Wikipedia:Peer review

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Arts[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

Dave Gallaher[edit]

Dave Gallaher was a man of his time. An Irish-born immigrant to New Zealand that went to church every week, played rugby on his weekends, and fought in two wars, he is most famous as captain of the 1905–06 "Original All Blacks" – the first New Zealand national rugby team to tour the British Isles. He was vilified by many in the press for what they considered off-side play, but the team returned having won 35 of their 36 matches. He fought in both the Boer War and First World War, and was killed in Passchendaele in 1917. My aim is Featured Article status, so any feedback that could help get this article up to that standard would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! – Shudde talk 06:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cliftonian thoughts[edit]

Shudde has specifically requested attention to the military side of the article so I will focus primarily on these aspects during my run-through.

  • We say in the first sentence he was an "Irish-born New Zealand rugby union footballer", but considering he left Ireland when he was 4 years old and is notably entirely as a New Zealander, might it not be better to say "New Zealand rugby union footballer of Irish birth", or even just leaving it until further down? Just a thought.
  • We say "he served in the New Zealand Contingent fighting in the Boer War"; we don't need the word "fighting" (unless the intention is to stress that he saw combat, in which case you could say he "fought in the Boer War with the New Zealand Contingent" or something like that).
  • Likewise in the next sentence, we say "was killed fighting in Passchendaele" but we could say "was killed at the Battle of Passchendaele" or even (since this is a very well-known battle) "was killed at Passchendaele".
  • "a 69-year-old shopkeeper, and his wife, 29-year-old Maria" Wow, dirty old sod (no action)
  • "Joeseph"—typo
  • We say James Patrick "sadly" died at the age of two, but unless I am much mistaken we are not supposed to editorialise like this. Just saying he died aged 2 is enough; readers with humanity will find that sad anyway.
  • We say "Maria soon became the chief breadwinner" but we have mentioned two family members of that name. I can see we mean the mother but perhaps this should be clearer.

More later —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. All sorted I think. -- Shudde talk 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolute's comments[edit]

  • I'm not quite sure how to reword it at this point, but the opening sentence mentions he is a "New Zealand Rugby Union" player twice. Perhaps you could drop the second use of rugby union and note that he was the first captain of the New Zealand national team to tour...?
  • "He took up coaching and selecting..." - I'm not familiar with what "selecting" means in this context. Is it akin to the role of (general) manager today, where they choose the players for the team? It would be nice if there was an article to link to for the concept, but if not, hopefully it is at least quickly explained in the body.
  • Ramelton and Auckland are linked, but not Wellington?
  • "In 1897 Gallaher's Ponsonby club that won eight of their nine matches,..." - either the "that" is misplaced, or there's a thought there you left incomplete.
  • "Between late December and early January Gallaher and his Contingent were involved in a number of skirmishes." - should contingent be capitalized there? (Same with squadron later in the paragraph.)
  • "He described one incident where he had several enemy in his sights,..." - several enemies? Or is this proper for New Zealand English?
  • "But he was not fit enough to play immediately upon his return to New Zealand,[52] and didn't resume playing rugby for Ponsonby until the 1903 season." - probably best to expand that contraction to did not resume, particularly to match the use of "was not" instead of wasn't earlier in the sentence.
  • "After a match against a Combined Western Districts side, a second match was played against New South Wales. That match was again won,..." - repetitive. match...match...match.
  • Improper capitalization on "test match", throughout it seems. Should "Test" be capitalized?
  • "In 1904 the first Ranfurly Shield match was played; Gallaher played in an Auckland side lost the shield after a 6–3 defeat to Wellington." - an Auckland side that lost the shield?
  • "The New Zealanders were coached by Jimmy Duncan, by then retired as a player,..." - Since Duncan has not been previously introduced, there's no context behind the note that he had retired as a player. I'd remove it from this part of the article.

That takes me up to just before the 1905 tour. I will have to resume the review at a future time. Cheers! Resolute 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 17 November 2014, 06:18 UTC)----


Steve Zakuani[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it would be great to see if it could get to FA quality. Zak has retired since the page was brought to GA. Any extra eyes on grammar would be appreciated.

Thanks, Cptnono (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Nice article! I found something that has no citation in the Retirement section(lol), but I found another one. Why are you putting in citations before the sentence is over? That makes no sense. The article is very good. It grasps a lot of what a reader would ask from an article. That is definitely checked off on the featured article checklist. Out of all, I think with a little scanning over, you could send your article for examination! EMachine03 (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 14 November 2014, 12:32 UTC)----


Jumping Flash![edit]

Previous peer review


The previous peer review only received one comment, so I've re-listed it now because I am nearly submitting this for FAC. I am very enthusiastic about this article and game, so any comments that might help the FAC process a less of a nightmare would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Jaguar 13:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Gah, I meant to get around to reviewing this and ended up forgetting. Here, I need to finish up an essay for Japanese and then I can start reviewing. Sorry about that. Tezero (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tezero, I already have most of the sources and am willing to do whatever it takes to get this up to an FA standard. Bearing in mind that this is a small game and it was hard enough to find sources as it is, I hope there is enough information to get this up to FA. Any comments will be very helpful.. Jaguar 23:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it should be fine. Anyway:
  • Citation 9 (PreScreen) needs filling out
  • Why do the Edge (it's not capitalized, by the way) citations include... quadruple quotes ("")?
  • In citation 18, italicize GamePro (or put it in "journal=" if you're using the cite journal template)
  • Citation 16 (Allgame) needs a publisher; Allgame is the work if you're using the work/publisher scheme
  • Recommend listing "Jumping Flash" as the series in the infobox
  • "the mentally-insane astrophysicist, Baron Aloha" - either change "the" to "a" or nix the comma
  • "Planning to make large sums of profit from his own evil ingenuity" - "large sums of profit" is strange wording, and how would he be doing this?
  • Wait, where and what is Crater Planet? What's it like?
  • What's a Jet Pod?
  • WP:OVERLINK: rabbit, roller coaster, hourglass, resort, fireworks, Japanese, possibly bottle rocket
  • "desolate emptiness" - ???
  • "which are described as small, white, five-limbed creatures with small palm trees on their heads" - described where? In the manual, or in an in-game quote? Either way, cite it - of course, you could simply ditch the wording of it being a description if it's obvious enough.
  • "Jumping Flash! is composed of 6 worlds with 3 levels each, totalling 18 main levels, of which there are 7 boss levels and an extra 6 bonus stages available" - consider changing these, or at least all of them other than the 18, from Arabic numerals to written-out numbers
  • I'd write "Sonic the Hedgehog" all the way out
  • "Ultra was responsible for creating the mechanical rabbit protagonist, Robbit, feeling that they needed to veer far away from the "stereotypical science fiction vibe"" - how does a mechanical protagonist veer away from this? Or is it that he's a rabbit, not a little green man or a Master Chief?
  • "The character designs in Jumping Flash! were done by the Japanese studio MuuMuu Co. Ltd." - any more information on them? Any available cause of them and the MuuMuus sharing a name?
  • Don't list scores in the prose; instead, spend that real estate on further elaborating on the review text
  • Why is "PlayStation" linked again near the end of Reception?
  • You can go a bit more into detail (maybe a paragraph each, or one fairly large paragraph for them both) on the two sequels - and according to the navbox, isn't there a spinoff?
  • Some of the citations appear to lack authors where they're likely given, e.g. 3 (GameSpy), 5 (Joystiq).

Tezero (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments Tezero, they were very helpful and was just what this article needs to bring it closer to FA! I think I've addressed almost all of them; done the capital/italicisation issues, fixed the quadruple quotes and done the work/publisher stuff for the citations. Fixed the prose issues, removed "the" to an "a" (it reads better that way, you're right), reworded "large sums of profit" to a "large salary" (I think this is something better) and this is the funny part, regarding Crater Planet and the Jet Pods, no matter how many times I watch the cutscenes I just don't understand. Crater Planet is just the setting of the game, similar to Angel Island in Sonic 3 or the Lost Hex in Lost World if you like. Jet Pods are carrots. I'm afraid I can't elaborate further, they're just carrots the player collects in order to finish the game (I'll reword this in the article though). I have also addressed everything else you mentioned except the reception prose (which I will do later today) and writing a "sequals" section which should be good. Ref 3 (GameSpy) appears to have no author, however ref 5 does (which is now addressed).
Speaking of which, I think I should mention in the FAC opening that this game has no logic at all - it has missile shooting pigs, playing cards that attack you, a talking robotic rabbit and a German astrophysicist antagonist who wears a Hawaiian shirt. It's best played whilst high! ;-D Jaguar 16:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 13 November 2014, 13:56 UTC)----


Belgium national football team[edit]

I've listed this article, B-status since February 2014, for peer review because I want to attempt an FA nomination. Over the past 8 months, it has been improved a lot and I think the page is at least GA-worthy. Could someone screen it on major shortcomings for FA? Especially feedback regarding the neutrality and the length (specifically in the chapter "Competitive record") would be very welcome.

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

Doing... Kareldorado, saw this had been unreviewed for a while, so doing now. Will come back with first comments shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Euryalus[edit]

This is an extremely comprehensive article and looks like an excellent resource. However due to its length and formatting it takes forever to load - will come back to this later in the review. Will go through each section in turn and then offer some general views.

Lead

  • Needs a sentence or two on the history of the team, especially as this is a large part of the following article.
  • Per MOS, is it possible to slightly declutter the lead by transferring citations for uncontroversial points into the body of the article instead?
  • Needed a mild copyedit - did this myself but please let me know if you disagree.
  • Sentence clarification - is the team a founding member of FIFA and UEFA, or the Royal Belgium Football Association? if its the Association, this may not need to be mentioned in the lead as it is not directly relevant to the team.
  • Supporters club - it would be good to include a sentence on why the supporter's group is called 1895. And is this group's official name in italics?

History (1900-1919)

  • No need for the hatnote referring to a later section of the article. Given the article length, it might also be better to shift the results onto a subpage and/or to split the entire history section into a shorter version here and a longer but separate main page (eg. History of the Belgium national football team)
  • "ex-player Cees van Hasselt" - not clear where he is an ex-player from.
  • Informal results section - might be useful to include the scores from the 3 follow-up games against the Netherlands.
  • "It was decided" - not clear who decided this.
  • "(Later Amsterdam") - did the Amsterdam shift occur before 1919? If so, apologies for removing this and please restore. If not, it should be mentioned in the History section's most relevant chronological section .
  • Copyedit - made some copyediting changes, but please revert if you disagree or if I've inadvertently introduced errors.
  • Need a reference for the statement that games were suspended during WWI.

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


Engineering and technology[edit]

Hitachi Magic Wand[edit]


As part of a Quality improvement project I've greatly researched and improved the article on the Hitachi Magic Wand. The article had a copy edit by Baffle gab1978 from the Guild of Copy Editors, and was successfully promoted to WP:GA after a helpful review by Kaciemonster as advised by Protonk. I'd appreciate comments on how to further improve its quality.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've posted notices about the peer review for this article, to the following pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism, User talk:Cirt (self, nominator for Peer Review), User talk:Protonk (adviser to WP:GA Reviewer), User talk:Kaciemonster (GA Reviewer), User talk:Baffle gab1978 (WP:GOCE copy editor). — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Protonk

I'll make some copy edits as I look through this. The one thing I'm concerned about is the inclusion of web addresses in text, e.g. "The "Fluffer Tip Wand Attachment" sold at thepleasurechest.com may be placed over the device and can be used to mimic the sensation of cunnilingus." and "The Hitachi Magic Wand was available for purchase in 2003 through the website drugstore.com." I'm not certain these sentences are really needed and I don't understand the significance of either individual point of sale to an encyclopedia article. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Removed these bits, per peer review comments by Protonk. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: I kept a reference to magicwandoriginal.com as that's the official website, but if you feel strongly I could remove that mention from in text as well. — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That seems perfectly ok. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A question: Has there been a systematic review (as preferred by WP:MEDRS) of the studies involving the magic wand? We have a number of individual studies, but are there longer term assessments out there? If we have one for anorgasmia we can probably fold that into the discussion of Struck and Ventegodt. Their selection of the magic wand is perhaps interesting, but not enough to support singling the study out in a general summary. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying that section needs to follow MEDRS (and the way we refer to individual studies does follow MEDRS), just that I think if we have review articles we could condense things a bit and make it less like a "here are some studies which happened to use the magic wand" section. :) Protonk (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's been but I'd prefer to keep it mentioned at least somehow, perhaps as a brief mention without stating the conclusions, that it was studied by this group from this specialty and so forth, maybe just in a chronological format. — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I do know, and I think it's already mentioned at least a little bit in the text, that yes, some of the studies were relied upon and mentioned again by other articles in secondary sources, so that'd be something also to mention in there somewhere. I'm honestly debating just merging the entire sect into the History section somehow, or perhaps just making it one big Academic research sect with chronological order and less detail per study. — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk:The Struck 2008 study is cited in this review of literature:

  • IsHak, Waguih William; Anna Bokarius; Jessica K. Jeffrey; Michael C. Davis; Yekaterina Bakhta (October 2010). "Disorders of Orgasm in Women: A Literature Review of Etiology and Current Treatments". The Journal of Sexual Medicine (International Society for Sexual Medicine) 7 (10): 3254–3268. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01928.x. 

Haven't been able to access full text of the article yet, but does that look like the sort of source you were describing, above? — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk:Got access to that publication in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, it principally restates the results of the original research, and I've added it to the article, DIFF. Relevant quote from source: "The authors reported that 465 patients (93%) had an orgasm triggered by clitoral stimulation during masturbation". — Cirt (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I see the source you've added. I've removed some paragraphs from the research section, mostly focusing on paragraphs where the takeaway was "the magic wand was used to do this thing" so the article can point to the salient uses of the magic wand in research (compared to other massagers, as an iconic vibrator, specifically tested for anorgasmia, etc.). Protonk (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There might be other sources that also cover it as secondary sources and/or literature review. I'd rather we don't remove those other sources outright completely, maybe make it briefer and keep the sources but in one paragraph somehow. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Making it more brief sounds good, I just wanted to take out the cases where we're picking up use of the device (in what could really be considered an intended capacity) in research where the device itself is incidental. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally agree but in some cases newer research builds specifically upon past studies, including the 2011 Marcus article. I added it back just as one-sentence instead of a whole paragraph. — Cirt (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Another question: how do we refer to the subject in the article? I'm seeing (outside the section which discusses name changes) "Magic Wand", "Hitachi Magic Wand", "Magic Wand by Hitachi". I'd either recommend referring to it always as "Hitachi Magic Wand" (as that keeps it consistent with the title) or listing "Magic Wand" as another name in the first sentence and using just "Magic Wand" throughout. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which do you think is best? — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend listing "Magic Wand" and then just using that in the article. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay sounds good. — Cirt (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Alright, I've replaced all prior usage phrases with just "Magic Wand". — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking any better Protonk? Again I'd much rather trim down total size of text of certain sources rather than eliminate those sources completely, but I'm up for additional copy editing suggestions and ideas if you've got any further? — Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 8 November 2014, 06:15 UTC)----


General[edit]

I'm Not Your Hero[edit]

Previous peer review

I'd like to get this up to FA status. Already going through a GA review, the article's topic has been getting a decent amount of notability (promo single release, charts, live performances and critical reception), and I feel every bit of info important to the subject (minor and major) are present in the article, with all references reliable and non-questionable. In addition, I think this article is written great and the images all have fair licenses with correct source information. Any suggestions are welcomed.

Thanks, 和DITOREtails 17:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 22 November 2014, 17:25 UTC)----


Jealous (Nick Jonas song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it would be great to see if it could get to GA quality.

Thanks, MaranoFan (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, quickly I already notice some issues with article:

  • The references and their formatting are an absolute mess. There are refs that including bare links, are missing publisher information (no, I'm not talking about the name of the magazine, source or newspaper itself), are missing author information etc.
  • Lead is too short, not containing any information of the music video, live performances or the remix with Tinashe.
  • Article seems a bit disorganized too and unfinished.

Overall, I don't think this article's ready and need a lot of improvemenet. 和DITOREtails 17:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


  • I will need help with the refs. Will you list what to repair or how to repair? Or please even resolve it yourself?
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Please suggest more as to how.

