all the dates should be consistent. Since it's an American game, I'd recommend "April 12, 2015". Make all the dates in the article (preferably including references) that format (I saw three different date formats in the article) and the article looks fantastic! Best of luck in getting it to featured quality. StewdioMACK Talk page 12:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Changed all dates to format you suggested. Yes check.svg Done BlookerG talk 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Again, best of luck. StewdioMACK Talk page 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Soundtrack cover art should be removed and deleted I think (I uploaded and added it a couple of years ago). It's very similar to the game box art so I don't think it is necessary for album identification. I'd recommend archiving all web references to prevent link rot. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave the soundtrack art in as it provides the user more information, whether it's similar to the game cover or not, but I will archive the links. BlookerG talk 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 April 2015, 11:14 UTC)----

Arthur Miller[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Arthur Miller is an integral figure in the scope of American Playwrights. I am specifically looking for questions that you would like to see answered on this page.

Thanks, Andreabee12 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by User: Deliirving

Overall, the article looks really great! You've found a lot of good information, and I learned quite a bit.

  • The lead section is very clear. It is detailed, and the second paragraph in particular gives a great introduction. Is there a citation for the claim of his "most popular plays"? It sounds more like an opinion than fact, though I'm sure many scholars have used that statement. Giving it a citation would up its credibility.
  • The body of the article really tells a story. His early life and later life surrounding the HUAC controversy is very strong, and the legacy section is a great way to end it. I don't think you need to add any more sections.
  • Your in text and external links are all really good.
  • You have some really great images that help to tell the story. They are well placed. Were you able to find any early images of him, maybe as a child or a young man? It might be nice to see him before he hit the big time.
  • Your historical development is really good, but I do have a few questions and comments on the text. In "early career," you say "first play provided." I don't really know what that means. Do you mean first play produced? Then, in "critical years," I'm not sure if you need to repeat Daniel's name twice in the last sentence. You can just end it "...reunite with his adult son." Finally, in "HUAC controversy," you can add a comma between testimony and Miller: "...his testimony, Miller traveled..." Just a few little things for me to nit pick at. Really, the article tells a great story that is well written and easy to follow.
  • The article is very comprehensive. The information flows really well.
  • The information is well documented. There are a lot of good citations, and the places where there are multiple citations for one point further its accuracy.
  • The information is also really clear. I appreciate how you include opposing views from critics and Miller himself.
  • It's great there are no templates on the top of the page. The only one I would consider adding (or, really, have in mind as you continue to work on it) is "Unbalanced." There are a few points in the article when the language suggests leading the reader to certain viewpoints, like that he was "brilliant" or "popular." Unless those words are direct quotes, I'd refrain from using them.

I feel like I didn't give you much constructive criticism, but the article looks really good! Happy writing! Deliirving (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by User: Decafespresso

Wow, this is a very comprehensive article.

The lead section provides a clear overview of the article. “Most popular” and “most noted” would probably need citations. Also, is it possible to generalize his works in terms of genre or frequent themes? It would be helpful for those who’ve never read or seen his plays.

The sections are very well organized and easy to navigate. A few suggestions: I didn't really understand why 1956-1966 are "the critical years,” especially because he'd already won Tony and Pulitzer. Is it because of HUAC? The article might flow better if you put the Literary and Public Criticism section before the Arthur Miller Foundation section. If it’s just a list, I think the "Biographies and critical studies” section should be renamed “Further reading” and moved after the “See also” section. Is there a reason why the Characters section is a subsection of the Themes section? I thought they might be on the same level.

You have great in-text links as well as external links!

If you could find some, photos of Miller’s stage productions might be helpful.

The biography is very interesting and comprehensive. A few questions: Were Jane and Robert Miller twins? I’m confused about the beginning of HUAC controversy. Why was Eliza Kazan’s appearance significant to Miller? “In 1964 Miller’s next play was produced”; was After the Fall Miller’s first play after The Crucible? The chronology isn’t as clear because of the HUAC subsection. Regarding After the Fall, did Miller explain why he wrote the play in response to the criticism or did some critics support the play? Brustein’s quote is very strong opinion and it may put this section off balance. If After the Fall was that much of a disaster, why was Miller able to become the president of PEN only a year later?

The reference #1 (Obituary: Arthur Miller) is missing the name of the author of the article, Michael Ratcliffe.

Overall, the information is very comprehensive, clearly written, and well cited. I’ve learned a lot about Arthur Miller! Decafespresso (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 April 2015, 17:00 UTC)----

Well-made play[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I am editing it as part of an assignment for my theater history class at Brooklyn College. I appreciate your input!

Thanks, Mcraab123 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is a very interesting article, but there are too many statements that lack citations. For instance, in the first para of "Form" there are no citations before the graphic, and we need to see where the statements about neoclassicism, Aeschylus and Aristotle come from. The second, third and fourth paras of that section are also rather sparsely cited, and the "History" section is hardly cited at all. The later sections are also rather badly-off for citations.

There are several statements, such as the précis of Tosca, that I happen to know are accurate, but the reader who doesn't happen to know is entitled to be assured from the presence of a citation of a reliable source that the statement is correct. Looking at the text as it was when you began working on it I can see that the lack of citations is less your fault than that of those who edited before you. But if you can fill in any of their missing citations as well as yours it would be much to your credit. You have greatly improved the article already, let me add.

There are two drafting points to be looked at:

  • American or English spelling? We have "theatre" and "theater". Wikipedia's rule is to stick with the variant of the English language in which an article was originally written – and as it was in British English when you began work on it, you should Anglicise any American spellings – theater → theatre, mold → mould etc.
  • "Although George Bernard Shaw scorned the "well-made play", he accepted them" – this lurches from singular to plural (not your drafting, I know).

That's all from me, but feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you want any further input. Tim riley talk 13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

This is all very helpful, Tim. Thanks for taking the time to review. Mcraab123 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marni. You have clearly put a lot of work into this and it is impressive. I think the lead paragraph is excellent! My main input overall would be to make it all more concise and focused. I can clearly see why everyhting in this article relates to "The Well Made Play" but I am not sure it is necessary. In particular I think the "History" and "Criticism" sections can be shortened. It seemed to me that the meat of each of the sub headers in the "History" section, is contained in the last sentence of each. I am not suggesting you take everything but the last sentence out I think the backgound info can be a bit more direct. Though I know with Boulevard Theatres you are dealing with a topic that does not have a Wikipage you can link to so in order to discuss them at all, you have to explain first... I think that is all. The article does look great and reads like someone (scholarly) took a lot of care with it. Hope this helped some.

Marisela Grajeda Gonzalez (talk)

Comments from Gilliark

This is a very fleshed out article that has a lot of useful information to readers. The structure is organized and makes sense, with a strong lead section that gives solid background about the genre without going into too much detail. As well, you have a lot of great in text links to other Wiki articles. It is easy to jump to new articles to find further information. I very much appreciated the illustration of the structure of the genre but would love a picture of scribe or another important playwright which you could probably find on wikicommons. All of the information does seem accurate and thorough, but I do agree with Tim in that the more citations the merrier. In terms of clarity, the section describing the form of the genre could be better organized to create a clearer picture of how a well made play is made. As well, in the last paragraph of the Criticism section Dumas, fils' name is spelled Doumas, which I believe is a typo. In the examples section there are no examples by Scribe, yet the article describes him as a leader in the field. Using A Glass of Water or A Scrap of Paper in this section might really add to the continuity of the article. Using problem plays like A Doll's House in the examples section might be confusing to readers since while it is similar to the well-made play, it is not truly a part of the genre. Finally, the last section, OffShoots could use more explantation. In what way are offshoots different from the original genre and different from genres and writers influenced by the well-made play genre detailed above in the New Forms section? Overall, the article is strong and would certainly prove useful to readers and researchers! Great job! Best, Gillian

Thanks! Thanks for all this, Gillian! I made a lot of adjustments based on your comments. Very helpful. Mcraab123 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94[edit]

  • The lede gives a strong overview of the information without going into too much detail.
  • The quote from Marvin Carlson should not be broken up like that. Please see Wikipedia:Quotations.
  • I'm not sure "flavour" is the correct wording here. It makes me think of "taste" too much.
  • The second paragraph is laid out very nicely with a lot of information; however, I feel that it is lacking some citations (throughout this whole section there are only 7 citations and often 2 citations to one fact).
  • Act One should be capitalized, correct?
  • Again, I don't have too many critiques of the content, but I do think it is important to have more citations.
  • This section heading is far too long.
  • How do we know that it is one of the better-known plays? Is this a fact or an opinion? If it's an opinion, a citation is needed.
  • This whole section has only one citation. It'd definitely be good to add more.
Breakdown of Act One
  • act 1 → Act One
  • Should the characters' names really be capitalized?
  • Why is the first column all capitalized while the second two are not?

The last two sections are very well written and it's evident that you put a lot of time and effort into your research. I do think it's important that you cite sources more often. It's clear you got this information from somewhere, all you have to do is cite it. I disagree with the previous reviewer that the History sections should be shortened – I think they are very informative and interesting. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 April 2015, 03:50 UTC)----

Orpheum Circuit[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I am editing this article for a graduate theater history class. I hope to improve knowledge of the Orpheum Circuit and add information about its history and impact. I am concerned about the information being relevant to the topic so please don't be shy and let me know your thoughts, especially about content. Thanks, Jsattler07 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Gilliark[edit]

This article is a very interesting read and would certainly bring readers important information regarding the topic. The structure is organized and logical, and all of the information is clear and straightforward. The lead section does a good job of giving the reader an overview of the topic without going into too much detail about it. Most of the sections are quite fleshed out, but I do think that elaborating on the section about artists and maybe adding information about what kind of acts were presented would help readers gain a deeper understanding of the topic. There are many good links to other wikipedia articles, but could be more. For example, John Cort has his own wikipedia page that could be linked and a few of the links are dead. The history section is strong and paints a clear, detailed picture of how the circuit was developed. It might be interesting to add a little about what paved the way for this type of entertainment, other touring circuits, how the circuit did or didn't effect New York theater, what a typical night at the orpheum might be like etc. There are many relevant citations which serve to authenticate facts and give the reader an opportunity to read further on the topic. Overall this is a strong article with accurate information and an organized structure. Great Job!

Comments from Decafespresso[edit]

I enjoyed reading this article and it certainly is an interesting point in American theater history.

The lead section is very clear and concise. I think you can add a few more sentences to summarize the full history of the Orpheum, as well as the state of existing theaters.

The structure of the article is mostly clear and logical. Notating years for sections 1-5 might be helpful (e.g. Early History: 1886-1893) I think "Theatres still operating” section should include general information on who owns and operates these theaters. Is the Orpheum name kept because RKO is still involved somehow or is it just historical recognition? What kind of performances are done at each of these existing theaters? I think you should also mention that these lists of theaters are not exhaustive. I’m not sure what the “Management” section is for, mainly because I don’t know when they were in these positions. Only Beck appears in the sections prior to this, so perhaps you can consider deleting the section if they are not historically significant.

On the content of the article, I’m a bit confused with the war between western and eastern circuits. Was the Orpheum Theatre in East Village (circa 1904) not part of the circuit back then? What changed as the result of mergers to become KAO and later RKO? Was the touring circuit still functioning for some time after the mergers? “It was all our war…” and then what happened? Also, did you find any information about the Orpheum theaters being movie theaters? The article seems to focus solely on the vaudeville side, but I’d be interested to know how the two art forms coexisted.

On accuracy of the information, the Late Circuit section mentions the Circuit was incorporated in 1919, while the Assoc. and Alliances section says 1900. Which one is correct? There are two Orpheum Theatres in LA listed in the list of theaters, but the links seem to refer to the same one.

This may be the inherent problem in your source material, but some of the information seem subjective. For example, the sentence “The next logical city was Los Angeles.” in the beginning of the circuit section. Is that the opinion of the author of your reference or the opinion of Meyerfeld and Walter?

It might be helpful to mention other theater circuits in the article and include them in a See Also list, such as Alexander Pantages as well as the eastern circuits. There is also an article on Vaudeville_Managers_Association you can link to.

Decafespresso (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94[edit]

  • The lede looks very well-written. Great job.
Early history
  • "This first Orpheum seated 3500 and immediately became the most popular theatre in San Francisco." How so? In terms of attendance?
  • "The program at the original Orpheum ranged from knockabout comedy to opera, thus appealing to a wide variety of people from working class, to middle class clerks and shop keepers, to businessmen." I don't think the types of people is important – it works to just say a wide variety of people.

"Often there would be as many ladies present for the evening's entertainment as men due to Walter's high-class vaudeville acts." I am a bit confused as to what this means. I don't think it's a full thought.

  • "This time, Walter was backed by Morris Meyerfeld who become Walter's partner." Backed how? What type of partner?
The beginnings of the circuit
  • Can you shorten the section's title?
  • "Meyerfeld argued that San Francisco was so far removed geographically, that in order to entice more performers to make the journey to perform at their theater, they needed to make their journey worthwhile by offering more opportunities to perform." This should probably be rewritten as it reads a bit choppily.
  • "The next logical city was Los Angeles." Why?
  • "Walter and Meyerfeld continue to expand their operations by opening more theaters on the road between the Midwestern United States and their Pacific Coast theaters." This should be written in the past tense.
  • "The pair leased the Ninth Street Theatre and renamed it the Orpheum. It opened in 1898 to a sold out house." Do you have a citation for this?
Vaudeville Associations and Alliances
  • Keep in mind the proper capitalization rules for section headings.
  • This whole section would benefit from grammatical and punctuation checks as well as additional citations.
Wars between East and West
  • "It was all out war..." What happened? Why was it war? What was the result?

Maybe the "Theatres still operating" section could be made into a list in which more information could be stored (such as who owns/operates the theatres). Overall, I think you've done a nice job in researching. I may do some copyediting to fix grammar and punctuation and I recommend you check out the issues that previous reviewers have pointed out regarding fact discrepancies. I tried not to echo the previous reviewers' concerns and focus on my unique opinions. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me here or on my talk page. MJ94 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 April 2015, 02:39 UTC)----

Sentimental comedy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have just created it and would love some constructive criticism and suggestions on how to make it better!

Thanks, user:gilliark

Peer Review by Jessiechapman (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Gillian, First off, kudos for creating a new article from scratch. Below is some feedback based on the article evaluation form.

I. Structure, format, and appearance

  • Awesome lead, great overview of the subject
  • The body of you article makes sense, but I was a little confused by the major works list directly following a reference to laughing comedy, Adding a label above the major listed works should alleviate confusion from the laughing comedy reference.
  • I think you might be able to elaborate more on structure in the elements section. The only bit about sentimental comedy I remember that is not covered in your article is that the repeated convention of lovers being separated by socioeconomic status and then united in the end by a discovery that the lower status lover actually is well born/has a fortune. If this is not in your sources, can you cite Amy's lecture?
  • In-text links: There were a lot of relevant in text links, but there may be a couple more that could be added. In the elements section you could link to verse (poetry) or blank verse depending on which is more relevant. Towards the end of the article, you could also link to comedy and/or tragedy, especially where you mention Aristotle
  • Would a snidely whiplash villain with an epic mustache be relevant? If so, you should add that image :)

II. Content and sources

  • I am impressed with the amount of sources and information you provided on this topic; I judge that it covers all the necessary historical basics for the topic
  • The article is a tad repetitive in the main sentiment about the genre, but due to the limited sources of the topic, I think that is fine
  • There is one point of the article that I found confusing, verse. In the elements section it is stated that sentimental comedies are written in verse, but in the 'essay on serious drama' section is states that the from is noted for moving away from verse. You may want to reconcile this for your readers if you can
  • I found the article very easy and enjoyable to read structurally and grammatically.

