Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer Review)
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]

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. The article already underwent a copyediting treatment, all sources and images were fixed and checked through the different FA nominations. At the last FAC, the closing comment suggested that further work should take place outside the FAC process, so I'm looking for any info on what I could improve. All helpful comments are welcome.

Thanks, Earthh (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 February 2015, 20:03 UTC)----


Camille Saint-Saëns[edit]

I hope to navigate Saint-Saëns through to FA to join his friend Bizet, his pupil and protégé Fauré, his rival Massenet, his mutual unadmirer Poulenc and one he never heard of, Messiaen, in the Wikipedia pantheon of French composers. Music apart he was a polymath, though word-count compels me to be sparing with mention of his part-time activities. All comments gratefully received. – Tim riley talk 16:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Thanks, Tim riley talk 16:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Excellent as always. The usual quibbles:

Lede
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph has the word "church" three times.
  • SS follows a career twice in the second paragraph.
  • "but it was influential for the history of French music" this reads a bit oddly, but it may be my American ear
    • It says what I want it to say, but I'm not wedded to the phrasing and am entirely open to alternatives. Would "for the course of French music" or perhaps "in the development of French music" be better? – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I like the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The first (only) sentence in the final paragraph could possibly usefully be split.
    • Just so. Done. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Early life
  • "rising official" What does "rising" really add?
    • Nothing. Most of the authorities write him off as just a minor official, but more recent biographies have shown that he was going places till his health gave way. Still, this doesn't affect his son one iota, so I've blitzed it. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "all-rounder" I fear this will be lost on most of my countrymen. And women.
    • How little one knows! I had no idea this phrase would confuse. Now redrawn. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose it originated as a cricket term, and I haven't seen ESPN rushing to televise test matches in the US ...--Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • " philosophy, archaeology and astronomy, of which he remained a talented amateur in later life" it is not clear if you mean only astronomy or all three.
    • It was both, with particular emphasis on the last, as I hope I've now made clear. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "gave an opus number was Trois Morceau for harmonium (1852)" it feels like there's a "to" missing after "number"
    • A transatlantic difference, I suspect. "He gave it an opus number" reads more smoothly in Br Eng than "he gave an opus number to it", I think – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Early career
  • "The instrument was adequate for church services but not for ambitious recitals, typical of high-profile Parisian churches." It's unclear what is "typical", the defective nature of the organ, or the ambitious recitals.
    • Indeed. Amended. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
1870s
  • "Société Nationale de musique" just checking the capitalisation.
    • One can choose any combination one likes from the sources. Some capitalise the adjective and both nouns, others capitalise two or one of the three. Drives you mad! I've gone for capping all three. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The work was finally presented" that is the second time you've used "finally" with respect to the staging of this work.
1880s
  • "water down" this triggered my POV meter. After all, watering down is generally not presented as a good thing.
  • "Always a keen traveller, he left France and stayed in Algiers," I'd quibble with this. Algeria was then considered a part of metropolitan France.
    • Touché! I simply hadn't thought of that. ("Plastique, Pompidou, sing the Marseillaise, Algerie n'est pas française!" – Flanders and Swann) Now amended. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
1900s
  • "In 1909 he made a highly successful tour of the US, for which he composed "Praise ye the Lord" for double choir, orchestra and organ, premiered in New York." This seems almost like you're missing a "which" before "premiered", though of course you would not want two whiches (three are more conventional)
    • Redrawn. Eye of newt and toe of frog omitted. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Institut" and "Institute" you use them inconsistently and I'm not sure which one is intended as there are two of each.
    • Again, the sources are inconsistent. To translate or not to translate? I've standardised on the French version throughout. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "His determination to block Debussy's candidacy for election to the Institute was successful, and caused bitter resentment from Debussy's supporters." perhaps the second Debussy can be converted into "the younger man" or some such.
  • "His body was taken back to France," similar objection re Algeria.
    • Indeed. Now attended to. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll make this a transatlantic review by doing the music side once I get home.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent points all, and I look forward to your comments on the music, if you make it home through the snowdrifts. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't mention the word. My vehicle made it down my steep driveway fine but refuses to return and is sulking by the mailbox. I think I'll trade it in on a tank. Anyhow, here are the remainder.
Resuming (jet lagged).
  • " Danse macabre (1874)" you use "depicting" twice in this paragraph. I suppose music can depict dancing skeletons, but it's probably not worth using twice.
  • "After the Second, the Fourth, in C minor (1875) is probably the composer's best-known piano concerto." I would move the introductory clause later in the sentence for clarity. "the Second, the Fourth".
  • "motets" a link for the uninitiated? Also in "bagatelles (1855), études (two sets – 1899 and 1912) and fugues (1920)" Similarly, "cantabile"
  • Cite needed after the first sentence of "Solo keyboard" as it contains a quote.
  • "the early Mass" I don't believe you've mentioned this creature before, therefore question "the". Also please check to see if your capitalisation of "mass" or "masses" throughout is as intended.
It is an excellent article on a conductor who (and whose works) I've always considered for the most part rather dull. I am sure it will meet rave reviews at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Der Doktor[edit]

Lead
  • "His best-known works include The Carnival of the Animals, the symphonic poem Danse macabre, the opera Samson and Delilah, Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso and his First Cello Concerto, Second Piano Concerto, Third Violin Concerto and Third ("Organ") Symphony." -perhaps put the dates in brackets after these.
    • Can do. Do you think the works should then be listed in date order? Might look odd otherwise. Tim riley talk
Yes, that might be good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "This brought him into conflict in his later years with composers of the impressionist and dodecaphonic schools of music; although there were neoclassical elements in his music, foreshadowing works by Stravinsky and Les Six, he was often regarded as a reactionary in the years before and after his death." -quite a long sentence this one...
    • We could make the semicolon a full stop, but in effect that's a change without a difference. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Saint-Saëns held only one teaching post," -where was this and what period?
    • It's in the main text. I'm not sure we want the full detail here as well. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could just add the place where he taught?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was influential for the history of French music, his pupils including Gabriel Fauré, whose own later pupils included Maurice Ravel, both of whom revered Saint-Saëns as a genius." -rep of "pupils", perhaps change the latter to students.
    • Yes. I'd spotted that and meant to deal with it exactly as you suggest, but then of course forgot about it! It shall be attended to. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Early
  • " French Ministry of the Interior" -perhaps link?
    • I'd looked for a suitable link, but there isn't a specific article, and the generic one isn't much help to the reader, in my view, so I decided against linking. I'm not immovable on the point, though.
  • "in a programme including" -"in a programme which included"?
  • "In 1851 Saint-Saëns won the conservatoire's top prize for organist" -do we have the formal name for the prize?
    • Unlike the Prix de Rome there was no special name for the First Prize for Organ. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
1860s
  • " at the École de Musique Classique et Religieuse (School of Classical and Religious Music), " -in Paris right?
1870s
  • "Saint-Saëns and Marie-Laure continued to live together for three years, but he blamed her for André's accident, and the double blow" -I find the "but" and "and" jarring here.
    • I see what you mean. I'll ponder on a redraft, Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
1880s
  • Can you add the department after La Bourboule for some idea of where it is?
    • Will do. (It seems to be the back of beyond, and Lord knows how they lighted on it.) Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
1890s
  • Chicago is not normally a city I'd link, one of the big ones.
    • Happy either way. I'll unlink, but I bet you two bob someone comes in and demands a link. We shall see. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • " the university" -don't like the link here, I think it's best to just not link it, you have a link to the musical society which is relevant anyway.
    • I wondered about that, and will gladly follow your suggestion. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Concertante works
  • Should faintly sinister be quoted here?
    • Short enough not to need quotes, I think, and it's clear whose words they are, so no problem on the plagiarism front. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Operas
  • "oriental pentatonic " -I have a pretty advanced knowledge of music theory and am not sure how the oriental pentatonic differs from the normal one, is there a link to oriental scale here or something?
    • I had looked for a link, but there's nothing that seemed helpful to the reader. The pentatonic scale is, as you say, the same in Tokyo as in Torquay: what I was trying to convey is that it has an oriental association. ("Miya Sama", in The Mikado, anyone?)
Other vocal music
  • Are the links to the likes of Debussy intentional here? You previously linked that and perhaps one or two o others earlier on didn't you?
    • I need to do a spot of housekeeping on this. In earlier "Life and Works" articles on composers we seem to have established an informal understanding at PR and FAC that it is helpful to link once from the Life and once from the Works section, but I haven't been consistent about it here yet. I'll address before going to FAC. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Chamber
  • " It is a serious work, with a difficult piano part supporting the cello, which retains the melodic interest." - is this is in the same source as the one below it? I'm not quite convinced as the reader you know what you're talking about in this instance! Perhaps if you could be more specific in the description of the piano accompaniment here it would be more convincing in understand why it melodically grips the viewer.
    • what I'm trying to say is that the piano part is a bugger to play, but for all its pyrotechnics it doesn't detract from the cello part, where Saint-Saëns carefully keeps the melodic interest. Improved wording to that effect cordially invited. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What is a "threnody"?
    • I'll add a blue link. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "and is considered by Grove's Dictionary alongside the rest of Saint-Saëns's chamber output. " - didn't quite get this at first, the alongside word threw me a bit I think, perhaps reword "The composer's most famous work, The Carnival of the Animals (1887), although far from a typical chamber piece is written for eleven players, is considered by Grove's Dictionary to be a part of Saint-Saëns's chamber output".
    • That'll do very well. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments, M. le Docteur. All good stuff. Tim riley talk 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good luck, great to see another high profile French composer approaching FA standard! Look forward to seeing it at FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Commments from SchroCat[edit]

A couple of minor MoS tweaks made earlier today, and the full review to follow this evening, but in the meantime, just one comment from a quick skim:

Early life

  • Do we need the accented form "régime"?
    • Well, he was French! But I suppose we can manage without. Tim riley talk 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

More soonest - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Early career

  • "Left with enough leisure to pursue": -> "leisure time", perhaps?

1870s

  • "National Guard": worth linking to National Guard (France)?
  • "he found support for a pro-French musical society greatly increased" I stumbled over this a couple of times and think it could possibly be made a little more elegant?
    • Redrawn. Improved? Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Much better, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "effectively killed the marriage": could possibly be worded differently, given the proximity of the children's' deaths?
    • Good point. Attended to. Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "He was not a conventional Christian, and found religious dogma increasingly irksome;[n 10] he had become tired of the clerical authorities' interference and musical insensitivity; and he wanted to be free to accept more engagements as a piano soloist in other cities". Two semi colons? (Getting rid of one there will reduce the s-c count down from the 57 currently in place!)
    • I don't see any satisfactory alternative. It's a list of three related facts that belong in the same sentence, and I don't think commas would do the job as well as the semicolons. Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

1880s

  • We have "organisation" here, but "realized" in the Early lifesection?
    • I'm a staunch "–ise" man, but "realized" is in a quotation from a (very) American critic, and I think the zed must be endured" Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Always a keen traveller": you've already told us this (last para of the 1870s section
    • So I had. Second use of the phrase now blitzed. Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

1890s

  • "Chicago fell through in 1893,[86] He wrote one opera": is that meant to be a full stop there?
    • Just so. Now amended. Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Done to the end of the biography: music section to follow in the morn. Most enjoyable! – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent points! Thank you. I look forward to round two. Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a couple more on continuing, although doing this through a slightly thick head this morning:

Orchestral works

  • "a practice Saint-Saëns used elsewhere": do you use a practice? Possibly one does, come to think about it!