Any help would be appreciated Thanks. --MaranoFan (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)



(Peer review added on Thursday 20 November 2014, 09:19 UTC)----


The Groop[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it satisfies the requirements to be rated as a Class C article, or higher. It has a reasonably thorough coverage of the subject, a scrupulous attention to citations by reliable sources, and no major weaknesses.

Thanks, CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 19 November 2014, 17:39 UTC)----


Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first step towards becoming a featured list candidate. It covers Hendrix's recordings that have been released posthumously and is in addition to the Jimi Hendrix discography, which is limited to those released during his lifetime. Since the previous PR and FLC, it has been thoroughly revised and follows the same layout, format, and extensive use of references and inline citations as the recently promoted FL Jimi Hendrix discography. Tendentious editing and ownership of Hendrix articles appear to be a problem of the past; Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced are Featured Articles and recent Hendrix GAs include "Purple Haze", "Hear My Train A Comin'", "Little Wing", and Band of Gypsys. I have the resources to make this a featured list and look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make it happen.

Thanks, Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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


Secret Mountain Fort Awesome[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm curious to see how far this article is away from featured article status. It's passed as a good article nominee recently, and the reviewer noted that some of the sources weren't "great", but that their usage was fine and non-controversial. As far as I known I've employed every reliable source, both in web and in print, which covers the show significantly—which isn't a whole lot. The series sort of came and went, and so critical reception is sparse (a whole three sentences are devoted to this). 23W 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 23W 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's some thoughts and suggestions: You might linked Uncle Grandpa. I mean, I know it's referring to the short, but there's an article on it now (I now see you mentioned it later. I'd just linked the first instance of it, instead of having it 'hidden' later).

  • "The show received multiple accolades, including two at the 64th Primetime Emmy Awards." Maybe something like, "The show received multiple accolades, with Robert Ryan Cory and Chris Tsirgiotis both winning 'Outstanding Individual in Animation' Emmys at the 64th Primetime Emmy Awards ceremony."
  • "which he felt as a more lighthearted adaption for children." Should this be "which he felt was a more lighthearted adaption for children"? Maybe completely rewrite to be: "which was made to be more light-hearted and aimed at children."
  • What is the "outside world"?
  • "they unleash their crazy stunts to the public" How about "they unleash their crazy stunts on the public"
  • "though his lack of judgment means the more hazardous something is, the more likely he will be to follow it" Awkward. Try something like this: "Slog (Steve Little), a black-furred monster, is likewise blindly loyal, but lacks critical judgement skills." Or something…
  • I know the guy's name is "The Fart", but I don't like the use of "fart" to describe what he does. This is an encyclopedia, so maybe write it in a direct, but less colloquial way. I would use flatulence.
  • What is an "upfront"?
  • "Meanwhile, production was done at Cartoon Network Studios." Production for Uncle Grandpa was done at CNS? Or Secret Mountain Fort Awesome? I can't tell. If it's the latter, most this somewhere, if it's the former, I'd cut it out.
  • "Browngardt's work on the lattermost series began when its creator C.H. Greenblatt looked through one of his pitch bibles that he left at the studio." The 'he' in this sentence is ambiguous. I assume you Browngardt, but it could also refer to Greenblatt.
  • "around the identifying protagonist" I would just say "around the titular protagonist, Uncle Grandpa".
  • "He called this an" -> "In an interview with Cartoon Brew, Browngardt called the process of pitching his pilot an "amazing learning experience" because it allowed him to propose an idea to the network "and then seeing how it can manipulate and change while you're working on it".
  • "as a rough draft" Maybe work in the link temp track?
  • "The network published the remaining eight episodes to iTunes a month later" -> "The network published the remaining eight episodes through iTunes a month later"
  • "Critical reception was positive towards its art style." Clunky. Try, "Many critics were complimentary in regards to the series' art style."
  • What is "Lineboil"?
  • "was reminded" -> "noted that the art style of the show was reminiscent of"
  • "called its character designs by Robert Ryan Cory 'impressive' and 'distinctively styled'." -> "called Robert Ryan Cory's character designs 'impressive' and 'distinctively styled'."
  • "be able to go sort of a happier place" Is this missing a word? (should it "be able to go to sort of a happier place?) If not, I'd add in [sic].
  • Many of the publishes in the works cited can be linked, like Annie Awards, Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, etc.
  • None of the sources really jump out to me as bad, though, so that's good!

Hopefully, these ideas and suggestions will come in useful. Honestly, I think the best thing you could do is get someone to peer-edit it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Gen. Quon: Didn't see this in the watchlist. Thanks for your feedback, I'll get to this as soon as I can. 23W 06:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 16 November 2014, 03:34 UTC)----


Spanish Golden Age theatre[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because my student is working on it this semester as part of a class project.

Thanks, Amy E Hughes (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gilliark,

Great introduction. I think it is nice and succinct and functions well as an overview of the topic. I also appreciate the effort and care you have put into citing your sources throughout the entire article. It really adds to the article to give it credibility and authority.

This sentence in "Significance" is missing a word- "The sources of influence for the emerging national theatre of Spain were as diverse as the theatre that the nation produced during the Golden Age". Also, are you taking about the influence that the Spanish theater has had on the world at the time or the influence that other theater forms in other counties have had on Spanish theater? It wasn't that clear to me with the way some of the sentences are arranged and structured. I think the material is there, but you might need to re-arrange it so it flows a little easier.

Costumes-Did certain troops have their own small wardrobe of costumes? I remember talking about that in class. I think that might be worth mentioning.

I love the genres section. I think it is great that you pointed out that all types of drama were performed for all different types of audiences. This section is very thorough and well done!

Within the Actors and Companies section, it might be good to flush out more the fact that we started to see theater managers during Spanish Golden Age theater. You mentioned about companies and that actors worked for managers, but I think a little more information on the history and emergence of the managers would benefit this section.

Hope these comments helped. Overall-great job and I can't wait to read the finished product! Jsattler07 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Excellent work, so far! Particularly well cited.

“as well as the in importance” – something is wonky there

Do you need a separate heading for the overview? Could it just go with the description above?

“accessible art form” what does that mean? All could attend? All did attend? Perhaps some elaboration is necessary.

Is “straight play” really a real term? Wow. I guess there’s a link. A “play” seems like an adequate term since there’s nothing needed to differentiate between them and musicals since that’s not really a thing yet.

Italicize comedia nueva

I think “loa” and “autos sacramentales” should also be italicized throughout. I’m not sure it’s capitalized either. You have quite a bit of Spanish words here that all may need italics—corrales, cazuelas, etc. Certainly you’ll want to italicize your play titles.

Do you feel that these should bulleted lists? Or paragraph descriptions? I feel like I'm used to seeing paragraphs rather than lists on Wikipedia. Up to you.

Your citations and references look really tidy. Keithpaulmedelis (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Very nice work. However, a couple sections seem to consist primarily of bullet point when ordinary text would do better. For example, the subsections under Genres would be better in non-bulleted prose, as would the Actors and companies. The playwrights are fine in list form, but an introductory sentence would improve the section. Finally there are a few bits of odd wording - like "very unique" (unique means singular, "very" is redundant). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 15 November 2014, 17:47 UTC)----


Hamartia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because my student is working on it this semester as part of a class project.

Thanks, Amy E Hughes (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi there Mcraab123. The article has come a long way. Congratulations! Here are my thoughts on work that could still be done:

  • I would mention Aristotle in the Lead
  • Be careful with your Wiki Links. Make sure that they are all actually going where you want them to. I redirected your two links to Poetics.
  • The article discusses the change in scholarly thinking through different eras, but goes into very little depth regarding the arguments, who made them, and why. And the references are all from a 5 year time span though the fact says that opinion changed depending on the era of insight. Perhaps these books go into the past, but what about Modern Scholars?
  • I am concerned about the amount of times you quote The Poetics. The most concerning part of this is that you are quoting parts of the book that have the most difference depending on the Translator. I think you need to be upfront about which translation you are using, and why, and then make mention of what words are translated differently. The attention spent on the term “Fable” is especially concerning. This is not at the forefront of scholarly translation and should probably be left out of the article.
  • I had trouble figuring out when a quote was beginning and when it ended, when I was reading opinion and when I was reading fact. I also was not always sure as to why I was reading another passage from The Poetics when the one passage that mentions Hamartia is not mentioned.

Good Luck! OrangeZabbo (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marni,

  • I find your lead to be effective. You are missing a punctuation mark at the end of the lead though. Because your article discusses the subject in reference to the Poetics and Christianity, I do not mind that Aristotle is not mentioned in the lead.
  • Paragraph that begins "Here Aristotle" is a little dense. Perhaps revisit your phrasing here and write to a general audience in simpler terms.
  • The diagram and chart are very compelling visuals and support the article wonderfully.
  • Towards the end of the article the very long "tragic error.." quote doesn't serve to neutrally state your case. Could you break it up more and put it into your own simplified language and offer alternatives to the bias it presents?
  • Perhaps you could add Aristotle/The Poetics to the 'see also' section.
  • Overall I think the structure and layout of the information is effective.
  • You have a high quantity of citations and references, in my opinion, executed well.

Keep up the great work. Always Jessiechapman (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice work expanding the article. One place you could improve is in capitalization - per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, section headers are not supposed to be capitalized (beyond the first word and any proper nouns). Similarly, while Christian should be capitalized, theology should not.

You could also add some more wikilinks, especially to terms that not all readers might be familiar with (like Christian theology). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 15 November 2014, 17:46 UTC)----

Lauren Barwick[edit]

I've created this article a while back. Over the time, there had been many improvements and was copy edited. I recently sent it to GAN but was quick failed because of factual inaccuracies. I made the mistake of reading through an article quickly and messing it up but that is fixed now. I want someone to review this article and point out any other major issues so that I can nominate it again.

Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 12 November 2014, 21:36 UTC)----


Deus ex machina[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review to receive feedback on the changes and additions I have made to the article.

Thanks, Jsattler07 (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Julia,

Overall, I think this page looks great!

The page has a detailed and clear overview section that gives important details, as well as organized sections. One section that might be missing is history/origin. Can you tell us something about whoever invented it or first used it, as well, can you tell us how, if at all, the device has changed overtime ( ie. started as gods actually coming down on machines, now could be magic, a new creature, character, or event that might have nothing to do with gods or machinery) it might be unclear to readers how an unexpected event and a god coming down front the sky are the same. Most of the sections are quite detailed, but I do think that you could add more to the examples. Knowing a little more background for each example might be helpful to a reader, and maybe even some non literary examples, like movies and tv. You have many good links in the text and a nice list of references. The information is clear, fairly comprehensive, and certainly related to the topic.

Hope this helps!

Gilliark (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Hey Jsattler07. Overall I think you're in great shape. Here are a few thoughts to keep it going.

  • I think you should give the term's literal translation in the Lead, rather than waiting for Origins.
  • Can you find an image that clearly shows the Machine itself? It would be great to have a very clear idea of what it looked like in an Ancient Greek ampitheater.
  • I wonder if there is any criticism that praises the device. The article all seems to lend itself towards the negative aspects while admitting that some of the most famous playwrights ever relied heavily upon it. Do any scholars praise the device?
  • I'm not sure what the Nietzsche references are. Is that book cited somewhere and I can't find it? Maybe I'm missing something.

Really wonderful work. Congratulations. OrangeZabbo (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 11 November 2014, 03:51 UTC)----


Soho Repertory Theatre[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have made some serious additions to this article, but I am a first time editor, and this is a part of a Graduate Level course project. I am not thrilled with the way the seasons are listed as the Table of Contents is so unwieldy.

I still have another 16 seasons to add as well. You can see my progress in my Sandbox.

The other issue I am having is with citing the same source multiple times. This article will require over 80 citations, but right now I am closing in on 150 because I keep citing the same article over and over again. I know there is a way around it, but I keep frustratingly failing at accomplishing it. Any help would be appreciated.

And any other feedback would be great as well.

Thanks, OrangeZabbo (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Orange Zabbo,

Hope my below comments are helpful.

Lead section: I think your lead section is just detailed enough to give us the needed overview of what the organization is. It's concise but includes a necessary amount of detail. Structure: the structure makes sense and is fluid from section to section- however as we discussed in class- I would revisit how you've formatted the seasons and condense it so your contents page isn't so long. Maybe put the staff under the artistic directors.

Sections: are you adding an awards section? Or are you including that information in the specific seasons? I absolutely think it's worth noting in at least a subsection.

You did an excellent job at linking your article to other relevant information. I know you have a lot of times articles as sources, perhaps add one or two big ones to the external links section as well.

Images: I don't necessarily know that images are necessary and doubt you'd be permitted to add production images which would be the only way that I think viewers would learn from an image. History: I like how you showed us the history through the different venues and included past artistic directors on top of just adding a history section. Comprehensive: the article is absolutely comprehensive despite you feeling frustrated over the lack of seasons. You're doing a great job.

Accuracy and clarity: the presented information seems to be accurate and supported by an extensive list of sources. The information is clear. Once you condense the references section you should be solid.

Andreabee12 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello OrangeZabbo,

I'm going to read through the article more carefully later, but I think using a table for the show listing would be more appropriate. You can read up on using Wikipedia Tables at the link, and I think you'd be fine copying the wikicode for one of the examples and using it as a starting point.

I know it says citation needed, but are Webber, Aukin, and Benson English or British?

I'll be back for more comments. 173.220.31.163 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to login. The above comment is mine. Decafespresso (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello again!

The rest of my review follows. Please let me know if you have any questions.


The lead section:

The sentence “With a founding mission…” isn’t clear in terms of the sentence structure. I think making distinctions between the physical relocations, the growth in size and scope of the company (Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway), and the evolution of their mission over time might help. You might also want to consider separating the missions to another sentence, with additional descriptions on their productions.

I think “ones from the Obies, Drama Desks, Drama Critics, and the New York Times” should be mentioned using the formal names of the awards and I also think the recipients of the awards (theater itself, productions, individuals) should also be mentioned somewhere though not necessarily in the lead section.


Organization of sections / subsections:

I agree with Andreabee12 that you should add information on Awards.

I think the sections Artistic Staff and Staff should be merged.

It might be helpful to have a section describing Productions/Programs/Series to provide a context for the list of the past productions. It’s likely that the readers don’t know what these productions are especially because many of them are rarely seen or new. I think a narrative that gives a general sense of their programming and a table of past productions would be great.

The Physical Space section focuses on the history of the physical spaces, but is there anything interesting/relevant about the current theatre architecture? I remember the current theater being a black box theater and it makes me wonder how you count the number of seats.


In-text links:

You might want to add links to Off-Off Broadway, awards such as Obie Award, Artistic Director, and repertory theatre.


History:

Was Soho Rep. originally named SoHo Rep. with a capital R?

Today Soho Rep. is called Soho Rep. even though it’s neither located in SoHo nor a repertory theatre. That itself might be a fact worth stating and I’d be interested in why they kept the name and why/when they stopped being a repertory theatre.

When/why/how did their mission change?

In Soho Rep.’s case, the transition from Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway is not because of the number of seats. Even though it is only a matter of union contracts in reality the readers may think of Off Broadway as 100-499 seats so it might be worth noting. Were you able to find any information on why they switched to Off Broadway contract?


Citations and references:

This may help to clean up some of the citations: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source

Decafespresso (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 10 November 2014, 02:17 UTC)----


Shakespearean tragedy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It is a required part of my class assignment. I'd love feedback on: -If the article is achieving neutrality -If the current content is clear and supported by the writing -What you feel is missing...in addition to the blank sections currently lacking content which I will try to write in the next week Thanks, Jessiechapman (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few things I noticed:

  • I like the introduction a lot. The first sentence is concise and clear, and it's good that you bring in some ideas that are expanded on later.
  • The body is well structured, and I understand why each section is included. Maybe include Shakespeare himself in the Elizabethan tragedy section? I found that his own life was reflected in the late romances, and I think why he wrote the plays when he did would add some historical context.
  • Since "the problem plays" doesn't go to a page with content, is it needed? I like that you have a lot of other links, though.
  • I like your image a lot. Since you can't include all of the plays in one image, the First Folio brings them all together nicely.
  • The writing flows nicely, and is comprehensive. I definitely see the story you are telling.
  • I'm impressed with all your references, but I'm not sure which facts come from which references. Will you be doing citations later?
  • On the whole, the article is pretty clear, but I was a little confused by what you mean by "qualifiers." It wasn't until I actually read the section that I understood. Maybe clarify that heading a bit more.
  • You have definitely achieved neutrality. I don't hear your voice in what you've written.