Please let me know if you have questions about any of my comments. Always -Jessie

WOW-you have done some great work creating this article from scratch. In your lead it could be confusing that you say the comedies aim to provide tears instead of laughter. I know that this is true, but a reader with no background might think you mean out and out crying as in a tragedy and wonder then why they are comedies. Maybe you could remove this wording from the lead and then use it in the elements of the genre section and explain exactly what this phrase means and why it is associated with the genre. It would also be nice to have a photograph up front to draw in attention-everyone loves visuals! I know this might be hard to find, but maybe a picture from a production of The Conscious Lovers?

Generally I think you have a strong structure. I would maybe recommend bringing the list of sentimental comedies into its own section at the end instead of under major works. I think that would help the article flow better. It also might help your structure to bring the environmental factors to the top of the article under the elements of the genre section. I think this would help link together the genre and what it is to why it is what it is.

Also, along with criticism, I am curious about maybe why sentimental comedy is not produced any more today. I don't know if this is information you can find or not, but I think it would be a great addition to the article. Also, maybe discuss why sentimental comedy stopped being written and reference other genera's that it influenced-this could be in the environment factors section at the end or even a new section of sentimental comedies legacy. (Again if this information is available-does Brockett have this-I forget).

I think you've done great referencing other Wiki pages as well as using a Nav Box. (You figured out how to put one in-kudos to you!) Also, I think you've done excellent job using references throughout the article. Jsattler07 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • "These plays aimed to produce tears rather than laughter and reflected contemporary philosophical conceptions of humans as inherently good but capable of being led astray by bad example." Instead of produce tears, maybe you can say "elicit sad emotions" or something to that effect?
  • "By appealing to his noble sentiments, a man could be reformed and set back on the path of virtue." Can you please explain this a bit? Is this the ultimate goal of a sentimental comedy?
  • "While the plays contained characters whose natures seemed overly virtuous and whose problems were too easily resolved, they were accepted by audiences as truthful representations of the human predicament." Why what plays? Would "while this genre" maybe be more appropriate?
  • The lede is of nice length and provides good information. Nice job.
Elements of the Genre
  • Be careful with the capitalization of the section.
  • "Heroes have no faults or bad habits, villains are thoroughly evil or morally degraded." I suggest you remove the comma and add "and".
  • "The playwrights of this genre aimed to bring the audience to tears not laughter as the name Sentimental Comedy might suggest." I feel as if this may be redundant and not needed.
  • "They believed that noisy laughter inhibited the silent sympathy and thought of the audience." This can probably be connected with the previous sentence via a semicolon as it is a continuation of the same idea.
Major Works
  • This should be titled "Major works".
  • "The best known work of this genre is Sir Richard Steele's The Conscious Lovers (1722)..." Best known by whom? Citation?
"Sentimental Comedies"
  • Consider renaming this to something like "Other works". We already know they are sentimental comedies.
Significant Environmental Factors
  • Keep in mind the capitalization rules of sections.
  • Consider breaking this into subsections. It seems a bit overwhelming.
Critical Response
  • I am a bit confused as to what the purpose of this section is. Can you go into more detail about who these people are and why they should be included in this article, please?

This article is very well researched and a topic I am very interested in. Overall, the article is very well written and well sourced. Please let me know if you have any specific questions, comments, or concerns. I'd love to help further. MJ94 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 April 2015, 02:33 UTC)----

NEA Four[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first time writing a wikipedia article (though I am a frequent reader). I think that I am on the right track by listing the history of the peer review process since the questioning and politicizing of that process is what led to the defunding of the artists, but before I continue I'd like to get some feedback on the language of the paragraph I added. I think that this may work better as a timeline or list.

Thanks, Croussos (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from User:Aladdin Sane[edit]

First, I'd like to thank you for improving this topic. As a reader, I feel it is an important subject.

Here are some things I see as an editor: First, the added references are much appreciated, and I hope you can keep going in that direction. Somehow, at the end of the day, the references take on an importance beyond the content.

Next, I disagree that a time-line or a list will be correct for this article in the long run. Well-cited prose is the right direction here.

I think that your history paragraph should be split up in to two or more paras (that's a personal opinion: I drift off as a reader when there's no paragraph breaks, and I know I'm not the only one).

Also, consider the overall structure of the article when you are (will be) done; try to envision it as you work. This article is not important just to the Arts, but also to Law, Politics, and History.

Therefore, I'd consider a structure somewhat like this, four main sections: "History of the peer review process within the NEA", "Lead up to the controversy", "Controversy", and "Aftermath and legacy". (Please don't add sections until you have a bit of content for them, though.)

Both as an editor, and a reader, I have a strong preference for the forward chronological style, when I can have it. So far, the article lacks that...and it looks a bit odd to me.

Thinking about the structure may help you better research the references we need for this article.

Since you're edit mode, do consider WP:MOS (though not as highly as adding properly sourced information). I may go in and make a few obvious corrections myself (that's convenient about group editing; no stress if you mess up on style). As I understand it, you seem to be an Arts student, but some of us editors get finicky about stuff like it's versus its, you know? (Man, I just laugh at myself about it, as a volunteer I get to indulge my perfectionism.)

Again, my gratitude for what you have added so far.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments from User:Aladdin Sane[edit]

Per the reviewee's request, I've added additional comments on the concept of chronology in articles at Talk:NEA Four#Forward chronological style?, if anyone's interested.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mcraab123 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Congratulations on your edits. You have really improved this article.

Your lead section gives a clear overview. In the body of the article, you expand upon the topics you introduce in the lead. That's great.

I agree with Aladdin Sane's observation that the references are arguably more important than the article itself. As a reader, I often look at the references first. In addition to the References, maybe consider the hyperlink citations to other Wikipedia articles, too. The more information you can cite, the better.

I agree with your choice to write the story in prose rather than make the body of the article a time-line. The time-line in the External links gives readers the option to see the information broken down differently.

I think Aladdin Sane's suggestions to help you break up the text are very helpful. I envision the peer review section broken down into four categories as well: an outline of the system; challenges to that system; outcome; and legacy. I am curious about the legacy of the Supreme Court decision. Expansion on that section might give you more information for the See Also section, and a need for more sources and citations.

The image you used gave me a great sense of the time period.

I wish you luck as you move forward with your edits! Mcraab123 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

====Comments from MariselaGrajedaGonzalez (talk)

I agree with a lot of Marni's comments. I too, think that the prose format works because this is sort of a retelling of an "event". As a reader I was wondering about the controversial nature of the work of the other three artists, as only John Fleck's toilet prop is mentioned. Again I agree with Marni and Aladdin re: references, because this was an event there was likely a good deal of coverage of the event at the time of the event, so linking to those for a more in depth look is a good idea. Because as far as having created an article about "The NEA 4" that is basically done here. The only other way to help the reader would be to send them to the appropriate backround, support, interest sites/pages. I hope that make sense. Good work.

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • Remove the quotations around "NEA Four".
  • I wouldn't list the names of the performers right away. Perhaps "The NEA Four was a group of performance artists consisting of..." and then listing their names would be more appropriate? Of course, it doesn't need to be worded exactly like that, but it merely a suggestion.
  • "John Fleck was vetoed for a performance comedy with a toilet prop." Maybe say why the other three grants were vetoed?
  • I suggest rewording the last sentence as it reads a little choppily.
Lead up to the controversy
  • Comma after "1989".
  • Can you use a different phrase than "drew controversy to"?
  • "The NEA has used..." → Peer review panels have been used..."
  • "Nancy Hanks (the next chairperson appointed by Regan in 1969) expanded panels and created a list of three criteria: appointments must be merit based; appointees must serve the panel as individuals, and may not make decisions based on any particular interest group, institution or viewpoint; the panels must be insulated from external pressures." Three criteria for what, exactly? Also, is "Regan" a typo?
  • "Once adopted this split panel allowed for more review panelists to be engaged who represented more diverse art practices." Comma after "adopted".
  • "Also in 1979 a House report found that the NEA was failing to establish a coherent system of review and had not established a uniform system of review." Remove "also".
  • "The task force reported that the agencies were basically sound and in need of only minor improvements." Remove "basically".
  • "Frank Hodsoll (chairperson from 1981–89) and John Frohnmayer (chairperson from 1989–92 during the heart of the NEA Four controversy) both had to fight such political pressure to retain the peer review model as well as their own roles within the NEA." While the meaning can be assumed, it may be good to specify chairperson of what exactly.

I think you have put a good amount of effort into this article; however, it does seem to be a bit short. In addition, I think the article is very much in need of copy editing. If you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. MJ94 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 April 2015, 02:12 UTC)----

Casey Abrams (album)[edit]

I mostly stick to writing articles about film and television, so on the rare occasions that I've decided to branch out and write an album article, I haven't fully understood how to best go about it. Could someone familiar with this topic take a look and let me know if it still needs some work? Ideally I'd like to nominate it for GA, but I have no idea whether that would be within reach or not.

Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

At quick glance, I would say that the lead section could be shortened. Ideally four paras are used for really long articles. Otherwise, it looks fine as a GA. If you want someone good at music-related articles to review it further, why not invite an editor from the volunteers list. They're listed according to what subjects they review normally, and drop a neutral invitation saying that this is in the backlog. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

This looks like some above average prose (nice work!), but I found a couple of minor nit-picks, which I'll list below.

  • City sounds can be heard in the background of some tracks.
"City sounds" was the first clicker that got my attention. I'm not sure what would be better, but maybe something like "ambient noises from the city", which I realize is wordier, but it's a start I think.
Your suggestion sounds good to me! I've gone ahead and changed it. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wal-Mart released a deluxe version of the album
Was this on a Wal-mart label, because if not I'd avoid the free plug.
If by "label" you mean "music label", then no - I don't think Walmart even has a music label. Walmart should certainly still be mentioned by name in the Promotion section, since it was the only store that carried this version of the album, but I've rewritten the sentence in the lead to simply say that this version "received a limited release". --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • were released as dual singles
I'm not sure what this means.
What I meant to get across is that the two songs were released as singles simultaneously, which isn't a very common occurrence. The one other time that I'm familiar with in which this happened was with the album David Cook. That article uses similar phrasing - see the second paragraph of the "Singles" section. Do you think that this is okay? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No.
I've never written a music article, so I don't know all the conventions, but I couldn't help but think that "No. 4" should be "number four".
As mentioned above, music isn't my specialty either, but I feel like "No." is the way that I've seen it written most often. While I agree that "number" would be more formal, Billboard itself - see this article [2] - uses "No." --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In January 2012, it was reported that Abrams had signed with Concord Records, the jazz label that Esperanza Spalding - one of Abram's musical inspirations - is a part of.
This is a really nice sentence except the last clause. I wish I had a ready idea as an alternative, but I don't right now. I'll write back if I think of one.
While I'm not much of a grammar expert, these three articles [3] [4] [5] (as well as several others that can be found through Google) indicate that the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition is actually a widely held misconception. All the same, if you think it would be better, perhaps I could say "[T]he jazz label to which Esperanza Spalding - one of Abrams' musical inspirations - is signed. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Writing and recording
  • first time that Abrams had ever co-written with someone
Mention the co-writer here.
As the article goes on to detail, Abrams had quite a number of co-writers on this album. It would be unwieldy to mention them all in this one sentence. Would it better if I said "anyone" instead of "someone" or if I ended the sentence after the word "co-written"? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another location that had influence on the album was London.
Most of the prose here is pretty decent, but stuff like this jumps out at me as not great.
Ah, okay. I was trying to find a good way to transition from the previous paragraph (about the hills of Idyllwild) into the information about London, while emphasizing that the city had an influence on the writing and recording process. I thought that it would make the article flow a bit better, but I can see how it might sound informal. Would you suggest just cutting this out then? Or should I rewrite it? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • can't be sung about...every rock should be turned
Check your ellipses spacing per the MoS.
Thanks for pointing it out! I've seen people change the formatting on these before, without ever fully understanding what they were doing. I'll look into it soon. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He felt that recording in London "captured the wonder" and the "wanderlust" that he felt about the city.[15]
I'd paraphrase this so that it says he basically liked London. It's goofy to quote this. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I'll see what I can come up with. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • However, he has also hinted that conflict
Be careful you aren't using "however" in a lazy way.
Could you elaborate? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Work Sales & chart performance into the prose and eliminated the double headers: "Reception" and "Critical reception".
I thought that what I did here was standard formatting for a Music album. Was I mistaken then? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice piece overall, but there are lots of quotes that might not be adding all that much. Most of the prose is solid, but it's not the best it could be with a copyedit. It's passable, don't get me wrong but in places it feels mechanical and rigid, maybe cause of the loads of quotes, especially in the reception parts. I don't know that mush about FAC, but I think you will get hammered on unless you reduce the amount of quoted material. Good piece overall, though. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: @Rationalobserver: Thank you both for your comments! I hear what you're saying about the lead, Ugog. The paragraph count is just a guideline, but I'd be willing to cut things down if I knew what to remove. I feel like a certain amount of information from each section of the article should be discussed in the lead, but am not really sure which points are covered in more depth than is necessary. Let me know if either of you have any ideas on how to go about restructuring this. :)
I really appreciate your kind words about the prose, Rationalobserver. And your comment about certain parts coming across as "mechanical and rigid" doesn't surprise me. You're right; I tend to rely on quotes more than I should. GA is the goal for now; FA hadn't really even crossed my mind. But I'll definitely ask for a copyedit if you think that would help. If there are any specific quotes (in addition to the one you already mentioned above) that you think I should cut out, then I'll gladly work on them. Just let me know!
I've left some followup comments on specific points above. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I still feel it can be shortened. I think I may get at least some ideas (not necessarily good ones) for your lead section, I'll do that later. Here are some comments pertaining to the quotation problem. Otherwise, I don't see anything apparent stopping this at a GAR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Ugog Nizdast

Consider these areas where I think, the quotations can be replaced with normal paraphrasing. I feel these quotations don't add any extra value compared to plain normal paraphrasing.

  • "The tight schedule for releasing an album that is imposed on the winner would have placed more pressure on him than he would have liked.", maybe add "He felt that"? (even though "he would have liked" is present, doesn't it still state it in the pedia's voice?)
  • "..the "most musically talented contestant...", you can just say she praised him or called him the most talented.
  • "Instead, Abrams was able to spend as much time as he felt necessary to find "the right label and the right music". are the quotation marks necessary here? maybe "felt necessary to find the correct label and music".
  • "Abrams valued the "collaborative process" of working with other writers and feels that this is crucial to making music "fun"." This can certainly be paraphrased.
  • " He found this to be a unique experience, as the room was "totally open" and had windows." Again.
  • "advised to "reverse the chords of the chorus"" Again.
  • ""Get Out" is Abrams' "heartbreak song", that he described as having "a very simple 'I hate you, but I love you' kind of vibe"." maybe paraphrased into "..he described it as having love-hate relationship _" or something? can't think of anything at the moment, how about you?
  • ""He's got a stub instead of a tail", explained Abrams. "I think [that] is probably the coolest part...[it] is so funny because whenever someone comes home, if I come home or my mom or dad walks in, he gets really excited and starts shaking his little stub."" I very unfamiliar with the subject (forget this subject, I've rarely dealt with music-related articles) but this sounds like something that can be omitted. I don't know whether it is widely covered in the sources.
  • ""I basically went there, having nothing but a will to play some music", he said." and ""I did have to fight for a couple things", Abrams said." Again, I think these two can be removed entirely but I could be wrong.
  • "Describing the album's genre as "organic focal", he placed heavy emphasis on melodies and harmonies - the "focal point" - while relying primarily on organic instruments, such as acoustic guitar,upright piano, and double bass." I didn't understand this sentence the first time. Could you reword? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 April 2015, 15:07 UTC)----

I Could Fall in Love[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because...I would like to bring this article to WP:FAC in the coming month.