Operas

  • "The critic Ronald Crichton writes ... "lacked ... inferior." Needs a source at the quote' end, I think.

Fascinating read – please drop me a line when you go to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 February 2015, 16:46 UTC)----


Go to the Future[edit]

I'd like to get my music articles up to A/GA/FA-level quality. I've managed to create a featured list discography before, but I'd like to see what the different approaches are for regular articles.

Thanks, Prosperosity (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 February 2015, 11:34 UTC)----


Lego Racers (video game)[edit]

I have been improving this article for a couple of days, and I'm planning on eventually putting it up at GAN. I'm just looking for any info on what I could improve.

Thanks, BlookerG talk 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 February 2015, 19:49 UTC)----


Birdman (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to promote the page to GA status, but have only worked on the production section: please ONLY review this (production) section. I will in due course rewrite the rest of the article, but would like feedback on what I've written so far. Approx. 4000 words.

Thanks, Neuroxic (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Overall, I think the production section is well written and thorough. I hesitate to say it might be too detailed, but because it is an Academy Award winner, the length of this section reflects its increased notability. One small issue is this sentence:

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,[8] and he himself described it as "almost suicidal", not knowing whether the technique would be successful, and worrying that it would become a distraction.[10]

The sentence needs to be rewritten to place "huge" and "important" in the voice of whomever is quoted, which is not clear. Using Wikipedia's editorial voice does not work here. Over all, though, the section looks good! --Zfish118 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Zfish118: Thanks for your feedback. Too detailed? Believe me, I struggled to keep information out after the hundreds of interviews I read! But in seriousness I do consider it an important movie, completing the trifecta of 2014's masterpieces (along with The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood.) I think this and the film's atypical production approach warrants the level of exposition.
Addressing your concern, would it be suitable replacing the line you mentioned by adding authorship such as

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; according to Dinelaris and Giacobone "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,[8]...

or would it be better to reduce specificity?

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; several people told him not to even try the project,[8]...

Cheers, Neuroxic (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the first rewrite ("according to Dinelaris and Giacobone..." presents their point view that the author was strongly cautioned against the project better. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Zfish118:Changes made! Thanks again for taking the time to look through it. Neuroxic (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 February 2015, 12:23 UTC)----


Gasparo Cairano[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this contains detailed information on a prolific yet hitherto little-known Renaissance sculptor, and the original Italian article from which it has been translated has been rated 'good'.

I would in particular welcome

  1. a review of the translation itself.
  2. any suggestions for improvement, additional information, available images.

Thanks, Feanor0 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

I would first thank you for the work you have done for Gasparo Cairano. However, I do not think that working on Italian Work is sufficient for this work. I think personally that consulting French Wikipedia for example for further information can make a very influencing difference. However, translation cannot be sufficient of such works... More information should be afforded in order to get better work about Gasparo Cairano

  • Biography: I think personally that the work had succeeded to give an overview about the huge lack of information about the artist. However, it could be bettered by specifying the close relationship between him and ssome rich and famous families...
  • Arts: The work has succeeded to describe all the artistic works that Gasparo Cairano had done with some description... However, it has not benefited from the works in Italian Wikipedia: Itinerario critico di Gasparo Cairano and Opere di Gasparo Cairano. These works can give further and useful information about the Italian Artist such as the circumstances in which the works had been done and the reaction of the artistic audience towards his artistic works...
  • Posthumous Impact: The work lacked a lot from a brief but concise description of the impact towards the death of Gasparo Cairano, the place in which he was burried... The Honours he received after his death and some quotes from famous people born after his death can be a good advance in this work...
  • Social Influence: The precise description of the Social Infuence of Gasparo Cairano such as quotes or ceremonies about him can constitute an exceptional amelioration to this excellent work.

Finally, I would like to thank you again for the work you have already done. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 February 2015, 12:28 UTC)----


Ones (album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to bring it to FA status in the near future.

Thanks, jona(talk) 00:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Neuroxic[edit]

Checked Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

General:

  • Song titles in languages other than English should be marked using the {{lang}} template, see the MOS entry.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • You're using the dd mmm yyyy date format, hence it would be wise to add the {{dmy}} template.
  • Yes check.svg Done

Lead Section

  • * There is a a band called The Ones and a tv show episode of the same name; there should be appropriate disambiguation. Perhaps use the {{about}} template.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • * In the first sentence, you probably don't need to include "in Spanish-speaking countries", see MOS:FORLANG
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • * In the first sentence, the original release information could probably be taken out and bundled into the second sentence.
  • * The lines below are overly specific to be in the opening paragraph. WP:LEADPARAGRAPH
  • Yes check.svg Done

In an interview with Julie Chen, Selena's widower Chris Pérez explained that the recording was released building on the popularity of the 1997 biographical film Selena. Selena's father Abraham Quintanilla, Jr. and sister Suzette Quintanilla told Chen that the album was aimed at Selena's new generation of fans.

  • Six singles in the final line of the lead paragraph may be too many, but this is open to interpretation.
  • * The first line of the second paragraph could be more precise. It doesn't say that the tracks used to create "Con Tanto Amor Medley" came from the album in question.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • In the same line "Amor Prohibido" isn't wikilinked, even though it is later in the article.
  • It is wikilink in the previous paragraph about the six singles from the album.
  • * I think "music critics" is common enough that it doesn't need to be wikilinked.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • * The line below contains information that is too specific. Such a comment about Ones ignoring a previous album by Selena in the lead section would be appropriate if it was among the general consensus by critics, but this hasn't been mentioned in the reception section of the article.

The album also received a mixed reception, with Jon O'Brien of AllMusic noting that the record label ignored Selena's self-titled debut album from the track listing on Ones.

  • This is to avoid the article from having a WP:POV issue, although the comment is not consensual from music critics, it does show that I chose to show what a reviewer deemed inexcusable instead of listing a more positive review (such as the one from AllMusic).
  • * The last line could probably be split into two, and avoid repeating the word "peaked" in such a short time.
  • Yes check.svg Done

Background and release

  • The words "'Ones" and "Selena's" are used too often. The article is about the album, for which she was the artist, so feel free to use "the album" and "her".
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • * biopic about Selena's life is not an appropriate link. The reader would need to click on it to understand that it is referring to a film called Selena. See the last dot point at WP:SEAOFBLUE
  • X mark.svg Not done
  • It's still unclear, perhaps include the word film somewhere in it. Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph, "The recording" is slightly ambiguous, it may as well be replaced with "The album"
  • At FAC, they discourage the continuous use of "the album" they prefer that music editors change this up. jona(talk) 23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but (i) you haven't used "the album" in the previous paragraph at all, (ii) a instance of repetition is better than an instance of ambiguity. The first requirement of GA articles is that "The prose is clear and concise". Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Billboard citation is sufficient for the first line of the second paragraph, even if the text in the scan is hard to read.
  • Can you elaborate on this, I don't understand what you want me to do.
  • It was just a comment, some may struggle to read the scan, but they could always find an actual copy of document to chase the citation up that way. Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • * I don't think all the other albums in the compilation need to be named. The paragraph is, after all, about Ones, not Selena: 20 Years of Music.
  • Yes check.svg Done

* Songs

  • There is little structure here. (I can see that the tracks are roughly? listed in chronological order, but at a glance this is not obvious.) Given the nature of the section (information about the songs on a greatest-hits album), I understand that it may not be as easy to structure as other album articles, but this is no excuse for listing a series of facts about the songs.
  • The songs are chronicled from their appearance in Selena's musical career (spanning from 1990 to 1995), since Ones is a collection of her "hits" from the start of her career. This was modeled by GA greatest hits album Number 1's.
  • This said, some lines are salvageable and suitable. For example the lines below flow well together, and are not just facts about how high the songs climbed on various charts.

"I Could Fall in Love" and "Dreaming of You" are the only English-language tracks on Ones, and are her most recognizable recordings to American music fans. Both tracks were taken from her crossover attempt, Dreaming of You (1995), which was released posthumously.

  • The line "The song was acclaimed by music critics [list of critics who gave acclaim]" is not suitable. It has too much detail for a single song in this section.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Once again, the link title track is not suitable. I am finding it hard to believe that formatting like this actually passed a Good Article review.
  • For music editors, it is a common practice to use title track, titular track, or the album's song of the same name, to avoid repeating both words in one sentence, which again is discouraged by FAC reviewers. jona(talk) 23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Obviously, but you have not just used the words "title track" here – you've used an ambiguous link (one might assume this link is leading to an article called "title track". When you rewrite this section you could eliminate this by writing "The title track of the same name sold..." Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

* Reception and chart performance

  • The first line is not suitable. It should be a summary of how the album was received and/or how it did on the charts commercially. Jumping straight into someone's view on how great the album is errs towards violating WP:POV.
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Again, the information is all over the place. Normally in reception sections nominations for album of the year and such are put near the end or last, certainly not in the middle. It is also bizarre that there are no sales figures.
  • There were sales figures for the album, however, these sources were deadlinks and I couldn't find them since Google removed all archived news articles if its older than four-five years. jona(talk) 23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's fine, they don't have to be included for GA status. Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Track Listing

  • This appears to be fine.

Album credits

  • Yes check.svg Done

Charts and certifications

  • The Gold Certification citation is not suitable; the reader should not be required to search terms in order to obtain it.
  • All FA album articles has the same link, the website will not automatically have the album/song's in question certifications without a search. jona(talk) 23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You're right, several FA such as Rumours and Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 are like this. It's sufficient if no alternatives are available. It doesn't stop it feeling bizarre though.

Concluding remarks

The article needs a substantial amount of work (nearly a complete rewrite) to bring to FA status. Although the article is currently listed as a GA, it is not of this quality. It does not satisfy the following GA criteria:

  • Well-written
  • Broad in its coverage
  • Illustrated by images

Except for the last point, one need only look in my above comments for examples of the article not meeting the other criteria.

I propose the article's Good status be removed, but of course need a second opinion.

