Wikipedia:Peer review

This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For the pending changes trial, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.

"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For peer reviews sorted by date, see Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.

Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. Nominations are limited to one open request per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since any previous peer review. Please address issues raised in an unsuccessful FAC before opening a PR. For more information on these limits see here. To add a nomination: Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return. Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests. Note. You may change a topic parameter in the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are: X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosophy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.

How to remove (or close) a request In accordance with the peer review request removal policy, you may close any listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed, as follows: Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}. Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1). The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions. Current archive: February 2012

How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews. The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Use the non-image templates, {{done-t}}/{{not done-t}}, instead. Automated peer reviews can be generated using the Tips tool link in the upper right corner: please do not include them on the peer review page. Feel free to improve the article yourself. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.

Related pages
Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) Chemistry peer review Chess peer review Comics peer review Film peer review History peer review LGBT studies peer review Novels peer review Scouting peer review Conservatism peer review	Other peer reviews: Academic peer review External peer review Picture peer review Portal peer review
Purge server cache	edit guidelines

Arts

Icelandic Phallological Museum

I've listed this article for peer review so I can find out the main problems with it before nominating for featured article.

Thanks, oyasumi (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 February 2012, 09:36 UTC)

---

Dimple Kapadia

I've been working on this article for the past few months (though I had a break recently due to lack of time). The article has gone through major expansion, more than I had ever hoped for. And now I have new plans to take it a few steps further. I naturally believe that a broader number of opinions would help improving it further, so here I am. Please let me know what else can be done. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz' Comments

• Lead: IMO, para 1 should be things the subject is best known for, like Bobby and Rudali, which won her the awards, in this case. Life should start (marriage, comeback) in para 2. A model followed in Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Abdul Karim (the Munshi), Ram Narayan etc.
• More on the weekend...

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Animeshkulkarni's Comments

(I will be commenting more like an admirer than an editor. So these are just suggestions.)

• More pictures please, especially in different roles.
• No mention of Bobby Print? The "polka dot" design that she wore in Bobby is quite popular as "Bobby print". The fashion is refered but the exact term is not. (Sorry! i dont have reference as such.)
• None of her songs are mentioned. "Jhooth Bole Kauwa Kaate", "Chehra Hai Ya Chaand Khila Hai" can find space here.

- Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 February 2012, 17:46 UTC)

---

Dan Leno

I've listed this article for peer review because of the extensive work I have undertaken in the last few weeks and I now feel confident the article meets GA criteria. This will be my second GAC and one that I have thoroughly enjoyed working on. I would like to take this to FAC in the next few months, depending on how well it does here. Please be as critical as you like as this will not only help the article, but will also help me as an editor in the future. Many thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 February 2012, 10:44 UTC)

---

We Found Love (music video)

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to make this article an FA. If people who are very familiar with the FAC process could comment, in addition to anyone else, I would be grateful.

Thanks, Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Some overlinking - for example, illegal drug trade twice in the lead alone

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Don't italicize quotes

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Some inconsistencies in citation format - for example FN 2, 4 vs 6, etc

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• This and this would be questioned at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  I found an alternate source for the AOL source and replaced it. And for Popdust, I have emailed the reviewer who wrote the review asking about her educational background and what her qualifications are for writing about music. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

WP Comments

Per request at talk page. I'm copy editing the article as I go and will be listing issues by which I am confused, here.

Lead

• As you can see, I have trimmed the lead as it was quite long. Yes, I know this is a good article, but too much was there. Waffle was reduced as well. Just throwing that out.
• "Residents driving around the location of the set informed BBC that traffic in the area was congested as drivers wanted to see the singer." - "Resident" is awkward here: residents of what? Why not "People" instead?

  Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• "Most critics agreed that the way in which the video had been shot was reminiscent of being a film" - unclear what this sentence means. Rewrite in simple and clear English?

• Done. I guess because I'm a film student, that line makes sense to me. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

  I can understand what you were trying to say, but the sentence needed to be re-worded. By the way, music videos are short films by definition. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Some critics also compared the controversial content to those of Rihanna's videos for "S&M" and "Man Down". The video caused controversy from activist groups, including The Rape Crisis Centre in the UK." - Okay, order needs to be revised here. You discuss the controversial content comparisons before actually saying that the video caused controversy?