Thanks, jona(talk) 01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Per our Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, the bot closes this due to inactivity after 14 days and a second time after a month. This has clearly passed a month, so I'm compelled to close it. Have you tried the PR instructions "Waiting for a review"? volunteer's list, or quid pro quo? If still there's no response, I say you better take it for FAR. There is no sense in waiting any longer. I'm willing to give it five more days. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
So because a review has not been made you want to archive it? So what's the PR project about then, just archiving articles and not giving comments? (at that rate, only 2-5 out of 100 articles at PR would actually have its goal of at least a comment) I don't want to WP:SPAM editors who may or may not be actively involved in the PR process. I don't mind patiently waiting for someone who can provide helpful comments to improve this article. I don't want to take the article to FAC, especially if I am positive that it may result in a speedy oppose because it has happened before. Best, jona(talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I want this to get reviewed as much as every other ones I see get closed without any comments. So, rather than keeping this open hoping that someone will eventually come seems seems harmless (though less likely) but there's also the removal policy. What you're doing here has got me thinking about it and I'll raise this issue with the others at Talk:Peer review.
But I still prefer actively trying to get someone to participate rather than wait it out. You've not answered my question QPQ above, so I'm going to assume you don't want to? Okay, so let's try the other options then, tell me the current condition of the article. You've said it failed FAR, so I assume those issues brought up there are resolved? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If you do want it to be reviewed then you wouldn't say "it has five days until I close it". I'll take your advice and ask someone. This article has yet been nominated at FAC yet, I was talking about a previous incident where I felt an article was ready (with no PR comments) and it was speedy closed from a reviewer; I don't want that to happen again. jona(talk) 22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I shall review this. Give me a day or 2. Fremantle99 (talk tome) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fremantle99: Are you still going to review this article? Best, jona(talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@AJona1992: Yes, Just have less time than I thought. Aneditor (talk tome) 23:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, just wanted to know. Thanks, jona(talk) 23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

First off, I like the quality of the prose. It's generally well-written and engaging, but I'll list a few minor nitpicks below.

  • According to OC Weekly, BuzzFeed, and Latina magazine, "I Could Fall in Love" was one of the best songs recorded by Selena in her musical career.
Maybe it's just me, but "one of the best songs" seems kinda ambiguous. Why is it so good?
The general consensus is that they favored its musical composition and the singer's vocals in the song as their determination of the song being one of her best. I've added this information onto the article. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The track was not released as a commercial single in the United States, where it was feared that it might sell more copies than the album itself.
It's not clear why this would be a bad thing.
No information is given about the decision to not commercially release it in the US; just the fear of it selling more than the album was enough to have one of the head of EMI Records uneven about the possibility. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It became the most played song in Kansas City, Miami, and Boston and the second most played in Los Angeles.
You employ a serial of Oxford comma before and Boston, but it looks like it's been omitted elsewhere; e.g., soul, pop and soft rock influences. They are neither required nor forbidden, but usage should be made consistent throughout the article.
I also think that most played needs a hyphen, but I admit that I might be wrong about that.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Background and release
  • Selena was murdered in Corpus Christi, Texas, by her friend and former employee
Was she really a current friend but a former employee?
At the time of her death, Selena still considered her a friend and only believed that Saldivar was stealing from her about two weeks prior to the murder. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • An editor from the Arizona Daily Star wrote that "‍ '​I Could Fall in Love' ... seemed aimed more towards adult contemporary airplay than the R&B or Top-40 markets where Gloria Estefan scored well".[16]
I recommend paraphrasing this quote, as it does not seem creative enough to require a direct quote.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Composition and lyrics
  • which makes use of an electronic piano, a violin, and a flute in the background.
Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in a period.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The first couple of sentences are a little choppy. Try to rework them with an improved flow.
  • Mario Tarradell, an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, called the song a "mundane ballad".[24], An editor from the Contra Costa Times called the song a "jazzy ballad".[27], and Brian Galindo of BuzzFeed called the track a "melancholy ballad"
Consider condensing theses points and losing the quotes.
I can't come up of a good direction for these, care to help out? jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would simply state that the song has been described as a ballad, with no quotes, then use one or two cites after. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • emotional vulnerability and emotionally vulnerable narrator
This is kinda repetitive, so consider condensing as above.
I removed the first instance of the word. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When asked what the "secret" was about, Saldivar responded that she won't discuss the matter at the time.[36]
This last part is a bit confusing, and I wonder if it's really all that necessary.
Removed. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Critical reception
  • Is there any particular reason why you have "reviews" and "accolades" under the same header?
Fixed. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • thought the song had "a whiff of" Celine Dion.[38]
I would paraphrase "a whiff of".
It is the reviewers opinion and not mine. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph under reviews does not flow, but rather reads as a list of assorted comments. Try to rework so that the sentences naturally follow and flow.
I believed I fixed that problem. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • More recently, Elizabeth Rodriguez Kessler and Anne Perrin wrote in their 2007 book
Drop the "more recently" bit as unneeded and redundant with mentioning the year.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is reliable?
Depending on the editor and their expertise, yes. The editor has a masters degree in folklore/mythology with a specialization in ethnic music and dance. This is according to her profile. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
But is a reliable website? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the source. jona(talk) 19:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • number 4 on the Hot Latin Tracks chart on 1 July 1995[62][63] and peaked at number 2
I think "4" and "2" ought to be written out in prose, as with any number under 10.
Yes check.svg Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The Chart performance material reads like a list, and I wonder if this would be better represented in chart form.
It is a standard practice for song articles. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Music video
  • the music video accompanying the song
This is a little rough; maybe "the song's accompanying music video"
Yes check.svg Done jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Cultural impact
  • "I Could Fall in Love" dominated the Top 40 radio stations,[22][87][88] a fact that was well received by critics.[87][89]
For one, this seems like citation overkill, and for another, I'm confused why it's radio play was well received?
John Lannert (who is a regular on Billboard for Latin music charts) noticed how music shops were "eager for a followup" after the song scored in the top five in several radio formats; which is a nice exposure for Latin artists who rarely competes with pop music artists. Mario Tarradell's comment is forgotten and I can't access it on google since they removed all archived newspapers dating back to the past five years. Tarradell has written articles about Latin music for The Dallas Morning News and I believe he shared the same excitement that Lannert expressed about the success of the song by a Latin artist in the American mainstream. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say that this section could use a thorough trimming and maybe even a complete removal in favor of a one-sentence summary, as it's one of the more developed ones in the article, but lends little in the way of understand about the actual song. Having said that, I've never written or significantly contributed to a music article, so maybe this is standard practice. If so, please disregard.


With the exception of some jarring list-like paragraphs, this is an excellent article that needs a little more polishing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I believe I have Fixed all issues you have raised. Thank you for reviewing this article! Best, jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 March 2015, 01:14 UTC)----

Everyday life[edit]

The Boat Races 2015[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how it would swing at WP:FAC. It was made a WP:GA pretty soon after the race itself and I've tried to keep it up to snuff following it's quick trip to WP:ITN. As always, my unending gratitutde is extended to anyone prepared to take the time to have a look.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 23 April 2015, 08:51 UTC)----

Panta bhat[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe, with a little push it can become a GA alright. Face-smile.svg Thanks, Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94[edit]

  • In the lede, I suggest rewriting the last sentence. Based on what you have already wrote, the reader already knows that panta bhat is a dish of rice, so it is not necessary to refer to it as a dish of leftover rice. Also, if you were to keep it as it currently reads, the comma after "spoiling" is not needed unless there was also a comma after "rice."
  • The Etymology section, while interesting, needs to be rewritten a bit. When I read it aloud, I was a bit confused about what jalao chasani is. Is this a phrase that can be linked to another article? The same goes for "sweetmeats". Also in the Etymology section, can you please define what "Both" refers to? Which names? "And" should not start a sentence; since what comes after the "and" is related to the previous sentence, consider connecting the thoughts in one sentence.
  • In the History section, "in the Mughal Era" could be "During the Mughal Era". "Circa 17th century" is not needed.
  • Your Preparation section looks very nice content-wise. It would probably be a good idea to check punctuation and grammar in this section as I have noticed several instances of improper comma usage.
  • In Health effects, "According to a study" is not needed. However, the study should be cited at the end of the claim.

@Aditya Kabir: I hope these comments have helped you. Overall, be careful of grammar and punctuation. I would also like to point out that your references look very nice. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please post them here or at my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as I am able. MJ94 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

All done. Aditya(talkcontribs) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 19 April 2015, 17:30 UTC)----

Fire Emblem Awakening[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm hoping to take this to FA status, and need input on how to improve and tweak the article so it can meet those criteria.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire[edit]

Nice work. Comments on the article as I go through it:

The gameplay, like previous Fire Emblem games, focuses on tactical movement of characters across a battlefield engaging enemy units, along with the ability to strengthen characters through relationships. Features new to the series include adjustable difficulty levels, a mode that disables the permanent death of characters, and multiple camera perspectives in battle.

This reads awkwardly. "Engaging" is rather indirect; why not "fighting" or some other synonym? Engaging enemy units + strengthening characters through relationships are kind of an awkward pair. Also to be a nitpicker that sounds vaguely like it's *actually* making the character's muscles grow, rather than being some kind of vague "synergy" bonus. Adjustable difficulty levels isn't new to the series, and Casual mode was introduced in New Mystery of the Emblem, as noted in the Gameplay section. More generally, I'm not sure a split of "new features vs. old features" really makes sense here. I'd just list key features naturally and not tie them together awkwardly. Maybe:

The gameplay, like previous Fire Emblem games, focuses on tactical movement of characters across a battlefield fighting enemy units. Other features include the ability to build relationships between the characters, adjustable difficulty levels, a mode that disables the permanent death of characters, multiple camera perspectives in battle, and {"good graphics"}.

Dunno how to phrase the graphics part, "camera perspectives" seems a really lame feature to mention in the lede, but it's hard to express "better graphics than GBA / Nintendo DS Fire Emblem games, although not necessarily better graphics than other 3DS games or Fire Emblem GC/Wii."

"private army."

Personal army perhaps? He is a government official and people might wrongly interpret this as public vs. private.

carried over from the Nintendo DS remake of Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

"carried over from the Nintendo DS game Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem" perhaps?


Do the sources capitalize p/Permadeath or not? It isn't a phrase used very often in-game (if at all). Also expect criticism for using jargon at FAC, so definitely back this with sources if you can and want to keep it.

they can travel across a world map featuring pre-set pathways between battles

Well they're locations where battles occur, more specifically, and why care about the "pathways"? And you can buy armor at Awakening's merchants?! News to me, unless you meant Dracoshields. Maybe:

"they can travel across a world map both to new locations and revisit old locations. The time of day on the world map is synced to the player's time zone and time of day. New locations can contain main story missions as well as side stories where new characters can be recruited. Previously visited locations have shops where the player can acquire new weapons. They also can contain random enemy skirmishes with the Risen. Between missions..."

though some characters are set

Is this really needed?

Character movement is dictated by a tile-based movement system: blue tiles show a unit's range of movement, and red tiles show attack range

The blue tiles are merely a UI thing, not the cause. And is this color-coding discussion really necessary anyway? "Characters have a movement range affected by their class; for example, flying pegasus knights can cross water tiles. The game's interface displays the potential movement and attack range for each character by hovering over them," perhaps. I know that classes haven't been introduced yet, but oh well, maybe rearrange a bit.

The player can choose to give rough commands to their units, then initiate an auto-battle mode.

Cut this and move it somewhere else and keep it shorter. "There exists an auto-battle option for fights the player finds easy" or the like.

Depending on the strength of the relationship between characters, the actions can range in strength and effectiveness

It's less random than this is implying: higher ranking supports are unequivocally good. "As the relationship between characters strengthens, they gain greater bonuses to their strength and effectiveness when paired up in battle." And for that matter, "pair up" doesn't appear anywhere here! As far as key innovations in the gameplay go, this is pretty high up there. I might want to add a sentence somewhere describing that in more detail.

Two new skills are also learned by each character.

Giving a count is going to be misleading without a lot of verbiage I don't think you want to spend. I guess this means "2 skills pre-promotion" but that isn't communicated very clearly. "Characters learn new special skills as they level up based on their class; they can set 5 skills at maximum." Still misleading since you'll only have 4 skills for the normal endgame, but not inaccurate at least.

The Avatar's starting class is the Tactician, but they can change to any other class later in the game.

Totally optional idea: I see you're using the singular they, which is fine, but the Avatar just might merit a reasonable "he or she" when referred to. It soft emphasizes that rather than being unknown gender, the Avatar has a picked gender.

A Master Seal upgrades the character's class, changing character stats and giving access to a new move set

improving character stats, perhaps? (Yes I know that they can go down a little in weird edge cases like movement for Troubadour -> War Cleric, but it's pretty uncontroversial it should be an overall improvement.)

Even if the change is reverted, characters can still retain skills

Huh? Maybe just "Characters retain learned skills from earlier classes."

Relationships between characters, which play an important role in battle

No need for "which play an important role in battle," just describe the effects in more detail later if you want.

Relationships also have a direct impact during battles, with certain character pairings granting unique boons

So yeah, here's where you should talk about it more. As noted above, don't beat around the bush: they have a *positive* effect. Not sure what you mean by "certain character pairings granting unique boons" though. Support bonuses are the same for everyone to my knowledge, at least ignoring specific skills like Dual Strike+/Dual Guard+. "Relationships make paired characters stronger in battle, allowing extra attacks from the paired character and occasional negation of enemy damage" perhaps?

Which child is born with what abilities depends upon the mother.

The child depends on the mother, but the abilities depend on both. And the mom thing isn't super-relevant anyway. Maybe "Children inherit skills from their parents?"

While there are some limitations of which units can pair, the Avatar can pair with any unit from any generation as long as they are not a direct descendant.

This is conflating two things: pairing up and having a support relationship, and while explaining the difference in detail in the article probably isn't worth it, we should still be accurate. Everyone can pair up with everyone, but support relationships are restricted. And the Avatar thing is more specifically *romantic* supports, and that's barely a footnote ("sorry, you can't marry your child, since by definition you must already be married."), they can have supports with direct descendnets just fine and in fact get a free C support. Maybe: "Most characters have a specific list of units which they can have Support conversations with; the Avatar can build a relationship with all characters."

Plot section

Hey, wait a second. Marth fought *Medeus* an Earth Dragon, not Grima. Hmm, not generally too happy with the focus here, but maybe a closer look later. Personal preference, but I'd think the history from ~20 years ago would be more relevant than the largely irrelevant history from 1000 years ago: more about Ylisse fighting a war against Plegia semi-recently, less about Naga. It suffices that it's the same land and world as Marth.

"The plot is foiled with aid from "Marth", whose disguise is shattered, revealing they are a woman"

"she", drive the minor little twist in.

Design section

Not sure if there are actually sources for this, but Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem has a very huge influence on the game, with a lot of features being ported over. It is of course Japan-only so I can see getting reliable sources being difficult here, but maybe a tad bit of implication might help, e.g. "the game shares various innovations from FE12, like casual mode, random power-ups at the Barracks, a bland player stand-in although at least Awakening's Avatar has a plot as opposed to FE12's generic Mary Sue..." ahem. Maybe leave that last part out.

Reception section: "lack of an in-game reload option"

Uh... on one hand, we want to reflect the sources accurately, but we don't want to make them look like idiots. There basically is an in-game reload option: soft reset, push start. It takes like 3 seconds to get to the load screen any time you want. Can we find better criticism than this? To the unfamiliar it might imply the game actually lacks it, and to the familiar it just makes the reviewer look bad as if the article wants to discredit any criticism.

trading card game was released. A set themed after Awakening includes a code to download Lucina as a playable character.