  • Thanks for your review, I did find some comments that were against what music editors do to get the article to FA. Other comments will be addressed within two days. Thanks again, jona(talk) 23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@AJona1992:You're welcome, but just keep in mind that it takes a lot of effort to promote an article to FA status. My review indicates that it has been a while since you read the MOS. It is no easy task, but be aware that if you submit an article for FA status, your prose will, among other things, be assessed against this. While not all users who review GA articles have read it, (but really, they should) don't be under any illusions when you nominate it for FA status. These reviewers know the MOS of style back to front, and even the slightest discrepancies will be noted. Before you send it off to them, check your article against the relevant sections of the MOS yourself, or you risk getting an instant fail. Neuroxic (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi @AJona1992: it's been more than two days since you said you would clean up the article, but no changes have been made yet. I cannot allow the article to be listed as GA class while you work on it indefinitely, so I'll give you another week. For your convenience, I've marked my comments that need to be addressed in order for it to maintain GA status with an asterisk (*) above. (If I've put one before a section name fix all issues in it.) Please address these or I'll have to delist the article. Obviously, if you don't consider this fair tell me and I'll send the article to community reassessment. Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have fixed most of the issues you raised during your review. I also replied to several others that I have an issue with or need further information before I began your request. Best, jona(talk) 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@AJona1992: Nice job on fixing it up! Although I still have niggles about some things (such as the second paragraph from the songs section, the biopic wikilink), I'm okay with it being listed an GA status. It's in a far better shape now than it was few weeks ago. The structure and flow of many paragraphs have been improved, and smaller jarring things like some wikilinks and a non-standard heading are better. I'll say it again, be aware of the MOS before you submit it to FA, but regardless best wishes for the future. Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 February 2015, 00:30 UTC)----


Grow Home[edit]

I have found as many sources as I can to flesh this article out, but it still seems somewhat short to me. I'd appreciate some opinions as to what could be added, as well as any fixes to errors I may have made.

Thanks, BlookerG talk 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

My lack of sleep over the past couple days is hitting hard now, so I may be overlooking things or griping over concerns I otherwise wouldn't, but here's what I'm noticing (and it's not much - you could GAN this right now if you wanted):

  • "individually control B.U.D.'s hands and grab onto any part of the environment, which can be used to push and climb objects" - like what? How far can they be extended? (I'm instinctively thinking of the Cruise Bubble from SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom - are the uses like that?)
  • "The game allows players to grow "Star Shoots" from the "Star Plant"" - you don't need to quote Star Plant more than once. I'm also a bit confused, though - is the Star Plant a giant thing that you use to reach different parts of the world, and thus are never too far from? Or is it portable in some way? Or can you go far away from it? Can you call the Plant over to you in order to use its platforms or something? It's clearly an integral game mechanic; I just don't have a feel for how exactly it works.
  • "as well as using procedural animation[13] and physics-based gameplay" - I could be understanding these terms wrong, but aside from text adventures and the like, what games don't use these?
  • Add the reviewers' personal names in Reception; referring to them only by their publications is discouraged.
  • Is there any goal? Is there a plot? Does the game end, and if so, when?

Tezero (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it greatly. Regarding what you have pointed out:
  • B.U.D.'s arms aren't really comparable to the Cruise Bubble; they extend as far as their length, and are controlled individually with the left and right triggers for the left and right arms respectively. The left stick is used to direct the arms and general movement. I know, however, that it's frowned upon to bring up specific control references in video game articles, so I found difficulty in showing what I meant. Can there be an exception to this rule or is there another way I can word it? Yes check.svg Done
  • To my mind, the two barest essentials to any Wikipedia article are that it (1) be supported, or at least supportable, by reliable sources and (2) make sense. Cruft is also a concern, but if comprehensibility is at stake, go ahead and include it - besides, I think those guidelines are intended more for games with complex control schemes that the reader wouldn't really care about. (And when you think about it, mentioning that important actions are controlled by the triggers and joysticks isn't really any more specific than pointing the Wii Remote or prodding the DS' touchscreen.) Tezero (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Star Plant is on a fixed path throughout the game, but the Star Shoots can be directed by the player. I have fixed the quotation marks in the Gameplay section. Yes check.svg Done
  • While many games use a physics system, a physics-based game uses the game's physics engine as a key gameplay mechanic, whereas a game such as Call of Duty only has a basic physics system that allows players to jump and move. As for procedural animation, Grow Home is one of the few games that have implemented it to such a large degree, which is why I have explicitly mentioned it.
  • I'll fix the reviewer names. Yes check.svg Done
  • The main objective of the game ends once the Star Plant grows to 2000 in-game metres and the player takes a star seed to M.O.M., but there is a goal after the main game is over to collect 8 star seeds. Upon completing that objective, the game is essentially finished, but the player is free to continue exploring the world and collect the power up crystals. You also unlock a ninja suit which allows the player to jump higher. The trouble is that I can't find any sources which support this information, so I have so far left it out. Yes check.svg Done BlookerG talk 12:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We decided a few months ago at WT:VG that it's okay to cite quotes, or even the game itself, for whatever you need as long as it isn't controversial information that would necessitate third-party sources. It's pretty vital information, so I'd suggest doing something like that. Tezero (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How would I cite a game? Is there a specific way to do it? BlookerG talk 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Something like this:
{{cite video game|title=Grow Home|developer=Ubisoft Reflections|publisher=Ubisoft|date=4 February 2015|level=Lethal Lava Land|quote='''Peach:''' Mario, please come to my castle. I've baked a cake for you.}}
Giving the following result: [1]
  1. ^ Ubisoft Reflections (4 February 2015). "Grow Home". Ubisoft. Level/area: Lethal Lava Land. Peach: Mario, please come to my castle. I've baked a cake for you. 
Tezero (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 February 2015, 21:08 UTC)----


Sonic Adventure 2[edit]

Considering FACing this sometime later this year. All comments appreciated; thanks! Tezero (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by ProtoDrake

I'll be back in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we go.

  • Ref 28 needs its url updating. The GameSpot and IGN reviews also need their urls updating to the current ones. I would also archive the online references as several sites have been closing or changing recently. I would also find alternatives to the VGMDb references. They are inadmissible at FAC.
  • "A Nintendo GameCube port of Sonic Adventure 2, entitled Sonic Adventure 2 Battle (ソニックアドベンチャー2 バトル Sonikku Adobenchā Tsū Batoru?), was released..." - "Entitled" seems a little odd in the context of this sentence. "Titled" might be better.
  • "Every level includes five missions; only the first is required to continue on during the campaign, but other missions include completing a harder version of a level and collecting 100 rings. The player earns emblems by completing missions, as well as other tasks, many of them related to Chao raising. Collecting all emblems unlocks a 3D version of the Green Hill Zone level from the original Sonic the Hedgehog.[11]" - You should really find a reference for some of this that isn't a primary reference.

Those are the ones that stood out. I could come back for more. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by TheTimesAreAChanging

I would expand "Reception" with more than five reviews in the table and discuss the level design, which shouldn't be hard considering the emphasis some of the sources (e.g., IGN) place on it. Moreover, the implication that all of the play styles were equally acclaimed seems false. For example, the Game Informer review I used at Dreamcast argues the slower characters contribute to a disjointed, unfocused experience (I'll send you the text via email).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by George.Edward.C

I will do the above as soon as I have access to a computer. (please revert if this is in the wrong place) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 February 2015, 18:56 UTC)----


Title (Meghan Trainor album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to Good article status.

Thanks, MaRAno FAN 14:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've finally finished my comments. Here they are:
General comments
  • For the named references, there are three different URLs each under the "RIAA" named reference. These three should be separate as they link to URLs each about a different song (All About That Bass, Lips Are Movin', Dear Future Husband).
  • You have several instances were periods and commas are outside of quotation marks, and in American English, periods should be within quotes unless it's a partial quote. See MOS:LQ.
Lead
  • I recommend changing 'their' to 'her' and avoid repeating 'debut' at the end of the second paragraph. In other words, it might read like: "...the thirteenth woman in history to have her debut single and her debut album debut atop...".
Production
  • Add comma after "On August 30" in first paragraph, remove comma after "on October 14" in second paragraph.
Writing and inspiration
  • Add comma after on Title in first sentence of second paragraph, and remove extraneous single quote after 'world?' in the quote that follows.
  • At the end of the 3rd paragraph, you have a quote from John Legend which is actually a recollection of Legend's quote by Trainor. You may clarify this or at least include a semicolon after "I love this". The semicolon is not in the quote from the source, but would be more gramatically correct that way.
Music and lyrics
  • In the first paragraph, blue link to riddim.
Songs
  • In the first line of the second paragraph, insert a comma after "Close Your Eyes".
  • In the fourth paragraph, add hyphen in "nextdoor" to create "the funny girl-next-door".
Promotion
  • In the last line, you say "The tour will begin on February 11, 2015". This can be changed to "The tour began..." as that happens to be today as of this writing.
Critical reception
  • In the second paragraph, be sure to render "naïveté" with the accent marks. You can cut and paste from here if need be or see Naivety for spellings.
Commercial performance
  • Similar to my comments under "lead" above, be sure to avoid overusing commas and the word 'debut' in the final two sentences.


Overall, it looks great. In particular, I liked the analysis of the songs and the influences from various artists and genres across the 20th century. Good luck with the GA review. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 February 2015, 14:30 UTC)----


Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the last peer review did not generate much interest, and then the FAC nomination turned into a discussion about the article's length. It has now been trimmed significantly and some information was moved into a sub-article courtesy of Dr. Blofeld. I still want the article to achieve FA, but the moderator suggested another peer review first. Please see if there is anything stopping this from reaching FA now. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 13:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

The length is much more manageable: 6,200 words of readable prose compared with about 8,000 last time I looked at a version of the article. Only a couple of minor points:

  • The caption for the image of Dmitry Medvedev is wrong: in 2010 he was President, not Prime Minister, of Russia.
It does say that, but I fixed it in the sub-article. I have a question about that below.
  • Captions: The anti-hero, "The romantic hero" – The MoS bids us avoid definite articles like these in headings.
Fixed, thanks.

The article seems to me suitable for FAC now. The prose is fine and the proportions of the article are clear and sensible. Tim riley talk 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Question from Bollyjeff[edit]

This article and the sub-article Shah Rukh Khan in the media both include a duplicate 'Humanitarian causes' section. Do you think that I should remove it from here or there? If I remove it from here, perhaps I could swap the commerce section (IPL cricket team and/or endorsement sub-sections) from there, into Other work section here, as it seems less about media to me. Any opinions on that, or anything else related to the sub-article? Obviously, I cannot add much overall length at this point. BollyJeff | talk 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I would probably wait and see what the others have to say about this. Personally, I would summarise the humanitarian work under his "other works" section in the main article. And given the length it saves, I would go on and add a bit about his IPL team and endorsement activities in the main article. -- KRIMUK90  01:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
IMO, I think "Humanitarian Causes" should be removed from "SRK in the media" and, like Krimuk90 said, be a sub-section of "Other works". Again, as Krimuk90 said, you can add a "little bit" about the IPL, which I see you have already done. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be best to preserve all of the humanitarian information in the media article and summarize it in the main, because that stuff is more about media than actual 'work', and I was told by another reviewer that it makes him look too pious in the main. I would rather move the IPL stuff to the main in total under other works. See what you think now. BollyJeff | talk