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• "Christian youth pastors Brandon Ward and John Colonnello as well as Ulster Cancer Foundation, for Rihanna's portrayal in the video of having sex whilst under the influence of illegal drugs, not being a role model to young girls and women and for smoking." - Does not read like a proper sentence. Missing word maybe?

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• "As a result, the video was banned from being shown before 10pm on French television due to it's controversial content." - Isn't it redundant to say both "As a result" and "due to its controversial content" in the same sentence? Maybe remove the latter?

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Remove all occurrences of "whilst" throughout with "while". They mean the same thing, only one is too formal for Wikipedia.

  Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Revise article throughout for your incorrect usage of "It's", when "Its" should really be there. "Its" represents possession, while "It's" is a contraction for "It is".

• Done. Only one had to be changed though. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Check for overlinking throughout. MTV, Requiem for a Dream, S&M (song), Man Down, Agyness Deyn, Britney Spears are all linked more than once in the body.

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Development

• "The video was filmed in a field in the town of Bangor, County Down, ahead of Rihanna embarking on the European leg of the Loud Tour (2011) and was directed by Melina Matsoukas, who had previously directed the videos for "Rude Boy" (2010), and the controversial "S&M" (2011)." - I do not understand the Loud Tour part of the sentence and how it is relevant. Also, missing comma after "(2011)"? Sentence needs revising.

  Done. It's background info about it. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• "a red bandana top, long flannel shirt, and dirty denim"" - Quotations are used for quality and special wording. This does not need quotation marks (maybe the "dirty denim", but not the rest.)

  Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• ""an American flag bikini, denim vest, and ripped jeans"" - same here. This needs some slight paraphrasing. Maybe "A bikini with the pattern of the American flag, as well as a denim vest and ripped jeans".

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• ""When the filming did become to my mind unacceptable I requested the filming to stop ... it became apparent to me that the situation was becoming inappropriate and I requested them to stop and they did"" - this is almost repeating what you said in your own words. Trim it down.

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• "It was reported that extras were not told about what was expected of them until a very short time period beforehand, in order to keep the content of the video as secret as possible." - WP:WEASEL word. Who reported this? Also, by who were they not told of their expectations? The "until a very short time period beforehand" - needs to be re-worded. It's a bit awkward. I can't think of anything clever at the moment, but maybe "until the last minute"?

• Done. I don't know who told them that, someone on set most likely. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Could we elaborate on what this violent experience she had? It's vague right now.

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Isn't using two block quotations from one interview a bit too much?

  No. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is, but considering this is just a peer review, suit yourself. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see the problem with it. Both are too long to be in the prose. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis

• "Running amok" is somewhat of an inaccessible expression that many readers will not understand. Clarify.

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "... possibly due to the heavy drug abuse." - needs source as this is personal interpretation. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

References to popular culture

• Not a major issue, but comparing the two lead sentences: "The video for "We Found Love" references popular culture in the form of films." versus "The video also features multiple popular culture references to other artists in the music industry." They are worded a bit too similarly. I think the second could be worded a bit more creatively. Something like "Elements of the music video have been compared to the works of recording artists Britney Spears, Eminem and Madonna." It's a little more fresh , "wow" and interesting. My suggestion you don't have to follow, because I know you can write better.
• Actually, overall, I think the whole section could use some copy editing to make the wording more variant and compelling. It's slightly repetitive now. This part of the article has a lot of potential as an interesting read. I see a lot of the same "The video features this, which is a lot what this film/song does." As a challenge, try and be creative. This will obviously be difficult, let alone for FAC, but it will vastly improve the overall flow.
• "Spears is shown as a successful singer constantly hounded by the media and" - maybe the word "hounded" is a bit colloquial. Maybe something like "bothers"?
• Also, may I add that this isn't actually reference to music, but other music videos? A video can easily illustrate the lyrics of another song, but this isn't what is dicussed in this section. So there may need to be some re-naming. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Another point: I think the section jumps from comparison to comparison a bit too quickly. I think elaborating on each reference will make the article flow a lot better. It's a bit choppy and list-y right now. See if you can dig for more discussion from the sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've just made it one section. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Can it be expanded? And what's the difference between this and the Comparisons section? Both are comparison sections really. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've moved it to the Britney/Chris section as one seciton. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Release and reception

• "Matthew Perpetua of Rolling Stone found "the footage looks like a remake of Trainspotting, writing "[We Found Love] matches its thumping rave beat to footage that often looks like a remake of Trainspotting"" - missing quotation mark? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  No? Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

• "The video also came under fire from Brandon Ward," - can this be more formal?