"electronic trading card game" I assume? Pretty hard to download cardboard cards, which is what I'd think of by default if I heard "trading card game." SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

SnowFire, thanks for the comments and I've addressed them in general apart from a few exceptions. Lead has been done. I was aiming for an impartial approach to the article, which is why I have used 'they' and such. I think all the major gameplay things are addressed and the others have been tweaked, and I even managed to incorporate character class-based movement and attack styles into the character class section. I've done some tweaking to the plot, but it's generally not my fault it's the way it is. I needed to get the lore out of the way quickly, and frankly (warning: personal opinion) during the second half of the game... the story is crap. I think it needs its own little section for tweaking and suggestions if it is to be pursued further. The development section is really all I have that's noteworthy, and there's no one strong influence cited. Reception section thing has been rectified. As for the trading card game, it's physical and includes the code as a physical thing that you enter into a website, I presume. THe article's not very clear on it, but then If hasn't been released yet. Thanks for this. It's been really useful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 April 2015, 16:00 UTC)----

Final Fantasy Type-0[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... this article is on my list of articles to bring to GA and FA status. I've been working on it for some time, and would appreciate opinions on how it can be further improved. There are obviously gaps in the game's sales data as it has not been released that long. The things it would be nice for reviewers to focus on are grammar stuff, as I've taken great pains to properly cite information, fill out references properly, be consistent with dating and archive links. Of course, if you find any gaps in these, please point them out. You could also offer up suggestion on the structure of the article if some sections seem to large or small.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing some light, as-I-see-it copy editing; later I will be printing it out for a closer look and the deeper review you want. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 April 2015, 21:34 UTC)----

Engineering and technology[edit]

List of Link Light Rail stations[edit]

I've written this list in the style of previous rapid transit station lists that have been featured, though they were promoted with standards from a few years ago. I believe that this list is close to being worthy of being featured, but there's a few issues (redlinks to future and deferred/unbuilt stations that were not given official names, a suitable map) that need to be resolved and I'd like to get a headstart on whatever overhauls I might need. SounderBruce 01:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • Link Light Rail should be bolded.
    •  Done
  • "Central Link, unconnected from the existing Tacoma Link line, opened from Seattle to Tukwila on July 18, 2009; an extension to the Seattle–Tacoma International Airport was opened on December 19, 2009." I would get rid of the semicolon and add a word to connect the thoughts as you see fit.
    •  Done
  • "All stations include works of public art as part of the STart Program, which requires one percent of station construction funds go to art installations." Is the capitalization of "STart" correct?
    • Yes, the name of the program is "STart". I've tried to remove confusion by
  • As you mentioned, the redlinks need some attention.
    • Once the names for the stations are adopted by the transit board (which is expected sometime this year), the station stubs will be created.
  • I really like the pictures you added as well. They are a nice addition.
    • Don't get too attached, since they're only placeholders with randomly-selected stations. I plan on taking my DSLR down to each station and just spend a sunny day photographing them one-by-one.
  • Otherwise, everything looks pretty good!

It might be worth your time to check out Wikipedia:Featured Lists just to see what some high-quality lists look like. I definitely think yours is headed in a positive direction. You may want to check out MOS:ACCESS and make sure your tables meet the guidelines described there. Let me know if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll look into making sure my tables are accessible. SounderBruce 00:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 April 2015, 01:18 UTC)----


God of War (series)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like opinions on the article's current state and what can be done to improve the article so that it can eventually be taken through FAC. I've recently reorganized the lead and added a Development section.

Thanks, JDC808 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I'll do a review of this. Be back in a day or two at the latest. If not, please remind me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, thanks. --JDC808 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 17:12 UTC)----

MediEvil (video game)[edit]

I'm seriously contemplating submitting this to FAC in the future, any advice considering the prose/organization of the article would be greatly appreciated. Luckily I have a few extra sources for this.

Thanks, JAGUAR  17:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 April 2015, 17:57 UTC)----

2013–14 Bengaluru FC season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is upto the mark with good football season pages of other clubs.

Thanks, Coderzombie (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 April 2015, 16:08 UTC)----

Lithuania men's national basketball team[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review because I have been improving it for a really long period of time and I believe that it reached higher level than just a B-class article. My main goal was to make it a Featured Article. I have covered all the major events the team has participated in, described the most notable players and added many extras (like flags, song, etc). The article has a complete team's statistics with all its records as well. I believe it could be worth being a FA since there really is no further things to be added to the article, unless the upcoming new competitions in the future (which I'm planning to describe from time to time as well). Please share your thoughts what else should be improved in it before nominating it for a FA. I know that the references list currently is a huge mess and I'm planning to fix it soon, so skip this part.

Thanks, Pofka (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for the work about Lithuania. The Article is excellent and I am asking why it was not proposed as GA. The article is extremely well done and it involves clear parts about Lithuanian Basketball History. However, I think that some ameliorations should be done soon.

  • Coaches: Even an average work about Basketball Teams involves a full list of main coaches. However, you made only a list of important ones. This should be reviewed.
  • Records: The Work does only involve some excellent detailed lists of records of the team: Best series of win, The player who scored the most in his international career, the player who had played in the youngest age ever... This can give an overview about the different performances of Lithuanian team in the different parts of its History.
  • Ranking: FIBA Ranking is not included in this work.
  • Awards: The Article does not cite whether the Team had received governmental and institutional awards for winning international competitions.
  • Fans: You did not write anything about Fans. You should cite their songs and their customs.
  • Stadium: The Stadiums in which the Lithuanian Team played in its working History should be included in the work. You can even include about some facts that happened when playing in these international stadiums.
  • Wear: You should expand the part about the wears of the Lithuanian Team. You can even include older wears.
  • Video games: You should expand this part about Lituanian Team in NBA Live and involve some important references. You can also include the players represented in the video games.
  • Cups: You should include some photos about how Lithuanian Players had received the FIBA Eurobasket
  • Sponsors: You should include some photos about Sponsors. You have also to include some facts about how they sponsor Lithuanian Team, how the Lithuanian Players do some ads to these important sponsons and how their names are featured in the wear of the Lithuanian Players.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


@Csisc: Thanks a lot for a such quick review! You provided some really interesting points for expanding!
  • Coaches. Actually it already has a complete list of coaches here with their achievements mentioned. Already done
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Records. This was a bit confusing. What did you meant by that? The list of the longest team's winning streaks? It could be done, but the national team's competitions have so few games that these streaks would be so short and also the team almost always suffered some defeats in the knockout stages, which quickly ended these streaks. The longest streak would be probably be from the EuroBasket 2003 when they won all 6 games. Though, the following competition (Athens 2004) games could be continued so it would reach bigger numbers. Although, in the other years the streaks would be <5 games, so I'm not sure if this really would be interesting. Most points scored players can be found here (7th column). Not sure if the youngest players list could be really that useful since they mostly had a very few influence in the game these years. Though, if that's really required - it could be easily done. yellow tickY Partly done
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Ranking. I was thinking about this thing as well. Though, I'm unable to find any information about the ranking history. FIBA doesn't provide it in its page (or I'm unable to find it), so do all my known sources. Google/Wikipedia doesn't tell it either. It would be easy to do if I would get that information somehow. Wikipedia FIBA World Rankings history page has it only since 2007. Incomplete list probably would not work because the ranking was began to be calculated in 2000. Situation without solution...
  • Awards. It has the government awards lists, but they would be too huge to include in the main page. They can be found at the "Main article" pages: FIBA World Championship 2010, EuroBasket 2013. Already done
  • Fans. It would be difficult to write something informative about it because it can be described in just a few sentences. First of all, they obviously wear the yellow-green-red clothes, often flies these flags (which I already provided in the article). The variety of chants is not so common among this team's fans. Mostly they just shout "LIE-TU-VA" (Lithuania in the native language). Sometimes they also sing the popular Lithuanian song "Ant kalno mūrai" short part together ( The crowd always sings the Lithuanian anthem before every national team's game loudly together (other countries fans does it as well, so that's not very unique). And there is a lot of them in every competition Lithuania participates in. I don't really think there really is anything more to tell about them. I think most of this information is obvious and doesn't really requires the individual section. Yes check.svg Done (remade one of the sections).
  • Stadium. The Lithuania national basketball team does not have its own stadium/arena. Every year they just play friendly games in all the major Lithuanian arenas before championships. Invalid
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Wear. It is really similar every year. Dark ones: green with yellow sides and white ones with green/yellow sides. It doesn't really change much like that. Though, I might try to do something about this, but I need more information about creating these jerseys. They are not simply uploaded like pictures to the Wikipedia, but they are similar to templates. Could you provide more information about how they are done?
  • Video games. I doubt anything more could be told about it. The team's rosters are the same as the national team and there hardly are any significant/interesting references. Not sure.
  • Symbol question.svg Question: Cups. I would gladly do that, but there is no free pictures available anywhere. Would the use of the copyrighted ones qualify as fair use for such purpose? I failed to receive any answers about it from any moderators of that type files as they all simply ignored me. Yes check.svg Done (added the non-free historic images into the empty sections).
  • Sponsors. Good idea. I will probably add the list of the general sponsors as their logos are printed on the team's jersey every year (under the text LIETUVA). Yes check.svg Done

Thanks again for the review,

-- Pofka (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Pofka,
I think that you have adjusted some facts. However, some changes should be done soon.
Records: If you want it, you can add a table of the records in which you write the name of the best player for each category. It can be useful for people who do not want to see all records.
Ranking: Involve the current ranking.
Wear: In the part dealing with wear, you should add something describing it.
Sponsors: you should expand this important part and include some other information like how the sponsors decided to support the Lithuanian Team and how it was announced to the media
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


@Csisc:Thanks for more suggestions.
  • Records. I am not sure if this would be really necessary because the records section doesn't really is very complex and it is possible to find everything you want easily. Addition of another table would duplicate some data. Invalid
  • Ranking. Done what I could by creating a new section. Older data is not accessible anywhere. Yes check.svg Done
  • Wear. Done by greatly expanding one of the older sections ("Kit supplier"). Yes check.svg Done
  • Sponsors. Created a completely new section ("General sponsors") and provided all data I was able to find about this topic. Yes check.svg Done
Thanks again,
Pofka (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 April 2015, 15:59 UTC)----

Sargun Mehta[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've significantly contribute on this article, and added much content to BLP, and now my work has completes, and i've nominate it for GA, but previously someone told me that there is some promblems, and i've fixed some, So please see if there is any issues are still exist. Thanks. Hetika (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As it is hard for me to list the concerns I have, I will solve them myself. And that mostly relates to prose. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Thanks for your edit, you did really good, your edit makes it much better for GA. Thanks. Hetika (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

Hi, Hetika. I'll be conducting a PR of this article over the next day or so, as well as a copyedit. I will add any comments, questions or suggestions to this page as I find them. I'll let you know when I'm finished with my review.-RHM22 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@RHM22: Thanks for reviewing, I see your edits and thats are so good, so thanks for improving. In few hours I'll fix these issues. Hetika (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What does "Most Jaanbaaz Personality" mean? Could you please explain that in the article?-RHM22 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"Jaanbaaz" means "Adventurous, Daring, Daredevil", So i replaced with "Daring", I don't know which one is better so please suggest me. Hetika (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I would use the original language ("Jaanbaaz"), but also include a translation ("daring") to help explain context.-RHM22 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is Aradhana Mehta? Is that her father or mother? I'm not familiar with Indian names, and I suspect that many others readers are similarly ignorant. I would suggest explaining who that is. Also, why isn't the other parent's name given?-RHM22 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Aradhana is her mother. I've no any info about her mother, so i changed "to Aradhana Mehta" to "the daughter of Mrs. Aradhana Mehta". Hetika (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the Malad West mentioned in the same as Malad West (Vidhan Sabha constituency)? If so, I suggest linking and explaining that it's a district of Mumbai so that readers won't mistakenly believe it to be a different city. Also, does she still live there?-RHM22 (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Linked as your suggestion. Currently i've no source about "still lives is Malad", so please suggest me. Hetika (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I'd suggest just leaving that out.-RHM22 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Slang terms and euphemisms are never used on Wikipedia, so you should avoid things like "hubby" for "husband" unless it's part of a direct quote.-RHM22 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This part doesn't seem to belong in the "Early life and education" section:

    "Mehta's fame increased when she played in the 2011 television series Phulwa and the 2012 Kya Huaa Tera Vaada.[9][13] She established herself as a leading actress, when she appeared the Colors TV drama series Balika Vadhu.[14][15][16] Mehta faced the media spotlight from a young age. In a 2014 interview with the news portal IndiaTimes, Mehta shares, "I would say getting into TV industry was a cakewalk. I went for the auditions just to try my luck on a light note and got the role. It is after entering that the real challenge begins. It is a major struggle to survive in showbiz."

    It seems that most of this paragraph is covered below, under "Acting career", so I'd remove that whole paragraph or merge any important sections into "Acting career".-RHM22 (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Some GA/FA articles writes it like this in "Early life" section, because it is about critical acclaim, not acting or other work. Hetika (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, others might disagree with me, so I'd wait for some other input. I mostly write about coins, so show business articles are not my expertise.-RHM22 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this short paragraph is also unnecessary: "Mehta celebrated her 26th birthday on 6 September 2014 at Levo Lounge in Andheri, a western Mumbai, India.[23] Ravi [Dubey] had planned the lavish party and gifted her a brand new Jaguar, a luxury car,[24] The party was attended by a bevy of television stars.[25]" A GA reviewer will see it and ask "why is this relevant?" It seems rather trivial to me. Why mention her 26th birthday, but not her 25th or 24th?-RHM22 (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Hetika (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • One problem that I'm encountering frequently is sentences ending with commas. I'm fixing all that I see, but please be mindful to use periods for that purpose in the future.-RHM22 (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this means: "...into an avenging fury when her entire family..." What is an "avenging fury"? Does she physically change, or does she just alter her mental state in some way?-RHM22 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Changed per ref. Hetika (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This sentence ends abruptly: "According to Faran Khan, she had originally chosen Shah Rukh Khan along with Mehta, but mehta ."-RHM22 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Mistakenly added by me. Hetika (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mehta roped in the special Bittu's (Kapil Sharma) wedding episode..." What does "roped in" mean in this context?-RHM22 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Replaced. Hetika (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's all I have, so my review is officially complete. That said, I'm not an expert on Indian cinema or popular culture, so I suggest recruiting some people who are more interested in the topic to give it a more thorough looking-over. All I did was improve the English by copyediting, but there is still much to be done. For example, there is a lot of information presented almost as a 'fact soup'. It should be made a bit more cohesive, so the article flows. The article should read a bit more like a running narrative than a collection of facts and figures. Another thing to watch for is overlinking. For instance, you don't need to link someone every time their name is mentioned. The Manual of Style suggests linking the same article only twice: once in the lede section and once in the body of the article. I hope I have been of help, and please feel free to ping me or leave a message on my user talk page if you have any questions or comments.-RHM22 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed issues as your suggestion. Please check my edits. Hetika (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks much better now! I think you could probably nominate it successfully for GA, but I don't think it will pass muster at FAC as it is. You'll need some more reviewers and input for that.-RHM22 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@RHM22: Okay, I'll nominate after closing the PR. Thanks :) Hetika (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Bollyjeff answered questions[edit]

  • 1) this link is published in hindi language and this is the only one that verifies her birth(6 September 1988). So this one is better?
The one you have looks okay, but the grammar could be better on the quote.
Actually the quote was a translation of the source text by Google Translate.
  • 2) this link is dead and is cited on her 2011 Golden Petal Award nomination, currently i've no any archive or other source, so please suggest me.
I tried to find an archived version of, but could only get back to 2012. Why don't they have their own list of past winners? Keep looking for notices from 2011. is RS or not? Previously i was removed this as Unreliable source. Hetika (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see her name listed there anyway. BollyJeff | talk
In this she was nomitated for her show Phulwa in the "Most Jaanbaaz Personality" category. I know Actors name are not listed in this, but their shows and characters name are exist. So please tell me, Is this RS or not? Hetika (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It is hard for one person to say "yes it is" or "no it isn't". You have to evaluate on a case by case basis for sites that are not well established as reliable. Lets's see if others can weigh in. It may be okay for GA level. BollyJeff | talk 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: Okay. And i'll try to find a better one. Hetika (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It should be okay, since its the official channel. BollyJeff | talk 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 4) I was added this picture with the caption "Mehta with her husband, Ravi Dubey, in 2013" in "Early life" section, but the actual caption is different. So per WP:GACR, Is this good or not? Hetika (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes this is good; it's from Bollywood Hungama events and parties section, has the correct permissions, and the original link is not dead. BollyJeff | talk 20:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Bollyjeff:. Could you check the all pictures of the article? Hetika (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
'Sargun Mehta on the sets of India's Dancing Superstar.jpg' still shows the BH watermark. It would be good to crop that out, but they all seem free to use. BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Done, Thanks Bollyjeff. :) Hetika (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 April 2015, 17:35 UTC)----

Geography and places[edit]

Lake Parime[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • Article covers an unusual topic in the history of cartography and the exploration of South America
  • Article is carefully researched, bringing together history, cartography, geology, geography, mythology and treasure-hunting

I am interested to know if the article is coherent, interesting, sufficiently referenced and sufficiently illustrated. Also if citation style is acceptable.