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

  • The "early life and background" section mentions a 2013 event as well. I suggest changing the name to something else.
What? 'Early life and family'
  • In 1993, Khan starred in Maya Memsaab in which he had a highly controversial nude scene. He's actually the only Bollywood star to have done such a scene. Why has this information not been included?
You got a source? I found one that says there have been five others, but it's still probably worth adding, thanks.
Even if not the only one, he's one of the very few to have a complete nude shot. The other four mentioned above weren't exactly fully nude. Anyway, the information is surely important. I have read Chopra's book on him and there are several paragraphs dedicated to the explicit sex-scenes in the film and the controversy that it generated. -- KRIMUK90  10:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, you'd think I would have noticed that when I read the book. This goes against what she said on page 112, that he never kissed a co-star on-screen, and the other source that said his first on-screen kiss was in 2012. Are you sure that this scene was released in theatres, or perhaps it was censored out before release? Can you provide me with the appropriate quote from the book? BollyJeff | talk 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the book with me anymore. I had borrowed it while working on his filmography page. Btw, the scene is available for viewing on youtube. Several results turn up on google books too. -- KRIMUK90  01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
According to the above source, and here and here, all but a split second was censored, and then the rest came out on the internet in 2008. Chopra describes a slanderous article that SRK reacted to, not about controversy of the film itself. I may add a sentence, but cannot add what you said without definitive sources. BollyJeff | talk 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so we can mention about him filming a controversial sex scene in the film, in which he performed a nude scene. I can see the sources are contradictory on the topic. -- KRIMUK90  03:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the other works section, the sub-sections are quite short. I believe they can be merged.
  • This is a personal preference, but the images in his career section take up a large amount of space. How about reducing the size? -- KRIMUK90  03:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no mention of Karan Arjun. It was his biggest success before DDLJ.
Take a look at the last FA review. I removed a lot of stuff, and even then some of the reviewers said it was too big and refused to read it. I hate to say it, but some stuff has to be left out if there is any chance of passing FA. BollyJeff | talk 03:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Does Chopra's book have any critical reviews of his early film roles? -- KRIMUK90  03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the book now, but I would have put some reviews if it did. The rest is done. Anything else? BollyJeff | talk 01:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I found a scan of an excellent Filmfare mag article of 1997 here, that chronicles SRK's career to that point. You may want to use it. -- KRIMUK90  07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

This article has improved over time. Here's a prose review.....

  • In the lead, his net worth is listed as $400 million in American dollars, but later in the article is said to be between $400 million and $600 million. Be consistent.
  • Are genres really needed for the lead?
  • Best to use Rupees rather than American dollars when available as Khan is Indian and not American
  • I'm not sure if "dark roles" is appropriate tone
  • Add a comma after "2010" in "As of 2010 Khan's paternal family"
  • "However, production delays meant that his second film Deewana, in which he starred alongside Divya Bharti as the second male lead behind Rishi Kapoor, was released first in June 1992"..... quite a mouthful, and it would help to specify what delayed production
  • I understand what "negative roles" is trying to say, but I'm not sure if it's really encyclopedic
  • When mentioning in prose nominations that Khan lost, include who won them. For example, see how the Robert Downey, Jr. article mentions how he lost his Academy Award nomination for Chaplin to Al Pacino.
  • I don't see the need for including books published about Khan
  • "Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com referred to it as Khan's best performance"..... include some detail on what Verma particularly enjoyed
  • Is "risky" in "was considered risky" the best word choice?

You've done well, Bollyjeff, and I commend your efforts for this article. I'll leave reference concerns to other users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SNUGGUMS. I have used Rupees where available. I don't think there is a template to convert from Dollars to Rupees. If not dark or negative, what about villainous or antagonistic? Risky is from the sources; meaning that it could be detrimental to one's career.
  • Happy to help. Yes, those would be better word choices. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 February 2015, 13:43 UTC)----


Goodbye to Language[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into it and 1) I'd like to see it get promoted, but more importantly 2) its a difficult film and I was hoping to get feedback on how much sense it makes as an article. If at all possible, I'd love to hear reviews of the Synopsis section from someone who has seen the film and another from someone who has not.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Tezero[edit]

  • The sentences in Synopsis are quite short and choppy; I'd recommend melding some together with conjunctions and gerunds to make it flow better.
  • Who's Davidson?
  • "Roxy the dog" - optional if you feel it's unclear, but you may want to remove "the dog" since you've already specified
  • "Roxy, a stray dog, happens upon them and they adopt him" - Roxy is adopted by both couples?
  • You're right; Synopsis is confusing; it took me a couple reads to really grasp what was going on. I would suggest reorganizing some of the information in the first paragraph to make it clearer that it's essentially the same story told twice, interspersed, but with different couples. Perhaps something like this would do the trick:

Goodbye to Language tells two similar versions of a romance narrative in an interspersed format; these two stories are named "1 Nature" and "2 Metaphor", and they respectively focus on the couples Gedeon and Josette, and Marcus and Ivitch. In each story, ...

THEN, after a brief summary of the general narrative, start explaining what happens in each one individually. Actually, this is an unorthodox idea, but you might want to use two columns and tell the story separately in each one. Tezero (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can work on most of these later this week, and you're right it wasn't made completely clear that the story was repeating itself. One problem: although I remember Roxy being adopted by both couples, many of the articles I cited have commented that it is unclear if the second couple adopts Roxy. But that doesn't seem very appropriate to explain in the Synopsis section. So I just wrote it as it currently is.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I worked on this and think its better. So much of the story (Davidson is a professor, the man once stabbed the woman) is implied and not bluntly stated, so it is a difficult section to write. What about the rest of the article?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Yeah, it's an improvement. A general theme I'm noticing is that the article seems unusually detailed - do we really need five paragraphs on the works referenced in this film? I'd think one or two would suffice. Same with Themes - I can't imagine that much has really been written about this film to justify a section rivaling/exceeding what the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Hemingway, Kerouac, Charlotte Bronte, Luo Guanzhong, and the Beatles would get. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I could trim it some more, but I'm not sure about your rational for doing so. The film has several themes and including them is comprehensive. The references are a major part of it so I think that a casual reader would find it very useful to be able to explore all of them. The point of these references is not the fact that there are many references in the film, the point is the meaning behind them and their individual content. Each reference has a purpose and is a character in the film. Anything else? Clarity, grammar?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 February 2015, 10:25 UTC)----


Stephen Colbert[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what underlying issues there are which prevent it from being FA material. In particular, some of the literature used as references may be suspect or questionable and whether undue weight is given in any particularly section. Additionally, there were some questions as to whether or not the article should have passed GA back in 2010, those concerns appear to have been allayed, but I would like to know if there are issues which are not acceptable for a GA.

Thanks, James (TC) • 12:51 PM • 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

I think that it is a very excellent work. However, it can be better if you expand the part related to his political activity by insisting on his affiliation and his thoughts. This can be tracked from Newspaper Interviews and Blog Posts. --Csisc (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from karanacs[edit]

The largest problem with this article is the sourcing.

  • The article appears to rely heavily on newspaper and magazine articles. You will need to consult the two biographies listed in the Further Reading section before it would pass FA. The biographies will give more information, more context, and appropriate weight to the events of his life than simply compiling a lot of newspaper articles. Once you've read the biographies and used them to make the bulk of the article, the newspaper articles can be used to provide additional detail or commentary, where appropriate.
  • Some of the websites used are not reliable sources:
    • Ethniccelebs.com
    • Ancestor Tree
    • Mediabistro.com??
    • Comedians.about.com

....

  • Cleanup
    • There are inconsistencies in formatting some of the existing refs
    • Several links in the references that gives a dead link
    • Why does the Notes section exist when there are no notes?

Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

General comments:

  • I do agree with Karancs that citations to biographies should be used, and that the sources mentioned above are not reliable.
  • Remove the "notes" section as it is empty.
  • I'm not too sure that "Discography" is needed.
  • In the "filmography" section, there should be no rowspans per WP:FILMOGRAPHY.

From the lead:

  • "[Colbert] is an American political satirist, writer, producer, singer, television host, actor, media critic, and comedian"..... overkill. He isn't known as a singer at all, and I'd probably also scrap "producer".
  • "It was announced on April 10, 2014, that Colbert had been chosen to succeed David Letterman as the host of the Late Show on CBS after Letterman retires in 2015"..... would succeed Letterman
  • "He gained considerable attention" doesn't seem very encyclopedic
  • The nominations for Primetime Emmy Awards are less important than those he won, so I'd just say "Colbert has won siz Primetime Emmy Awards"

From "Early life":

  • "Colbert was born in Washington, D.C., the youngest of 11 children in a Catholic family. He grew up on James Island in Charleston, South Carolina. Colbert and his siblings, in order from oldest to youngest, are James, Edward, Mary, William, Margo, Thomas Jay, Elizabeth, Paul, Peter, and Stephen."..... rework this as something like "Colbert was born in Washington, D.C., to a Catholic family. He grew up on James Island in Charleston, South Carolina. Colbert grew up with 10 older siblings; James, Edward, Mary, William, Margo, Thomas Jay, Elizabeth, Paul, and Peter."
  • Elizabeth should link to Elizabeth Colbert Busch
  • Per MOS:SURNAME, instances of "Stephen" should be replaced with "Colbert"

I haven't looked very far, but can definitely say this has a long way to go before it is FA-worthy. Recommend taking this to the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. There are also unsourced statements, and a good rule of thumb to follow is to end each paragraph with at least one inline citation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 29 January 2015, 01:51 UTC)----


Saturday Night Live incidents[edit]

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

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

  • When referencing the Shales/Miller book I would only use the full title in the first ref, then use a short citation (e.g. Shales/Miller, p. 225). Also, the introduction says there have been instances of the program cutting to dead air, but there are no examples of that happening given in the rest of the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed these issues. StewdioMACK Talk page 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a semi-notorious (and semi-official) list of "banned" guests and hosts that might be worthwhile to include, if sufficient documentation can be found. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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


Everyday life[edit]

2000 Belgian Grand Prix[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have the intention of putting this article up for FAC in the near future. This has recently passed it's GAN and I welcome all comments that will help to improve the quality of this article before I attempt the FAC nomination.

Thanks, Z105space (Talk to me!) 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Zwerg Nase[edit]

Here are my thoughts on the article. I will try to move along the lines of the Good article criteria.

1. Well-written: Reasonably well-written, even though some parts were confusing to understand. I fixed one issue in the race section already. One small thing though: In the post-race section you say "After the overtake, Häkkinen went to Michael Schumacher advising him not to repeat a similar manoeuvre." First of all, he certainly didn't say that right after the overtake, but after the race. But more importantly: I believe he did not complain about Schumachers move during the overtake, but to the incident the lap prior! This should be changed accordingly. Also the quote you give at the beginning of the post-race section by Häkkinnen and the one in the quote box are quite similar. Maybe one can be left out.

I will take a look into it. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Verifiable: Certainly well referenced, very impressive how many sources you found.