  Reworded, used "scrutinized" Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The negative reaction to the video is the third by Rihanna in 2011 to be criticized by various organizations" - Rihanna had the negative reaction? Re-word. You mean "The video is the third by Rihanna in 2011 to receive a negative reaction from organizations"?

  Yep :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• ""S&M" was the first, and was banned from eleven countries around the world due to its explicit sexual content,[3][4] while "Man Down" attracted media attention when the Parents Television Council (PTC), a non-profit organization that advocates responsible entertainment, criticized Rihanna for "cold, calculated execution of murder" in the video and for portraying a scenario of rape.[5]" - this is dragging into too much unnecessary detail

  Shortened Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why are you even talking about the promotional picture? It's not related in any way to the video. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons

• "Among the similarities, critics ..." - critics were among the similarities?
• What's "bad boy archetypes"?
• "that is also against guns that politicians felt the need to talk about it." - guns?
• "According to her, the videos continue with a xenophobic portrayal of British people as villains by American pop culture." - not sure where the "by American pop culture" fits here? What about them? Clarify.

I guess I'm done then. Ping me if you need help. Great job on the article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've done them all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My love is love comments

This article isn't complete; The year-end lists of the best 2011 music videos should be added. I've seen "We Found Love" on some of them. I think Pitchfork Media, AOL, Consequence of Sound, Slant Magazine etc. Plus I've seen this on the talk page and it isn't added in the article. So, first add everything you'll find about the music video and then nominate it for an FA. My love is love (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added the 2011 lists I could find/which are okay for FAC. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Note - I haven't forgotten about this. Will make the changes after the blackout on Thursday. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 February 2012, 03:51 UTC)

---

Gwen Cooper

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in submitting it for a good article nomination, but would like feedback on spelling, grammar, content and content/lack of bias. I'd particuarly like help regarding the real world perspective on the character in the 'Characterisation' and 'Reception' sections, and whether the material there is too much.

Thanks, Eshlare (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 February 2012, 17:40 UTC)

---

Lady Gaga

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been a while since its last peer review and the article has changed much seeing as Gaga's career has extended profusely even in the last year. I, along with many others I am sure, would like to get this up to FA standard as soon as. Please be as critical as you like. :)

Thanks, Stephenjamesx (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from a huge fan :) Yay, Gaga! I'll read through it some other time, but a technical check for now:

• Avoid having references in the lead if the information that is being cited recurs later on in the article (where it should be supported an in-line citation).
• If multiple sources are needed to support a claim, consider bundling citations to avoid an unappealing plethora of in-line ref numbers ("[173][174][175][176][177]", "[179][180][181]", "[132][133][134]", etc), as is done for ref 138.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Refs should be reordered consistently (e.g. "[132][18][135]" should be "[18][132][135]")
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After gaining early admission at 17, she eventually lived in an NYU dorm on 11th Street." source?
• "Devastated, Gaga returned to the solace of the family home for Christmas and the nightlife culture of the Lower East Side." source?
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• "A sleeper hit, lead single "Just Dance" had preceded the album's release by four months but only hit the summit of the international charts in January 2009." source?
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In addition to exceeding 8 million copies in worldwide sales, Born This Way has received 3 Grammy Award nominations, including her third consecutive for Album of the Year." source?
• "She has covered a wide variety of topics in her songs: while The Fame (2008) meditates on the lust for stardom, The Fame Monster (2009) expresses fame's dark side through monster metaphors. Born This Way (2011) is sung in English, French, German and Spanish and includes common themes in Gaga's controversial songwriting like love, sex, religion, money, drugs, identity, liberation, sexuality, freedom and individualism." source? I realize that all of these claims are located at the end of paragraphs, and as such may be backed up by subsequent sources in the following paragraphs. However, for reassurance, try having every paragraph in the article end with appropriate sources. Auree ★ 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• In 2008–10: The Fame and The Fame Monster, several previously wikilinked terms are re-linked: metal, synthpop, New Kids on the Block, Just Dance, Poker Face, Best Dance Recording, and 52nd Grammy Awards. Most of these double links are unnecessary.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Same for 2011–present: Born This Way: best-selling singles worldwide, Marry the Night, Elton John are duplicate links, though I suggest keeping the first one.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Duplicate links for Influences: musical theatre, glam rock. Glam rock reappears in Musical style, as does heavy metal.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• In Philantrophy, Born This Way, Manhattan, John Lennon, 2010 MTV Video Music Awards, The Edge of Glory, and dress are re-linked.
  • Fixed Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reference 176 contains a dead link; References 10, 29, 45, 56, 61, 62, 80, 91, 101, 162, 180, 182, 186, 194, 200, 202, 212, 220, 222, 229 contain uncategorized redirects (path or sub-domain changes, etc); Ref 51 also returns an error (see here)
• No disambiguation links. Auree ★ 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 February 2012, 11:42 UTC)

