Wikipedia:Peer review

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

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

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

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

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



Everyday life[edit]

Lightning (Final Fantasy)[edit]

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

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

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

Diego Costa[edit]

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

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

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

The Boat Race 1993[edit]

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

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

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

Nea Salamis Famagusta[edit]

Previous peer review

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

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

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

Engineering and technology[edit]

Personal (company)[edit]

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

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

Comments from EdwardH[edit]

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

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

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


Payday 2[edit]

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

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

  • Skyrim could also be a decent starting point for Gameplay. Any of our FAs on individual games, really. Tezero (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that, for Gameplay, you should also try looking at the two GA Shin Megami Tensei: Persona games, 3 and 4. They deal with multiple gameplay concepts in a comprehensive way. As to the reception, I think one of the GA Silent Hill games or Tales of Symphonia. I would probably also condense and reference the different game versions and DLC content. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Harvey Thomas Strosberg[edit]

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

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

The Widower (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It needs a clean up.

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

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


Previous peer review

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

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

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

The Who[edit]

Previous peer review

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

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

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

@SNUGGUMS: - anyone out there? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, Ritchie. Here's some starting comments.....
  • Are the listed subgenres of rock really needed? Since they're known as a rock band, we can just simply say that.
Some are, some aren't. Power pop is cited explicitly, and I think hard rock probably could go in somewhere around Live at Leeds to explain the contrast between itself and Tommy. Let me come back to this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "an English rock band formed in 1964"..... that formed
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "For much of their career they have been regarded"..... needs a comma after "career"
Are you sure about that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "most important British rock acts"..... English, let's be more specific here
I would rather stick with "British", as that is what the sources use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "one of the world's best-selling bands of all time, having sold more than 100 million records"..... why is this not mentioned within the article body? Should probably be under an "achievements" section or something in body.....
  • "hit singles" in "A string of hit singles followed" is WP:PEACOCK
I don't think it is - it's factually correct. Their follow-up singles could have been chart flops, but they weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Try splitting "The Who resumed regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey, to a positive response, and were considering the possibility of a new album, but these plans were stalled by Entwistle's death in June 2002" into two sentences
Whereabouts would you consider a good splitting point? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The founding members passing an exam isn't really needed, just say they all attended the same school and grew up in Acton, London
(Without wishing to sound like a grizzly old fart who was programming on the ZX Spectrum before Katy Perry was even born...) The eleven plus exam was the cornerstone of the Tripartite system of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the 40s to the 70s and was an important stage of anyone's life. The result of passing or failing the eleven plus could completely change a child's future as it determined which secondary school they went to. (Just compare Norton Knatchbull School to The North School). Passing the eleven plus was a notable achievement (only about 1 in 4 did) and allowed all three to have a better shot in life. Had any of them failed it, the Who as we know it would probably not have existed. Fletcher's book on Keith Moon devotes a couple of pages to this topic (Moon failed his). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove "so" from "He was unable to afford his own instrument and so built one at home", and place a comma after "instrument"
Removed "so" but I don't think the comma is necessary Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "a more accomplished musician"..... experienced musician would be more encylcopedic
Gone with "better" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be back with more later..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Donnelly (Irish republican)[edit]

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

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

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

Halo Business Intelligence[edit]

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

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

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

New Sunderland Square[edit]

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

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

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

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

This article is pretty short...and as a future development might be hard to get enough substance to this but good luck. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Jack White[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Endgame (Megadeth album)[edit]

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

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

Review by Retrohead[edit]

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

Review by Curly Turkey[edit]

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

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

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

Moment of Impact (film)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Andrew Sega[edit]

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

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Basically the same as Tezero above, with one addition.

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

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

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

Deus Ex[edit]

Previous peer review

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

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

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

PR buddies! Alright, here are my thoughts:

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

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

Comments from EdwardH[edit]

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

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

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

The Get Up Kids[edit]

Previous peer review

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

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

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

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

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

Geography and places[edit]


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

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

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


Previous peer review

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

  • "Infrastructure" is well-cited with the exception of the subsection "Energy". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually after doing several researches I found that state uses more electricity than any other state of India. So thought it would be good idea to have a subsection with particular name. But nevertheless, please suggest whether to keep it or not.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  09:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Then by all means keep it! just answer the sourcing problem. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope I'm not being too strict regarding the tagging and sourcing problem. I may be applying Criteria 2b for Good articles too much. But if you can address all of them, it would make your upcoming GA review much smoother. Tell me if you have any problems regarding this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: No, that's good. Like you said it would make upcoming GA review easier, which will be beneficial for me. Anyway, I will try my best to overcome citation problem.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  07:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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