Thanks, Cmacauley (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 April 2015, 17:26 UTC)----

Fjäll cattle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would really like to get this article up to GA status. I would like somebody to give direction and how it could be improved as I am having trouble finding sources and things to put in.

Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Hi TheMagikCow- I'm happy to offer a review. In terms of sources, I think you need to focus more on scholarly journals/books, and less on webpages.

  • First, the sources you cite: The university web page may have been OK, but I note that the page seems to be no longer there. Norden's Ark may be OK for some uncontroversial information, but, especially if you're aiming for GAC, it may be better to replace it with a stronger source. The cheese maker has an obvious agenda, and probably is not a good source. It would also be useful to format the sources a little better: Template:Cite web may be useful for this.
  • In terms of sources you may want to cite...
    • This article has the breed in the title, but I don't have access to CAB Direct.
    • From doi:10.1080/01426399508706468, p. 142: "The Vikings introduced Fjall cattle to Britain whose descendents, British White Cattle, are found in areas occupied by the Viking invaders, such as East Anglia. These successive invasions forced indigenous Britons to retreat to highland areas with their own breeds of domesticated cattle (Friend and Bishop, 1978). This may seem far removed from contemporary landscapes but today's Welsh Black, West Highland and Kerry cattle are descended from these breeds and are largely confined to the Celtic fringes of the British Isles."
    • There are other hits on Google Scholar, but they look pretty technical.
    • Don't forget to search for the alternative name. That said, this paper suggests that another (extinct) breed goes by that name. Either way, lots of hits on Google Scholar.
    • There's an open access paper here which may well be relevant
    • In terms of further sources... I think you are going to need to seek out hardcopy books on cattle breeds (there'll probably be plenty in any university library where agricultural sciences is taught) and maybe also look for sources not in English. As this is both obscure and not really an Anglophone topic, you may not be able to get far on English-language sources alone.
  • You may want to use Template:Infobox cattle breed
  • It is not clear from the article whether this is a breed exploited for milk, flesh or something else (we also have categories for this). Surely, this is central information about a breed- what kind of environment? How are individuals used?
  • Large Black pig is perhaps an example of what a good breed article would look like.

Hope this is helpful. Sorry I can't be of much more help. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • I'm not sure the comma is needed after "cattle".
  • "The breed was first recognised in the late 19th century but has history back to at least the viking age." Since you just referred to it as a breed in the last sentence, consider using a different title, such as "Fjäll cattle". When, specifically? I would not describe it as "the Viking" age, but if you do, capitalize "Viking".
  • In the third sentence, you say "the breed" again. Consider changing this.
  • 1000 → 1,000.
  • "The breed has been around since pre-Viking times." Refer to them as "Fjäll cattle" here; also, when specifically is "pre-Viking" times?
  • "They were introduced to Britain when the Vikings came and descended into the British White breed..." The Vikings descended?
  • Viking should always be capitalized.
  • "Here, they were described as being 'small, hornless, white or whitish grey, often with dark spots." Where is here and by whom were they described as such?
  • "The cattle were first officially recognised in 1893." By whom?
  • "At this time the average milk production per year was between 1200 and 1400 kilograms and also weighed 300-350 kilograms." Comma after "time", commas in the numbers, and a source is needed here.
  • 1970-80 → 1970–1980.
  • "In 1970-80 the breed was nearly driven to extinctinction due to extensive cross breeding." The word "breeding" is overused.
  • "The appearance can vary from being totally white to totally black or red. They are often kept in mountainous areas in Sweden, for dairy produce because of their ability to survive on infertile soil and survive the cold winter." The appearance of what? What is "they"? Please copy edit this sentence for grammar and punctuation.
  • This section frequently begins sentences with "they". Consider changing this up a bit.

Overall, the article has a nice start; however, it is in need of a major copy edit. In addition, bare URLs should not be used in the References section. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. MJ94 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 13:18 UTC)----


70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Hi, this article has been completely overhauled in the last few months. Requesting feedback before taking the article to GA review. All comments welcome. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 May 2015, 23:33 UTC)----

Burning of Parliament[edit]

On 16 October 1834 the ancient Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament was destroyed by fire – a result of a cock up of monumental proportions. Still, it resulted in the magnificent replacement provided by Barry and Pugin, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

This article has undergone a recent re-write, with FAC the planned next step, if reviewers agree. – SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • "The Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament was destroyed by fire of 16 October 1834." -- Are we missing a comma after "parliament"?
  • "The blaze was caused by the burning of small wooden tally sticks which had been used..." -- "...which were used"?
  • "The sticks were destroyed in a careless manner..." Is there a careful way to destroy something then? Do you mean "disposed of"?
  • "The Palace of Westminster began..." -- The construction can begin, is that what you meant?
  • "Successive kings added to the area: Edward the Confessor built Westminster Abbey; William the Conqueror began building a new palace; his son, William Rufus, continued, including Westminster Hall, which was started in 1097" -- This sentence tails off at the end and doesn't really make sense. Rufus continued with what? Building a new palace like his father? From "including" onwards there seems to be a few missing words causing some confusion too.
  • "By 1245 the King's throne was present in the palace, signifying that the building was the centre of English royal administration" -- By 1245 the King's throne was present in the palace, which signified that the building was at the centre of English royal administration"?
  • "In 1295 Westminster was used as the venue for the Model Parliament, the first English representative assembly, called by Edward I; he called..." -- called/called repetition.
  • "...began to meet separately, and by 1377 the two bodies were entirely separate." -- Separately/separate
  • "St. Stephen's Chapel remained largely unchanged until 1692 when Sir Christopher Wren, at the time the Master of the King's Works, was instructed" who?
  • " This was followed by an 1878 report from fourteen architects warning against the possibility of fire in the palace; signatories included John Soane and Robert Adam.[13] Sloane again warned of the dangers in an 1828 report" -- 1828 report/1828 report -- CassiantoTalk 03:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • All done as requested. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
16 October 1834
  • "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured a large crowd turned up to watch events." -- "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured that a large crowd turned up to watch events."?
  • "Among them, The Times reported,"-- Did the actual paper turn up, or a reporter from? I would say: "Among them was a reporter for The Times who noticed that there were "vast gangs of the light-fingered gentry in attendance..."
  • "Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night, and he later recalled that" -- Should this have a colon at the end? We are also missing an opening quote mark.
  • "who oversaw the upkeep of royal palaces, including the Palace of Westminster." -- palace/palaces. Maybe swap "palaces" for buildings? I should imagine that the royals don't own anything smaller than a palace.
  • "By 9:00 pm three Guards regiments arrived on the scene. Although they assisted in crowd control, the move was in part a reaction of the authorities to their fears of a possible insurrection" -- Not quite understanding the latter half of this sentence from "the move" onwards.
  • Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which amended..." -- Amendment/amended
  • "Westminster Hall was regarded as safe..." -- by who?
  • "...and had gone by around 3:00 am, by which time the fire near the Hall was nearly gone," -- Two birds with one stone here: gone/gone repetition, but if you loose the last "gone" and replace it with extinguished we've solved it entirely (it sounds a lot better to boot!)
  • Ah...that is until I saw the second "extinguished".
  • "its robing rooms and committee rooms" -- rooms/rooms
  • " the Law Courts, were damaged and in need of restoration. -- Is "in need of restoration" a little redundant?
  • Possibly, but I wanted to clarify that these were salvageable, rather than being another part lost entirely. – SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The British standard measurements, the standard yard and standard pound" -- standard/standard/standard
  • "the measurements had been created in 1496 by Edward I" -- Relevant? CassiantoTalk 08:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it gives an indication as to the historical - let alone practical - value of their loss. I've trimmed it back to just the date tho. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

All done, bar the two commented on. This is all excellent stuff, as usual, and I'm looking forward to the next batch. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "...committee, who met in private, heard numerous possibilities of the cause of the fire" -- " to the cause of the fire"?
  • "The committee thought it unlikely that Cross and Furlong had been as careful in filling the furnaces as they claimed," -- " they had claimed"?
  • "which was entry 64, identified by a portcullis—the entry of the..." -- entry/entry. CassiantoTalk 12:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
New Palace of Westminster
  • "After it was built the water was pumped out and the land allowed to dry" -- "After it was built the water was pumped out and the land was allowed to dry"?
  • "... it has proved to be problematic" -- "has" is redundant here.
  • "Barry's wife laid the foundation stone on 27 April 1840, in a building that consisted of 11 courtyards with accommodation for 200 people, with 1,180 rooms, 126 staircases, 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles of stem pipes with 1,200 stop cocks." -- Two "with"'s sounds kind of odd.
  • " In 1852 the Commons was finished and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time, and Queen Victoria first used the newly completed Royal Entrance." -- Ouch! The double conjunction really doesn't work here.
  • "The fire became "single most depicted event in nineteenth-century London ... attracting to the scene a host of engravers, watercolourists and painters"." -- "The fire became the "single most depicted event in nineteenth-century London ... attracting to the scene a host of engravers, watercolourists and painters"?
  • "UNESCO describe the site as being "of great historic and symbolic significance", in part because the it is.." -- oops!
  • "The decision to use the Gothic design for the palace set the national style, even for secular buildings, which also "drew attention to the close bond between Church and State at Westminster". -- Who said this?

Everything else looks fine and was a joy to read. As with Tim, I'm not too bothered about the title change and quite like the current one; It's far better than the alternative ones offered below. Please let me know when this gets elected (sorry) to FAC. CassiantoTalk 23:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent stuff: many thanks for your thoughts and efforts - it looks much tighter now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Wasn't going to - feel free to nom it yourself - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unknown on the source. I'll drop a line on the uploaders Commons page (thankfully they are still active), but I have a plan B for FAC of this, or a similarish one from the DNB. I'd prefer the more contemporary version in his uniform, if possible tho. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492 I,presume this means that it's probably not PD? (Or if it is, there is insufficient information to use it as such?) – SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Crisco. I've covered them all except one, which I'm chasing the uploader for further details. Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Prose comments

  • a publicly run Brigade - why the capital B?
  • to get a good view, and many took to the river in whatever craft they could find or hire to get a better view - view / view
  • What caused those casualties?
  • 34 of the competitors - shouldn't start sentences with numerals
  • The Westminster site covered eight acres, and the palace site partly consisted of unstable, marshy ground. - site / site
  • 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles - worth including the metric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I'd be happy to change the title (the least satisfactory part of the article, I think), as only a few of the sources refer to the event as such. Part of the problem here is that there is no single, common name which can be applied to cover the event. I know that this article was created in 2003 under this name, but it very quickly became a list of other parliaments that had burnt down, before being dragged back to this subject.
Do you have any suggestions for a possible new name, or new format for a title? - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize there were so many burnings of parliaments, otherwise I'd've suggested Burning of the Parliament Buildings in London or something. How about Burning of British Parliament, 1834? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a few listed in one of the older versions of the page (I had no idea either!) The current title focusses on Parliament, but the law courts were also destroyed and it was still a royal palace, so we could go for something more precise - 1834 fire of the Palace of Wetminster or Palace of Westminster fire, 1834? - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think readers would most likely search for? Or what format do you think would be easiest to link to? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
...or, "The Biggest Explosion in Parliment; until 2002, when John Prescott had the Brussel Sprout Curry option from the Commons canteen"? CassiantoTalk 12:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea CT! It looks like Cassianto and Tim Riley thinks the current title is suitable, so we may as well leave it in place unless others raise objections. – SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim[edit]

First lot – more to come:

  • Lead
    • "competition established" – you have inadvertently omitted "catastrophically" or "lamentably" between the words. Today's front page boy User:KJP1 will be able to provide the necessary adjective (and may have wise things to add about the rest of the article, too.)
  • Background
    • "The Palace of Westminster began to be constructed" – a bit jagged. Perhaps "The Palace of Westminster originally dates from…" or some such?
    • "Cnut the Great" – our WP article admits that he is better known as Canute, and I think you should consider piping accordingly.
    • "Westminster was used as the venue" – just "was the venue"?
    • "the machinations needed to implement change" – not at all keen on "machinations", which I take to mean plotting and conniving, rather than bureaucratic bumbling
  • 16 October 1834
    • "Black Rod's box alight" – I believe you've worded it thus to provoke ribald comment from Sarastro, Brian and other cricketers.
    • "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured that a large crowd turned up to watch events" – you've told us before that there was a large crowd. At this point in the text I think you'd be wise to say that crowds continued to turn up, in increasing numbers, or something like that
    • "Lord Broughton, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests" – As the former Librarian to that organisation I hardly know where to start with this but here we go: (i) he obviously wasn't the Commissioners plural, (ii) he was the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, (iii) he wasn't Lord Broughton at the time: he was Sir John Hobhouse until kicked upstairs in 1851. (We were still plagued by a Hobhouse in my day: all present made the sign to ward off the evil eye when she entered the building. I must stop for the moment and revive myself with drink.) More anon. – Tim riley talk 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • continuing:
    • "were involved in breaking down doors" – "involved" sounds slightly shady: perhaps "helped break down doors"?
    • "All of the original Acts" – in BrEng (as opposed to American) I don't think the "of" is wanted.
  • Aftermath
    • You and I have discussed capitalisation offline, but Cabinet/cabinet didn't come up. It looks a bit odd to have cabinet ministers and Cabinet meeting in the same sentence.
    • "they instructed" – "they ordered"? And I have my doubts about capital C Committee in the same sentence.
    • "read by Lord Brougham" – I think we need to be told here that Brougham was Lord Chancellor rather than any old peer
    • "With no English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings to use as inspiration" – eh? There were and are quite a few English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings. Do you mean "Uninspired by any English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings …"? (That would also eliminate the infelicitous repetition of "inspiration").
    • "to complete the necessary pen and ink drawings required" – either necessary or required, but not both, I think.
    • The same sentence falls at the last hurdle: he asked Pugin, who was such-and-such, but then you don't say what he asked him.
  • New Palace of Westminster
    • "a stonemasons strike" – arguably wants a possessive apostrophe
    • "Royal Entrance" – I boggle a bit at the caps for this
    • "ongoing revisions" – nothing actually wrong with "ongoing", but I think "continual" would be more pleasing
    • "finish the Victoria Tower, although Barry's death in May that year was before the building work was completed" – the "although" seems odd, as if refuting a causality that doesn't seem to be there. I'd be inclined to make this "finish the Victoria Tower; Barry died in May that year before the building work was completed" – or am I missing a point?
    • "overseen by Barry's son, Edward" – "his" rather than "Barry's", possibly?
  • Legacy
    • "The fire became single" – missing a definite article before "single", I think.
    • "initially based in Chancery Lane; the body, now based in Kew, has since been renamed as The National Archives" – feel free to tell me to take a running jump, but I'd footnote all this bit. I don't think the location of the PRO or its amalgamation into TNA is of central importance to your narrative.
    • "the cost of re-building" – hyphen wanted?
    • "Westminster Palace" – the Palace of Westminster is the only proper term, in my view
    • "said that the building is in need of extensive repairs" – as you're using indirect speech "is in need" should be "was in need"