---

21 (Adele album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I desperately need some fresh pairs of eyes to look it over. I'd love to take it to FAC soon, and wanted to make sure that it was up to standard before I nominated it. My major issue right now is the prose. Also, the article could use a bit of trimming, but I've grown too emotionally attached to edit it down. Any help or suggestions welcomed.

Thanks, Orane (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments by Lemonade51

Thank you for your work on this, not the biggest fan of Adele alas but I don't think anyone can deny that her voice is magnifique. This is a very well produced article so kudos. I won't go into much detail on prose unfortunately nor haven't checked for Oxford comma but skim reading this, here is what I have found (of course if I find anymore I'll let you know...)

• "The media scrambled to ascertain the...", is scrambled the word you are looking for?
• In 'Titling' you use the word 'symbolized'. Should that be 'symbolised' because the majority of the article looks to be written in British English?
• Under 'Promotion', it states "The singer underwent vocal surgery in November 2011". Perhaps there needs to be a short addition about the result of the surgery, that it was a success? Doesn't have to be a lot of sentences because it has nothing to do with the article, few words in that already constructed sentence would do.
• "...performing on Britain's Royal Variety Performance on 9 December 2010, BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge on 27 January, and on the finale of reality singing competition The Voice of Holland, on 21 January 2011", Voice of Holland should come before Live Lounge.
• "Switzerlandand", spacing.
• Ref 70 was published on The Observer, not its sister publication The Guardian.
• Ref 139 states the work as 'BBC Online'. I believe Newsbeat, the news platform for Radio 1 is a division of 'BBC News'. So maybe BBC News should be the work?
• Couple of dead links which should be the least of your worries considering you are looking for prose checks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade51 (talk • contribs)

• Thank you so much for the input. Will set about implementing your suggestions immediately.
• "Scrambled" was the word I was looking for (the idea of a media frenzy and journalists tripping over themselves to come up with reasons to explain the album's success), but I'll remove it since it's syntactically awkward. Orane (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks again for the comments. Orane (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jivesh

• Before I start, I need to know whether you are using "the owner" (according to WP) or the "the publisher" (according to WP) in the publisher parameter in your citations? This can be problematic. For consistency, I will advise you to use the owner (which in most cases is the publishing company) in each citation. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• As per the template specifications, the publishers for British newspapers are the owners, while the publishers for American newspapers are individual persons. So, I used the "publisher". Orane (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok. Lol. now it will be easier for me. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry. I will get to this today itself. In three hours or less. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Take your time. No rush. Orane (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I may be wrong but this sentence Released on 24 January 2011 in the United Kingdom and most of Europe, and on 22 February 2011 in North America, caused me ask myself, isn't the UK in Europe?
• in the U.S. --> US
  • Hi Jivesh, MOS:ABBR allows for either style of USA as long as the writer only sticks to one. "UK" on the other hand should never have periods/full stops. MOS only asks for consistency amongst the US abbreviations. Best, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well Orane will to apply the U.S. in Charts and certifications as well then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never read such a lead. It is perfect. I as moving to the other sections. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

References

• FN 12: Shouldn't you be using Daily Mail and General Trust?

• Done

• FN 16: M - has an article + publisher is Bauer Media Group

• It's actually not the same magazine. This one is an American teen mag; the one in the article is a British Magazine.