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. It adresses the main aspects of the topic: Yes.
b. it stays focused on the topic: Here is where I have my problems, the article is far too detailed. This makes it hard to read at times. I will give some examples:
  • Background: The question would be, which information are actually necessary for the reader? The fact that the race was contested by 11 teams is not necessary information, and certainly not which teams. It would have been noteworthy if a team had missed the race, which was not the case. All people reading the article who are familiar with F1 will know where to find the list of competing teams (or look at the result table). Anyone not familiar with F1 will probably not care in such detail. Now about the part where you summarize the point standings. It is standard to describe the situations in both championships in the background-part of a race article. But if you give as many information as you did, what get's lost on the reader is, which of these information are the actually significant ones. Fisichella being fifth on 18 points is not vital information to the point, because he is not, as you later state, a championship contender at that point of the season anymore. Following this line of argument, which best positions the no-longer-contenders Barrichello, Frentzen, Fisichella and R. Schumacher had achieved is beside the point of this race article.
I personally do not believe that the article is too detailed. The fact the event was contested by eleven teams is vital to the reader as it allows he/she to understand how many drivers took part and regardless of the points standings, it is the standard on Formula One race articles include the top five drivers in the Championship at that point of a particular season.
  • Testing sessions: I see absolutely no reason for this passage to be in this article. Maybe if anything noteworthy would have happened during testing, it might have been interesting to add it to the article 2000 Formula One season, but it certainly has no place here.
I have to differ with this as moving the info to the 2000 Formula One season would cause. Removing the testing information would not help as it helps to explain what the teams did prior to the race weekend. This is also included in articles of similar quality to this one such as the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix and the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Qualifying: Here as well I feel that the part is far too detailed. It's like I'm watching the entire session on TV. It is painstaking to read about how "Arrows driver Pedro de la Rosa stopped on circuit" or how "Alesi had a trouble free session and set the twenty-first fastest time, one position ahead of team-mate Nick Heidfeld" because I feel those are all facts that are not significant to main aspects of the article and distract from the main events.
I am not sure about editing this section as I will need another editor's opinion on this section. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Race: Why is there information about the warm up session in the race section? I would either suggest a new paragraph or to cut the description alltogether. The only vital information here is the fact that Fisichella crashed but was able to start the race. That can be a small sentence at the beginning of the race paragraph. Also, why do you tell about Fisichella's and Villineuve's accidents in the first paragraph concerned with the warm up, but state the Mazzacane engine troubles one paragraph later?
Cutting the warm-up description altogether will be determinal to the reader. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Race: At the end of the race report, you start by saying "At the conclusion of lap 34" and later you write "A few laps later", which leaves the reader not knowing on which lap Häkkinen overtook Schumacher. While it is stated in the lead section, I'd say it's vital that you write it in the race report as well.
This has been amended. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Neutral: Overall a clear Yes. I was slightly confused by the sentence "Trulli refused to criticise Button after the race accepting the view that the Williams driver made a mistake and chose not to show his feelings to avoid criticism." I read the source and yes, that is what Trulli said he did, but I feel that following his words here sounds a little wierd. We cannot know for certain which emotions he had so we cannot know which he chose not to show. At least not in such a matter-of-fact way.

Amended the sentence. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

5. Stable: Looks like it.

6. Illustrated: Yup. Good pictures.

Overall, this is a very good race article, but too long in my opinion. With the points I stated, I would have problems granting even GA status, let alone Featured Article. Which does not mean that I want to play down the great work you did, on the contrary, I believe the problem of this article might be that you were too thorough. Keep up the good work! :)

Cheers, Zwerg Nase

P.S.: If you would find the time to participate in my ongoing peer review, that would be absolutely wonderful! :)

Unfortunately Zwerg Nase it is not possible to undergo all of your suggestions as I believe they would deter from the focus of events that occurred during the race weekend, such as altering the info about the warm-up session. Although I have made some changes have been made, I would suggest that an second opinion should be given before I attempt any further changes. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from QueenCake[edit]

There is no problem at all with the level of detail in this article's background section. Our general approach to articles is to assume the reader has no knowledge of the subject and we should be providing enough information, within reason, to ensure readers are not left wanting. That said, I do think you have written too much on the Practice sessions. Most articles limit the overview to one paragraph, incorporating just the fastest times and any major incidents. It's hardly a crime to go into too much information, but it is worth considering that practice isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

A few other suggestions:

1) The fact that the race was almost cancelled is more important than testing and driver contracts - it should probably be above those paragraphs. I would also suggest expanding it, if there is anything more to say.

2) The explanation of the qualifying procedure would read better if you modified the opening sentences. Something along the lines of "Saturday's afternoon qualifying session lasted for an hour. Each driver was limited to twelve laps, with the grid order decided by the drivers fastest laps. During this session, the 107% rule was in effect, which necessitated each driver set a time within 107% of the quickest lap to qualify for the race." might work better.

3) It's worth putting the offset to UTC of the race start time.

4) You've started a lot of sentences in the race report with "On lap X". Consider revising.

5) Is Gale Force F1 a reliable source? It's not one that I've come across on Wikipedia before.

6) The picture of Hakkinen serves no use being located amongst the tables at the bottom of the page. It'll be better placed in the post-race section.

Hopefully that's useful! QueenCake (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 February 2015, 15:53 UTC)----


2012 Brazilian Grand Prix[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it to a level where I believe it might be close to putting it up for GA nomination. Please give me notes on what can still be improved here.

Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is the right way and place to provide comments; it is my first contribution to a peer review. I have never heard of a 'left diffuser'; they are central structures at the rear. Is it possible that the damage was to Vettel's side pod? Also I was bothered by two references to Schumacher. I've edited the sentence about his qualifying - it was very awkward before. I'm worried that the referenced sentence about Schumacher helping Vettel reads awkwardly because it begins as a sentence about Räikkönen. However, it's a good article about an exciting race! Hayttom 14:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! Double blown diffusers had famously been introduced to F1 in order to increase rear downforce, a matter for a lot of controversy back in 2009: [1]. This was outlawed before the 2014 season. Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Single or double, it's still in the center of the back of the car (between the rear wheels). A double diffuser would have a top and bottom part, not left or right. The damage on Vettel's car was the floor plate on the left side (and a bit to the side pod.). See this picture. Tvx1 21:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to get this to a Good Article, my advice would be to look at one of the featured race reports (2008 Brazilian Grand Prix is a good example as it is another season finale) and try to bring this article up to a similar standard. As things stand now:

1) The article is currently lacking a paragraph providing an overview of the practice sessions - you don't have to go into much detail really.

2) The post-race section is too brief. There should be quotes and reactions from Vettel and Alonso, as well as a mention of any plaudits Vettel received from the paddock or world figures for winning his third title. A quote from Schumacher on his retirement would also be good. Again, it would be good to follow the style of the 2008 report.

3) For a good article, you'll want to improve the quality of the prose and the referencing, particularly in the race section. In an encyclopedia you should always be using a formal tone, and colloquialisms like "grab the title" or "unable to answer" must be avoided.

Hope that was helpful, and all the best on article. QueenCake (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I'll see to it! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for this excellent work. Although it is very advanced, it also lacks from several facts.

  • Circumstances of the race: The work lacks from data about the situation such as flood rate and temperature. This information is important to predict if it would be accidents in the working race or not. Furthermore, it lacks also about the overview of the media conferences of competitors and administrators of before the race.
  • Report: The report is well done and well revised as it involves all the information about the race and the results. However, it lacks of the past performances of the competitors in precedent Brazilian Grand Prix.
  • Pictures: The work lacks of pictures... the Victory Ceremony Pictures... Some works should been done to improve this.
  • What happened after that: The work just cited what happened after the race briefly in the first and the last part of the work... There are not an overview about press meetings that are evidently done after the F1 race, it is lacks also from information about if some competitors had decided to work or retire... excepting for the case of Schumacher.

I think that the work has to be reviewed.--Csisc (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 February 2015, 21:05 UTC)----


This peer review discussion has been closed.

Jackalope[edit]

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

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

Finetooth comments[edit]

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

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

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


Engineering and technology[edit]

General[edit]

Omkar Nath Sharma "Medicine Baba"[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review with an intention to improve this article for GA status. I had updated the article and added media. I invite further assistance , information , suggestions to improve the article.
Thanks, One life to live (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 February 2015, 12:08 UTC)----


Ohio State Route 612[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this page to at least B-status, higher if possible (it's currently at C-status), and would like some advice as to how I can reach that status.

Thanks, Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Review—if you'd like to make this B-Class, you'll need to do the following at a minimum:

  1. The lead needs to be expanded. It's not a sufficient summary of the contents of the article. I'd suggest a full paragraph at least double the current length.
  2. The route description is currently fine, but if it can be expanded some more, that would be better
  3. The history needs work.
    1. A 1937 map can't verify a 1937 creation date on its own. Do you have a 1936 map that shows that the highway did not yet exist when the map was created? If so, then you can narrow down the creation to being between the publication dates of the 1936 and 1937 maps. In short, such research requires two maps for the before and after conditions of a change.
    2. The extension stated to occur in 1939 needs a second map for verification. Again, this research technique requires the before and the after conditions of the roadway.
    3. Broken record time: if it was decommissioned in 1951, I need to see a 1952 map showing the number removed.
    4. Any idea when the highway was fully paved for the first time? If the maps indicate gravel/dirt vs. paved status, this is a useful detail to add. It's also interesting to note the location of the last section to be paved, not just the year it was done. Just remember to cite the maps before and after the change, and write the text to indicate that the change happened between the dates. If there aren't maps published every year, you'll need to indicate a range of dates, not a single year.
  4. The junction list looks fine, but you should repeat the footnotes for the 1939 extension there as well.
  5. References are one of my specialties.
    1. Please spell out the publisher. "ODOH" is meaningless in this situation.
    2. For all of these maps, if they have grid references that would enable you to specify which section or sections of the map apply, then you should add |section= to {{cite map}}. Just as you shouldn't force a reader to search an entire book for a single page, you shouldn't force that same reader to search an entire map when a grid reference can be supplied. Obviously, if the map doesn't have a grid, you can't invent one.
    3. Maps' scales, when known, should also be supplied. If the scale isn't known, |scale=Scale not given can be added in its place.
    4. Are you sure about the cartography information? If it's correct, drop the ", Director", but I'm doubtful that the actual director of the Ohio Department of Highways drew those maps himself. Rather, I suspect that a specific office within the department drew them. If the maps don't indicate this office, or then |cartography=ODOH is fine to indicate that the department drew the maps. (Yes, it's fine to abbreviate the department in this case, because it's being repeated in the same citation, but it shouldn't be abbreviated in its only mention in the citation.)

The short version: you have a C-Class article under WP:USRD/A because it has all of the "Big Three": the route description, a history and a junction or exit list. To be bumped to B-Class, the project will require the RD to be an appropriate length of text for the length of the highway and its general environment, that the history be fully cited with appropriate citations, and that the junction list should have all of its mileposts. Additionally, the lead should be an appropriate length and all of the citations expected should be in place. If you can do these things, the article should be ready to be polished the last little bit to be listed as a Good Article. (In this case, polish usually means just a quick touch up to any rough prose, double checking that captions for photos and other things are formatted correctly, etc.) GAs are better with photos, but they are not required.

You should also add a "See also" section with *{{portal-inline|Ohio}} and *{{portal-inline|U.S. Roads}}. Our USRD portal is featured, and it should be linked from every appropriate article to help drive some page views. If there are any webpages with additional information, say any of the various roadgeek webpages, then you should include them in an "External links" section, and shift the KML box there as well because it links to other websites.