Hope this helps, Deliirving (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice job expanding that article. Just a few comments

  • Some of the section titles are a bit long: "Qualifiers of Shakespearean tragedy, play classification" could be "Qualifiers of Shakespearean tragedy".
  • There are two empty sections. If you don't plan to add content to those sections, feel free to remove them.
  • Terms like drama and play (specifically play (theatre), using a piped link [[play (theatre)|play]]) could be linked in the lead; while they are common terms, there are sure to be some people who see something like that and wonder "what exactly qualifies as drama". Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thoughtful, comprehensive expansion on this article. Here are a few ideas to mull over:

  • As you look for where to add citations, consider the places you mention debates or disputes among scholars.
  • The first citation on First Folio is a note as opposed to a reference. With your wealth of knowledge on the subject, consider using citations like these as well.
  • Instead of "English history", History of England links to a juicy, C-class Wiki.
  • I notice both peer reviewers before me mention the title to the "qualifiers" section. Consider introducing a form of the word "qualify" into the end of the lede section to help segue. I think the word works where you have it; what "qualifies" as a Shakespeare Tragedy is vital to the article.
  • Great idea to use footnotes.
  • Consider an External Links section.
  • Keep an eye out for Oxford commas.

Great work! I look forward to seeing how you go with the rest. Good luck! Mcraab123 (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 9 November 2014, 21:20 UTC)----


September Morn[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC and would like feedback, particularly regarding neutrality (this having been a controversial article in the past).

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • General
    • You are inconsistent on the matter of the false title. For instance you have the AmEng "In her memoirs, Vogue editor Edna Woolman Chase" but also the BrEng "The suffragist Inez Milholland". I, of course, prefer the latter, but whichever you pick it would probably be as well to be consistent.
      • Will keep my eyes open. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Description
    • "September Morn obliquely depicts" – not quite sure what the adverb is meant to convey here.
    • "ankle deep" – I'd hyphenate this
  • Background
    • "In subsequent years Chabas would spend the winters working in Paris, while in the summers he would pass painting young women" – two points: there's a lot of subjunctive here – "would spend" and "would pass", which to my mind would be crisper in the plain past tense, "spent" and "passed"; and secondly "while in the summers he would pass painting young women" doesn't make sense. I think you mean "he passed the summers painting young women".
      • You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "This is not to say that" – touch of WP:EDITORIAL here?
      • Was thinking of it more as a conjunction, but sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "generally been more conservative" – the adjective is not quite to the point. What you're describing here is not conservatism so much as puritanism, and "puritanical" is the appropriate word.
      • Thanks, better word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "However, tensions remained" – I'd lose the "however", which as "howevers" usually do adds little and gums up the prose. You have eleven of them in the article, and I recommend the pruning knife.
      • Nixed... four I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Creation; identity of model
    • "that she was then aged 41" – I had to read this twice; perhaps "now" rather than "then"?
    • "Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met)" – you've told us before that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is the Met
      • For the forgetful (glossed in the lead, glossed in the body).
  • History
    • "First and second sentence both begin "Chabas". The second one would be better as "he", I think.
    • "and thus the work was sold to him. Thus" – double thuses
      • Second thus removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Controversy
    • "A full size reproduction" – hyphen wanted, I think
    • "Harrison went to city council" – is there a definite article missing here?
    • "window upon returning" – this the fourth "upon", and one begins to notice it: a plain "on" will do just as well and less distractingly.
    • "attributes this to him showing leniency" – gerund here so "his showing"
    • "American Heritage writer Gerald Carson" – even if you are going for American false title constructions, this is a bit clunky: "in American Heritage, Gerald Carson" would be more elegant and also shorter.
    • In the para beginning "In his 1931 autobiography", I think you need to put in caveats at several points: "according to Reichenbach" or similar. As it is, it reads as though his assertions are accepted as fact.
      • Added two more caveats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wide-spread reproduction and imitation
    • "face a $500 to $1000 fine" – I'm no expert on US law, but can one be fined for breach of copyright? I'd have thought it was a matter for damages in the civil courts. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
      • "Penalty" in the source. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "thusly" – eh?
      • Nixed
    • "where its deep its awful cold" – does the original quotation omit the apostrophes?
      • My mistake. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Acquisition by the Metropolitan Museum of Art
    • "the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) – the third time we've been told that the Met is the Metropolitan Museum of Art
  • Reception
    • "The final paragraph seems to me to give undue weight to the antis with nothing from the pros. Are there no modern experts who have judged the picture innocent and inoffensive? If not, so be it, but if there are they should be represented in your final para.
      • Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so. There are some more recent sources that mention September Morn with the terms, for instance, "charmingly innocent", but they do not seem to take heed of (or refute) any of Brauer's claims. Worth adding then, Tim riley? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd certainly add something from them. They don't have to take note of the antis or reply to any objections: if a reputable modern source finds the work "charmingly innocent" it is quite right to quote it to balance the opposition. Tim riley talk 14:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I agree with this. Much more importantly, the MoS demands it too: "Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I think that if you ignore significant viewpoints (the counter arguments here), you'll run the risk of breaching that guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Hopefully we can all recognize the context in which that section was added (and indeed its been trimmed significantly since it was added). The talk page poison from a now blocked POV warrior (who turns out to have been a banned user anyways) did a number on the neutrality. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
            • How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
              • That works. I would have spun it round, so the paedophilia nonsense isn't the final and abiding memory of readers (that's just my minor thoughts on it), but you've got the right points there, and with admirable brevity. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC) 14.00
                • I concur with SchroCat about turning the order upside down. The antis get 110 words here to the 29 words for the pros. I don't see that they deserve the last word as well. I'd just move the first two sentences to the end, which would have the double merit of redressing the balance a bit and ending on a piquant phrase. Tim riley talk 17:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
                  • Given another tweak. I was actually thinking of ending with the commercial success (see my comments to SchroCat below, about the jumping from the 1970s back to 1913). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me. Mostly minor drafting points, as you can see, but the last point really does seem to me to need revisiting. That apart, the article seems to me a model of balance and impartiality. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Nicely put together article that seems to cover all I'd expect it to (although I am no Ernst Gombrich!) A few specific points to look at below, but much more controversial than the painting is the use of eleven "however"s, many at the beginning of sentences. I'd trim most of them out, as they can be red rags (or red flags) at FAC.

Lead

  • "Painted over several summers ending in 1911,": slightly pedantic, but there was only one summer ending in 1911. Perhaps "Painted over several summers up to 1911", or similar?
  • I'm really no grammarian expert, but I would have thought it was Chabas's, rather than Chabas'?
    • Appears that most style guides recommend Chabas's, rather than Chabas', though the former gives me hives. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Description

  • If someone is going to be so cruel to the English language as to use phrases such as "fetishisation of innocence", then name and shame them.
    • Can't, per WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we'd have to name everyone else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Chabas

  • "3rd", I think would be better as third, although I won't push the point if you disagree
  • "while in the summers he would pass painting young women" -> "and the summers painting young women"
    • Reworked for Tim earlier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nudity and art

  • Brauer. Who?

Wide-spread reproduction

  • "suspenders": you may want to clarify (or just omit) this example. These are suspenders in Britain and a few other places, and you certainly will make people think about lewdness if their minds go in that direction!
    • Fair enough. Gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "persons in possession": what's wrong with people?
    • I believe it's based in the existence of the term "legal persons", but that may just be me justifying my own lack of writing skills. People now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all very focussed on the US. Was there any effect elsewhere in the world, or was it only Americans who got hot under the collar over it?
    • I haven't seen information on any controversy elsewhere. (The Chicago and New York cases are both specifically mentioned in several overview articles, hence why I go into greater detail here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Paris

  • It jars a little to have gone through the US controversy and mentions of Marilyn Monroe, only to come back to 1913 and the move to Russia. I'm not entirely sure of the best way to do it, but it may be worth thinking of the painting's provenance in one section, from Salon display to Met acquisition, and then look at the reproduction and imitation as part of the reception. I'll leave it to you, but that may be a little more logical.
    • Was considering it, but a lot of the subsequent discussion relies on an understanding of the controversy (why were people claiming to have the original? why were people worried it was destroyed in the October Revolution?) We could move the last two paragraphs to a new "Commercial success" subsection of reception, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Acquisition by the Metropolitan

  • "to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in New York": you've already told us that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is shortened to the Met.

Feel free to ping if you want me to explain or answer anything, and please do let me know when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, SchroCat, though I am rather curious what you think about Tim's point on the last paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree and, indeed, insist: see my full commment above. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nit-picks from Cass[edit]

  • In the first para of the lead we say that the work was completed in 1911, so why does the info box say 1912?
  • "Songs were written about it, stage shows imitated it, and films were produced inspired by it." – a lot of repetition of "it", perhaps that was the idea, but it doesn't quite work for me. Also, "produced inspired by it" seems wrong. I think "produced" could be lost quite easily and it would still work.
  • "...had only arranged for numerous reproductions of the painting to be made and sent to New York" -- "only" suggests a small, precise amount, while "numerous" suggests a vague amount, but quite a lot. The two contradict each other a bit and it would read a bit better with "only" omitted IMO.
  • Good point, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice gallery!
  • "Ultimately some 7 million reproductions of September Morn were sold, and the "steady stream" of reproductions continued" -- reproductions/reproductions repetition; could the two sentences not be linked up to save on this? "Ultimately some 7 million reproductions of September Morn were sold, and have continued to sell at a healthy rate since"... or something like that. Not great, but I'm sure there is better that could avoid the small repetition. Also, why is "steady stream" in quote marks with no apparant author? If you do choose to keep this, I would lose the inverts as I don't feel they add much without an author.

That's my lot, adopt or disregard at your will. Nice work Crisco! Cassiantotalk 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

It's a little long and my time is short right now, so I'll do this in tranches. Looks very good.

Lede
  • "Its use of lighting and subject matter is typical of Chabas' work" can something brief, for example how Chabas's lighting was distinctive, be added as an illustration?
  • " and when the October Revolution broke out in 1917" perhaps "and in the aftermath of the October Revolution of 1917." I doubt this pic was the first thing on people's minds.
  • "positive reviews during the 1912 Salon, though reviews" reviews ... reviews. Suggest "appraisals" for the second one.
Background
  • "established career" maybe "established reputation"?
  • Are you comfortable with the italicization of the various French words?
  • Chevalier et al., do you mean? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
That was the one I had focused on.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Chabas is cited as having studied" Is there doubt? For that is what is being expressed
  • The Met source which I cite expresses some doubt, yes. "According to catalogues of the Salon, ... Chabas was a Bouguereau and of Robert Fleury. The latest edition of Thieme-Becker, however ... withdraws the name of Bouguereau ... [and declares] that he studied under A. Maignan and Robert Fleury". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "output" For some reason, I feel this word is a bit ill-suited due to its tech aspect. Maybe "production"?
  • Fairly certain "output" is acceptable here, but changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The lakes and rivers of France were common settings for his paintings," Yeah, we know. You told us in the previous paragraph, or at least strongly implied it
  • "attributes this setting " If we are talking about the nekkid ladies and the light and the placement by bodies of water--then that's too much to be described as "setting".
  • Gone with "Style". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Nude etc
  • "French Salons" Salons properly capped?
  • I might quarrel with the implication that the nude male had disappeared from French art by the end of the 19th century. I have an official medal from the 1889 Exposition in Paris with one, not dissimilar to one created by Saint-Gaudens (who studied in France) for the 1893 Chicago fair (St-G's one didn't get past the censors, see Saint-Gaudens double eagle)
  • "had become more common than", rather than "had supplanted". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • " (important to the upper-class) " What was?
  • (a trait important to the upper-class) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Creation\
  • Can the location be established with a distance and direction from a city of note, preferably Paris?
  • A little over 500km. Added, with ref. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we know Marthe's age at the time of the painting?
  • sixteen-year-old added. Can't remember when this disappeared... coulda sworn I added it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "marred by scandal" Assumes facts not in evidence, as we lawyers say. You should at least allude to the post-release scandal in the body before this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought "the controversy over the painting" would be enough, but I've added "twenty-four years after September Morn drew controversy in the United States," — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Paris Salon
  • "Leon Mantashev in c. 1913;" I don't think you can use "in" if you are using "c."
  • The whole bit about who says who bought it where seems to meander a bit. I think it could be tightened.
Chicago and NY
  • "the owner of the gallery" mean you the photography shop? Whatever that is?
  • "the city's art censor Jeremiah O'Connor argued" He was a prosecution witness. Testified?
  • "the dealership had sold every print they had" I would say "it had" but this could be a Commonwealth English thing.
  • This is supposed to be American English, so gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The historian Walter M. Kendrick attributes this to his showing leniency as September Morn was a work of art" That seems a non sequitur.
  • The ending of this paragraph should be shortened to something pithy like "Comstock knew he had no case."
  • Indeed, that's one of the positions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "was likewise positive," cut. Her words speak for themselves
Later sections
  • "in a 1915 state fair" "at" for "in". I would say "at the 1915 Wisconsin State Fair" (assuming I have that right). And in this paragraph, you use "references" to the painting. "Allusions" might also work well.
  • Not stated explicitly, but clear from the context. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Russia
  • "and after the outbreak of the October Revolution the painting was feared destroyed;[96] after" Dislike the serial "after"
Reception
  • "However, not having copyrighted the work, he did not receive any royalties from the marketing frenzy in the United States;" But you make reference to a copyright and magazines not acknowledging it being fined, for example Vogue.
  • A confusing point, but it appears that Chabas did not copyright it, yet Ortiz (having made the reproductions) claimed to have copyright and represent the artist. Nothing discussed in the sources, sadly, particularly whether this would have been Copyfraud. The Always in Vogue source states "As agents for the artist, Braun et Compagnie decreed a charge and mention of the copyright by any newspaper or periodical asking for reproduction rights. Failing one or both of these conditions, a penalty of five hundred to a thousand dollars would be imposed against the offender or legal action might be brought". Trim? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's about it. I would say generally excellent, but the way in which the opinions of sources (especially newspapers) are introduced is a bit awkward sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro[edit]

Lead

  • "leaning slightly forward in an ambiguous posture of either attempting to protect her modesty or huddle against the cold": Maybe "leaning slightly forward in an ambiguous posture, to either protect her modesty or huddle against the cold"? Not sure it's an improvement but fewer words usually good.
  • Not sure it reads as well, sorry — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although several women have claimed to be the model": I don't think anyone is claiming anymore, so could "have" go?
    • (Reminded of the plot of Titanic). Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "although sources disagree as to its first owner": Maybe "although its first owner is unclear"?
  • "Reproductions of the painting caused controversy beginning in 1913": I generally prefer "From 1913, reproductions..." or similar, but not a big deal and really a matter of personal preference.
  • "As censorship and art were debated in newspapers, and despite the threat of censure, over the next several years September Morn was reproduced in a variety of forms": Maybe move "over the next several years" to the start of the sentence? (And "next few years" sounds more natural to me, but maybe it's an engvar thing)
  • "Though the innocence of the model has been praised, the work has also been argued to be a voyeuristic and paedophilically provocative image." While I can appreciate why this is in the lead, does the weighting of these comments deserve a place in the lead?
  • An artefact of the debate on the talk page, to try and appease editors who think the article is too pro-Chabas. I think it's an important point... how's this?