• FN 30: WSJ is published by Dow Jones & Company

• Done

• FN 34: Metacritic has an article Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 55: It is a blog. Remove it.
• FN 56: Use {{cite news}}
• FN 57: Rovi Corporation would be perfect as the publisher
• FN 60: Use {{cite news}}

• This is actually not an actual newspaper.Orane (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 61: Not sure about Soul Culture

• Will look into it.

• FN 70: Shouldn't you be suing Guardian Media Group? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • LMAO! Why the hell would he sue Guardian Media Group. Jivesh, your keyboard is too much. :D — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Using. :D My keyboard... hmmm it is legendary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• FN 82: Link The Official Charts Company
• FN 86: Unlink everything and link in FN 72
• FN 90: Unlink Time
• FN 91: Same as FN 70
• FN 94: Daily News has an article.
• FN 98: It will be questioned.
• FN 99: I think BBC will be more than enough. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 105: Grammy.com has an article.
• FN 111: Correct the work parameter and unlink the publisher
• FN 128: Should be The Official Charts Company
• FN 133: Same
• FN 135: Same
• FN 140: Unlink
• FN 141: BBC Online has an article.
• FN 142: Should be The Official Charts Company
• FN 147: Unlink MegaCharts
• FN 149: State is a magazine and it is published by Roger Woolman.

• No longer an magazine. Ceased circulation. Now an online publication.

• FN 150: Chart-Track has an article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Waayyy past my bed time, but I just want to say 3 things: 1. I love-love-love your suggestions. And 2 It's actually "Official Charts Company" (without "The") :). 3. I made an edit and screwed up the refs. So the ones you listed here aren't the same ref numbers that appear in the article. But I know which ones you are talking about. Anyway, gotta run, but thanks soo much. Orane (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• You are most welcome Orane. :)) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Think I got 99% of it. Will try to see about a couple sources, like the blog etc. Orane (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have not finished yet with the references. This is my favorite part. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I see that you have already fixed most of references from FN 151 onward per the above comments.

• FN 199: Over-linking of Ultratop
• FN 202: Over-linking of MegaCharts

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Legolas

• I think the approach that you have chosen for listing the locations of newspapers which are unobtainable from their names, is brilliant and on-par with the citation templates. At a first glance I did not see any discrepancy in the citations. I will inspect it more now and go citation by citation. By the way, some of the references miht be questioned at FAC. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Chart Watch/Yahoo sources will be questioned, I'm sure. But I have my defense speech ready hahaha. Are there any others? Orane (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Orane, is there any way to archive the Adele.tv link and the video? It's importance is unprecedented and the article would fall if that link went dead for some reason. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll try to archive the page. I don't know if it will keep the videos intact, though :(. Orane (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do you know any sites that host transcripts? Those can be archived I'm sure. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, not aware of any sites. I'm kinda worried now... Orane (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I actually can't archive. When I do, the videos don't work. Compare: http://www.adele.tv/trackbytrack/archive/ and http://www.webcitation.org/659w0g2uy. Orane (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Status

I have nothing to add to this review (sorry), but I just wanted to say how good this article is! You've done some great work here! I personally could never handle something this big! Takes a real good editor! — Status {^talk_contribs 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks soo much for your comment. Really appreciated. :) Orane (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sp33dyphil

• MOS calls the inclusion of alt text.
• Four references are dead.
• "album's enigmatic popularity" Why enigmatic?
• "an overtly sexual and sonically bombastic music industry." Are all those industry jargons? No idea what they mean.
• "Adele had met Ryan Tedder at the Grammy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles and had approached him about" --> "Adele had approached Ryan Tedder at the Grammy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles about"
• "the lyrics towards her recent experiences." --> "the lyrics to reflect her recent experiences."
• "the "'long tail' sales theory"[66] in order to shape"
• "stops in New York, Minneapolis, as well as an exclusive" --> "stops in New York and Minneapolis, as well as an exclusive" I'm not 100% sure about this, but the same issue had been raised during my previous GA/FA promotions.
• twitter should be capitalised.
• "a vocal hemorrhage that caused "internal bleeding near her vocal chords"." A vocal hemorrhage *is* internal bleeding near her vocal cords, not the cause of it. It's like saying "The car crash resulted in two cars crashing into each other." You should either get rid of "vocal hemorrhage that caused" or "that caused "internal bleeding near her vocal chords".
• Wikify "Flanders".
• Be consistent whether to include serial commas or not.
• "score of 76/100 based" Given that you've mentioned Metacritic's rating system to be out of 100, I find this redundant.
• "Where 19 was" --> "Whereas 19 was"?
• There's a Citation needed template.
• "certified 14-times platinum" --> "certified platinum 14 times"