HOP Ranch[edit]

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

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

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

Death of Osama bin Laden[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Franklin Pierce[edit]

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

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

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

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

Review by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I suggest you use Template:Refbegin and Template:Refend to reduce the text size in the Bibliography
  • there is a fair bit of WP:OVERLINKing, "slavery in the US" in the lead, the 1928 election, Whig Party, Isaac Hill, Representative, temperance, war against Mexico, dark horse, TB, AG, internal improvements, Navy Secretary, Dobbin, Portsmouth, Andover, Grant, civil war and manifest destiny
  • the article is at the limit of readable proze size (at nearly 10,000 words), but that is probably ok for a POTUS
  • checklinks identified one link that needs attention per this
  • a couple of images need alt text per this
  • I converted a bare ref
  • I ran a dash script and fixed a couple
  • I'll do another read through later on today for obvious grammatical errors, feel free to revert anything I do
  • you are obviously familiar with this system of referencing, but I suggest switching it to sfn for simplicity and to avoid bare and uncombined refs cropping up, and to compact the citations
  • the older books have oclc numbers which should be added, they available via Worldcat
  • I haven't looked at image licensing
  • the use of intersectional in the lead is confusing, as it is known more for its use in feminist works than in this sense. I suggest "sectarian"
  • the need to establish the construction of the schoolhouse is unclear, I think you could dispense with it
  • I'm surprised it hasn't been nom'd for GA yet

Well done, IMO it has an appropriate level of coverage for a much-maligned POTUS. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the kind words. I will work though these later today unless Designate gets to them first. "Sectarian" I really understand to mean inter-religious battles. We plan to bypass GA and go straight to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Sectarianism can include differences of almost all types, including regional or political. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's sectionalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, a peculiarly American idea around slavery in particular, and that appears far more appropriate than what is there now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm done with the over linking. I'm up to Mexican-American War, and I'm inclined to let that one stand as the first link occurs in an unexpected spot. A couple of others similar logic, the rest are done. Still looking at the other concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I got the OCLC's. I'll leave the alt text for Designate as people always complain about mine. Not sure what is meant by the schoolhouse.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what the significance is of mentioning that he "put him in a brick schoolhouse". Is there a significance in it being brick? Does that have a meaning in terms of the quality of the schooling, otherwise "brick" could be dispensed with. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so. I've shortened it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
"Brick schoolhouse" might be an Americanism—I'm not sure. It's a construct like "log cabin" that carries more than the explicit meaning. It's a tad symbolic without being unencyclopedic or flowery. —Designate (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have strong views about the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley[edit]

To the end of Election of 1852:

  • Childhood and education
    • "rambunctious" – I had to look that up in the dictionary and I think most non-American readers will too.
    • "He was admitted to the bar in the fall of 1827" – the MoS bids us avoid the seasons if poss, to avoid confusing or annoying readers in the opposite hemisphere.
  • State politics
    • "had recently become engaged and bought his first house in Hillsborough" – ambiguous – his first house, which was in Hillsborough, or his first house that was in Hillsborough?
  • U.S. Senate
    • "chronic health issues" – perhaps just "chronic ill health"? See Gowers on issue: "This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute"
    • "continued to roil Congress" – another word I had to look up. ("Now Brit. regional and U.S.", says the OED.)
  • Lawyer and politician
    • "As he would as president" – not sure of your policy on capitalising job labels. Lower case for "president" here, but earlier "The young Speaker used his platform".
I think we're pretty much going lower case except when direct titles are used, but Speaker is an exception, because it is prone to misconstruction if lower case is used. I had a discussion with Eric Corbett about this point some time back and he seemed to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Point taken: clarity over consistency every time – quite right! Tim riley talk 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Return to New Hampshire
    • "accusations of abuse" – a bit vague: do we know what the alleged abuse was?
  • Election of 1852
    • "it was "one of the least exciting campaigns in presidential history" – I think this might perhaps be attributed inline.