Description

  • "if a bit darker": Maybe "a little darker" is more elegant.
  • "This pose has been variously interpreted as the subject protecting herself from the cold,[1] covering her modesty,[4] or sponge bathing,[5] or as the artist's "fetishisation of innocence"." It is a little odd that the interpretations date from 1912, 1913, 2004 and 2011. Is there no overview, or an opinion from any time 1914-2003?
    • Oddly, none of the "overview" sources actually discuss the various interpretations. This work has been treated, mostly, as a historical artefact and not a work of art; I guess that's why. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Background

  • "First participating in the Paris Salon in 1886,[11] Chabas regularly submitted his work to the venue": I wonder is the emphasis wrong here. What about "Chabas regularly submitted his work to the Paris Salon, first participating in 1886"?
  • "Chabas spent the winters working in Paris": Ignoring WP:SEASON (which is a silly idea, in my humble opinion; it is quite clear here, for example, which hemisphere we are talking about!), should this be "his winters"?
  • "Chabas is cited as having studied...": Cited by who? Maybe rephrase to avoid the question.
  • Various sources, as quoted above. Do you think I should say "variously" or something similar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That works nicely. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The lakes and rivers of France were common settings for his paintings, and the interaction of light with the models and surroundings was prominent": Not quite sure that the end of that sentence is clear enough. What about "which had a prominent focus of the interaction of light with the models"?
  • "J. Valmy-Baysse, in a 1910 overview of the artist, attributes this setting": Maybe "the predominance/focus/similar on this setting"
  • Now "style", so "predominance" etc don't work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "female models had supplanted male ones beginning in the early 19th century": Maybe "female models had begun to supplant male ones in the early 19th century"
  • Reworked for Wehwalt. See what you think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Other schools, such as the hostess Suzanne Delve, who later claimed to have stood for September Morn, said that models were willing to provide "service to art" by posing nude for such works.": This sentence loses me a little, but I'm quite possibly being thick.
  • Wow, how'd that pass GAC. Thanks, looks like an aborted idea which I forgot to trim. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • "However, by the early 1910s, the Australian art historian Fae Brauer writes, the line between art and pornography was blurred": Drowning in a sea of commas here! Any way to reword?
  • "who she said had known her since she was an infant": Maybe "had known her from being an infant" is more elegant. But not too sure, to be honest.
  • How's losing "she said"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Identity of model

  • What a load of fuss! I wonder what the sources for all your sources are? And I wonder if they knew of each others' existence? For most of them must be bollocks! (No action required here, forgive the rant)
  • Indeed. It's a common theme in this article. Might want to lampshade it with the Met's commentary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Down to the end of this section. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

History:

  • "not planning on selling the painting": Better as "planning not to sell"?
  • "According to the Met, the New York-based Philip (or Philippe) Ortiz, manager of the New York Branch of Braun and Company, had purchased the painting in late 1912": Can we lose the "had"?
  • There is a semi-colon at the end of the above sentence, but a capital letter for "According".
  • "the newspaper writes that he never brought the painting back to the United States": A pedant says: A newspaper can't write anything. A tweak may be in order.
  • "and on his request the case was brought to trial on March 18": "at his request" sounds better to me, but may be engvar again.
  • No, this is likely a brain fart from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Mayor Harrison later stated that he was "through" with the painting, saying "Chicago has been made the laughing stock of the whole country because of this bathing girl picture".": Is he regretting his actions or getting in a last dig?
  • "According to a 1973 Associated Press report September Morn was the first nude used for calendars": Do we have anything more reliable to back this up?
  • That might work better. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Down to "reproduction" section now. The rest tomorrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The rest from me

  • No action required, I don't think, but the list of acts, songs, postcards, etc drags a little more than the rest of this article, the rest of which bounces along merrily.
  • Sorry. I do think that examples are important here, and since we don't have any overviews saying "x many kinds of postcards were created", we can't draw similar conclusions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "By 1933 Chabas was seeking information regarding his work's fate, which The Milwaukee Journal suggested to be "hanging in some crowded Russian room, its owner perhaps completely ignorant of its world fame".": Maybe "suggested was" would be less awkward?
  • I think that's acceptable. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "At the time several American galleries had copies which were purported to be the original."
  • "However, the painting was safe; Mantashev had smuggled it out of the country": I think "However" is a slightly awkward start to a paragraph.
  • "the Met took September Morn off display and sent it to storage": To me, this would be better as "the Met removed September Morn from display and placed it in storage".
  • File:Chabas and September Morn.jpg: This is so dark, you can barely see what is happening; is it really worth including, unless we have a better quality one?
  • "Chabas was "pained and humiliated" by the controversy over September Morn,[38] though later in life his view changed.": His view changed that he had been "pained and humiliated"? (which seems odd; he either was or wasn't!) Or something else? A little vague.
  • The "Reception" section looks to have a nicer balance than when I first glanced at this, and now seems about right. I only wonder if there are any worthwhile comparisons artistically to the painting; if it was initially well-received, it makes me wonder about other paintings from the time have been similarly trashed in later years? I suspect this goes way beyond the articles scope, though, and you can ignore this. I'm just thinking out loud.

All done now. An interesting story, well told. Let me know when it goes to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reviewing! Will do! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 9 November 2014, 14:44 UTC)----


Academic drama[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially increased the content of the article by adding two images, five section, and have completely rewritten the lead paragraph. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jcbjaw12 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jessie,

First, I really liked this article and this it looks great!

Structure, Format, and Appearance: Overall, the lead section is detailed (maybe too detailed, you could even have a section describing the genre), straightforward, and clear. As well, the article has a well structured body with headings the organize the contents. I do think you could add a section on the significance of academic drama so that we know its historical importance, what it effected, and why it matters. Your article has plenty of useful links in the text and a great reference section. I think a great place to add links might be in the list of plays and playwrights. I could imagine a reader wanting to be able to click to learn more about a particular piece.

Content and Sources: The information is very clear, relevant, accurate, and comprehensive. As I mentioned before, there could be a bit more history/historical development in terms of what led scholars to create academic drama and what was gained after they did. I really appreciated the way you backed up your statements with stories that showed how you got there.

Overall: I think this article is looking really good and much improved. I think readers will find this page very useful! Hopefully my comments help a little. Great Job!

Gilliark (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The article looks great and I've looked through your edits. You've obviously improved this article substantially.

Structure: The lead section has a lot of information and clearly states what the article is all about. The way you've organized your content makes sense and the artiucle flows well. The in text citations are very helpful and you could probably add a few more. I also enjoyed how in deopth your "classic drama performed" and "English Drama Performed" section.

Content: The added information to this article is clear and comprehensive. I learned a lot from reading this article and you made the information seem accessible even though you're talking about events that occurred in the 16th centuury. This article is very readable.

Sources: Information was cited really well, the sources used were legitamite and accurate. Again, you've transformed this article and I found it comprehensive and readable.

I do agree with Gillian. A section regarding Historical Signifigance could include the result of these academic dramas, influenced works and historical figures, and the affect ion the art form in general.

I hope my comments helped Jessie!

Minor feedback[edit]

It's a really nice expansion on the article. However, you might want to link the term classical drama and add a link or few words to explain what neoclassical drama is - knowing nothing of the topic, I'm not quite sure what that is. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 9 November 2014, 01:29 UTC)----


Shakespeare's late romances[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feed back on what more to add. I have covered many aspects of the plays, but I feel there are more areas to cover. Also, I'm worried that the writing feels a bit disjointed, and any suggestions on how to clean it up would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Deliirving (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Deliirving. Below I have listed some notes on the article, as requested. I have broken the review into notes by section, followed by ratings according to the Quantitative Article Quality Metric (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment)

Lead Section

  • Change last sentence to make "Shakespeare" possessive ("Shakespeare's)
  • Also, in last sentence choose a different word from "things." What does "things" refer to?

Labeling and structure

  • According to the Wikipedia style manual, headers should be written in sentence form, as are the article titles. With this in mind, don't capitalize "structure."
  • 1st sentence: be careful about using words like "them" or "it," as it becomes confusing to the reader what you are referring to. Opt for more specific wording.
  • I think the 2nd sentence may be broken into smaller sentences. What is the "its" whose the editors listed? By creating shorter sentences, you increase the clarity of the writing.
  • When you speak of tragedy and comedy, are you referring specifically to Shakespeare's plays or the genre as a whole?

Defining characteristics

  • You don't need to include commas and semicolons at the ends of the bullet points. The fact that you are using bullet points instructs the reader that you are making a list.

Tragicomedy

  • Just an idea: what would happen if you changed the section header to something more specific, such as "Tragicomic influence"?
  • When it says the romances are more tragicomic than the comedies, does it mean that romances were related more closely to tragicomedies or does it mean that the romances possessed more tragicomic elements than the comedies possessed? And once again, is this comedy as a genre or Shakespeare works?
  • The second paragraph in this section wants a citation.

History

  • This section often switches between futuristic verb tenses (as though Shakespeare is alive) and past tense verbs. As this is history, past tense is best suited.
  • The comment about Blackfriars having a more sophisticated audience is interesting. Is there any research you can add as to why that was and how this is known?

Performances

  • Is there any particular order that the information is presented? Perhaps listing productions by date would organizing.

Metric Rating

  • Comprehensiveness: 7 (I think some expansion on the history surrounding the writing is necessary.)
  • Sourcing: 4 (As noted above, there is one paragraph without citation.)
  • Neutrality: 3 (You appear to provide contrasting viewpoints when possible, particularly in the criticism section.)
  • Readability: 2 (Some minor edits are needed. Try reading the article aloud to catching sneaky typos.)
  • Formatting: 2 (Just fix that header and you're good to go!)
  • Illustrations: 1 (You picked a relevant image for the article, but it would be supported with more.)

Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jcbjaw12 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dave, Other Jessie's edits were very thorough, and I second her feedback. In reference to the feedback you were seeking, I don't find the writing to be terribly disjointed at all. In terms of content I think you cover a lot and the only major thing I judge is missing is the potential influence of Shakespeare's biography on the writing of his later plays. Perhaps this could be added to the history section, which would then be 'history and biography'. The death of Shakespeare's son and his return to Stratford and time spent with his daughters before writing the late romances, for example may well have influenced the father/daughter relationships that appear in each. More specifics:

  • I like the heading 'defining characteristics' and will add that to my own 'qualifiers' section by your advice
  • I find your structuring of the article easy to follow and comprehensive
  • Very effective notes/citations/sources
  • You could add a modern visual for the performances section if you find one that suits, or you could add an image of Shakespeare, the folio or quartos, etc.

There is a lot of content and I believe all you really need is fine-tuning. Always Jessiechapman (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice work on the expansion. One thing you could do to improve the article would be to link a lot of the names in the Performances section. People like Samuel Phelps, Henry Irving, and most of the others have Wikipedia articles about them. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 8 November 2014, 22:46 UTC)----


Noh[edit]

I am editing this article as an educational assignment for my theatre history course, and I've listed this article for peer review for any suggestions on which sections require improvements the most. It'd be great if you could provide some thoughts on whether the "History" section needs more content. The article is still in development, and I plan to continue editing for another month.

Thanks, Decafespresso (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Decafespresso,

Your structure, format and appearance are great. The lead section states a clear overview of the article, and everything in detailed in the body. The sections are subsections are very well organized, and you have a lot of good links, both internal and external. Your images are great, and very well placed. They illustrate each section well. You have added a lot of good history, and it is clearly stated. There are a few little things that need clarification/ironing out, but the article is very well done.

Etymology- I found this section a little hard to read, and it took me a few times to figure out why. There could be a comma after "as time passed on" and after "except for Sarugaku." Breaking up the sentence will clarify what you are saying.

History-Is there a way to clarify Zeami's age when Yoshimitsu fell in love with him? I think Daniel Gerould in Theater, Theory, Theater says he was 12. "child actor" is a bit broad.

Masks- "However" in the 3rd paragraph isn't necessary. Also, I like the fact about rare Noh masks in private collections. Can you add a citation for that?

Props-In the first paragraph, you say "in either case," and it doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean the singers and musicians? Or maybe you mean "in both cases" or "in every case"?

  • In the second paragraph, using "nevertheless" and "including one such" muddies your intention. Do you mean the sword and mallet are represented by a fan? It isn't clear.
*Perhaps using "set pieces" instead of "stage props" will clarify how hand props and stage props are different from each other a little better. 

Audience Etiquette- instead of "there are seatings," you can say "is seating."

Influences in the West-Interesting section, but I'm unclear as to why and how these artists are/were influenced by Noh. Perhaps and explanation before the list will help.

I hope this helps. Deliirving (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Decafespresso,

I agree with Deliirving in that your structure is very solid. The outline provided at the beginning of the article is helpful to users who might only want certain information about Noh theater. The article is easy to following and understand as you read through all the sections and I appreciate all the links you have provided.

The area where I think you could improve upon is "Influences in the West". I think it is a good start that you have people listed who have been influenced by Noh, but I would like to know more. How were they influenced? Is there specific work that you can see aspect of Noh theater within/how is Noh represented in their work?

Also, a lot of the subsections are lacking references. I think for creditability, adding references/citations would continue to improve this article a lot.

It is nice that you have a fully flushed out section at the end with external links and further reading.

Overall it is a very comprehensive article and I think you are doing a great job with the edits. Jsattler07 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice work expanding this article. You could use more wikilinks though. It's safe to assume that a fair proportion of readers will have a limited knowledge about the topic. Terms like Sarugaku, Kyōgen, Sangaku and Dengaku all have Wikipedia articles about them; links could help readers who don't know much about this. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 8 November 2014, 05:30 UTC)----


Mika Häkkinen[edit]

Known as an "taciturn" character, Mika Häkkinen enjoyed success when he secured the Formula One World Drivers' Championship twice and has also competed in touring car and sports car racing. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback on how this article could be improved as I want to get this article to GA status with the view of an possible featured article nomination.

Thanks, Z105space (Talk to me!) 22:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Bogger[edit]

First half:

Lead
  • "retired" rather than "former" as with Damon Hill and Michael Schumacher
  • there are 0 refs in the lead/infobox
  • "where he secured success by winning three races over a period of three seasons." is 1 win a year a success for such a two-time F1 world champion?
    • I meant to write briefly in the lead about his career in the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters (DTM) series and I have since taken in your feedback. Z105space (Talk to me!) 10:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Early Life and Career
Team Lotus (1991-1992)

Bogger (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (Currently seeking review of New Zealand national team nomenclature based on the "All Blacks")

(Peer review added on Saturday 1 November 2014, 22:17 UTC)----


God Help the Outcasts[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it has recently achieved GA status, and I think it has real FA potential. I originally created this article, and have seen it go from strength to strength as @Changedforbetter: has completely altered and improved it. I added bits and pieces along the way too. I hope we can all work together to create was great article. :)

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

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

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


Geography and places[edit]

Berkhamsted[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been slowly obsessively editing the page in near isolation over the last 2 months (some times making errors), I am not expecting it to make Good Article status but recommendations for improvements & contributions, by a fresh pair of editing eyes would be an asset and appreciated. Regards the layout, to me it seemed more logical to start with the geography & geology of the landscape before venturing into the town's long history.

Thanks, -- BOD -- 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 21 November 2014, 22:54 UTC)----


Kryvyi Rih[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because omho this article is very good and may be FP. Criticism - that's what I need.Thank you!

Thanks, Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 21 November 2014, 01:54 UTC)----


History[edit]

Richard III of England[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It was nominated for at, and then failed- rightly- a GA nomination, but, having taken the advice of the reviewer, hopefully it could pass this time- with the advice of other editors here helping it on its way perhaps? Many thanks from us to you now, and in advance...