That's my lot. I prodigiously enjoyed this article. I'll watch with interest to see how you finally decide on the best title, and I wish I could offer a helpful suggestion. Faute de mieux I find the present title okay, though I take the points made above. You'll alert me come FAC, natch. Tim riley talk 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Excellent stuff - all grist to the mill, and the article is now much improved thanks to your keen eye. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB[edit]

First instalment (to halfway through the fire section):

  • "The competition established the Victorian gothic style of architecture as the national norm, even for secular buildings." That strikes me as a little too assertive and perhaps overstated – the national norm?
  • That came from Pevsner (see the Legacy bit below, c. reference 100) - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "classed" and "classified" in close proximity, last line.
  • "The Palace of Westminster began to be constructed..." → "Construction of the Palace of Westminster began..."
  • "added to the area" – I think I'd say "buildings" or "complex" rather than "area" which is a bit vague.
  • "which included Westminster Hall, which..." – repetition
  • "By 1332 the barons—representing the titled classes—and burgesses and citizens—representing the commons—began to meet separately" – too many confusing mdashes. I'd rather see parentheses, thus: "By 1332 the barons (representing the titled classes) and burgesses and citizens (representing the commons) began to meet separately"
  • "to slow the progress of the fire" – drop "the"
  • "In the late eighteenth century a committee of MPs reported that there would be a disaster if the palace caught fire". I think "predicted" rather than "reported", which is bland
  • Soane becomes Sloane (unless they are different people)
  • You have "usefulness of each tally" and "usefulness of the tally system" in close proximity
  • Would it be possible to indicate the dimensions of a tally stick? I see a reference to measurements in the next section, but that seems to relate to the height of piles of tallies rather than to their actual size
16 October 1834
  • I wonder if "firelighter" is the best job description?
  • That appears to be his title, rather than just a description. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "No one" is two words, no hyphen. But I'm a bit worried about the apparent editorial tone of the sentence: "What no-one appreciated on the day was that the heat from the fires had melted the copper lining of the flues and started a chimney fire." I'd reword this less dramatically, e.g. "Those tending the furnaces were unaware that the heat from the fires had melted the copper lining of the flues and started a chimney fire."
  • "Although these would have been repaired as the child exited" – I can't visualise what you mean here. How would they have been repaired?
  • "The first flames were spotted at 6:00 pm, under the door of the House of Lords, by the wife of one of the doorkeepers; she entered the chamber to see Black Rod's box alight, and flames burning the curtains and wood panels, and she cried out that "The House of Lords is on fire!" Too long, two ands, and you can't have a "that" in front of a direct quote. As we are an encyclopaedia rather than a tabloid, I'd lose the quotes and the exclamation mark.
  • "For 25 minutes the staff inside the palace panicked and tried to deal with the blaze..." – I rather doubt that they did these things simultaneously for 25 minutes. Perhaps after initially panicking they tried to deal with the blaze? Consider rewording.
  • "now highly visible" – redundant words, since you've just said the fire could be seen from Windsor

I shall return Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

As always, many thanks for your input, and I look forward to the next instalment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 19:53 UTC)----

Coinage Act of 1873[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd appreciate feedback before taking it to FAC. The Coinage Act of 1873 really isn't about the coins, it's about a piece of legislation that sparked the largest political controversy in the US in the last years of the 19th century.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

First instalment – I'm about two-thirds through:

  • "The Mint, in its first decades, only coined gold and silver in response to deposits of that metal by citizens..." - As two metals have been mentioned I'd say "those metals" rather than "that metal". Also, I think "only" is redundant.
  • "At that time, gold or silver U.S. coins were rarely seen in the nation, as they were heavily exported—most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". There seems a contradiction here: gold or silver U.S. coins were "heavily exported", yet "most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". Can you explain what these pieces in circulation were?
  • Sorry, but "half-dime"? What's that in cents?
  • "replaced with a shortage" → "replaced by a shortage"
  • "Since it had been two decades since much silver was regularly deposited..." Is there a "so" missing from before "much"?
Not really. There may be a "very" implied there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would specify the "British gold sovereign" in the text, rather than requiring the link. Likewise "25 French francs", although for some reason you haven't wikilinked "franc".
  • You could economise on wording re. Knox, whose dispatch to San Francisco is mentioned twice in successive sentences at the beginning of para 2.
  • The sentence beginning "The proposed major changes to existing law..." is too long and overcomplicated. It also apperas to mix proposals with actual changes ("the office of treasurer at the mints and assay offices was abolished..." etc).
Consideration and passage
  • "Knox's bill had abolished the charge of .5 percent" → " Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent" (?)
  • "recommitted to committee" – is there a more elegant way of phrasing this? (We also have "committed to Sherman's committee" later on)
  • "The bill at that time provided that the cent be made of nickel alloy as well" – does this mean "The bill at that time provided that the cent be partially made of nickel alloy"?
  • I don't see how Townsend's motion to kill the bill can be said to have "succeeded twice", when it actually failed to pass on a roll call.
  • Sentence needing attention: "The House initially refused to agree to the Trade dollar, and representatives of both houses, led by Sherman and Potter, met in a conference committee, and the House acceded to the Senate amendment for the Trade dollar". There is one "and" too many.
Intent of the bill's authors
  • The first sentence reads very awkwardly, partly I think because of punctuation placements and partly because of the initial "Once". I suggest a slight revision: "When, several years after its passage, the 1873 act became a political issue, ..." etc
  • Adding "they argued" to a fairly long clause makes for confusion in reading. Why not "They argued that..."?
  • The "though" after "Boutwell" is a kind of honorary "however". I'm not convinced it's needed.
  • The sentence beginning "Within a few years..." is too long, too complicated, needs a split.
  • I have slightly altered the format of this section, to rescue the otherwise awkwardly place Nugent quote which, as it stood, did not stand out sufficiently from the main text (particularly as it begins mid-sentence).
  • The (again overlong) sentence beginning "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar..." is not syntactically correct. Suggest: "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar with mining conditions in the Far West. They knew that the amount of bullion produced..." etc

Will return to complete shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The rest: slim pickings:

Bureau of the Mint; duties of officers
  • " each required to be bonded" - explain?
  • "and required them to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate..." etc: this information is stated in the previous paragraph and doesn't need repeating.
Testing and the Assay Commission
  • "The Coinage Act of 1873 kept the judge as a member, but made the two other federal officials who were members the Comptroller of the Currency and the assayer of the New York Assay Office." I had to read this more than once, and I'm still not certain of its syntax. If you deleted "who were members" it would flow better and remove an unnecessary repetition.
  • "The president, under the 1837 act, was allowed to appoint members of the public each year..." For clarity, I suggest: "Under the 1837 act, the president was allowed to appoint members of the public to the commission each year..."
Criminal offenses and miscellaneous provisions
  • " Each office would be governed similarly to the mints, with a superintendent in charge, and an Assayer, and Melter and Refiner as the two officers under him." Compare with: " In addition to the superintendent, each mint had an Assayer, a Melter and Refiner, and a Coiner" a couple of sections earlier. It seems an unnecessary inclusion in this section anyway.
  • "setting a April 1, 1873 effective date" – "a" April? Maybe "setting April 1, 1873 as the effective date".
Later reaction
  • The opening sentence (like Macbeth) has three "whiches". Apart from that, better as two sentences, I think.
  • "recovered some" is, I recognise, standard informal American prose, but is it encyclopedic?
"Crime of '73"
  • "resumption of specie payments" – explain?
  • "Even though Kelley denied this had taken place, the story stuck,..." Well, Kelley would deny it, wouldn't he, even if the story was true. The "even though" rather implies that a congressman's denial of something was a standard for truth. I'd reword slightly: "Kelley denied this had taken place, but the story stuck,..."

That's all. An interesting legal imbroglio. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've either done what you suggested or done something similar.

Coemgenus's comments[edit]

  • "...causing large quantities of silver dollars to be struck and the gold standard endangered." Earlier, you said that bimetalism was the standard. Maybe "driving the more-valuable gold dollars out of circulation" or something like that (if what I wrote is even accurate).
  • "So long as silver prices remained high, this placed the United States on the gold standard." The word "effectively" might help here, since we were legally still on a bimetal standard.
  • "Greenbacks, backed not by silver or gold..." Maybe "Greenbacks, a paper currency backed not by silver or gold..." just so people are clear on what they were.
  • I'd rearrange the first two sentences to get the cause and effect in order. Something like "Losses of nearly $250,000 at the San Francisco Mint had concerned the Treasury, and McCullough sent John Jay Knox, a Treasury employee, on a special mission to investigate in 1866."
Consideration and passage
  • "Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent." You said this in the previous section.
  • "The bill was reintroduced into the House by Kelley when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and was debated there in January 1872." I'd say "Kelley reintroduced the bill in the House when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and it was debated there in January 1872."
Coins and deposit of bullion (§13–39)
Later reaction
  • It's linked in the lede, but I'd link "free silver" the first time it's used here, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 April 2015, 23:04 UTC)----

Latin kings of Alba Longa[edit]

I'm confidant I've improved this article beyond start class status. It provides at least enough information with reliable sources to be graded a C-class article. I'm posting this to see if others agree, or if it still needs work. Although I don't see much more information being available for the page.

Thanks, Psychotic Spartan 123 12:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • I really enjoyed your lede. It is very informative and representative of what your article will be about. My suggestion is that you add references to it, as it currently has none.
    • I'll probably add some later tonight.
  • "Its capital was Alba Longa but it included other cities such as Lavinium and Latium." A comma is needed after "Longa", but I would suggest rewriting this sentence as it's a bit confusing as to what you mean by "included". Were they a part of they Kingdom? If so, I don't think "but" is necessary – maybe "and"?
    • Fixed. It is accurate in a sense. Alba Longa was a Latin kingdom, but not a kingdom itself. It was simply the seat of the Latin kings for several centuries.
  • "Prince" should be capitalized.
    • Done.
  • Why was Ascansius known as Lulus?
    • Done. Added a note explaining this. I'll reference it when I do the lede tonight.
  • "Other sources include any of; Janus, Evander, Faunus, or Picus as kings of the Aborigines." The semicolon isn't needed.
    • Semicolon removed.
  • "After Aeneas arrived he married Latinus' daughter, Lavinia, and joined Latinus in war against the Rutulians." Comma after "arrived".
    • Done.
  • This is very well-researched and sourced. Great job!
    • Yep. Many hours of no life on my end. :)
  • This section doesn't seem to be written in a very encyclopedic tone, specifically with "It is very likely".
    • I reworded it to sound more encyclopedic. Removed the "It is very likely".

Overall, you did a very good job. I can see this promoted with a little bit of work. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and your suggestions were helpful. It pointed out a few inaccuracies and facts I'll need to reference, remove, and hopefully expand on. Psychotic Spartan 123 20:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 April 2015, 12:25 UTC)----

Palmer E. Pierce[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, it just passed a B-class review at MILHIST, but I want to send it to GA, but it needs some work, so I need a PR.

Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I did some copyediting; these are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria

  • Find-a-Grave is generally not considered a reliable source
  • Is there any further information about his post-Army life?
  • I see mention of Palmer E. Pierce as chairman of the Committee on Inter-American Relations in the 1930s - is this the same person?
  • There appear to be a fair few scholarly sources mentioning Pierce in relation to the NCAA that could be exploited for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Aditya Kabir Many questions remain unanswered:

  • I understand that he fought in Spanish-American war of 1898 during the Invasion of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the resurrection of the Philippines, the Boxer Rebellion. What were his troops, ranks and battles?
  • What is the Villa Expedition? Why is it not with the rest of the campaigns, in the Early Service section?
  • What is the significance of the Finance Committee? Describing a discussion verbatim seems to be a bit trivializing anyways.
  • His command with 27th Infantry Division and the 54th Infantry Regiment, I believe, were during WWI. Were there no battles or campaigns that added to his career?
  • Nothing to report from his days of leadership in Standard Oil Company?
  • No family? Father, mother, sister, brother, wife, son, daughter? Who were they?

Please allow me to research a bit more before I make further comments. Aditya(talkcontribs) 20:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 23:09 UTC)----

Foundation of Moldavia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review before its GAN. All comments are welcome.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Repeating the same reference over and over again is unecessary.
  • The article is kind of long (~61 kB), so is there any way to split it?
  • Since my next couple comments seemed like nitpicks, I did them myself.
  • There is one dead link in the article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Tomandjerry211, thank you for your comments. I fully agree with you: the article is long. I am thinking of shortening the "Background" section instead of splitting it. The dead link was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I did a little copyediting. These are my edits. I wasn't always sure that I got your meaning, so you may need to revert some of that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dank, thank you for your edits. I made some minor changes. Feel free to revert them if you think they are not appropriate. Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Your changes are fine. They're not what I would have done, but I can see good reasons for them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for your work about the Foundation of Moldavia... The topic is important and I think that you can proposed it for getting the GA Status. It shows a good overview about the History of Moldavia and its development and gives some detailed information about influencing people in founding Moldavia. However, the work lacks from some facts:

  • Commemoration: The work has not shown the importance of the Foundation of Moldavia to people living there nowadays. You should cite events related to the commemoration of the Foundation of Moldavia and its major main leaders. You can also add a part about the social thoughts about the foundation of Moldavia. You can cite the current reputation of the main leaders of the Foundation of Moldavia. I think that working about this subject would be very efficient.
  • Arts: You should also cite the romans, plays, draws, films done about the Foundation of Moldavia. As this fact is important in the History of Romania, I think that you will have a good list of these artistic works. You should involve them and describe the general overview about the Foundation of Moldavia given by these works. You will give by this a better artistic overview about the fact and a better description about the thoughts of people about it till now.
  • Templates: the work lacks of significant templates. You should add a template in the beginning describing the period of the foundation of Moldavia, its founders... More explanations of the development of Moldova should be given in this innovative template. You can also add some templates in the work in which you involve more details about the situation of Moldavia in each period involving topology and politics. This fact will be very important.
  • Honours: You can give some awards given for works about the Foundation of Moldova... You can give the historical sites related to the Foundation of Moldavia and the archeological samples from that period exposed worldwide... This could be a better advance in your excellent work because people who like to learn more about this very important phenomenon will have the alternatives to find alternative ways to learn more about the Foundation of Moldova

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Csisc, thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 03:06 UTC)----

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Ralph Vary Chamberlin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to promote it to GA status and am seeking feedback on structure, coverage, readability, areas for improvement, etc.

Thanks, --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you for your work about Ralph Vary Chamberlin, one of the most famous scientist in the world even if it is misconsidered by many people... The work is well structured even better than ones with GA Status. It involves a clear overview about his life, his studies, his works and his discoveries and this is required for many other works... However, you can expand all the parts and involve more information about the scientist by searching for quotes from the works citing Chamberlin and journals... The work can be also widened by citing the events related to Chamberlin, the tomb of Chamberlin, the rivalry of Chamberlin, the thoughts and ideas of Chamberlin about important issues and debates, the students of Chamberlin... These details can better your output and give it more length and quality. You can use for this fact some books, some journals... These details are important to see the other sides from the life and personality of Chamberlin. You can also cite the honours received by Chamberlin... This will give a better overview of this exceptional scientist. Furthermore, try to gather some information about his travels and explorations... You can explain how this affected his researches... You can write about the places in which he lived during his travels... You can write about his assistants when travelling aborad... You can write about the verifications that had been done about his work... You can cite if some of his discoveries had been falsified or not... You can cite if he is still an exceptional reference... You can cite if one of his students had an exceptional prize for works that had been initialized by Chamberlin... You can write about the conditions in which Chamberlin had worked and conducted his researches and you can also expand the part about the reasons of the death of Chamberlin. You have many ways to expand this work. So, try to do your best and feel free to answer me if you need further information.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Csisc. Aside from the 1911 controversy I've so far found very few in-depth sources about Chamberlin that include such details- many sources are obscure and scattered, or only briefly discuss his work. But hopefully I will obtain some of the 1958 Biologist articles this weekend. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 April 2015, 23:11 UTC)----

Glomerulus (kidney)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the readability of this article.