More soonest. Enjoying this. Tim riley talk 10:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and the review. I am glad you are enjoying it. I hope to get to them later in the day, unless Designate picks them up first. I'm not sure on the Shakers thing, Designate, I think you inserted it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I've done or responded to all these things except the Shaker. I've taken that book back to the library, but can go get it if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I will track that down. —Designate (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Second and concluding batch from Tim
  • Tragedy and transition
    • "Avoiding the word slavery" – I think perhaps I'd put this in inverted commas rather than itals. Just a thought.
  • Administration and political strife
    • "Hards and Softs" – God save us! This is a horrifying pre-echo of la vache Thatcher with her "toughs and wets". (Ignore this: Thatcher's dark legacy causes pain and shame here even now, and it bubbles up now and again.)
    • "selecting the Cabinet" – again, a question – not very important – of whether and when to capitalize
I tend to capitalize "Cabinet" as an ongoing institution. Personal view.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "gave it to states'-rights advocate" – this is comprehensible but not very pretty English
  • Economic policy and internal improvements
    • "reforming the Treasury, which he found to be inefficiently managed" – who found: Pierce or Guthrie?
  • Foreign and military affairs
    • "instead of the ostentatious diplomatic uniforms" – POV, you puritanical Yankees! The adjective you are looking for is "elegant" or at most "elaborate"
I am very tempted to stand on WP:ENGVAR. I'm sure Hay looked good in one. I think "elaborate" will do.
    • "Relations with Great Britain were tense" – Great Britain is not the term you want here and later in the para. After 1801 "Britain" is acceptable shorthand, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – the UK for short – is what you need here.
  • Bleeding Kansas
    • "a link from Chicago, Illinois" – as opposed to which other Chicago?
    • "The administrations' opponents" – really plural rather than singular?
  • 1856 election
    • "his chances were slim, to say nothing of his chances of winning the general election" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL here. Perhaps "as were", rather than "to say nothing of"?
    • "Pierce expected a plurality, if not a supermajority" – neither term is familiar in this neck of the woods (offshire island north of France) and neither is possible to guess from the context.
    • "Douglas' managers" – consistency of ess-apostrophe and ess-apostrophe-ess: see above, in Bleeding Kansas: "a crucial part of Douglas's plans"
  • Post-presidency
    • "travelling" – but it was "traveling" in the lead
  • Civil War
    • "Pierce, who was with the author when he died unexpectedly" – needs reading twice to check who died – perhaps rephrase to avoid even this momentary ambiguity?
  • Final years and death
    • First para – this is nine sentences, 181 words, and covers booze, spirituality, sexual goings-on, doings with J Davis, J Hawthorne, defection to the Episcopalians, and half a dozen political points. All with one citation. Are we sure it covers the lot?
I am, as I own the book and just checked. I'm going to split it into two cites because the "old farmer" (located on page 366) should probably be cited at the end of the sentence. It pretty much covers everything from 1865 until his final illness.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Legacy
    • "Pierce, who saw slavery as a question of property, rather than morality" – I don't see how that squares with his words quoted earlier in the article, "I consider slavery a social and political evil, and most sincerely wish that it had no existence upon the face of the earth."
I've changed it to "the slavery question". His personal views were not implicated.--Wehwalt (talk)
    • "The historian David Potter" – but in this and the next para you use the false title for Messrs Nivison and Gara.
    • "who authored a book" – he did what? Didn't he just write it?
He most certainly did (versatile man, that) but as the word "wrote" is used later in the sentence, it seems ill-advised to use it twice.

That's all from me. I knew nothing of Pierce till reading this excellent article. From this side of the Atlantic he seems less culpable in domestic affairs and more reprehensible for his imperialist policies, but it all happened a long time ago. Pray give me the nod when you have him up for FAC. – Tim riley talk 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I shall indeed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

First batch: I think I am benefitting from my role as tail-end reviewer, as much has been done already, leaving me to quibble over minor matters:

  • Is there a distinction between "Cuba" (3rd para) and "Spanish Cuba" (4th para)?
  • "after the war" tends to imply immediately or shortly after; in this case , 4+ years after – maybe adjust the prose?
Childhood and education
  • Do we know the year he graduated from Bowdoin College? Likewise, can we have year indicators for his semester at Northampton and his period of study under Judge Parker?
I'll have to consult Vol 1 of Wallner, which I only borrowed and have returned. I will likely go over to GMU on Wednesday.
State politics
  • "By 1824, the state..." As it's a new section, the state should be named
Named and so forth.
  • Could a footnote advise us of the nature of a "town moderator"'s office?
I've piped to an appropriate article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Pierce's father, meanwhile, won a second term as governor, after which he retired." This sounds as though he retired after winning the election, rather than after completing his term, so I'd clarify here. (Were governors' terms for just 1 year, at this time?)
They were. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The younger Pierce was appointed as chairman of the House Education Committee and re-elected the following year": we had "the following year" in the previous line. Could we have the actual year here, to avoid chronological confusion?
  • You could also mention when Pierce joined the state militia
I will have to check Wallner on these when I go to GMU library later in the week, unless Designate gets to it first.
U.S. senate
  • "Pierce was a reliable party-line vote..." – can a person be a "vote"? Perhaps "voter", or rephrase, e.g. "Pierce voted the party line on most issues..."
Per your suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the Whigs were growing in strength" → "the Whigs were growing in Congressional strength", thus linking to the "small majority" mentioned later in the sentence.
Ditto, but with lower case
  • "He took interest in military pensions" → "He took an interest in military pensions
Done that.
  • "he urged a modernization and expansion of the Army" – "he urged the modernization..." etc
Fair enough.
  • "New Hampshire Democrats felt that no one should hold one of the state's Senate seats for longer than one six-year term, meaning he would not be re-elected." This seems a little loose, particularly the "felt that" wording. Would it be right to say: "The policy of the New Hampshire Democrats was that no one should hold one of the state's Senate seats for longer than one six-year term, meaning he would not be eligible for re-election."?
Well, he was eligible as he met the constitutional requirements (age 30 or over, resident of the state, etc.). It's just they wouldn't do it. Or so we're told. State legislatures did odd things in Senate elections.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've rephrased, though it does not seem to me to be ideal.
Lawyer and politician
  • "supported the use of government charters to support..." – avoidable repetition
  • What is meant by "eminent domain"? (there is a link article)
Both done above.
  • "Pierce was closer to the radicals philosophically, and reluctantly served as attorney in a publisher's dispute against Hill, which made tensions worse." It's not clear for whom he was acting as attorney, or why he was reluctant.
Tweaked. I'll look at this at the library too. Designate, you might want to look this over for factual accuracy.
  • Three "ands" in the section's final sentence, which should be tweaked.


Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I don't think I will get to these tonight, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's more
Mexican–American War
  • "He then returned to command and led his brigade throughout the rest of the campaign..." I think "returned to his command", or perhaps "to command and lead his brigade..."
Return to New Hampshire
  • Link Shakers
  • "while others wanted it barred" – need to clarify "it", not obvious at present.
  • "the majority nominating former Michigan senator Lewis Cass for president..." You should mention the context, i.e. the 1848 elections, which will also help understanding of the rest of the paragraph.
  • "Senator Clay, a Whig..." He hasn't been mentioned for a while, so I'd probably slip in a Henry, for identification
Last two sections' stuff is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Election of 1852
  • "Delegates selected Alabama Senator William R. King, a Buchanan supporter, as Pierce's running mate, adopting a party platform that rejected further "agitation" over the slavery issue..." This wording conflates the selection of King and the adoption of the slavery platform, which are separate issues: "and adopted" would serve better.
  • Since the Free Soil party's candidate was Hale of New Hampshire, who has been mentioned before in the article, I think he should be named here. (I see he is named at the end of the section, but I think this should be brought forward)
Administration and political strife
  • "His Cabinet members coordinated on an early system..." Can you co-ordinate "on" something? The meaning is unclear anyway, and I suggest you reword.
  • "...gave it to states'-rights advocate John Archibald Campbell, an advocate of states' rights" Er, ahem, er...
he felt very strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm over half-way through, now, and should finish on Monday or Tuesday (depending on the weather). Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I'm in the midst of writing, so will catch up on these as I can. Thank you for reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Except for the few issues I need to go to the library on, most likely Wednesday, we're up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
and finally
Economic policy and internal improvements
  • "...reforming the Treasury, which was be inefficiently managed..." – some typo here?
  • "overwrought" = "in a state of nervous excitement or anxiety". Are you sure this is the word you want here?
Foreign and military affairs
  • "foreign operations" – again, a peculiar choice of word. Basically you're talking about American consular establishments, rather than "operations" in the broader sense.
  • "Davis, advocate of..." → "Davis, an advocate of..."?
  • "Negotiations were nearly derailed by William Walker's filibuster into Mexico..." Most Brits, including this one, are unaware of the secondary meaning of "filibuster", as an unauthorised military attack. We know the word means an interminable speech, and may be confused to find it in this context. Suggest link here
  • "Congress reduced the Gadsden Purchase to the region comprising southern Arizona and part of southern New Mexico" – maybe insert "now" before "comprising"?
  • "Congress also included a protection clause for a private citizen, Albert G. Sloo, whose interests were threatened by the purchase." I wonder if this bit of detail is worthy of inclusion?
    • It's a bit awkward, I know, but every biography of Pierce I consulted for this article discussed at length Sloo's involvement in the bill. I decided that due weight requires the name, at least, to show up in the article. It does offer a hint of Pierce's economic philosophy aside from mere imperialism. —Designate (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "...which Pierce saw as a first step toward annexation of Canada." Annexation by whom?
  • Overlink second mention of Crampton within the section
  • "Pierce inserted language in his December 1855 message to Congress setting forth the American case" – this sounds unnecessarily complex. Instead, "In his December 1855 message to Congress Pierce set forth the American case..." etc
  • ...which they looked to remedy" – this is implied, need not be stated explicitly
Bleeding Kansas
  • As this title is an allegorical description rather than a geographical entity, it should br in quote marks
It's still a fairly well remembered phrase. I am inclined to let it stand. Designate?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "was necessary to settlement" → "was necessary for settlement"
  • "including territory North of the compromise line" – capitalisation of "North"?
  • After "When Free-staters..." I would insert parentheticaly: (who opposed the extension of slavery into Kansas), to avoid dependence on the link
In view of the fact they were clearly opposing the pro-slavery Border Ruffians of the previous sentence and the word "free" in the name, I think it speaks for itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The link you have on "shadow governement" looks inappropriate. The phrase is pretty well in common use, and I don't think needs linking.
  • "highest numbers yet" → "highest numbers to that point"
1856 election
  • "chances of winning denomination" – reads amusingly (with the appropriate accent), but I think you mean "the nomination"
  • If possible, find an opportunity to name the main candidates (Republican and Know-Nothing) who opposed Buchanan in the 1865 election
  • "Due to illness, he declined but sent a letter appealing to the people of Alabama to remain in the Union and give the North time to repeal laws against southern interests and to find common ground". Needs more (and slightly different) punctuation, e.g. "Due to illness he declined, but sent a letter appealing to the people of Alabama to remain in the Union, and give the North time to repeal laws against southern interests and to find common ground"
Civil War
  • The weighty second para, largely dealing with the hoax letter, is perhaps rather too detailed for a side issue, and could perhaps be summarized.
It was probably the biggest event of Pierce's post-presidency (which is obviously not saying that much) though I've shortened it a bit.
Final years and death
  • "supported acquittal in his impeachment trial": "his" requires clarification, e.g. "the president's..."
Sites and memorials
  • Slightly confusing sequence in the first para. If the two extant historic Pierce sites in NH are the Hillsborough homestead and the Pierce Manse, these should be listed together before mention of the destroyed Franklin Pierce House.
It's a question of listing on the historic places register. I've added a bit to make it clearer.
  • We have "named after" and "named for" in the same paragraph
  • "during Pierce's presidency he served": seems like the wrong way round, thus: "during his presidency Pierce served" reads more naturally.
  • "a question of property, rather than morality" – I think the comma is superfluous.
  • "stating that his expansionism \ those of later presidents" – there is clearly a typo here, but I can't work out what it is.

I had heard of Pierce, initially as the answer to a quiz question ("What other American president was christened Franklin?"), but I knew very little about him before reading this article, and I feel gratifyingly informed now. Some fascinating politics and history here – will be a worthy addition in the featured presidential series. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I've made or responded to all (I hope) except for the ones I will check on at the library later today. Must return my latest set of books and browse for an interesting and not-too-well-covered subject that GMU has books about.