Thanks, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • General
    • Inverted commas: You need to look carefully at your use of inverted commas, for two reasons. First, you have a mixture of curly (smart-quotes) like ‘this’ and straight ones like 'this'. The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires the latter. Secondly, you are inconsistent about double -v- single quotation marks. Wikipedia's standard is double. I don't much like it, but them's the rules.
    • Wikilinks: there are far too many duplicate links from the article. I think I counted nine links to Anne Neville. The rule is a maximum of one link to any other article from the lead and another from the text; for captions of images the rule is waived and you can link any and all captions. There is a simple and useful tool here to flag up all duplicate links in an article: User:Ucucha/duplinks.
  • Lead
    • "The revolt collapsed and Stafford was executed at Salisbury near the Bull's Head Inn." – two points here: first, do historians usually call the man "Stafford" rather than "Buckingham"? (I may have had my expectation coloured by Shakespeare, who "Buckinghams" him throughout.) Secondly, is the name of the pub a bit more detail than we want in the lead?
    • "as the only one to have been killed on home soil since Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066" – eh? What about William II, Edward II and Richard II? If you mean "killed in battle on home soil" that's fair enough, but it won't do as it stands.
    • "Reformation" – worth a blue link, possibly?
  • Childhood
    • "a strong claimant to the throne of King Henry VI" – I think we could do with an "according to so-and-so" here, naming an authority for the statement.
    • "whilst at Warwick's estate" – "whilst" is a fusty, fussy word. "While" is shorter, more familiar, and better.
    • "older brother … elder brother" – probably best to be consistent one way or the other
    • Piping: King Henry VI but King Edward IV. The former is easier on the reader's eye, I think.
    • "his brother Edward the King" – reads rather strangely
    • "During the Earl’s life only George married Isabel" – how many husbands was she expecting? I see what you mean here, but it could be phrased better
    • "the Earl’s life … revolt against the king" – more inconsistency of capitals.
    • "In 2014 osteoarchaelogist Dr Appleby" – this is an example of an anarthrous nominal premodifier, otherwise known as a false title. It is widely admitted in AmEng, but is not used in good BrEng (though our own dear tabloid papers can't get enough of it). Adding a definite article before "osteoarchaelogist" will do the job. This, I'm glad to say, was the only instance I spotted of this construction, which you eschew elsewhere, to loud applause from me. On another point, if we know Dr Appleby's given name we should use it.
  • Marriage and family relationships
    • "pre-nuptial" – no hyphen, according to the OED
    • "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it?
    • "It has been suggested that the terms" – it would be as well to say in the text who has so suggested
  • Reign of Edward IV
    • "dukedom of Gloucester … Lordships of Richmond … Constable of Gloucester … admiral of England" – inconsistency of capitalising
    • "Once Edward had regained the support of Clarence" – I don't think we have been told earlier that he had ever lost it, and so this comes rather out of the blue.
  • Council of the North
    • "an off-shoot"– another word that the OED doesn't hyphenate.
  • War with Scotland
    • "Royal Court" – capitals needed?
    • Two more "whilsts" here that I think would be cleaner as "whiles"
  • Accession
    • "Although Richard III has been accused of having Edward and his brother killed, there is debate about their actual fate." – this seems rather short measure for such a key point. I wonder if you might perhaps add a sentence or two saying that the historians x, y and z say he dunnit and a, b, and c say he didn't" – or some such. I know you return to the matter in the reputation section, but what we have at the present point seems a bit light.
    • "He was convicted of treason and beheaded in Salisbury on 2 November" – here, if anywhere, is surely the place for the name of the boozer to whose mention in the lead I took exception, above.
  • Succession
    • "created earl of Salisbury" – unexpected absence of capital for earl here
    • "Dr Ashdown-Hill suggests" – this is the first we've heard of this cove, and a first name and a word of introduction seem called for.
  • Legacy
    • "his own vice-regal appointment" – no hyphen according to the OED.
    • "Richard himself became King" – capital K wanted? See the last sentence of the para
  • In culture
    • Pipiing of knights' titles: I find it worth the trouble of piping, so that Sir Laurence Olivier is shown as Sir Laurence Olivier: more work for the editor, but easier on the reader's eye.
  • Discovery of remains
    • Given that there is a whole article (a rather fine one) on this subject I think you should take the pruning knife to this section. In particular, the third paragraph goes at great length into minute detail that for this biographical article could, and I believe should, be compressed into two or three sentences, saying that the forensic evidence was conclusive but omitting the specifics. Those who want them can go to the other article. The fifth paragraph goes on a bit too. In short, this section runs to 1,354 words, compared with 770 words on the Battle of Bosworth and 849 on the rest of Richard's entire reign: that can't be right. See GAN criterion 3b: "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail".
  • References
    • Refs 36 and 145 look to be the same, and if so should be consolidated.
    • There are some bare URL links, e.g. 194–198, which should be fleshed out with the usual details, name, title, etc.
    • You are inconsistent with order of surname/given name in the refs: see for instance refs 106 and 107 or 136 and 137.

That's all from me. I enjoyed the whole article very much, and my earlier concerns about adequate citation have been thoroughly addressed. After some heavy cutting of the remains section this article should prosper at GAN, in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009[edit]

Looks like a lot of work's gone into this. Some thoughts from me:

  • "was King of England for two years, from 1483 until his death in 1485 in the Battle of Bosworth Field." - "two years" felt redundant here, given the dates that followed.
  • "symbolises the end of the Middle Ages in England. " - symbolises, or marks? (I'm not convinced it acts as a symbol)
  • "the 12-year-old King Edward V." - felt strange having "King" here, but not earlier in the paragraph.
  • "As the young king travelled to London from Ludlow" - the upper/lower case of "king" needs checking throughout; this is standing in for Edward, so needs to be capitalised
  • "and a number of accusations circulated" - could just be "and accusations circulated"
  • "his first cousin once removed." - this felt like excessive detail for the lead
  • "near the Bull's Head Inn" ditto
  • "Richard III's remains received burial without pomp" - "Richard III's remains were buried without pomp"?
  • I was surprised not to find more description of his reputation in the lead, given the controversy that often surrounds Richard.
  • I couldn't quite work out why there were three books listed in the Bibliography, given the range that were used in the citations. The further reading section seems to include works cited in the main article, which I think (?) runs counter the MOS guidance.
  • The 1840 edition of the Paston Letters didn't look like a reliable, contemporary secondary source; are there any modern historians who cite the same primary material that could be used instead?
  • Similarly, Hall 1809 didn't feel like a strong source.
  • I'd echo the comments above on the "Discovery of Remains" section - it felt very long.
  • I didn't get the significance of the picture of the bronze statue; statues aren't mentioned in the text, and it doesn't seem to be a particularly famous piece etc.
  • The Childhood section could usefully have a line or two explaining that Richard is born at the start of the Wars of the Roses, who the Lancastrians are etc.; it doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, but if a reader didn't know there was a war going on, and who the two sides were, the rest won't make much sense.
  • The section also needs to mention his date of birth.
  • Worth checking which numbers need to be as numerals as opposed to words ("seventeen" needs to be 17, for example)
  • "3D Printing" - should this be "3D printing"?
  • " battle of Barnet" - should be "Battle of Barnet"
  • "John Paston’s letter" - you'll need to explain who John Paston was.
  • "Constable of Gloucester and Corfe Castles" - if we're linking Corfe, worth linking GLoucester Castle as well.
  • There's a lack of consistency in how money is given, e.g. "£1000" or "£20,000"
  • I found the sequence of one paragraph sub-sections in the Reign of Edward IV section a bit jarring, to be honest; is there any way to structure as regular prose?
  • "Although Richard III has been accused of having Edward and his brother killed, there is debate about their actual fate." - I was expecting a bit more explanation here about this debate and what historians think Richard did - it sort of stops suddenly after this sentence.
  • It's worth making sure that you attribute the quotes used in the main text; "all that can be said is that the Royal army 'substantially' outnumbered Tudor's" for example, doesn't make it very clear who is saying the "substantially".
  • There's probably more that can be said about Richard's relationship to religion, and to the justice system; the ODBN entry (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/23500) gives an overview of this, and there's some more sources at the bottom of it on these topics.
  • There's a good range of volumes cited, but I'd also recommend Gillingham's "Richard III: A Medieval Kingship", an edited volume with some interesting pieces in it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors below above. Gillingham certainly seems an odd oversight! Also, re: the tech stuff like straight, curly, single, double quotes etc, is their any editing software available that could make the task of finding and replacing slightly less mind (and eye!) -numbing? Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. If you copy and paste the entire contents of the article from the editing screen into Microsoft Word you can do a global replace of single and double quotes easily. Make sure in "autoformat" and "autoformat as you type set" you have the "replace straight quotes with smart quotes" box unchecked.
  2. Spotting single quotes where there should be doubles can be made easier with the Word search button: look for [space]' and then run another search for ' [space]. That usually finds most of them.
  3. Once done, you can copy and paste back into Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 12:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that, very helpful. Now, on another matter, any views as to the addition of substantial new material at this point? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion from top to bottom of page. If you have substantial new material I'd urge you to add it. You can always invite reviewers back for a second bite. Tim riley talk 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Isanan[edit]

I would like to answer to Mr Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity (now removed, supposedly after your comment) was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. As for previous direct attribution of statement to Dr Ashdown-Hill in the Succession section, I agree "Dr" could be replaced with "John", just as Hicks is called Michael and not Prof in the previous paragraph. However, by replacing the direct attribution with a generic "It is possible" in that specific context as it has been done supposedly following Mr Riley's comment, it now sounds like that assumption (John of Gloucester being fathered during Richard's first solo expedition) still belongs to Hicks and Horrox and it is simply reported in Ashdown-Hill's book, whereas it is Ashdown-Hill's original research and speculation and I do not think it is fair to have it taken for someone else's work. I would therefore personally recommend it should be reinstated as "John Ashdown-Hill has suggested", or "Historian John Ashdown-Hill has suggested" Thank you for your attention Isananni (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I say! Mr Riley (or Tim as he prefers to be known) backs down humbly in the face of that. Tim riley talk 19:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim, I appreciate your understanding, am honoured to tell the truth. I will proceed reinstating the removed entries. Enjoy pedalling Isananni (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 24 November 2014, 22:33 UTC)----


Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor[edit]

After a lot of referencing and cleanup work, I have hit a bit of a brick wall and could use further input on possible flaws and additional improvements (a few more refs are still incoming, but the content should be OK as is). I would like to get this article atleast to GA. Any kind of feedback is welcome, some special areas of concern are: 1) Is the article structure OK (logical and accessible)? 2) Is the content understandable for a layman? Which points are unclear or confusing? 3) If any reviewer feels like it, minor tweaks to my suboptimal non-native English would be greatly appreciated (the article had a GOCE review a while ago). But of course I'll try to implement any feedback myself as well. Thanks for any suggestions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 24 November 2014, 14:19 UTC)----


Bhimsen Thapa[edit]

I have been working on this article for a few months, and I have reached a point where I need to step back and have someone not involved take a look. I ultimately wish to nominate the article for GA. I understand that there are still a few biographical details I need to add (such as his administration), however I would like to have someone's opinion on:

  • Adherence to the requirements of neutral point of view
  • Adherence to the requirements of formal tone
  • Grammar and other aspects of correct use of language.

Thanks, (Manoguru (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC))

(Peer review added on Sunday 23 November 2014, 06:08 UTC)----


La Dafne[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to enhance this historical context and highlight the artistic significance of the opera La Dafne. All citations and content reference reviews are appreciated.

Thanks, LMR0804 (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LMR0804. Congratulations on learning to navigate the Wikipedia world!

Structure, Format and Appearance looks good so far. As you move forward, here are a few ideas on how to expand:

  • Break the synopsis down by scene and provide more detail.
  • Provide links to information about each recording listed.
  • Links to sound samples (Does Wikipedia allow this?)
  • History of the two Dafne operas. Include that in the lede.
  • a See Also section.
  • Performances in the 20th century?

Content and Sources

You conflate some information on the two early Dafne attempts. It looks like this page is meant to be the Gagliano, and this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dafne is meant to be the earlier Peri one. Good idea to expand the Gagliano page. It looks like that opera is performed from time to time. Here are some thoughts on citations:

  • hyperlink Florentine Camerata
  • The Italian site seems to be a more contemporary resource. The French site is informative, but I recommend sticking to English sources for an English page. New Grove Dictionary of Opera is a good place to look.
  • Look for places to add citations.

Good luck on your next steps! Mcraab123 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I’m sure you have lots of work in store. And I’m intrigued to see where you head with this article. A few minor edits and then broader stuff.

“first full length opera ever composed” – “ever” is redundant

any further elaboration wanted on the synopsis? Seems brief for an entire opera - maybe separated by act/scene or however it's organized.

“late February, 1608.” no comma needed

I'm curious as to why I care about La Dafne. It sounds influential in that it's the first but maybe what led to it's creation would be insightful. Maybe a breif history of opera is important or at least the formative years. If it is the first, what came after and/or was influenced by it?

is there a link for favola in musica? Could you define it? Keithpaulmedelis (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead needs correction[edit]

Hi LMR0804, the current lead written by you is passing wrong information, probably because you're confusing Peri's and Gagliano's operas, as also noted by Mcraab123.

Jacopo Peri's Dafne (1598) is the first ever opera; the earliest surviving opera is Euridice (1600), also by Peri. Monteverdi's L'Orfeo (1607) is the earliest surviving opera that is still regularly performed today, and Gagliano's La Dafne came only in 1608.

Keithpaulmedelis asked for a definition of favola in musica: it's just Italian for "fable set to music", an attempt by music publishers of that time to explain what that novelty was all about. This expression also appeared in the first edition of L'Orfeo. —capmo (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I have reworded the first paragraph to eliminate the Gagliano/Peri confusion. This article is about Gagliano's 1608 work, and I suggest that to avoid further confusion the title is moved to "La Dafne(Gagliano opera)".
  • I've not checked the rest of the content in any detail, although I can't see any major howlers. The article needs better sourcing – some information, e.g. the cast list, is unsourced.
  • The image is not of the score; it appears to be of a 1810 version of the libretto. This is probably PD, but the image page needs to give detailos of the source of the image.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 14 November 2014, 05:37 UTC)----


Menumorut[edit]

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

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 10 November 2014, 07:45 UTC)----


Regularis Concordia (Winchester)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review.

Thanks, Andreabee12 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andreabee12. I am listing my comments below. I am formatting the comments by section, followed by ratings on the Quantitative Metric system for the article as a whole. For more information about ratings, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment .

General Note

  • Section headers, according to the Wikipedia Style Manual, should be written in sentence form, not title form. This means that only the first word of the header title and proper nouns should be capitalized. Examples: "The Cat in the Hat" or "Stage management."

Ethelwold of Winchester

  • Is it possible to change the section header to the spelling of Aethelwold used in the section body? Also, consider mentioning the varied spellings of the name. This could aid readers in further research.
  • In the cases where you use "which", a comma should precede the word.

Historical context

  • Make sure you are consistently italicizing Regularis Concordia throughout the article.

Theatrical ritual

  • Can you explain what "alternating song" means?
  • Is it possible to find sources to bring in the specific staging and property notes used in the Regularis?
  • Be sure to consistently capitalize "Latin"
  • Words in other languages should be italicized. Additionally, I think the Latin quote needs quotation marks.

Manuscripts

  • Are there differences in the two manuscripts listed? If so, is it possible to discuss the differences?

Metric Rating

  • Comprehensiveness: 7 (I think you can add more details about theatrical rituals and the manuscripts.)
  • Sourcing: 6 (Good use of citations- just fix the Latin quote!)
  • Neutrality: 2 (The opening sentence has a very strong opinion of the significance of the work.)
  • Readability: 2 (I wanted to give this a 3 because the writing is clear, however there are a few grammatical inconsistencies at necessitate the 2.)
  • Formatting: 2 (Just fix the headers so they are consistent with Wikipedia's style manual.)
  • Illustrations: 2 (Excellent eye grabbing and relevant images.)

Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jcbjaw12 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 7 November 2014, 21:50 UTC)----


Leo Frank[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from OP[edit]

I have a few specific questions and observations I've thought of since creating this peer review request. Any feedback on these points, or on the article in general, is much appreciated.