Other readers readers and editors (especially those not familiar with anatomy), what could be done to improve the readability of the article? Please feel free point out anything big or small that needs explaining or could be improved.

Thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom thanks for taking the initiative to improve this article (a very important one). I think the main problem here is that the article reads in short chunks of text and disconnected sentences. Perhaps the "Structure" section could use some sort of text introducing what the main structural characteristics of the glomerulus are. Also, most sections need expansion. I'll see what I can add to the Histology section from books, and there should be lots of information about the structure of the filtration barrier in journal articles. A 'Clinical significance' section will have to be added at some point, glomerulopathy is an extensive subject relevant to many fields of medicine. I've already started to make some edits to the article, I'm sorry I can't collaborate very often lately but if you need a hand with something tell me ;) --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I've done my best to fix up the 'structure' section and will get to the physiology section eventually.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Also added the 'clinical significance' section and will expand it eventually. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you for your work about glomerulus, the functional unit of the kidney... The work seems to be interesting particularly because it talked about the anatomy and the mechanism of this functional unit. However, it lacks from some important details.

  • History: You had talked a bit about who discovered the glomerulus. However, you did not mention what were the theories about the work of the kidney before this and how they had been falsified then. You did not mention how Malpighi described his discovery for the first time. You have to expand this part and involve more effective references... You can use the papers citing Malpighi, important journals... I think that working on this part would be very fructuous for this important work.
  • Permeability: You explained well the mechanism of work of the renal glomerulus. However, there are some hormones that influence characteristically this permeability. You should involve more information about this and you can use for that some books for Medical Students, some papers... Try to involve a list of substrates influencing the permeability of glomerulus. This will give more scientific depth to your work.
  • Clinical significance: glomerulonephritis is not the main pathology that can influence glomerulus... There are some other pathologies that you can find within the version of this important work in the French Wikipedia. You can explain for example the reasons of having sugar in urea for diabetes... You can use for this many references. This will give to your work more trustworthiness and will give it more scientific depth. So, try to do this as soon as possible.
  • Further information: Try to expand the first parts of your work about drainage because they are quite limited. Try to involve more information for this fact. You can use some books in French as they give more information about this important phenomenon. You can even use some books in German and Italian for this. Try to see the list of probable references that can help you by consulting the work about Glomerulus in other Wikipedias.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Csisc, they're much appreciated. Unfortunately outside of greetings I can't speak French or German. However I do have access to a number of good sources that I can use. I'll firstly get the article's 'function' section up to scratch and then reply to you in a more comprehensive way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

comments from Animalparty[edit]

In addition to the chunky sentences already mentioned, I think the placement and inclusion of images need rethinking, as well as their captions. The caption for File:Juxtaglomerular Apparatus and Glomerulus.jpg for instance, starts off with "The juxtaglomerular apparatus", a phrase which is not defined in the body, and the only time "juxtaglomerular" appears again is at the very end at Regulation of blood pressure. Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE WP:CAPTION, the images and captions should largely complement the text, not have new or tangential content within. The lead infobox image has a very wordy caption, that fails to even clearly specify where the glomerulus is: "The glomerulus is the network (tuft) of capillaries in red." Unless I'm mistaken there is a lot of red capillary network in that image that is not glomerulus. Similarly, the gallery of photos at the end should eventually be worked into an expanded body, such that they illustrate key paragraphs. Extraneous images should be omitted unless they can be placed into proper context (see also WP:GALLERY). Update: I think the lead image might actually be overly complex, and perhaps moved lower in the article, replaced with a less ambiguous image that immediately identifies the focal subject. See below --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed up the captions and changed the images, will get around to the ones in the physiology section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 April 2015, 12:24 UTC)----

DNA sequencing[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently rated C Class - as one of the most important and consistently one of the most viewed pages in WikiProject Computational Biology, I feel this article needs to be improved to at least GA status. I'd appreciate any comments on what needs improving to make this happen. Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for your work about the DNA Sequencing. The work is well structured, well done and involves some important details... However, it seems that the work lacks from some adjustments...

  • Important Works that were used to create DNA Sequencing: As many people know, the works about DNA Sequencing were based in part on the Citation Classics of Lowry who had invented the principles of biological sequencing and used it from proteins... It is quite important to involve such works of reference that helped the invention of DNA Sequencing... Many other papers can be involved and cited in this work. You can even check the references of the first paper of Wu in PNAS talking about DNA Sequencing, the paper of Sanger and the one of Maxam and Gibert for more details about Reference works and principles used to create these important techniques...
  • Principles of DNA Biology: You had mentioned in the two first parts of the work the use of sequencing and the nucleotides... I think that you should merge the two parts in one common part and expand it in a better way. Include the new nucleotides that had been discovered for bacteria and germs and try to write about the structure of DNA and its organization.
  • Practice of DNA Sequencing: The work does not show any information about the main first practices of DNA Sequencing... You should include that many trials of DNA Sequencing had been done till now in order to indicate the quality of development of the technique. You can include the reasons for the use of DNA Sequencing and write about its commercialization and trade.
  • Ethics: You can include the ethical issues that had been raised about DNA Sequencing. The access of this important technique to all people was always controversial.

You can use papers, books, journals and websites as references in doing this work.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Csisc, thanks for reviewing this article and for your comments - although I can't really take any credit for the article, almost all of the work is by other contributors :) I agree on combining and expanding the first two sections, and some mention of the ethical issue would be interesting as well. It might take a little while to get round to, I will let you know when it's done. Thanks, --Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc and Amkilpatrick, thank you for your work and comments so far. I agree that some critical details are missing from the article but may already be present in related articles like nucleic acid sequence or a bit from sequence analysis. Combining the first two sections may help but only if they're followed by a well-organized History section. JHCaufield - talk - 15:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 April 2015, 19:44 UTC)----

Peripheral artery disease[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is classified as a "High importance" page within Wikiproject medicine. It got 12,000 views in the last 30 days. PAD is an area of interest/expertise for me, so I am curious what parts should be expanded to aid others coming to it with fresh eyes.

Thanks, BakerStMD 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've notified at WikiProject Medicine about this. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Right off the bat, I'd say the article has too many lists. I think many of those should be converted to prose and more informative details added. Praemonitus (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I concur with the above opinion, after having viewed the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • is a narrowing of the arteries other than those that supply the heart or the brain.[1]
Is there a more postive way to state this? "other than those" seems to be defining it by what's it's not?
  • Most commonly the legs are affected.[2]
Maybe "Legs are the most commonly affected appendages"
  • Complications may include an infection or tissue death which may require amputation; coronary artery disease, or stroke.[2]
Look for missing commas preceding non-restrictive clauses like the one above.
  • The main risk factor is cigarette smoking.[2] Other risk factors include diabetes, high blood pressure, and high blood cholesterol.[5]
I'd combine these two sentences.
  • It is unclear if screening for disease is useful as it has not been properly studied.[9][10]
Does "disease" here refer to PAD, or other ailments, as it is not clear.
  • In 2010 about 202 million people had PAD worldwide
I think "had" is not that descriptive here; maybe "suffered from" or something like that.
Signs and symptoms
  • Up to 50% of people PAD may have no symptoms
Missing "with"?
  • PAD in other parts of the body depends on the organ affected. Renal artery disease can cause renovascular hypertension. Carotid artery disease can cause strokes and transient ischemic attacks.
It's good practice to include a citation at the end of all paragraphs and sections.
I think this would be better as prose organized into paragraphs rather than bullet points.
Risk factors
  • Same as above.
  • blood pressure readings in the ankles is lower
"Readings in the ankles are lower"
  • The material in this section would benefit from a copyedit that combines and arranges the stuff so as to be less listy.
I'm not sure this is best presented in list form, but maybe this is a common practice for these types of articles.
  • It is not clear if screening for disease is useful as it has not been properly studied
I assume this means "screening for PAD", but it's not that clear.
This is also too listy.
There ought to be more than two citations in this section.
This seems more like "treatment".

I think this article still needs quite a bit of work before a GAN would make sense. I'd start by working on the prose and sourcing, and later focus on expanding the topic, as I'm not convinced that this topic could be covered in a comprehensive way with just 1,600 words or less. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MJ94[edit]

  • " a narrowing of the arteries other than those that supply the heart or the brain."This should be reworded. A simple search leads me to an article by the Mayo Clinic which states that peripheral artery disease is a "common circulatory problem in which narrowed arteries reduce blood flow to your limbs." While that wording should not be used directly, I feel as if an example such as this reads much better than "other than those."
  • "Most commonly the legs are affected." → "The legs are areas (or limbs) most commonly affected by peripheral artery disease."
  • Perhaps the symptoms listed in the lede could be moved into their own section. I would make the same suggestion for complications.
  • Why are there no symptoms for up to half of people? What people? I'm assuming those who have PAD?
  • "It is unclear if screening for disease is useful as it has not been properly studied." Did you mean to say "the disease" or "PAD?"
  • "In those with PAD stopping smoking and supervised exercise therapy improves outcomes." This (and the rest of the paragraph) should probably be in their own section.
  • Watch the use of commas and punctuation. I see many in which a comma is needed, including (but not limited to) "in the developed world".
  • What constitutes the "developed world"? Try not to start two consecutive sentences with the same phrase second and third to last sentences in the lede do.
Signs and symptoms
  • The first sentence needs to be reworded. It is unclear which people the text is referring to here, though I am assuming it is those who have peripheral artery disease.
  • "PAD in other parts of the body depends on the organ affected." How does it depend on the organ affected? More to the point, what depends on the organ affected? While the article states "PAD", I am unsure if this means the existence of PAD in general or otherwise. Do you have a source for this?
  • This section looks much too similar to a list of definitions rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • The overall content of this article looks pretty well-done. It's important that this is organized into paragraphs of prose rather than bulleted lists.
Risk factors
  • Similarly to the section above, this section would benefit greatly from reading like a paragraph of prose rather than a list.
  • There is a significant lack of citations in this section.
  • "When the blood pressure readings in the ankles is lower than that in the arms, blockages in the arteries which provide blood from the heart to the ankle are suspected." Is lower → are lower.
  • This looks okay to me, but I'd consult someone with more experience of medical-related articles.
  • What isn't clear and what has not been properly studied? This needs to be more specific.
  • Again, this looks too much like a list.
  • This section looks pretty good.
  • I think this could definitely use some more sources.

This looks good!

This article definitely needs a lot of work before it will be promoted, but with some significant work, I can see this very important article becoming a GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 14:42 UTC)----


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what others think about its future suitability for good article status.

  • I'm not 100% responsible for its content
  • I don't intend to be 100% responsive to edits

I invite editors to comment and edit. For users who are not familiar, the criteria good articles are reviewed against are here.

Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've notified at WikiProject Medicine as well. Joel. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ping to Iztwoz and CFCF who've played a large role in editing this article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

in contrast to the other article (peripheral artery disease) I believe this one has too many illustrations( when it is useful and serves the point of informing the reader it is a good idea, however images should not be used for "decorative effects" ...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point! I count at least 5 pictures with references to ECGs here, plus a number of pictures of tablets which are similar to tables in text...--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I've removed a number of duplicate images and also moved some images around to more relevant sections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I used Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy as a guide to check whether all the expected topics had been covered. I feel that in the "society and culture" section there should be a subsection about the economic cost of of treating heart related health issues. I think that coverage is warranted here because elsewhere in the article a lot of attention is given to treatment of medical problems related to the heart. There is a major economic divide over who can access appropriate treatments, and I think something should be said about cost and access to care in that section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I will consider whether to put this in a separate section or as part of the 'modern histry' section.I've removed an indent from your reply to keep track of individual points, I hope that is OK. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I will place it in the 'surgery' section of 'clinical significance'. I think that makes the most sense. I may make mention of the cost of statins in the lifestyle disease section too (I will provide a reference to justify 'lifestyle' and make some mention of the gray area too, but I feel this is probably the heading most readers will be familiar with, and not entirely inaccurate) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from myself: a number of modalities that assess cardiac function (echocardiogram, stress tests, angiography, etc.) should be mentioned together in the 'clinical significance' section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a placeholder and will flesh this out tomorrow. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from myself: there is a lot of coverage of the tables and electrical conduction. Could this be moved to the child articles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've summarised one table and moved the other tables (And images of tables). It's confusing to have the same idea in three different places and I'm not sure the tables do the best job of communicating to lay readers (1 - in text, 2 - in our table, 3 - in an image that is a table). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved off the page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Since my comments on talk page nothing much has changed in the article. Suggested combinations of subsections which I think would be of help weren't carried out. I was also going to make the same point about overuse of tables - much of the content was cut and pasted from a textbook and a lot of the content to me - particularly the tables - is still textbook padding. That said, I haven't looked at very recent changes.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Just had a quick look and glad to see tables have been dealt with. Would also say that I dislike the use of gallery images in the body of the text - think they belong in additional images. also think some captions are overly detailed. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Iztwoz, actually I've combined quite a few sections together, trimmed some images, removed the tables, and since your comments in November 2014 a large amount of the physiology section has been moved off the page. I'll get to the captions. So you have been listened to :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The only place I've used the gallery is in the 'development' section. Because this is a specific section I am not sure readers will be aware more images will be at the bottom of the article. That said maybe we should just move them to Heart development? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should consider merging / reorganising the "Heart rate" and "Electrical conduction" subsections... there's a lot of duplication in these sections and they're pretty difficult to read end to end. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I've significantly shortened those sections but I think they should stay separate, as they're about different things. One is why the heart beats, the other is how the heart beat gets transmitted across the heart. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 10:17 UTC)----

Language and literature[edit]

The Story of the Three Bears[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed FA. I would like to find where the article is weak and how to upgrade it. Thanks, SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Have the issues raised in the FAR been addressed? It seems to me that not all of them are. Consider doing those and then opening a PR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 April 2015, 20:03 UTC)----

Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary[edit]

I'm going to be nominating this article for FA in the near future and would like to get some more eyes on it before then. Binky Brown has the distinctions of being a work about someone suffering from OCD before the condition had a name, and for being the first work of confessional autobiography in comics, possibly the most significant subgenre of arts comics in the English language.

Thanks, Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take a look though.