I hope that this helps, Imzadi 1979  03:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 16 February 2015, 22:05 UTC)----


John Johnson (footballer)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have planned to make it a FA class. Comments are welcomed on this matter.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well sighted but you'll need a lot of content for FA-Class Aneditor (talk tome) 03:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 February 2015, 10:40 UTC)----


Exilant Technologies[edit]

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

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

Review from Matthewrbowker[edit]

Erm, the article doesn't exist. I also can't find it via search and there are no log entries. I may have missed something, so if you have to fix things poke me again and I'll give it a proper review. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 21:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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


Geography and places[edit]

Georgia (country)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA application.

Thanks, kazekagetr 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Comments from Burklemore1[edit]

G'day, this is actually my first time peer reviewing an article, so sorry that I won't be able to cover the more complex problems that experienced reviewers can trace.

  • I have looked and seen four "citation needed" tags. These will need to be covered immediately if you want to nominate this for GA.
  • Even where citation tags are not placed, more sources will be needed. I have viewed many sentences with no sources, unless these statements can actually be found in other sources, so it's best to tag them where unsourced sentences can be found.
  • To me, the lead may need a bit of expansion, although you don't need to do this if you feel like the summary provides a good amount of coverage.
  • I have counted 17 dead links in the reference section, so new links will be needed to replace them.
  • The reference scrollbox should be removed. I have never seen this used in any article until now so I believe this is unnecessary.
  • The external link list is too excessive. I suggest removing some links (see Australia for a good example, but you don't have to follow this if there are some exceptions).
  • There is a possibility of use of weasel words, so a thorough search is recommended.
  • I haven't noticed any major grammatical errors and such, but you could try out a copyedit just to be safe for GA review.

That's seems to be all from me, so I would suggest waiting for another reviewer to address issues section by section. Burklemore1 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 February 2015, 17:34 UTC)----


History[edit]

Sinking Creek Raid[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to Good Article quality. I believe West Virginia American Civil War history has been somewhat neglected in Wikipedia, and I hope to post some high quality articles.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Review from Matthewrbowker[edit]

  • The last USGS link returns a "302" due to excessive redirects. see here
  • "The Confederate Army camp contained about 500 soldiers (also known as rebels)" - That's a little awkward, you don't really need the parenthesis.
  • Very good linear style, very interesting article.
  • Sources appear complete, however; I don't have access to any of the books so I can't cross-check the information.
  • Note: I ran CitationBot on it... diff

Very good and interesting article, I learned a lot about something I never knew before. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 February 2015, 17:30 UTC)----


House of Plantagenet[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because at one time this article became confused between a history of the familly and a more general history of England in the period. As a result it failed a FAC. Much work has been done by others in removing the general history into a former redirect page England in the Late Middle Ages and adding details of the wider familly that were largely absent from the article. That done, it seems unlikely that further progress to A-class or FA is unlikely without wider feedback.

The article currently has GA status.

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 February 2015, 15:14 UTC)----


Great Stink[edit]

A rather small, seemingly insignificant event in the life of London, but one that some of us still feel the benefits of over 150 years later. The Great Stink showed the right man in the right place at the right time, with Joseph Bazalgette stepping forward to build the sewer system to end all sewer systems, providing London with an effulent-free river. And he did it while sporting a magnificent set of whiskers to boot! Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

  • Maybe my brain is melting after translating 6k words today, but the "in central London" could probably have a better place in the opening sentence (and I can't find it). I'd think the Thames would be worth mentioning in the first sentence too.
  • and his actions mean he probably saved more lives than any other Victorian official. - according to who? Also feels a little... irreverent.
  • OK. Let me have a think about that last para: it could probaby do with a little more work. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Image sizes should be standardized (i.e. same height)
  • I have on most, but the "impressions of the state of Thames water" are landscape next to square, while the "impressions of Father Thames" is a landscape next to a portrait. Should these all be uniform, in which case the width of the two galleries will be of different sizes... Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What if ... Like, the two boxes were the same width, and then the heights of each image in a single box was the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll have a play round (although it was a sorting out the formatting of the other galleries in the article!) It may be a problem with trying to force the size restrictions on such different shaped pics, but I'll do some testing in a sandbox. (and come asking for help later!) - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • in 1842 he had published the Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain, a best-selling report - duplicated "report"
  • mid-30s °C - Fahrenheit?
  • What was the effect of the stink on the general populace? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll dig around. Nothing obvious from the sources comes to mind, (they are full of the parliament stuff), but there has to be something relevant in there somewhere! - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I must admit, overall I found (so far) that this is mostly about the sewage system and not the stink itself. That's a mighty big challenge to overcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • More added from the press about the smell and the problem. Separating out the sewage from the sewerage is a problem on this: the stink itself was entirely because of the inadequate system (and the brief weather conditions), so the set up has to be understood before the rest can be worked on, if that makes any sense! - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but the title of the article is still "Great Stink", so two or three paragraphs about the stink itself doesn't seem appropriate... more detail would perhaps be necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Furness, an experienced contractor who had developed his business in the expansion of the railways, had won the contract for the main Northern Outfall Sewer. - Why the pluperfect voice? Goes for several other sentences too
  • To provide the drainage for the low-level sewers, in February 1864 Bazalgette began building three embankments along the shores of the Thames. On the northern side are - Why the shift in tenses?
  • led one historian - who? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • All covered (I think!) Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by the Doctor[edit]

Lead
  • "ageing, ramshackle and inadequate" -description seems a bit of a mouthful.
  • "focussed the minds" -doesn't seem right here to me. Perhaps something like prompted them or whatever.
  • "Work on high-, mid-" -looks odd with the slashes here.
  • As far as I'm aware these are correct and needed: perhaps Tim riley could pass judgement on whether we can get rid of them? - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't presume to pass judgment, but I think the dashes are right here. As always I recommend asking a real authority such as Chris the speller to look over the article before it goes to FAC. Tim riley talk 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "To aid the drainage, pumping stations were placed to lift the sewage from lower levels into higher pipes; two of the more ornate stations, Abbey Mills in Stratford and Crossness on the Erith Marshes are, as of 2015, listed for protection by English Heritage" -we're skipping over 100 years, probably best to avoid the semicolon and start a new sentence.
  • Cheers Doc: the remainder all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Background
  • Methane worth linking?
  • "Swamp gases" -not clear what they'd be
  • Do we usually state Dr on wikipedia by a name? I know I do in my user name but still :-)
Local gov.
  • Ditto with Dr John Simon
  • " Bazalgette had to apply for the position of Chief Engineer against eight others; his application for the role—which was successful—was supported by Robert Stephenson, MP, the co-designer of the Rocket with his father; the millwright and civil engineer William Cubitt, who had designed and built two of Britain's railways systems; and the mechanical and civil engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel.[19]" -not sure of the relevance of all this to the actual stink..
  • "In February 1858 a general election" -link?
Construction
  • Do we have anything on the names of the companies involved with the project?
  • Nope! Thee are references to the big tender holders (which are mentioned), but not anyone else, AFAIK. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "including the area around Lambeth and Pimlico" -you definitely must put Burgundy in brackets here so readers know that Pimlico is in fact part of Burgundy :-).
  • "Progress" -is the definite article preferable here?
  • "Work began on the system on 31 January 1859,[17] but encountered numerous problems in construction" I think you should reword this and add "the builders" before encountered.
  • "The rains were so bad " ="Rainfall was so prevalent"?
  • That would two "rainfalls" within a couple of words of each other, so I've gone for "rain was so heavy..." - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it essential to capitalise "the Embankments" when referring to more than one of them?
  • "The building work had required 318 million bricks and 880,000 cubic yards (670,000 m3) of concrete and mortar, and the final cost was approximately £6.5 million." -three "ands" in one sentence is a tad repetitive.
Legacy
  • "up to 8 million " I believe earlier you use the word "eight" for the number—should be consistent.

Looks in excellent shape. Perhaps I'd have expect some more technical details on the functioning of the sewer system, but it isn't on the sewers or embankments it's on the overall "Stink", If you could find a few more sentences on technical aspects of the way it functioned though I think this would be good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks again. All covered except the one noted above. I'll try and dig up ('scuse the pun) a line or two about the functions I'll drop it in. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim[edit]

  • Lead
    • "Focussed" –"Focused", please. (I know you can find "focussed" in some less fussy dictionaries, but let us not. "Focused", "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited" are four of my shibboleths.) John Snow focusses with a double ess in the main text, too.
      • The lead one has been cut for Doc's benefit - Snow's SS is now halved. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "out towards outfalls outside" – a lot of outs: perhaps "beyond" for the last one?
      • The first one isn't needed either, so we're down to one, with your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • First sentence of last para is a bit long. You might apply to Sir Brian B for use of one of his spare semicolons after "outbreaks", instead of the conjunction.
  • Local government
    • "A Northern and Southern Outfall Sewer was planned" – the plan was singular, but presumably the outfalls were plural.
  • Construction
    • "Progress of Bazalgette's works was reported positively … in a positive.." – perhaps "favourably" the first time?
    • "in July 1863 an additional £1.2 million was raised to cover the cost of the work" – how? Taxation, local levies or what?
    • "the pre-existing routes between Westminster and City" – would it make it clearer if we mentioned that this refers to road routes? Just a thought, though I don't imagine the river was a much-used commuter route by then.
    • "was used purchasing" – either "was used for purchasing" or "was used to purchase", I think.
    • "seen as being nationally significant" – "significant" is another of the bees in my bonnet (forgive me!) and I'd prefer " seen as being of national importance".
  • Legacy
    • "The station itself became a grade 1 listed building with English Heritage in June 1970" – I don't like this. There was no such thing as "English Heritage" in June 1970. From memory I think the Minister of Public Building and Works must have listed it. The Heath gov't came in on 18th of that month (I voted, aetat 18 while a sixth-form schoolboy!) and soon instituted the Dept of the Environment, but I think the MPBW must have been the relevant body at the time you refer to.
    • "led one historian to state" – worth saying who in the text?
    • "he redesigned three of London's bridge" – "redesigned" seems a bit of an understatement: the old ones were demolished and he built brand-new ones.