Comment Just in case you haven't seen, User:Billmckern has inserted a load of WP:OVERLINKs, presumably for the benefit of people who don't know what a liver is, and have never heard of Japan or Spain: you may want to revert before you go to FAC, where they would be jumped on from a great height. Tim riley talk 09:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll guarantee you I didn't wiki link "liver," but I appreciate the snark. If anyone thinks any links I included are overlinks, I don't have any objections to them being removed.
Billmckern (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm working through them, keeping some edits and removing others. Mostly stylistic. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've kept some changes, discarded others. I unlinked liver.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry[edit]

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

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

A particularly tough image review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

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

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

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

Peacemaker 67's review[edit]

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

  • Very high level of detail, obviously you have put a lot of work in here. The result, though, is an absolutely enormous article of 15856 words (or 94K) which is well beyond the readable prose size of about 60K. There are a few things you could do, including condensing the summaries of other articles, or WP:SPINOUT the article into two or more articles. In general, I consider there are a lot of quotes whose content could be summarised more succinctly in prose without the need to quote someone.
  • You have a large Bibliography, so I suggest you use Template:Refbegin and Template:Refend to reduce the text size.
  • The refs are not templated using Template:Cite book etc, I suggest you template them, as they will then render in the standard way.
  • Some of the refs don't have a numerical identifier, DOI, ISBN, OCLC. You can get the book ones at Worldcat, the journal ones should be available online as well
  • use an endash with 200-300 in the Night Assault... section and the Chickamauga one as well, also the page range in the Morton McInvale citation in the Fire and maneuver section and the date range in the The Union Army: Cyclopedia of Battles citation in the Spring Hill section
  • there is quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKING, generally link once in the lead and once (at first mention) in the body
  • the external link checker says there is one dead link, and a few others which are redirects. Suggest you use permalinks
  • the citation style is very clunky, and results in a huge citation list. I suggest you use shortened footnote "sfn" citations, which will eliminate duplicated citations and reduce the space the citations take up.
  • watch for sandwiching of text between images on both the right and left
  • I suggest moving the non-historical/chronological "regimental details" such as the flag, uniforms, etc to the bottom, and starting the article after the lead with the recruiting, then working through the war in a chronological order.
Yes check.svg Done. SUPERB suggestion, sir. I actually wrote my article on the 43rd Indiana Infantry Regiment (my GGGF's regiment) that way, but didn't even think of that idea, here...
  • I suggest adding alt text to all the images. This is for accessibility reasons for vision impaired readers.
  • support the idea of a GOCE copyedit
  • the lead needs to summarise all the important aspects of the article. Given its size, I don't believe it does that now.
Yes check.svg Done. I think so, anyway (LOL)... Expanded the list of battles and campaigns; also added a paragraph about Matthews' contributions (which can be deleted, if need be).
  • I think the image licenses need some close attention, but that is not my forte so I haven't looked at them.
  • I would make the maps a standard size, the smaller ones are too small, even on my enormous screen

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

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

A huge thank you[edit]

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

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

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


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

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

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

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

Language and literature[edit]

List of Bleach volumes[edit]

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

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

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

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

Arab street[edit]

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

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

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

Eclogue 4[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

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

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

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

Charles Hamilton (rapper)[edit]

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

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

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


Tom Hanks filmography[edit]

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

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

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Cowlibob, Just a couple of quickies from me:

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

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

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

@SchroCat: It could potentially be renamed as "on screen and stage" but so far he's had one Broadway appearance (Tony nominated but still one). Another thing, to avoid peacockery which words would you advice to use if a film is a box office hit or flop or somewhere in between which are encyclopaedic. The same for if the performance was critically acclaimed or panned. Cowlibob (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't refer to the success (or otherwise) of a film: that's what the film's own page is for. Ditto for performances, although yes, you should include the awards info, which is straight reportage of an event, rather than the print opinions of critics, if you get my drift on the difference... - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Yes that would be my preference as well but had seen it in other Filmog FLs. Is it ok to rename article as "on screen and stage" despite only one Broadway appearance. He did appear in city-based theatre productions before films if that counts for anything.Cowlibob (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd add as many as possible, regardless of where the performances took place: it's a bit Broadway-centric to ignore all the others, which is often where an actor learns his or her trade. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Lotus[edit]

Just a few questions really.

  • Can the credits where he was only a producer have their own table? I feel like that would be better for navigation for users wanting to see things he did as the producer and not have to search through his filmography. That way the whole "credited as" column can be removed, as I don't see the necessity of it now when that's what the "notes" column is for.
  • I would remove "Premieres in Winter 2014", that's not necessary and not normally stated in a filmography
  • Not saying that Box Office Mojo and AllMovie aren't reliable sources, but with how big his career is, I'm sure there are more reliable sources out there.
  • I would adjust the width of the tables to add in more images LADY LOTUSTALK 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Akshay Kumar filmography[edit]

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

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

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]