  • "of rules with which to cope with these" How about "in an attempt to cope with" to avoid repetition?
  • "Binky's anguish becomes all-consuming as he imagines the destruction he cannot avoid, and spends hours praying to God for forgiveness." "Binky's anguish" is the subject of the sentence, but, of course, it is Binky himself who prays. This should be rephrased.
  • "Last Gasp reprinted the story in 1995 in The Binky Brown Sampler, a softcover anthology of Binky Brown comics with an introduction by Art Spiegelman." You're yet to mention that there are other Binky Brown comics- the fact that Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary suggested (to me, at least) that there weren't any others?
    • There wesn't a series, and there were no other standalone comics—the others appeared in various anthologies over the years. None of them have gained the reputation of Meets the Holy Virgin Mary. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Green sold the artwork to the strip in the 1970s" You mean the original, here?
  • "Though Green built Binky Brown on an autobiographical base he fabricated many scenes—such as one in which he is bullied by two third-graders—"to suggest or convey a whole generalized idea about some subjective feeling, such as order or fear or guilt".[10]" In which Binky is bullied, surely?
  • "The work is conscious of its own creation—Green's drawing of it frames the narrative proper and there are constant reminders of it throughout." I'm afraid I'm not clear on what this means
    • Hmmm ... what happens is that the whole story is framed by Binky creating it himself. It opens with him drawing the story, and there are reminders throughout of the story's being in mid-creation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "the figure as the narrator" The figure being the Crypt Keeper? (Also, our article on the comic calls him "The Crypt-Keeper")
  • "Binky Brown was the first work of autobiographical comics to depict explicit sexuality" I thought it was the first work of autobiographical comics full stop?
    • No, it's "the first major work of autobiography in English-language comics". Earlier autobiographical works are rare and have had no lasting influence. Binky Brown is consider the work that began autobiographical comics as a genre—basically, autobio has become something of a cliché in underground and alternative comics, because it seems nearly every such cartoonist at least tries their hand at it, and the blame for that is placed at Green's door. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Though awkward, Green put" Green was awkward?
  • ""Perspective" and "Fun With a Pencil"" If these are manuals, the titles should probably be italicised (though quote marks may be useful to suggest that these aren't necessarily real manuals)
    • Fixed. They may have been real (several of these background artificats were), but my sources don't say. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "a snowball hurling into Hell" Do you mean "hurtling", here?
  • "a fish chased by a police office adorned with a crucifix" Officer? Also, is it the fish or the officer who has the crucifix?
  • What is an "overdetermined subjectivity"?
  • Some inconsistency with "the church" versus "the Church". The latter is surely correct if you're meaning to abbreviate the phrase "the Roman Catholic Church"
  • "a "serious of purpose".[5]" Does she/you mean seriousness, here?
  • "has gained little appreciation from" This sounds slightly non-neutral- to say that one group didn't appreciate something seems to point at a weakness of the group. How about "little acclaim"?
  • "Green had read Philip Roth (pictured) and other literary writers who bared their personal lives in their work." As opposed to non-literary writers?
  • "The same year as Binky Brown publication" Missing word?
  • Is Funny Aminals notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
    • It may be, but I've only read about it in passing in sources that talk about the "Maus" strip. Underground comix titles tended to be extremely short-lived, even when they sold well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "in Madison Clell's Cuckoo" Does Cuckoo (comics) point at what you want it to? I know nothing about the subject, but it doesn't look right.
    • No, I've turned that redirect into a dab page and removed the link for now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you not cite the actual author of "Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary", rather than the editor? Or have I misunderstood what you are citing, here?
  • Why do you not cite the further reading suggestions?
    • The Levin one I don't have access to (it's a career retrospective), and the Burbey one's an interview that doesn't really give anything encyclopaedic to add that's not already in the article, but is probably Green's most in-depth interview. I'll ask around for the Levin one. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I managed to get access to the Levin article, and have aded a couple little things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that there are a good number of hits on Google Scholar in a wide variety of journals- have you sifted through them? (I admit that I haven't...)
    • I have. The vast majority are about Maus and mention Binky Brown in passing. The vast majority of what's left mention it in passing as an influence on Robert Crumb or whoever. It's a book that gets name-dropped left and right, but which rarely gets written up in depth. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any chance of a category tying the work to its author?
    • I've added one, but it won't likely get populated very soon. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Category:Obsessive–compulsive disorder in fiction?

Really interesting read. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 April 2015, 06:51 UTC)----

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

United States v. Ramsey (1926)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am preparing it for a run at Featured Article.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 04:00 UTC)----

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to take this article to Featured Status.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 May 2015, 19:00 UTC)----


I want to get this article up to GA status and eventually FA status if possible. I understand that this article needs a lot of work, so the more feedback, the better! I'm listing this as a social sciences topic because I would like this article to be written more from a social sciences perspective than only a geographical perspective. I'd like people knowledgeable in society, history, and politics to feel free to contribute, particularly if they're well-acquainted with Hawaii's socioeconomic history. All are welcome to help clean up links, sources, and grammar, though!

Thanks! The Obento Musubi (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Doing... I'm trying to do the peer review thoroughly, so I removed the bot message that closed the peer review request. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, WeijiBaikeBianji! The Obento Musubi (t · c) 08:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for your work about Hawaii... It is clear that this work was an excellent overview about it as it has described its history, its social situation, its politics and its topography and this is not available for some UN affiliated countries. So, I am really satisfied with your work and I think that you can do better and get FA Status. However, this work lacks from some details which are important for me:

  • Customs and Traditions: The work does not give any detail about the events and the festivals held in Hawaii every year. It does not also describe the Native traditions of Hawaii and this includes wear, handicrafts... Although these social details are not very important to see the position of the State of Hawaii in the United States, they are important to promote the culture of Hawaii. So, I think that you should work more about these details soon.
  • Influencing People: The work does not involve any name of an influential person who helped the promotion and the core development of Hawaii. This involves the names of the influential people in the First Existing Hawaiian Civilizations and the discoverers of Hawaii... The people who had influenced Hawaii should be efficiently cited. So, you should expand the History part in order to do this more efficiently.
  • Industrial Activities: The work does not involve the name of main factories in Hawaii. Furthermore, it does not involve any information about the type of fruits and vegetables produced in Hawaii... It does not give an overview about the rate of dependency of Hawaii to the production of tropical fruits... These information are important although they are very important to see the quality of the Regioanl industry of Hawaii.
  • Historical Sites: This part is very limited. Try to merge it with Gallery Part and better its output more efficiently. Try to involve a better description of the policy of Hawaii about Hotels... Furthermore, try to site more historical sites that are very important in Hawaii. Try to describe the evolution and the style of Architecture in Hawaii... Try to give more details about main civilizations that influenced architecture in Hawaii... Try to specify the characteristics of houses in Hawaii...

Finally, I do not have to tell you that you can answer me anytime and I will give you more details.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 April 2015, 19:15 UTC)----

Richard von Weizsäcker[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some work on this since his death. I welcome every comment on the article's quality especially considering what needs to be done to bring this to GA-status.

Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by GermanJoe[edit]

By no means a complete review, just some suggestions for possible improvements:

  • Infobox - "President of West Germany". I'm not a legal expert, but "Office abolished" in this part of the infobox looks incorrect (afaik all state institutions continued in their normal constitutional roles, with a few adjustments for the reunified territory of course). I'd just repeat "Reunification" here to indicate the lack of a "successor".
Done You are right, someone changed this a couple of days ago and I only switched the first one back.
I've done something controversial now... On second thought about this, I decided that a separation between President of Germany and President of West Germany is bogus. I therefore merged the two in the infobox. I'll put that up for discussion on the talk page... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead - It's difficult to choose and summarize, but the lead should have more information about 1) his views and role in important political discussions 2) the main stations of his career. Currently the lead doesn't provide a good overview about all notable aspects of his life.
  • "Political career" - I would put the first few sentences in a separate section as well, and merge them in 1 paragraph. The 1974 events are in the wrong order (they should be later in the paragraph).
Changed the order here a little bit. I'll try to make this section better by expanding it a bit more.
  • "Political career" - Try to avoid and merge stubby 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs.
  • "Death and funeral" - I am not sure that Kohl's absence should be mentioned without acknowledging his frail health here as well. The relevance and background (why didn't he attend?) of this detail are missing.
Valid point, I took it out for now.
  • Consider putting 1-2 of his most notable sentences in their own quoteboxes to make them more visible.
Good idea. I'll see that I expand on the 8 May speech and put quote boxes there. Maybe another one later from the 1997 Spiegel interview as soon as I find it.
  • "Other activities (selection)" - consider splitting this in "Other political activities" and "Social activities" (or any other meaningful split) to organize the information a bit more.
  • "Other activities", "Honours" and "Ancestry" seem to have almost no references. This could probably be a problem at B-level and will likely be questioned at higher levels.
  • "List of state visits" - consider moving this hidden list to a separate article if it can be sourced, or delete it otherwise. It doesn't add that much to the main article. Visits with additional notable information are mentioned in the main text anyway.
Still on search for a source. If I don't find one, I'll take it out.
  • "Honours" list should be formatted consistently (the different Iceland and Malta entries are distracting).
  • "References" should be inserted before "Literature". Also, "Bibliography" is more common than "Literature" for this section - see MOS:LAYOUT.
  • "Literature" - the cite book parameter "pages" is only used to include the referenced pages of a book, not the total of all pages. If the whole book is the reference, the parameter should be removed.

I won't have time for a full prose review unfortunately, but the article is informative, mostly well-sourced and structured. Nice work improving the coverage of this important topic. GermanJoe (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take care of these things step by step today and maybe tomorrow. In any case: Danke für die guten Anmerkungen! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have polished a few refs meanwhile. Btw, please don't use "done" or similar graphic templates (see instructions on top) - I took the liberty and changed them to regular bolded text. GermanJoe (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I adopted that from other reviews here. Thanks for the polishing! I'll be able to fix some more later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you writing a work about Richard von Weizsäcker, a political leader of Germany who had led the unification of Germany by the end of the Cold War. The article is excellent as it involves many details about the political history of this German Leader. The part about the circumstances of the demolition of Berlin Wall is important and fructuous... However, the work lacks from many facts that are important for a work about a great personality:

  • Childhood: The work does not give minor information about the circumstances in which von Weizsäcker had studied and grown up. The early life part can be expanded by consulting the German Work. I think that you should include more details about how he got married and how he had studied when his father was travelling from a country to another to represent Germany... There are minor details about the situation of the Family in the period of war and After war. The reference that proves that Von Weizsäcker has four children is not efficiently given.
  • Honours: The part about Honours received by this German Leaders lacks from significant references. This should be resolved if you want that the work gets the desired FA Status. The other activities part also seeks from the same problem... You have probably to merge both parts and cite more references to give more trustworthiness to the part.
  • Publications: The part about publications should involve the ISBN of the books of von Weizsäcker. It should involve more details about the books and their structures. You should involve also the name of the publisher. You can also write some comments given by leading people about these important books. You can cite comments written in leading journals in Germany. So, you have to expand this part in order to let it more efficient.
  • Religion: It is clear from the work that von Weizsäcker has a major religious function in Germany. However, a part about the religious life of von Weizsäcker does not exist. You should expand all details you provided about the religious thoughts and responsibilities within Germany in a new part. This will give a better overview about the personality of this great leader and give more importance to his social works in the German Community.

So, try to work on the parts I cited and feel free to answer me if you like further information about what I have said.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I'm hoping to be able to do massive work on this over the course of next weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 April 2015, 12:30 UTC)----

Hina Rabbani Khar[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to FA. Please help me out.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

Hmm, so we meet again after those two GA noms of yours. Surprised to see you, you're really doing a lot of work lately. Check the "Peer reviewer" tool on the toolbox, there are some useful suggestions. Let's begin.

  • The first thing what strikes me is the prose. I don't think it's bad per se, but for a FA, the standards are very high. Consider getting it copy edited at the WP:GOCER. Besides this, I'll try to point out instances where you can improve it.
  • Another one of the criteria is the coverage. Are you 100% sure everything is covered about her? Are you able to obtain any good biographies on her? Those can improve the coverage unlike news sources which give bits and pieces.
  • Check the criteria regarding reference formatting and arrangement. I'm not familiar with it so just makes sure if there's any work left regarding that.
  • Lead could do with expansion, see WP:LEADLENGTH. If unsure on what part to expand, I'll see if I can mention it here.
  • There is one image on the left which sandwiches text with the infobox, don't let that happen. WP:IMGLOC.
  • This: "Khar is co-owner of..." doesn't belong to "Early life", move to Personal.
  • "Early life and Family" should be "Early life and family"; MOS:HEADER. There'll be more comments if possible, -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here are those instances, "formerly served as a member" -> "is a former member" - 'served' is idiomatic, I think, a general copy edit would usually replace it
  • "... a Pakistani stateswoman and economist who was the 26th Foreign Minister of Pakistan." -> "... a Pakistani stateswoman, economist and 26th Foreign Minister of Pakistan." - the sentence flows better now.
  • Why is an external link there for Abdus Salam Institute of Physics? 'Dr' Abdus Salam should also be removed per WP:HONORIFIC.
  • You've added "Main articles: Pakistani general elections, 2002 and Shaukat Aziz" and "Cabinet of Pakistan and Pakistani parliamentary election, 2008" but they aren't main articles of those sections, see WP:SS.
  • "reports surfaced in several media that Khar", again 'surfaced' is an idiom, redundant, 'several media' sounds incomplete, better is "there were reports that...". The following sentence just repeats ("Khar is already married...") what is already mentioned, about Bilawal is not necessary, in my opinion.
  • The See also link Economy of Pakistan seems to be shoehorned there, remember if you can't think of any relevant link...there is no need for that section. Usually Biographies are like this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 April 2015, 19:23 UTC)----


Shinhwa discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FL status and so it can be used as a standard for other Korean pop discographies. I'd particularly like comments on the clarity of chart citation methods in a country whose chart has changed over the years and which has no centralized place for an artist's chart history.

Thanks, Shinyang-i (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

  • two prestigious Daesang (lit. "grand prize") awards
I would clarify that "grand prize" is an English translation of a Korean word, which might seem self-evident, but still is a good idea.
  • Avex Trax released three greatest hits compilations in Japan and one in Taiwan.
This seems to conflict with the totals detailed in the first paragraph; e.g., "One greatest hits compilation, My Choice, was released in 2002 in South Korea".
  • four-year hiatus of Shinhwa's group activities, as five of the six group members
Copyedit to avoid saying group twice here.
  • "idol group"
Maybe I'm getting old, but what's an "idol group"?
  • You list 6 albums there, but, unless I miscounted, the lead only mentions four.
  • Aren't EPs considered albums here? If so, are they included in the albums total?
  • Being the English language Wikipedia, I wondered if the non-English names should be in parenthesis rather than the English translation.
Other songs charted
  • I think "Other charted songs" is better syntax.

This all looks pretty tight. There might be some room for clarifying the totals, and there might be issues with the English versus non-English names, but overall I can find little to be concerned about. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94[edit]

  • The first thing I noticed when reading the article is that it really needs to be broken down into sections. In the first paragraph, I really like how well-formatted and thorough it is. I would definitely recommend that this paragraph should be the lede and that the other paragraphs should be split off into their appropriate sections.
  • The second large chunk of text could possibly be moved into a section titled "History" or something similar. This would allow for you to break up the large wall of text and just focus on the group's history together, like this particular paragraph (or chunk of text) seems to be doing. The phrase "Shinhwa moved to Good EMG, a small and then relatively unknown agency" is a bit ambiguous. In this context, I believe that you are trying to say that the group's record label changed to Good EMG upon expiration of their original contract with SM Entertainment, correct? If so, I think it would be best to make that a bit more explicit with that wording. Looking at those record labels, I notice that SM Entertainment does not have a wikilink. If it's notable and has an article on Wikipedia, I think it would be a good idea to add one here. In regards to Good EMG, the article says that it was "a small and then-relatively unknown agency." Who is saying that it was relatively unknown and by what standards?
  • "Shinhwa released their first album under Good EMG, Winter Story, in late 2003". It's probably not too important, but I'd put "titled" before "Winter Story."
  • "Winter Story was the first of four albums Shinhwa would eventually release under Good EMG with "Winter Story" in the titles." I don't think it is necessary to say "under Good EMG" as we have already established that the band has a new record label at this point. Maybe you can give examples of other albums with "Winter Story" in them here?
  • The fact that Winter Story albums are considered special releases and not usually counted when assigning ordinals to their studio album released is very interesting and is a nice addition to the article.
  • Remove "The year" from the paragraph that begins with "The year 2008".
  • The last paragraph is very interesting to me. It is neat that they started their own company to oversee the band. I also find it very interesting that they are one of the only Korean pop artists who continue to release full-length albums instead of EPs and maxi-singles. Even cooler, they are considered the longest-running "idol group" in Korea.

@Shinyang-i: I really enjoyed reading your work and can tell that you put a lot of effort into writing about Shinhwa. Great job! Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns by leaving me a message here or on my talk page. I hope you found my review useful. Best, MJ94 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 17 April 2015, 21:27 UTC)----

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]