  • For one, there are many book citations that are repetitive (for instance, "Oney, 2003" is cited a few dozen times) and I believe it might be better to just mention each book once and then use Template:Rp for the rest of them.
  • The References and Further Reading sections are also quite lengthy, although this may be good for those who want to see the full repertoire of information on the case.
  • I uploaded his signature that I traced and I made the background transparent. I wanted to make sure it looked good and that it being a PNG, as opposed to a SVG, is okay.
  • In 3.2 (Trial), a quote is mentioned and the citation has a better source needed tag. Some websites also state this fact, but it may be sourced from the book that this citation refers to. The book refers to an unnamed person who was supposedly from the area, but was anonymous and difficult to verify. I'd like to know if the latter half of this sentence (as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!") could simply be removed.
  • In 4.1 (Knights of Mary Phagan) a list is present of participants in Frank's lynching. There are 28 names listed, and this list is partially one column and partially two columns. Perhaps this could be shortened to say that there were 28 men listed in Phagan-Kean's list and included a former governor, sheriffs, etc. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

A few comments to kick off the review:

Lead - several small issues
  • Ref 3 is unformatted – but why is it necessary to have this citation in the lead? The terms of Frank's pardon are fully covered and referenced in the main body of the article
  • Same issue with refs 4, 5, 6 and 7. As leads are supposed to be broad overviews of the article's main text, it is generally accepted practice not to cite within the lead except in particular circumstances, e.g. a verbatim quote. The citations should be in the main text.
  • mdashes should not be surrounded by spaces
  • "A crowd of 1,200 marched on his home in protest" – clarify that you mean the judge's home
  • "were well-known locally" – in this usage it's two unhyphenated words: "well known"
Background
  • There's a lot of uncited information here: the whole of the first para and most of the second para of the "Leo Frank" subsection; the first part of the Mary Phagan paragraph. All this information needs to be sourced.
  • Too much irrelevant or barely relevant detail, e.g. birth and death dates of Frank's parents, likewise Louise Selig's dates. I'd also give Mary Phagan's age rather then the unnecessary dates. Also, we don't need quite so much information to make the point that Mary was a low-paid worker.
  • In the UK at least, the term "industialist" implies ownership or part-ownership of a large industrial organisation. It would not be applied to a salaried manager – maybe US practice is different.
  • The Mary Phagan image needs source information that demonstrates that this is indeed Mary Phagan, and that the image was published before 1923. It can't be assumed that an image has been published, without details of the newspaper or other publication in which it appears.
Discovery of the body
  • Wikipedia style section headings require elimination of "the"
  • The murder note image needs a source, and details of its pre-1923 publication. It is not enough to assert publication without details
  • "was torn off" → "had been torn off"
  • "Initially, there was an appearance of rape." I don't quite understand this wording. Does it mean that rape was later discounted? If not, why "initially"?
  • "An undisturbed fresh mound..." etc: This sentence tantalises the reader. You should either briefly explain the significance of this information at this point, or leave mentioning it until later in the article.
Police investigation
  • The information in this section is somewhat confusingly presented. For example, I imagine that the purpose of the first two sentences is to highlight Frank's inconsistency, but this is not made explicit
  • "Gradually they became convinced that they were not the culprits" – what led the police to this conclusion?
  • After this point, little or none of the information can properly be described as coming under "Police investigation". A lot of it is concerned with press reports. I suggest you amend the title to something more apposite, e.g. "Imvestigation and reporting"

To be continued Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Hang the Jew" citation[edit]

Tonystewart14 mentioned this matter in his remarks, above. I thought it best to include this exchange (from my Talk page) to expand the discussion. Gulbenk (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there not any book other than Dinnerstein or any non-Dinnerstein derivative source that has that quote in it? I'd imagine one of the other major writers would have mentioned it. I didn't see it in Oney from a brief glance, but I would think that another source exists.

By the way, I requested a peer review of the Leo Frank article, so hopefully we can get some good feedback! I fixed some other references, so I think it's pretty close to GA quality. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I have not found a pre-Dinnerstein source for this statement (other than the one Dinnerstein himself uses, which is highly suspect). Nothing in the contemporary Atlanta newspapers. That is not to say that one doesn't exist...somewhere. So the tag is one way of asking editors to look for one. So far, all I've found are sources quoting (or misquoting) Dinnerstein. Gulbenk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Working on it[edit]

Thanks Gulbenk for posting this here. I changed the header to level 4 instead of level 2 per the specifications at the top of this page (commented out). The question above is about citation #60 and whether or not it's reliable. I posted above that it might be better to just omit that sentence altogether, so I wanted to get an opinion on that.

I'm also working on addressing the comments that Brian has made so far, and will publish them here once his review is finished. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Tonystewart14's response to Brianboulton's 1st part of review[edit]

Here's a response to each of Brian's points. I'm still looking for a few sources (see the first point under Background), but everything else is covered. I also updated the Leo Frank page with these improvements.

Miscellaneous (not mentioned by Brian but improvements I noticed should be made)
  • Change "moved his bowels" to "defecated" as Wikipedia discourages euphemisms.
  • Letter 'j' in "Grand jury" heading lowercase per Wikipedia guidelines.
Lead - several small issues
  • Ref 3 is unformatted – but why is it necessary to have this citation in the lead? The terms of Frank's pardon are fully covered and referenced in the main body of the article
    • I went ahead and took this out.
  • Same issue with refs 4, 5, 6 and 7. As leads are supposed to be broad overviews of the article's main text, it is generally accepted practice not to cite within the lead except in particular circumstances, e.g. a verbatim quote. The citations should be in the main text.
    • I moved these four elsewhere and deleted 1-3 as the information was available in other citations.
  • mdashes should not be surrounded by spaces
    • There is only one mdash in the article, which does not have space around it. Do you mean ndashes as well? (Note 'n' and 'm')
  • "A crowd of 1,200 marched on his home in protest" – clarify that you mean the judge's home
    • I changed "his home" to "Slaton's home" (this is actually the Governor of Georgia)
  • "were well-known locally" – in this usage it's two unhyphenated words: "well known"
    • Fixed all three instances of this (all three had the word "locally" following the phrase)
Background
  • There's a lot of uncited information here: the whole of the first para and most of the second para of the "Leo Frank" subsection; the first part of the Mary Phagan paragraph. All this information needs to be sourced.
    • I've added several citations here, but am still looking for the following:
      • Frank, 1st PP: The books I have say he moved a "few months" after birth, not three months specifically.
      • Frank, 2nd PP: I couldn't find a source for his interview in "late October 1907" and becoming superintendent in September 1908. Also, I changed the citation for August 1908 to a secondary source.
      • Phagan: I can't find a source saying that the paper plant was owned by Sigmund Montag.
    • There was also a comment in the Mary Phagan section that asked, "East Point is a city; does this refer to Marietta?--East Point is on the other side of Atlanta from Marietta". According to Phagan p. 12, she says "East Point—Atlanta—Georgia", suggesting that East Point was for all intents and purposes Atlanta.
  • Too much irrelevant or barely relevant detail, e.g. birth and death dates of Frank's parents, likewise Louise Selig's dates. I'd also give Mary Phagan's age rather then the unnecessary dates. Also, we don't need quite so much information to make the point that Mary was a low-paid worker.
    • I took out the dates for Frank's parents and Selig. I left it in for Phagan since she is a main figure and to clear any ambiguity in her birth date (her gravestone says she was born in 1900, not 1899). However, I did omit some of the content
  • In the UK at least, the term "industialist" implies ownership or part-ownership of a large industrial organisation. It would not be applied to a salaried manager – maybe US practice is different.
    • The Alphin, Frey and Oney books use this word, although the respective Wiki article and dictionary definitions don't quite fit. What Alphin meant, as she explains in the paragraph where the word is used, was that farmers and other rural workers struggled due to Reconstruction and had to move into the cities. As a result of the high labor supply, wages were extremely low and Frank's wealth was looked down upon by many in the city. I'll leave this word in to describe the Selig family (Frank's spouse), but I'll replace the other two instances.
  • The Mary Phagan image needs source information that demonstrates that this is indeed Mary Phagan, and that the image was published before 1923. It can't be assumed that an image has been published, without details of the newspaper or other publication in which it appears.
Discovery of the body
  • Wikipedia style section headings require elimination of "the"
    • I took "the" out and left it otherwise the same, although it could be modified if another phrase makes more sense.
  • The murder note image needs a source, and details of its pre-1923 publication. It is not enough to assert publication without details
  • "was torn off" → "had been torn off"
    • Fixed.
  • "Initially, there was an appearance of rape." I don't quite understand this wording. Does it mean that rape was later discounted? If not, why "initially"?
    • Here are two paragraphs from Oney p. 19-20 (excuse the graphic details):
      • While examining the girl's legs, Anderson noticed that the belts attaching corset to garters were unfastened and that her underpants had been ripped up the crotch. Sergeant Brown, in language that would prove too graphic for the newspapers, subsequently described what the men saw: "By raising the skirt a bit, you could see in between the mouth of the vagina, close to the privates, and it had blood on it and blood on the drawers...It would flow on its own accord...You could see it run from her stomach, this blood coming from her privates."
      • To everyone clustered around the corpse, the significance of the crimson discharge was self-evident. The girl, in the euphemistic terminology of the age, has been "outraged" or "criminally assaulted." And this is how it would initially be reported, yet the last word on the subject of whether she had been raped—whether she had, in fact, been mutilated—would not be uttered for a long time, if ever.
    • That's where the "initially" comes from. This could be reworded, as it is apparent (unfortunately) that she was raped based on the aforementioned text.
  • "An undisturbed fresh mound..." etc: This sentence tantalises the reader. You should either briefly explain the significance of this information at this point, or leave mentioning it until later in the article.
    • I took this line out, as this is explained in the second paragraph of "Commutation of sentence".
Police investigation
  • The information in this section is somewhat confusingly presented. For example, I imagine that the purpose of the first two sentences is to highlight Frank's inconsistency, but this is not made explicit
    • Perhaps this paragraph could be reworded. I added citations to this paragraph and split the latter half about the press reports into a separate paragraph.
  • "Gradually they became convinced that they were not the culprits" – what led the police to this conclusion?
    • For the young friend of Phagan's (Arthur Mullinax), he was simply a victim of mistaken identity (Oney 61). Lee was interrogated extensively by detectives, but eventually became convinced that he was not guilty of the crime (Oney 70).
  • After this point, little or none of the information can properly be described as coming under "Police investigation". A lot of it is concerned with press reports. I suggest you amend the title to something more apposite, e.g. "Imvestigation and reporting"
    • I changed it to that title and separated the paragraphs for investigation and reporting, respectively.

Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gulbenk response, part 1[edit]

I would not agree that it is apparent that Mary Phagan was raped. The euphemism "outraged" may actually be appropriate in this case. She may have been mutilated. Frank was said to be incapable of normal sex. Dorsey had evidence that he performed cunnilingus on prostitutes. Or Conley may have violated the corpse, post mortem, in a scenario where Frank is the murderer and Conley is the opportunist. In either case, the charge of rape was never made or (I believe) asserted at trial. Gulbenk (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Gulbenk response, part 2[edit]

I would also disagree with the removal of language related to the low wages and demographics of the pencil factory workers, and deletion of the notation that "northern industrialists" were held in low regard. Those short sentences provide some basis for the latent anger which still gripped the post-war South, and was expressed by Populist Party candidates like Tom Watson, in the years leading up to the murder and trial. This information provides some foundation for understanding the passion of the crowd, and explains Lindemann's statement that "the powerless experienced a moment of exhilaration in seeing the defeat and humiliation of a normally powerful and inaccessible oppressor". Gulbenk (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tonystewart14 note[edit]

Thanks Gulbenk for your opinions, I'll take that into consideration. Brian, if you have any further opinion, feel free to share that as well (since it's good to also hear from someone who might not know much about the case specifically). Once we hear from Brian, we can decide whether to restore or otherwise change some of the text. I also made the two comments above as section 5 headings for better organization. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Otr500 comments[edit]

This is my first "review" (2nd read of the article) so I trust that will be taken into account. I actually read the article for general readability and not so much for things like punctuation's and such, as I am sure that will be covered. I would just like to throw in that in "the U.S." the term industrialist has pretty much the same meaning as apparently does the UK so I would defer to "if" this term is used in the source.
First, WOW!! @ Gulbenk, I think that is a spot on observation for inclusion of what "might" be seen as trivial. In that context it does provide incite (I will not offer that it is reasoning) as to how media can "stir up things" such as emotions of fear, anger, and the like that has resulted in such "mob" actions in recent years. Second, @ Tonystewart14, good luck as I think this articles deserves a review and hopefully nomination. My reasoning is that this person and subject was, and is, controversial at best so if it can be covered to deserve GA status I think that would be great.
I agree with the comments I have thus read concerning needed improvements. Concerning the "Hang the Jew" content/citation and that apparently was only found in one reference, I will side on the facts. Reliability for inclusion is required. This "Dinnerstein, Leonard" (Dinnerstein) accounts for close to 10% of the references so I will boldly assume that reliability has not been an issue. "IF" this is so then I am not aware of a need to find corroboration just to prove that the otherwise reliable reference is truthful, not biased, or otherwise questioned. "IF" it is left out because of a lack of corroborating references, it seems we would be calling into questions of reliability, and either the source is reliable or not.
I did observe a couple of things in that prior to the "Lynching" section the article is very uniform.
  • 1)- From that point to include the list of names, that seem to me could be better presented (the layout of columns), with less space between them and,
  • 2)- There is a section about "Lynching" and content, then a sub-section "Hanging" that is actually more about events leading up to, and including, the lynching. Since both words means the same result with one being "legal" and the other mob related, I think this can be better presented with either a different naming (of hanging) or leaving it out.
  • 3)- I wonder if such a very long "Further reading" section is warranted? Does someone have an opinion as to when a lot is a good thing or too much?
  • 4)- I looked over (or tried to) the references (per "I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent"), specifically on Dinnerstein (First instance of use concerning p. 5) and the notes. I am not up on all the uses of "References" then a "Notes" section that I assume is to agree or explain (or something), as from a general reading and none-expert point of view (mine), it is more confusing. That, however, is not the issue here (just my dislike of use) but;
I stopped short. The 3rd reference, first instance of use of Dinnerstein (p. 5), can not be crossed to the notes as listed;
    • Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. University of Georgia Press, 1987.
    • Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, October 1996, Vol. 47, Issue 6
    • Dinnerstein, Leonard. "Leo Frank Case", New Georgia Encyclopedia. University of Georgia, August 3, 2009.
Did I just miss something or would I need to check all three references to figure out "which is which to go with what" as a title seems to be missing or some link to the specific note. That is the only one I looked at so I would observe that "if" my concerns are valid (as opposed to a lack of understanding) I think the use of "References" and the "Notes", to which I assume they correspond, should be reviewed for accuracy of continuity. Otr500 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Tonystewart14 response[edit]

Thanks Otr500 for the review. I didn't think this peer review would get any attention besides Brian and the usual Leo Frank editors, so it's nice of you to chime in. I'll go through most of your comments below with my thoughts. I also updated the page with some of them already implemented.

I would just like to throw in that in "the U.S." the term industrialist has pretty much the same meaning as apparently does the UK so I would defer to "if" this term is used in the source.

  • I agree with you and Brian that the term might not be the most accurate, but it is used by three different authors. Currently, I took it out in reference to Frank, but left one instance in which it refers to his wife's family, in which they were in fact industrialists since they owned factories.

@ Tonystewart14, good luck as I think this articles deserves a review and hopefully nomination. My reasoning is that this person and subject was, and is, controversial at best so if it can be covered to deserve GA status I think that would be great.

  • Thanks. It might be interesting to note that the 100 year anniversary of his lynching is 17 August 2015, so my ultimate goal is to have it be Today's Featured Article on that day. I might do a GA nomination and then FA, but will likely solicit feedback on this once the peer review is closed.

Concerning the "Hang the Jew" content/citation and that apparently was only found in one reference, I will side on the facts. Reliability for inclusion is required. This "Dinnerstein, Leonard" (Dinnerstein) accounts for close to 10% of the references so I will boldly assume that reliability has not been an issue. "IF" this is so then I am not aware of a need to find corroboration just to prove that the otherwise reliable reference is truthful, not biased, or otherwise questioned. "IF" it is left out because of a lack of corroborating references, it seems we would be calling into questions of reliability, and either the source is reliable or not.

  • The Dinnerstein book is reliable overall (it's a 2nd edition of a Ph.D. dissertation), but this specific quote is from an anonymous source. Based on what you said, the book's reliability should be enough, although it might be nice to find a second source. I have access to the Atlanta newspapers from the time, so perhaps I could rummage through them.

1)- From that point to include the list of names, that seem to me could be better presented (the layout of columns), with less space between them

  • I mentioned this when I added some points to my initial peer review request. This could probably just be removed, but I wanted to get feedback to make sure this was okay.