That's all from me. If anyone had said to me until today, "SchroCat's writing is shit", I'd have kicked him where it hurts, but now I am inclined to award the Order of Merde for this thoroughly interesting and enjoyable article. Onward, along the Cloaca Maxima to FAC! PongPing me then, if you please. – Tim riley talk 15:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • All sorted: as always, many thanks for your thoughts (and sorry for disturbing the bees!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite[edit]

Passing thoughts from a quick read of this interesting article:

  • It's called the "Great Stink" twice in the first paragraph of the lead, then those words do not appear again until the references. Is there anything that can tell us who first called it the "Great Stink" - was it a contemporary description, or something that only appeared later?
  • From my own digging around, it looks like it was an epithet that was applied at a later date. Searches of contemporary newspapers (though the BL) show no use of the term in connection with the Thames in the C19th. None of the current sources provide a clue to the etymology of the term, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I was hoping there would be something in The Victorians by AN Wilson or London: The Biography by Peter Ackroyd, but I don't think there's anything that helps (Baz doesn't even get mentioned in Wilson's index; Ackroyd deals with it all in less than a page). BencherliteTalk 15:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah - I went through them (and Ackroyd's Thames, which is better, and London Under, which is even better), but nothing, unfortunately... - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead: "Two of the more ornate stations, Abbey Mills in Stratford and Crossness on the Erith Marshes are, as of 2015, listed for protection by English Heritage". Only the listing of Crossness is mentioned in the body of the article. Also the "as of 2015" is, I think, unnecessary - they are hardly likely to be delisted! You might want something in a note in the body about Grade I being the highest listing status recognizing buildings of international importance or whatever the phrasing is.
  • Annoying oversight! Now supported (and dated) in the text, and a footnote breaking down the three grades. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Inflation - someone gave me a kicking about this once, so let me pass on my bruises(!) By what measure are you updating £6,000 to £500,000 - RPI, GDP? I tend to use something like Laudian Professor of Arabic#Notes to show my workings in this respect.
  • A good point that I'd not thought of before. It (the CPI measure) was referred to in the references, rather than the notes, but I've raised that piece of information alongside the equivalents. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps more to come but don't hold your breath, as it were.... BencherliteTalk 18:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Bencherlite, all your points addressed, I hope! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB Lead and opening sections:

Lead
  • "effluent from industrial activities" → "industrial effluent"
  • "The smell from the effluent was thought to transmit contagious diseases through the miasma it gave off..." According to my Oxford dictionary, a miasma is "an unpleasant or unhealthy smell or vapour". So the sentence as presently constructed is saying that the smell gave off a smell.
  • Second paragraph, first sentence: I think the words "to action" need to be added somewhere.
Background
  • "leading to a loss of life" → "leading to loss of life" ?
  • Can you indicate more specifically over what period the city's population doubled, and perhaps give rough figures, e.g. from 1 million to 2 or whatever?
  • "The disease was deeply feared by all because of the speed it could spread and its high fatality rates." A bit of comma-work advised here.
  • "Snow had removed the handle from the local water pump, with a resulting fall in deaths". Not quite enough info here. "Snow had removed the handle from the local water pump, thus preventing access to the contaminated water, with a resulting fall in deaths"?
Local government
  • "...a 30-year-old engineer who had been working as a consultant engineer..." Repetition. Unless the age is relevant, why not: "He had been working..." etc? There is also quite a lot of "work" in the sentence, that might be tweaked, especially as the following sentence begins "Working..."
  • "The stress of the position" → "The stress of his position"
  • "...and continued refining and developing the plans" It is not clear, here, what "the plans" refers to. A little amplification necessary.
  • "his definitive plans, which planned for" – you can see the awkwardness here. "proposed", or "provided for"
  • "to feed into larger and larger sewers" – doesn't read well. Perhaps "to feed into a series of larger sewers..."?

More to follow. Meanwhile, I'm off to have a bath. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks so far - all tweaked and sorted apart from the population numbers, which I will dig out of the sources shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 February 2015, 23:16 UTC)----


Ebla[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take the article to FAC and I would like feedback on improvements needed.

I'd say that the main problem is the language, as English is not my native tongue and I'm never confident in my grammar.

Thanks, Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 February 2015, 15:27 UTC)----


Yi Ye[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because peer review gives legitimacy to the information listed in the article.

Thanks, Lodzamanei (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 February 2015, 11:33 UTC)----


Alexios I of Trebizond[edit]

I've been working on this article (& others related to the former Empire of Trebizond) for some time now, & am wondering how much I have been improving them. For instance, this article is packed with details & various opinions -- perhaps at the cost of this article being readable to the non-expert. While I'm not much concerned with how well it conforms to the WP:MOS, any comments would be welcome. -- llywrch (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments from Nikkimaria

  • I would suggest explaining or replacing "panegyric", as most readers will be unfamiliar with that term. Also, what is the significance of this panegyric?
  • "Trapezuntine" is not explained until quite late in the article, and its meaning isn't exactly intuitive
  • Why was John passed over? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley

  • I think you need a bit more detail in the lead as the subject will be unfamiliar to most readers. I would specify Trebizond on the southern shore of the Black Sea and location of Nicaea. Also there is a jump from death of Andronikos I in 1185 to conquest in 1204 - worth explaining that the emperors from 1185 to 1204 were distant relatives.
  • A map would be very helpful - perhaps the one in Empire of Nicaea.
  • "governing the Nicaean Empire succeeded in becoming the de facto successors, and rendered his dynastic claims to the imperial throne moot," This is an odd wording. Another way of putting it is that when the Nicaeans re-conquered Constantinople they established a new dynasty and rendered the claim of Alexios's descendants null.
  • "While his brother David conquered a number of Byzantine provinces in northwestern Anatolia" Conquered from who?
  • "despite sending an envoy to seek their surrender the city refused to capitulate to Sultan Kaykaus I," This is confusingly worded and too minor for the lead.
  • "Somehow the boys arrived at the court of their relative Queen Tamar of Georgia". I would leave out the vague "Somehow". Ditto somehow 3 lines down.
  • "Exactly how Alexios and Queen Tamar of Georgia were related is not clear." This implies that they were related but elsewhere you imply that it is only one theory.
  • "Trapezuntine chronicler Michael Panaretos". I would specify fourteenth-century.
  • "the houses of Palaiologos or Doukas" - presumably implying pure Byzantine descent, but needs spelling out.
  • After marching from Georgia, and with the help of their paternal aunt Queen Tamar, Alexios and David occupied Trebizond in April 1204." You make clear later that this was conquest of Byzantine territory. Did they not have to fight to get control? If this is unknown you should say so.
  • "She decided to avenge the insult by supporting her nephews in their invasion of Byzantine territories." This is stated as a fact but you then make clear it is only one theory.
  • "the brothers entered the competition for recovery of the imperial city". No change needed but was there no attempt at cooperation against the Crusaders?
  • "Over the following months," It is not clear who the brothers were fighting. Were these territories conquered by the Seljuks before the Crusaders took Constantinople?
  • "A contemporary might have assumed it was only a matter of time before a male heir of Andronikos once again ruled from Constantinople as "Basileus and Autokrator of the Rhomaioi"." This is unreferenced speculation. I would delete.
  • "the Paphlagonian possessions of Alexios' brother David" Was empire divided into two separate territories ruled by each brother?
  • "the panegyric of Niketas Choniates" - a book exalting Choniates? By who and when written? As Nikkimaria said, this is unclear.
  • "Alexis had crossed the border and seized territory belonging to the Sultan—when there was no point to this action." Presumably Alexios not Alexis, and why no point - was he not trying to conquer Seljuk territory?
  • "the future emperors John I and Manuel I" - for clarity I would specify "of Trebizond".
  • "Spouse possibly Theodora Axouchina" This is only mentioned in the infobox. As you say in the text his wife is unknown I would delete.
  • This is an interesting article, but needs tightening, especially on who was fighting whom. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Response from Llywrch

Thanks for the input. While I'm considering everything written here so far, there are a few comments I feel I need to respond to to give you an idea what I'm working with to write this (& related) articles.

  • "A map would be very helpful" -- I agree, although the one you suggested might not be the best. (Much of the activities described in this article happen either off the map, or in a small section to the East of Nicomedia. But if I invest in the time to develop one, it could be reused in David Komnenos.
  • "'While his brother David conquered a number of Byzantine provinces in northwestern Anatolia' Conquered from who?" -- Good question. I don't know, & neither do the experts. Which cities around 1204 were controlled by the Byzantine Empire & which by the Seljuks does not lend itself to a simple answer. The evidence is incomplete, contradictory, & not completely studied. I could spend a few paragraphs discussing this, or simply state that they were still part of the Byzantine Empire (most of which were) & hope no one challenges this blanket statement.
  • "'Exactly how Alexios and Queen Tamar of Georgia were related is not clear.' This implies that they were related but elsewhere you imply that it is only one theory." -- Well, the fact is that the primary sources state they are related; exactly has been the matter of dispute in the secondary sources. I guess I need to make this clearer.
  • You ask a good question about the "conquest of Byzantine territory. Did they not have to fight to get control?" AFAIK, the primary sources do not say; the secondary ones imply that they simply showed up at the various cities, starting with Trebizond, & the local notables immediately opened the gates & declared for them. The alternative was that they waited for someone from the central government -- which was, at best, in disarray after the fall of Constantinople -- to arrive & handle matters.
  • "'The brothers entered the competition for recovery of the imperial city'. No change needed but was there no attempt at cooperation against the Crusaders?" -- Another good question. On the Byzantine/Imperial side, the three known factions & the Bulgarians were in fierce competition to reclaim the fallen city. So fierce that it actually allowed the Latin Empire to survive for 30-40 years longer than it should have.
  • "'A contemporary might have assumed it was only a matter of time before a male heir of Andronikos once again ruled from Constantinople as "Basileus and Autokrator of the Rhomaioi".' This is unreferenced speculation. I would delete." -- My point here was to indicate this was the high-water mark of the Komnenoi brother's hopes to regain Constantinople. It's an uncontroversial interpretation of the events: after this point, the Nicaean Empire & the Seljuk Turks pushed the frontier of the Trabizond Empire far enough back that they no longer had a realistic hope of ever regaining the capital. I'm not sure any there is a secondary source that explicitly makes this statement.
  • "'the Paphlagonian possessions of Alexios' brother David' Was empire divided into two separate territories ruled by each brother?" -- Yet another good question. I don't know, & this seems to be an issue the secondary sources talk around. I know I've encountered one map which shows the territories David Komnenos controls separate from those of Alexios. (If you haven't surmised by now, there are a lot of omissions & interpretations based on presumptions in the material. I've been trying to find a source that will explicitly state which was the older brother; all of the secondary sources I've read -- & by this point, I've read most of what has been written on the Empire of Trebziond in English, there isn't that much -- imply or assume Alexios was the older brother.)
  • About "panegyric" -- Normally I would explain an unfamiliar word by making a link -- & I hadn't thought it that unfamiliar. However, I haven't linked this word to the article because I felt it would be overlinking. And having read the article, I'm not very happy with it as it currently stands.
  • "'Spouse possibly Theodora Axouchina' This is only mentioned in the infobox. As you say in the text his wife is unknown I would delete." -- Welcome to one of the issues I'm trying to deal with in the articles relating to the Empire of Trebizond. An established editor, who usually does good work, has created a series of articles on the consorts of the Emperors of Trebziond. The problem with this is that (1) most of the material is taken from a website that is not considered reliable; (2) there isn't much that can be written about these women beyond the fact they existed & married a given Emperor; (3) there was no formal honor known as "Consort of the Emperor of Trebizond" -- if this patriarchal society, we are often lucky if we have the name of the various women. I've wanted to delete or merge these articles wholesale, but the last time this was attempted, the good people at WP:AfD decided to keep the nominee.
  • "Why was John passed over?" And a fourth good question. Nobody knows. I discussed some of this in the related articles Andronikos I of Trebizond & John I of Trebizond, which leads to a question I've pondered for years: where should we put content that applies to one or more subjects? Repeat it in each article, & struggle with keeping all of them up to date? Or put it in one, & expect the curious reader to look for further information thru the hyperlinks? Both have their strengths.