2)- There is a section about "Lynching" and content, then a sub-section "Hanging" that is actually more about events leading up to, and including, the lynching. Since both words means the same result with one being "legal" and the other mob related, I think this can be better presented with either a different naming (of hanging) or leaving it out.

  • I changed this to "Kidnapping from prison" and "Lynching". The latter might be repetitive, but this at least fixes what you said.

3)- I wonder if such a very long "Further reading" section is warranted? Does someone have an opinion as to when a lot is a good thing or too much?

  • I mentioned this after the initial peer review request like #1. I've seen some featured articles like this, but it is in fact lengthy.

4)- I looked over (or tried to) the references (per "I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent"), specifically on Dinnerstein (First instance of use concerning p. 5) and the notes. I am not up on all the uses of "References" then a "Notes" section that I assume is to agree or explain (or something), as from a general reading and none-expert point of view (mine), it is more confusing. That, however, is not the issue here (just my dislike of use) but; I stopped short. The 3rd reference, first instance of use of Dinnerstein (p. 5), can not be crossed to the notes as listed;

       Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. University of Georgia Press, 1987.
       Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, October 1996, Vol. 47, Issue 6
       Dinnerstein, Leonard. "Leo Frank Case", New Georgia Encyclopedia. University of Georgia, August 3, 2009.

Did I just miss something or would I need to check all three references to figure out "which is which to go with what" as a title seems to be missing or some link to the specific note. That is the only one I looked at so I would observe that "if" my concerns are valid (as opposed to a lack of understanding) I think the use of "References" and the "Notes", to which I assume they correspond, should be reviewed for accuracy of continuity.

  • I added years for this and Oney, and added full stops (periods) at the end of each citation that lacked them.

One more note: For the lead, I linked to Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles and put a link to the US House for "U.S. Representative" to make this clear.Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gulbenk response, part 3[edit]

If you are still uncertain about the use of the word "industrialist", might you consider "capitalist" instead? The two terms may have been applied interchangeably, by some, to describe Frank. But is was Frank's uncle, the one who owned the pencil factory, who was actually the industrialist. Watson referred to Frank and others of his class as capitalists, usually "northern capitalists". He used the term as a pejorative, to label those who exploited the poor for their labor. In 1913 tabloid language, there doesn't seem to be a lot of other labels used to describe the management/profit-sharing arrangement Frank had at the pencil factory.Gulbenk (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

December 2013 North American ice storm[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a perspective from someone who is interested or specializes in meteorology. The storm is almost a year old and I want to at least hopefully get things to a nice article. Generally looking for what could be fixed, changed and etc. Looking to get this article to good article grading after a failed GA review due to missing a few points of the criteria.

Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 23 November 2014, 18:16 UTC)----


Camas pocket gopher[edit]

This is a fascinating rodent, only found in Oregon. I've built this page up from a stub and eventually would like to propose for FA status. I've worked with the maproom to get the distribution map. I also had to do some major leg work to get suitable images, obtained by permission from an ecological non-profit organization in Oregon. Questions that I have include whether to stick with the common name (Camas pocket gopher) or the scientific (Thomomys bulbivorus). Since most of the literature refers to the scientific, that is what I have stuck with. I have done my best to avoid close paraphrasing and stick to WP:MOS, but I am still not the most experienced editor. Copyedits and even comments on how the sections are named and the article is structured would be appreciated.

Thanks, Gaff ταλκ 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 20 November 2014, 22:28 UTC)----


Pancreatic cancer[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively revised as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK and I'd like to take it on to FAC. Thanks, Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Version at the start of the PR
  • From the lead section, paragraph 3: "Other recommendations include limiting alcohol intake and eating a healthy diet." It is unclear if these measures should prevent cancer or improve outcome after cancer has occurred. These aspects are not listed with the other risk factors in paragraph 2. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Btw the current ref here is inadequate (not sure how that happened), but eg this from the ACS gives "healthy diet" advice for prevention, while admitting the evidence is slim. I think I should cut the alcohol, maybe the lot. Doing that now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Er, you don't seem to have changed the article's text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Got distracted before I hit save. to do. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Now "Other recommendations include maintaining a healthy weight and avoiding red and processed meat". Ref: cite web|title=Can pancreatic cancer be prevented?|url=http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-prevention%7Cwebsite=American Cancer Society|accessdate=13 November 2014. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That sort of highly restrictive advice (per Results of PMID 24403441) might be sensible for someone with a high genetic predisposition for a particular disease who actively wants to try to avoid it, but it just isn't a realistic or appropriate recommendation for the general population. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Softened to "limiting consumption of red and processed meat", but it is no good reverting to a version that includes alcohol, which isn't even in the recommendations. The entire health advice sector advocates this all the time, for prevention of a whole range of diseases (and pretty much "avoiding" too), so it is at best OR to remove. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, lacking the time to produce the appropriate reliable medical sourcing ≠ OR! And irresponsible wording by conventional RS is not something we should follow here, imo. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a mismatch here. The prevention advice given by the ACS in the reference currently provided in the article [1] (rather than the link above, which appears to be dead) is much more tentative and realistic: The best advice to possibly [my emphasis] lower the risk of pancreatic cancer is to avoid tobacco use and stay at a healthy weight. Being physically active and following the other ACS recommendations related to a healthy diet [including, inter alia, "Limit how much processed meat and red meat you eat" and "If you drink alcohol, limit your intake." [2]] may also be helpful. I think the current wording [3] does now reflect that advice (although, arguably, there is a bit too much weight on the meat aspect for that particular source). 109.157.83.50 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from NikosGouliaros[edit]

Congratulations to everyone who has worked for this article. For my review I will draw comparison from the most relevant featured article in Wikipedia, lung cancer. My main bibliographic reference is: Alberts, SR, and Goldberg, RM. Chapter 9: Gastrointestinal tract cancers. In: Casciato, DA, and Territo, MC (2009). Manual of clinical oncology. pp. 188-236. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN-13: 9780781768849. Please note that when I propose changing something in the article, it doesn't mean that the way it is written is wrong; and that this is my first peer review in Wikipedia.

Lead[edit]
  • A perfect opening phrase/definition wouldn't use the word "cancer" to describe what pancreatic cancer is. An alternative: "Pancreatic cancer is a malignant tumor that develops in the pancreas" etc.
Yes, I think it once did, more or less. But that uses less accessible language, though avoiding the repetition. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Changed the opening sentence accordingly. Sounds better now (atleast to me) Sohebbasharat (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
At least 2 others have changed this since & there is section on the talk page. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess it isn't written on stone, but, the lead being a summary of the article, I would have the content of the lead follow the same order as the sections in the main body of the article. Therefore, information on classification could precede signs and symptoms. Information on the age distribution of the ailment could be mentioned right next to other epidemiology data. As an exception, I would far from disagree with mentioning causes of pancreatic cancer along with information on prevention, as these two are closely connected.
Yes on the last point, though others have been moving this bit to and fro. The age distribution is rather essential for diagnosis and the worried well, which is why it belongs with symptoms imo. The article has 12 main text sections which have to go into 4 lead paras, so I think that while the main sequence should be followed, one can't be too rigid, or it reads like notes. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Since we're writing an encyclopedia article and not a public health service leaflet on the disease (I'm sure it's not just the worried well we're writing for), I still believe that signs and symptoms in the first paragraph are not at their best place; to me, classification feels better there (i.e., in the first paragraph). Moreover, I think it is a bit lacking in continuity to follow this order of information:
  • Definition. Signs and symptoms
  • (Change of paragraph) Age distribution. Predisposing factors. Classification. Diagnosis. Staging. Screening.
  • (Change of paragraph) Prevention. Management
  • (Change of paragraph) Epidemiology. Outcomes
How about:
  • Definition. Classification.
  • (Change of paragraph) Signs and symptoms. Diagnosis. Staging.
  • (Change of paragraph) Predisposing factors. Prevention. Screening.
  • (Change of paragraph) Management. Outcomes. (Epidemiology either here or end of previous paragraph)
However, as I haven't been working on the article until very recently, I feel obviously obliged to let the main editor decide on the lead. It's not bad as it is! --NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I have a lot of sympathy with this, but the "classification" bit inevitably gets into more fiddly stuff than is really suitable for the 1st para I think. Anyone else? Oh well, I've done it now, giving a rather long and dense 1st para. Really it's crying out for a para 5.Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
added alternative link to the exocrine mention in classification section Sohebbasharat (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "There are also a number of other types of pancreatic cancer." There is no need to repeat this. It has been mentioned three lines earlier; the reference [4] can be added there.
Done; don't think this needs more reffing here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Surgery is the only treatment that can cure the disease". There's no doubt about that, but nowhere in the article have I found a citation (which isn't necessary in the lead though).
It is cited (after a couple more sentences) to Wolfgang etc at the start of management. Ryan (1044) and Bond-Smith (3) also have nice clear statements. Not sure if more needs adding. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Early palliative care is recommended even in those who are receiving treatment aimed at curing it". I would use "the disease" instead of "it".
Someone has changed to " Early palliative care is recommended even in those who are receiving active treatment.[7][8]" - not sure if this is clear enough. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is. Treatment with therapeutic intent is a very specific thing; "active treatment" is not. Your phrase was just fine, but for that "it" I didn't feel great about. --NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Now changed (not by me) to:"Early palliative care is recommended even in those who are receiving treatment that aims for a cure" - ok I think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Classification[edit]
  • "the 99% of cases that occur in the exocrine (or "non-endocrine") parts of the pancreas". I know it has been explaine in the lead section, but maybe here too we should also elaborate on what exocrine pancreas means?
added link to exocrine. maybe if someone doesnt know they can click on it. Sohebbasharat (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've never heard the phrase "non-endocrine parts of pancreas", and it isn't mentioned in pancreas.
I agree. non-endocrine pancreas is no standard term. Removed.Sohebbasharat (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow me to rephrase the first sentence: "The exocrine group is dominated by pancreatic adenocarcinoma ("invasive" or "ductal" is sometimes added to this term, without changing its meaning), which arises from the epithelial cells of the pancreatic ducts and is by far the most common type; it represents about 85% of all pancreatic cancers, although the cells from which it arises represents less than 10% of the pancreas by volume."
  • "The remaining 1% of pancreatic cancers are in the endocrine parts of the pancreas". There are also nonepithelial tumors (sarcomas and lymphomas), but they are rare.[1]
I've tweaked wording [4] to accommodate (I think) this observation. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "although surgery offers the only possibility of curing both groups". This was just mentioned in the lead, I'm not sure it needs to be repeated in this section.
In general I'm in favour of repeating important points, backed up by research on how people digest information. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Both groups mainly (but not exclusively) occur in people over 40, and are slightly more common in men, but some rare sub-types mainly occur in women or children.[15] For all types the only curative treatment is surgery, and for most sub-types the outcomes are typically poor." I'm not sure it's necessary, but why not mentioning this information in the epidemiology and outlooks sections, and only there?
As last. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term". One could add "without changing its meaning" - as this isn't clear.
And you have. I can't decide if this helps, or risks confusing further. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't like internal links to other parts of the article, & I think WP:MOS agrees with me (somewhere). If I follow one myself I always feel short-changed. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Like "functioning" endocrine cancers..." The lay reader isn't supposed to know what this means; I can't find a suitable link to a Wikipedia article; I therefore propose the deletion of the phrase.
"(see next section)" added. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Signs and symptoms[edit]
  • I don't understand what distinguishes symptoms that are mentioned first from "other symptoms" the ones mention under heading "Other symptoms".
As I left it (not still true after edits by others), all the first group were reported in over 50% of cases in Table 2 in Syl de la Cruz etc, and are introduced as "common". Maybe I should explain this in a note. WP articles tend to have exhaustive and indiscriminate lists of symptoms, which I was trying to avoid. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with you on how ill-advised it is to just drop a list of symptoms, mixing common, rare, major and minor ones. That heading "other symptoms" still bothers me though. Maybe one could swap it with the phrase "Other, less common symptoms include:". --NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree the issue, but I'm not sure how to handle it. For one thing metastasic symptoms must be fairly/very common but I can't source a %. The first group are now again all over 50% per source. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it is necessary to explain how steatorrhea is also caused by exocrine pancreatic secretion failure. I would also mention it as a separate symptom from weight loss.
This has all been moved around, I'm not sure how beneficially. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorted out now, I hope. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The current version of the article has had the word "steatorrhea" completely removed. I'm reverting some of the changes that have lead to this, but I still think that steatorrhea might need to be mentioned as a separate symptom. This is a minor point though; the important is that it is mentioned! --NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC) (It was actually mentioned, just not by name. --NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC))
Linked from fatty stools. I think this is ok. It's not a word non-medics know at all. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Typically, pancreatic cancer first metastasizes to regional lymph nodes, and later to the liver or to the peritoneal cavity, large intestine or lungs; it rarely metastasizes to bone or brain." I propose removing this information from this section and mentioning it in a new subsection, Metastasis, in the diagnosis section, per Lung cancer#Metastasis.
Hmm, it would be pretty short. This article already has 2 sections more than Lung cancer. what do others think? Btw, someone has added a ref for "it rarely metastasizes to bone or brain", with a link to a PDF of the 1983 edn of the AJCC Staging Manual. No doubt still as true, but does anyone have a more recent one? .Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's just an idea. Though as I write later it will also briefly mention pancreas as a site of metastases from other tumors. NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I have now done this, adding 2ndy cancers to the pancreas, but for now kept it all in this section, under a sub-heading. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No doubt, but it isn't in any of the several main journal sources I'm using I think, so probably one for a detailed textbook. But I might alter the existing bit on signs in the diagnosis section. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually we already have "A clinical history of chronic pancreatitis appears to be associated with an almost 3-fold increase in risk, and as with diabetes, new-onset pancreatitis may be a symptom of a tumor" ref Wolfgang, in .risk factors. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Risk factors[edit]
I thought about this, but it is remarkable how few MEDRS reviews etc mention them. Not sure what to do. On the whole this formerly had too many factors (including coffee I think), as WP articles tend to do, & the significance of the main ones was lost. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Diagnosis[edit]
  • This section sometimes gives one the impression that no "Signs and symptoms" section has preceded. Some of its contents could be moved to the "Signs and symptoms" section or be omitted (as they have already been mentioned).
I thought about this a lot, but decided to keep the degree of repetition. S&S concentrates on the experience of the patient, Diagnosis on the physician's interpretation, particularly with regard to the part of the pancreas where the tumor is located. "Symptoms" are generally the most common search term in relation to any disease, and I think is important that that section is kept simple and highly accessible. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The 1st paragraph might be better suited in the "Signs and symptoms" section.
as above Wiki CRUK John (talk)
  • The 2nd paragraph, on pain, in my opinion belongs to the "Signs and symptoms" section too.
as above Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence begining with "Medical imaging techniques..." is where the "Diagnosis" part really starts, in my opinion.
But how does the patient get to the medical imaging? That is a hospital perspective, isn't it? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll be honest: I sometimes caught my self reviewing the article as if reviewing a medical textbook. However, mentioning the symptoms once more still feels a bit redundant; it's presumable and common that the patient is lead to imaging because of their symptoms! --NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One could consider beginning the section with a sentence like the one it already begins with, explaining that pancreatic cancer is often diagnosed late in its course - this would need a citation though, that I cannot come up with right now. E.g.: "The various symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are neither individually distinctive to it, nor common in the early stages of disease.[citation needed] Therefore it is often diagnosed late in its course.[citation needed]" Then one could add subsections on imaging, blood tests, biopsy, and pathology (perhaps the last two could be included in one subsection).
Not sure what you saying here. The next ref (Ryan) covers all the para so far, though most of the main general ones could also be used. There are a number of diagnostic options at this point, and I think practice is both in a state of flux, and pretty variable with geography, so I think the relative lack of specificity and detail is correct. The recent MEDRS show a fair degree of variation in emphasis on this subject. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry about not being clear; and you can forget about the citations I called for. My idea about the section would be:
  • Start with the sentence it begins with: "Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a number of symptoms, but none that are individually distinctive to it, or appear in the early stages of disease. "
  • A subsection on a diagnostic technique, e.g. imaging
  • A subsection on blood tests
  • A subsection on biopsy and pathology
And the rest go to "Signs and symptoms". Well, I'm just saying... --NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The second added, which sources (Bond-Smith, 3) say has normally replaced the first in diagnosis. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No doubt about that, but endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has the benefit of simultaneously allowing palliative interventions. (No citation handy). --NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • a) As I said before, I consider reasonable to add another subsection on Metastasis, with information on patterns of metastatic spread of primary pancreatic cancer. b) It can also be mentioned that pancreas is a rare site of secondary malignant tumors.[3]
a) discussed above, b) A more recent source would be ideal. I don't think any of the main sources mention this. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, just a phrase on metastatic tumors in pancreas is necessary. Here's a more recent reference (a riview article).[4]
See above, done, using this handy recent ref. Thanks! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Staging[edit]
  • "(AJCC-UICC)" might be more appealing to my eye than "so AJCC-UICC"
Someone else changed to "The cancer staging system used internationally for pancreatic cancer is that of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC and UICC)." but the point is it is normally referred to with the dash, which perhaps needs spelling out. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Mechanism[edit]
  • It might be more appropriate to either include the full name of all mentioned genes, or only the initials of all genes.
I've generally followed the sources, or used the WP titles. Not an area I'm at home in, but a jumble of naming styles seems usual. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Endocrine pancreatic tumors have been variously called islet cell tumors, pancreas endocrine tumors (PET), and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET or PanNET)." This section might be more relevant in the Classification section. The rest of the paragraph would probably be more relevant in the Epidemiology section.
Moved it all up to Classification. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Prevention[edit]

Balanced and direct.