My sincere thanks in advance. -- llywrch (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 February 2015, 01:38 UTC)----


2011 White House shooting[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to eventually nominate it for FAC. It's currently third on my intended FAC nominations list, so we've got plenty of time for a peer review.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Royroydeb[edit]

  • " fired a semi-automatic rifle at the White House" mention in bracket what the White House is. " fired a semi-automatic rifle at the White House (the official residence of the President of the United States)" - not the lead should be informative. Also include the motive of this shooting.
Thanks for your comments, but i'm not sure if that is necessary. It's one of the most famous buildings in the world, and just in case someone isn't familiar with it, it is wikilinked. I'll wait for a second opinion on this one. Freikorp (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The second line says " At least seven bullets hit the second floor.", but later on "realize that bullets had struck the White House."? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is here. Just because nobody realised for four days doesn't change the fact that it happened. The events are listed in chronological order, not the order they were discovered. Freikorp (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Matthewrbowker[edit]

  • There are two images missing alt text, it's a really good idea to include with screen readers. Other than that, MOS:ACCESS appears to be in order.
  • Article text itself is very complete, good job with the chronology.
  • Sources are complete and look good.
  • I'm curious as to why there are no navboxes, only portals? It's not a requirement, more of a stylistic choice.

Overall, a very good article, well deserving of its GA. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 January 2015, 14:42 UTC)----


Kendo Kata[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs some work on grammar, sources and organization.

Thanks, Carmelator (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


comments by karanacs

This is a good start to an article, but it definitely needs more information. I am unfamiliar with this topic, and I was confused. I think you will need to include at least some background on what kendo and kenjutsu are ... and even what kata is. Basically, I understood only 1-2 out of every three words. If you can add more background so that newcomers to the topic can follow along, that would help. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a sub-article from Kendo so the level of background does not have to be high but, as mentioned above, some mention of what Kendo and Kata is would not be amiss. The jargon is pretty heavy but at least the terms are linked. At this point the article, in reality, consists of a list of kata and a small expansion of one particular kata not on the list along with the reason for this kata's introduction. To justify the articles title - there should be some expansion of the kata in the list. Perhaps how many moves, origin, etc. The kata section in the main Kendo article has more information than this article which does not seem right. A good example is the kata section of the judo article for the type of information that could be included. As this article now stands I have to question the need for a separate article.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 January 2015, 20:13 UTC)----


Glad (duke)[edit]

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

Comments
Dudley Miles, thank you for your review and comments. Please find my remarks below. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The article name is not informative. I would prefer something like Glad, Duke of Banat.
    • The term "Duke of Banat" would be quite strange, because the region received this name only in the 18th century. Should we rename Domnall Gerrlámhach (a GA) or Ramón Emeterio Betances (a FA)? Their names are not informative, either. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would move the image of the manuscript to the top - it is visually better to see a picture when the article is opened.
    • Thank you. I moved the picture. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "known in modern scholarship as Anonymus after 1150" - after 1150 could mean 1700. A latest date is also needed.
    • Thank you. I modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Gesta did not refer to the enemies of the conquering Hungarians, or Magyars, who had been mentioned in earlier annals and chronicles, but wrote of a dozen persons, including Glad, who are unknown for other primary sources of the Hungarian Conquest." I do not understand this sentence - a chronicle about Hungarian conquests which did not refer to their enemies? Also it should be unknown from other sources.
    • Yes, this is the case. The Gesta Hungarorum does not write of the rulers who fought against the conquering Hungarians, according to late 9th-century and 10th-century sources. This is why many modern historians say that Glad was only invented by the author of the Gesta, similarly to all other enemies of the conquering Hungarians who are mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum. "For" is modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Gesta presents Ahtum, who ruled the Banat at the beginning of the 11th century, according to the longer version of the Life of St Gerard, as Glad's offspring." 1. Does this mean that the Hungarians soon afterwards lost Banat? If so this should be made clear. 2. Ahtum cannot have been the offspring (child) of a man who live 100 years earlier. Descendant? 3. According to the article on Ahtum a descent from Glad is only one theory. This should be made clear.
    • Yes, it is only o theory, which is only mentioned by the author of the Gesta Hungarorum. This is exactly what the article says, based on scholarly work: the author of the Gesta says that Ahtum (who is mentioned also by a hagiographic work) was descended from Glad. "Offspring" is modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Magyars stormed into Bulgaria in association with the Byzantine Empire in 894." - stormed into is POV - invaded would be better. Also does in association with mean in alliance with?
    • Thank you. Both expressions are modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Avar Khaganate disintegrated after a series of Frankish expeditions in the 790s" Frankish invasion of Avar territory or vice versa?
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "according to historian István Bóna". It should be "according to the historian". (I have twice been told off by reviewers for leaving out "the"!)
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "but those rivers may only bear names of Turkic origin from a later period." I do not understand this.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to the Gesta Hungarorum, Rus' princes". Further down it appears to be only one Rus' prince, prince of Halych (which should be capitalised as Prince of Halych).
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to Tudor Sălăgean and other Romanian historians, the latter list" What list?
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Madgearu says that the Banat, which had been an integral part of Bulgaria since the late 820s, became an independent state under Glad's rule after the death of Simeon I in 927." I am confused. The lead says that Glad was duke when the Hungarians invaded around 900.
    • Yes, according to the Gesta Hungarorum. However, the lead also says that according to Romanian historians' view Glad lived in the early 10th century. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ioan-Aurel Pop writes that Glad must have survived his defeat and recovered at least parts of his duchy in exchange for paying a tribute to the Magyars, because his descendant, Ahtum, ruled the territory some decades later, according to Anonymus." This seems illogical. Rulers have often been defeated and killed and their descendants recovered their lands. Is it accepted by other historians?
    • Maybe its illogical, but this view is presented by one of the historians who dedicated monographies to the Hungarian conquest of Transylvania, Banat and Crisana. I do not know whether his view is shared by other historians. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting and well-researched article, but I have doubts about it on two grounds. 1. It appears to make considerable use of primary sources, which is WP:OR. 2. Very little of the article is about Glad, who is very obscure for such an extensive article. You might consider adapting the article to be 'Banat in the early Middle Ages', with a much shorter and tighter article about Glad himself. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)+
    • Sorry, but I do not share your last views. The use of primary sources is always based on scholarly work, consequently, I think, it cannot be regarded OR. The presentation of the historical background of the territory allegedly ruled by Glad is important, because his very existence is questioned by many scholars. Furthermore, scholarly works that describe the history of his "duchy", always mention the historical background. Dudley Miles, please let me thank you again your throughout and bold review. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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


Alexander Hamilton[edit]

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Jack jumper ant[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article would greatly benefit to receive feedback on where it currently stands in quality from the community. This was also a former GA candidate which was withdrawn due to a lot of grammatical issues, poor layout and complicated, irrelevant and contradictory statements, as well as current hardships in my personal life which strained time on actually trying to improve the article. After review, it was greatly expanded, and issues that were not solved during GA review are now dealt with, and a copyedit was initiated. Editors who are particularly interested in the medical fields and have high standard knowledge are especially encouraged to make comment to this, since that would help me a lot to bring this article to GA status. Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 February 2015, 11:34 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Catholic Church[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially revised in recent months for consistent sourcing, thorough content, and style.

Thanks, --Zfish118 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 February 2015, 18:05 UTC)----


George Pickingill[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently achieved GA status and I am hoping to take it to FAC in the near future. I don't think that it needs much work but it would be great it I could have another pair of eyes look it over to see if there is anything that needs doing.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 February 2015, 16:00 UTC)----


Social sciences and society[edit]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been linked to on the front page of the English Wikipedia for the past several weeks and receives over 50,000 hits per day on most days. The group is in the news constantly and has had a major impact on the politics of the Middle East (and the world as a whole), and thus deserves a high-quality Wikipedia article for all who seek to better understand the topic. The article has already been checked against B-class criteria by the Military History WikiProject and I would like to get it up to A-class after I close this peer review.

Thanks, Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is really not my area of expertise so I don't really feel qualified to criticize the content. What I would say, however, is that the article seems to suffer from the same thing as quite a lot of "in the news" articles in that for large chunks of it, every paragraph begins "In [Month and Year]...". I guess this is hardly surprising, but makes the content hard to follow. As with any article, some kind of synoptic judgment is needed and these will need to be integrated into some kind of narrative. The ideology section is a good example of this working well I think. Just my two cents anyway. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments by Simon Burchell
    • Some sections appear very "listy", with multiple short paragraphs divided by year - my feeling is that many of these can be combined into single paragraphs. At first glance, the Names and As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) could use some work converting them into more-easily readable prose text, rather than lists of facts. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There are some "clarification needed" tags sprinkled in the text in the As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) section. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Following on from my first comment, in some sections (e.g. As self-proclaimed Islamic State (June 2014–present), lots of short paragraphs mentioning the full date with the year. Many of these can be combined, and the repetitive use of the year can be dropped. In some paragraphs the (same) year is mentioned repeatedly:
"In July 2014, ISIL recruited more than 6,300 fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, some of whom were thought to have previously fought for the Free Syrian Army. Also, on 23 July 2014, Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon swore loyalty to al-Baghdadi in a video, along with the rest of the organisation, giving ISIL a presence in the Philippines. In September 2014, the group began kidnapping people for ransoming, in the name of ISIL."
This, and other paragraphs like it, could easily be tidied along the lines of:
"In July 2014, ISIL recruited more than 6,300 fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, some of whom were thought to have previously fought for the Free Syrian Army. On 23 July, Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon swore loyalty to al-Baghdadi in a video, along with the rest of the organisation, giving ISIL a presence in the Philippines. In September, the group began kidnapping people for ransoming, in the name of ISIL."
  • I know each to their own referencing style, but multiple references in this article could really do with being combined. There's lots of text like "In its digital magazine Dabiq, ISIL explicitly claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women.[315][316][317][318][319][320]", which severely interrupts the reading flow.

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 February 2015, 08:19 UTC)----


Gun show loophole[edit]

Previous peer review

I'm hoping to get this article into shape for a good article nomination, and I think it's coming along nicely. Other editors and I are hammering out its NPOV balance, and we need an image, but other than that, I think it looks good and would like an outside evaluation. (We had a brief blip in collaboration, but the problematic editor has since been blocked for socking.)

Thanks, Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 February 2015, 22:47 UTC)----


Marnie the Dog[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have put all the information I could find, and I would just like some feedback (aiming for GA).

Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 February 2015, 02:09 UTC)----


Gun show loophole[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get this article into shape for a good article nomination, and I think it's coming along nicely. Other editors and I are hammering out its NPOV balance, and we need an image, but other than that, I think it looks good and would like an outside evaluation.

Thanks, Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, as you have noted, the article has NPOV balance tags, as well as other cleanup banners. This goes against the cleanup banner rule, see the second point here for exact details.
Presence of any correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}} or similar inline tags.
Once the issues are resolved you may resubmit the article to peer review. Neuroxic (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

(Peer review added on Tuesday 10 February 2015, 17:11 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]