Management[edit]
  • It is customary that palliative care is discussed after management options with curative intent. (I change the order in the article myself.)
  • "An abutment of the tumor": Something feels wrong with the syntax. I propose: "An abutment of the tumor and a major blood vessel, defined..." etc.
Changed to "An 'abutment' of the tumor is defined as the tumor touching up to 180° of a blood vessel's circumference, and may be operable..." - ok I think Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "After surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine or 5-FU should be offered if the person is fit after surgery," One could rephrase: "After surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine or 5-FU should be offered, provided the person is in a reasonably fit condition". One can also link to adjuvant therapy.
Done similar Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the paragraph on celiac plexus block could only be mentioned in the Palliative Therapy section.
Done, leaving a general mention of palliative surgery. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "This marked the first FDA approval of a chemotherapy drug primarily for a nonsurvival clinical trial endpoint." A citation is needed.
I know, but I've never managed to find one for this leftover from an old version. It's an interesting point, but unless anyone has one it'll have to go. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In palliative care, a mention of biliary stents for management of biliary obstruction might be warrantied. One can link to Bile_duct#Drainage.
Done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the other less common exocrine cancers have a very poor prognosis, as they are resistant to treatment and usually cause no early symptoms. Therefore they are normally diagnosed at a late stage, when the cancer is already locally advanced or has spread to other parts of the body." One could rephrase: "Pancreatic adenocarcinoma and the other less common exocrine cancers of the pancreas have a very poor prognosis, as they are usually diagnosed at a late stage, when the cancer is already locally advanced or has spread to other parts of the body, and they are resistant to treatment."
That reads as though they are only resistant once they are "locally advanced or has spread", which isn't really right. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mentioning a 5-year survival of 16% for unresectable neuroendocrine tumors in the text gives the impression that endocrine pancreatic tumors have a grim prognosis too.
It still says " Outcomes with pancreatic endocrine tumors, many of which are benign and completely without clinical symptoms, are much better, and even those cases not able to be treated by surgery have a 5-year survival rate of 16%,[41] although the outlook greatly varies according to the type." which seems the right balance to me. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Distribution[edit]
  • As I have explained in the relative discussion in WP: MEDMOS I disagree with "Distribution" substituting "Epidemiology" as a section heading.
History[edit]
  • Excellent. I just minimally rephrased a couple of sentences myself.
Research[edit]
  • Similarly, no comments to make.
References[edit]

(To be cont'd). Done.

References
  1. ^ a b Alberts, SR; Goldberg, RM (2009). "Chapter 9: Gastrointestinal tract cancers". In Casciato, DA; Territo, MC. Manual of clinical oncology. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins. pp. 188–236. ISBN 9780781768849.  p. 218
  2. ^ Alberts 2009, p. 219.
  3. ^ Crippa, S; Angelini, C; Mussi, C; et al. (2006). "Surgical treatment of metastatic tumors to the pancreas: a single center experience and review of the literature.". World Journal of Surgery 30 (8): 1536–1542. doi:10.1007/s00268-005-0464-4. PMID 16847716. 
  4. ^ Sperti, C; Moletta, L; Patanè, G (2014). "Metastatic tumors to the pancreas: The role of surgery". World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology 6 (10): 381–392. doi:10.4251/wjgo.v6.i10.381. PMID 25320654. 

Comments from Biosthmors[edit]

I am primarily looking at the lead, but I see "One to two in every hundred cases are neuroendocrine tumors" but then "The remaining 1% of pancreatic cancers are in the endocrine parts of the pancreas" in the Classification section. Can we be consistent about whether this is 1% or 1 to 2%? And am I correct in assuming the words endocrine and neuroendocrine are synonymous when used in this way? I don't currently think we should we devote a full sentence to the endocrine prognosis in the lead. It's rare and we say "References to pancreatic cancer often refer only to [pancreatic adenocarcinoma]". It also makes me wonder how often one receives a diagnosis of "a localized and small cancerous growth (< 2 cm)". I wonder if we might be cherrypicking things to make pancreatic cancer sound better than it typically is experienced. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a recent section Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pancreatic_Cancer_vs_Pancreatic_Adenocarcinoma that addresses that issue. I think we have to cover all types. That last bit has been added in one of the 200-odd edits since I started the PR; I can't see where. Not sure it's a good idea, at least there. But there must be '000s of such cases annually, I'd have thought. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If you don't mind, I'd like to re-make a point by rephrasing it into another question. Doesn't the article currently contradict itself by saying "One to two in every hundred cases are neuroendocrine tumors" and "The remaining 1% of pancreatic cancers are in the endocrine parts of the pancreas"? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact not really, but I'll check the sources & fudge somehow. Such figures (where, when) are not exact and rounding is inevitable, but we'd better not let the children guess that I suppose. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think what John really means to say here, beyond the chatty style, is to find an editorially and scientifically appropriate solution to the wording *without* fudging. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If you say so. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
added "or so". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I have split up the bit added to the lead, moving the detail to "Outcomes". The source quote is a nice example of the imprecision inevitable in such things: "The highest cure rate occurs if the tumor is truly localized to the pancreas; however, this stage of disease accounts for less than 20% of cases. For patients with localized disease and small cancers (<2 cm) with no lymph node metastases and no extension beyond the capsule of the pancreas, complete surgical resection is associated with an actuarial 5-year survival rate of 18% to 24%", from the NCI [5]. This also gives the % you asked about above, so there should be well over 50,000 such cases pa globally (and one hopes this figure will continue to rise). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from an ip[edit]

  • Re pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: I'm uncomfortable with using the MeSH vocabulary tree (primarily used for indexing/calaloguing/search purposes) as a principal source for clinical/biological classification. Some sources that imo are more appropriate are already being cited, and I think we should be referring to them. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I've acted on this observation myself. The "MeSH paragraph" now has a primarily historical focus. The MeSH terminology pertinent to PanNETs listed/linked in a footnote with WP links. (Of course this raises the question of how to keep Wikipedia articles abreast of relevant changes in clinical classification and terminology - MeSH/ICD are not a fully aprropriate guide to this, imo.) 109.157.83.50 (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Epidemiological information for PanNETs is currently in the final paragraph of the Classification section rather than under Distribution. Presumably this is an oversight? (Though classification considerations are highly relevant to the numbers.) 109.157.83.50 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I've now moved this content to the Distribution section. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • No, it wasn't an "oversight"! I think it, or most of it should probably be moved back. The definitional & detection issues seem to belong together. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid I don't follow you there, John. The content I moved [6] has nothing to with "Classification" as such, and everything to do with "Epidemiology"/"Distribution". While I fully concur with you that appropriate contextualization is important for readers (see my rationale below for maybe adopting "Types" as a heading), I really can't see how arbitrarily including a whole paragraph of frequency considerations (i.e. "Epidemiology"/"Distribution") is helpful. It also seems strange to artificially confer undue weight to the neuroendocrine subgroup that – as noted in the opening sentence of the subsection – comprises only a very small minority of all pancreatic cancers (the "Endocrine" subsection has gone from being about half as long again [7] as that of the statistically predominant "Exocrine" types to being – appropriately, imo – at least slightly shorter [8]). 109.157.83.50 (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Adding: Hum, maybe you're alluding to the clinical issues regarding those small tumors found at screening, or as incidental findings, that are of doubtful clinical relevance? Maybe a few well-chosen words here could be relevant (along with appropriate mentions in other sections, including "Diagnosis", "Epidemiology" and, perhaps, "Prevention" and "Treatment" etc). 109.157.83.50 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not currently contemplated by medmos, but would a simpler heading like ==Types== be more helpful for our general readership than ==Classification==? Imo, this would be in keeping with some of the more general introductory considerations that it seems sensible to refer to in this section (as pointed out by Wiki CRUK John above [9]). 109.157.83.50 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably, & you've raised that at WP:MEDMOS, but not a point for here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
erm, why not? If it proves uncontroversial at WT:MEDMOS, and we feel it's more reader-friendly here... 109.157.83.50 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If... 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Different parts of the page abbreviate "pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors" differently. Which do we want to use: PanNETs or PNETS? Whichever... 109.157.83.50 (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
From memory, PanNETs seems more common I think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It was confirmed to me that PanNET is better - not least because PNET also = something else, I think (as per a disam page) Primitive neuroectodermal tumor. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Image error[edit]

I just noticed that the first image in the signs & symptoms section (File:1820 The Pancreas.jpg) erroneously shows pancreatic hormones flowing from the pancreas into the splenic artery (even in the wrong direction, against the bloodflow). The correct image should show hormones flowing into the splenic vein and the pancreaticoduodenal veins, which then drain into the portal vein. --WS (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Damm! There doesn't seem to be another image as good. Can anyone else confirm this, though I'm sure WS is correct? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Wouterstomp is right. The blood vessel below the splenic artery appears to be the splenic vein—at least it is in the right position, just behind the upper part of the pancreas. By anatomical convention, the splenic vein, like other systemic veins, is often coloured blue on diagrams. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh well, it will have to go. Maybe the producers can correct it. Unfortunately the Commons images are not well categorized at all, but I can't see a decent substitute. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC).

(Peer review added on Wednesday 12 November 2014, 15:28 UTC)----


Coal ball[edit]

Previous peer review

The previous peer review had no comments, and after a long absence from editing Wikipedia I would like to know how to proceed.

Thanks, Σσς(Sigma) 23:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to get this past an A class review, or up to a featured article standard? One way to generate interest would be to put a note on the projects' talk pagea, particularly palaeontology and ask for help. A class assessment would belong to projects.
  • My first comment would be use of the term "permineralised" in the opening sentence. This should be explained in that sentence, as I expect that 99.9% of our readers (including me) do not know what it means.
  • Some sentences are poorly worded, and should be reordered for clarity.
  • The caption for the image under "content" has no clear connection with the image, what is in the picture?
  • The distribution section could have more details as to location rather than just countries.
  • There should be more detail on what X-ray powder diffraction has found rather than just generalizations.
  • Are there current examples of the formation of this material? Can it be made artificially? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. My goal is to bring this to FA or FAC by Christmas (as a gift to my ego, as well). I will work on these issues soon. With this in mind, brutal criticism is appreciated.
I expected to be completely out of the loop after being effectively inactive for 2 years, but it's still a pretty jarring feeling... Σσς(Sigma) 02:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The first section, "Introduction to the scientific world, and formation", seems a bit unstructured: it starts with the late 1800s and early 1900s, in past tense, then uses present tense and 1970s references in the "There are two theories...", then goes back to to pre 1950s references and past-tense, so its a bit unclear as to when the debates arose and what their modern (2000's) standings are.
  • It might be an improvement to break up the first section into history of discovery, then theories on formation, to improve logical flow and organization and shorten the rather cumbersome title.
  • Regarding references: Of the 34 references I count only 9 dated references that are from 1985 or later. This suggests the potential for outdated information. More recent articles and/or sources that place historic theories in context are preferred.
  • Although coal balls are usually about the size of a man's fist,[24] their sizes vary greatly, ranging from that of a walnut up to 3 feet (1 m) in diameter.[25] Coal balls have been found that were smaller than a thimble.[19] - This seems unnecessarily indirect and imprecise: why not simply define the sizes in standard units rather than requiring the reader to look up or imagine the size of a walnut or thimble?
  • The body mentioned that coal balls are not made of coal, yet the wiktionary link to coalification defines coalification as the formation of coal: it would be best to clearly define this in text (I suppose coalification could refer to "prehistoric peats" mentioned earlier, in either case it is unclear to which "their" refers to).
  • In Distribution, the nations should probably be grouped by continent or other region, as England is a lot closer to Belgium than Australia.
  • Some links in references appear to be dead: the UCSB "Materials Research Lab – Introduction to X-ray Diffraction"; and the "Paleobotany". Cleveland Museum of Natural History.,
  • The Further reading section might benefit from some pruning: if there is substantial content that is not in the article, it should be added and properly referenced. If the sources are largely redundant, or superseded by more recent sources, they should be eliminated (why direct the reader to an 1873 encyclopedia article when they just read a 2014 encyclopedia article on Wikipedia?). There is no need to create a directory of articles that mention coal balls. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the Coal ball from southern illinois image might be moved higher up in the article, e.g. in formation or contents, as it provides good visual context that the thin sections don't provide. Going from macroscopic to microscopic might aid in comprehension. I second the comments above regarding the image in Contents: Where in the image is Calcite and microdolomite located? --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll work on sorting out outdated sources first. I am currently scouring the entire internet for papers that I haven't read before. Your comments are always appreciated. Σσς(Sigma) 08:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, I think this person would be enormously beneficial for the development of the article. I've been trying to establish first contact with him since a few weeks ago, but he hasn't returned my emails. Any idea on how to proceed next? Σσς(Sigma) 07:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 10 November 2014, 23:03 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Czech language[edit]

Previous peer review

Didn't get any comments last time, so maybe I'll try again. Any are appreciated, as always.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 19 November 2014, 22:14 UTC)----


Philosophy and religion[edit]

Mirza Tahir Ahmad[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i and many other people before me have worked on this article and i think many of the issues previously mentioned are now resolved including cleanup, intricate details, and undue weight. Please review this article and if you think appropriate, remove these tags. THanks a lot.

Thanks, Sohebbasharat (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 15 November 2014, 17:13 UTC)----


Mark Driscoll[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • It has never been assigned a quality rating
  • It concerns an influential person in an important American subculture (evangelicalism)
  • The subject resigned from the job he is best known for, completing an "arc" in his life, so it's a logical time to review
  • Recent developments in the person's career were controversial, so input on BLP issues and balance is desirable

I think the "Public Image" and "Beliefs" sections are a little weaker than the history and might benefit from some restructuring, but I don't see the best way to do this at the moment, so looking for suggestions.

Thanks, Sigeng (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 9 November 2014, 01:57 UTC)----


Social sciences and society[edit]

Briarcliff Manor Fire Department[edit]

I want to make this article reach Featured status, but it likely needs quite a bit more work and input. Anything you can contribute would be great.

Thanks, ɱ (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 25 November 2014, 05:22 UTC)----


Mia Hamm[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review before it is nominated for GA status.

Thanks, Hmlarson (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 10 November 2014, 21:53 UTC)----


Twink (gay slang)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

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

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

  • WP:LEAD says the article should be a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. The lede intro is therefore a bit too short right now. — Cirt (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks, I think it is to early for a peer review on reflection.--Pennine rambler (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is a bit young for a peer review as well. I copyedited it a bit though to help with the effort.Esprit15d • talkcontribs 19:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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


Lists[edit]

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]