• Don't agree with this. Your option is like telling it was given the platinum certification fourteen times and at the end of the day, it is still platinum. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what I've missed now. Thanks for the tip --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• "As of January 2012, it has had spent"
• "best-selling album of the year by a considerable margin." Mind telling the reader what the margin is? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PS I really like "Rolling in the Deep", so I can relate to the album :) --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you so very much for the comments and suggestions. Will begin implementing them as soon as I can. And yes, "Rolling in the Deep" is amazing, isn't it?

• PS: "an overtly sexual and sonically bombastic music industry". No, these are not jargons. "Overtly sexual"--> hyper-sexualized, and "sonically"-->relating to audio/sounds/the ear, "bombastic"-->flashy; (i.e music that is showy and excessively flashy). The comment was about the album's success, and how it was radical to the overly sexual and flashy dance music that now saturates the music industry. It's expanded in the "Impact and response" section. Orane (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Before you can take it to FA, you have to take it to GA. I made this paragraph short. Nineteen-Eightyit(s) (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 29 January 2012, 09:00 UTC)

---

Missing My Baby

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring the article to FA status

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Sample length is too long - should be no more than 10% of the complete track

  • Will do, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Done! Reduce to 25 seconds (10% of 4:13) Bluesatellite (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Bluesatellite! Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 03:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Intentionally, "Missing My Baby" was recorded" - what do you mean by "intentionally"?
• "it's central theme" - "its central theme"

In general, this article could use an extensive copyedit. It might also be a bit on the short side for FAC - is there any further information available? You might also find it helpful to go through GAN first. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed all concerns. No, I have looked everywhere from google news/books to archives and this is all I can find. So the article won't be good enough (length wise) for FAC? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not my area of expertise, so I'm not sure. Maybe find someone who frequently reviews music articles there to take a look? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Will ask thanks for your comments. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 03:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 January 2012, 21:13 UTC)

---

Poppy Meadow

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, MayhemMario 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Per my nomination at FAC, the article may have plagiarism and mis-attribution, per an editors comments at FAC, and this is how I can get it up to FA level. Also a general sort out of the Reception section. This was brought up later here. Thanks, MayhemMario 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is the plagiarism and mis-attribution cleared up? Not much use in a review until it is, particularly the former. Allens (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is! I did some edits, checked the sources, etc. MayhemMario 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could you describe the reason, not just the 3 points? Also, peer reviews are not complete, so just nom and nom until all's straightened out. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• The image could use some alt text. Allens (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ebe123, could you re-explain that? And Y Done alt text! MayhemMario 17:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 20:49 UTC)

---

Rae Wilson

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an editor to help start the process of strict improvement. I would like to take it to FAC one day. I know these requests can take a while, so if you think you can help in any way, then please do. I think this article could benefit from a couple of peer reviews and copy edit requests. I think the more eyes and hands - the better the outcome will be.

Thanks, Rain the 1 03:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Like most potential readers of this article, I have never seen any of the episodes in the series. That enables me to comment from an outsider's point of view. Several of my suggestions below stem from my ignorance of the storylines and my unfamiliarity with some of the jargon.

Lead

• "who went on to play Jem Costello" - I think I would add here that Costello was another character in Hollyoaks.

• "During series four of the post-watershed spin-off... " - I'm not sure what this means. I understand "spin-off", but what does "watershed" refer to?

• "bemoaned the dearth of realism exhibited in Rae staying with Ste despite knowing him to be homosexual" - Slightly smoother might be "bemoaned the dearth of realism when Rae stayed with Ste despite his homosexuality". Or something like that.

Creation and casting

• "It was later revealed that a new character, Rae, would join the serial as part of a "shock suicide plot" involving Newt, which would see the two characters jump off a bridge." - It would be helpful here, I think, to add background information about the series. I had no idea at this point in my first reading who Newt was or what turns and twists the plot might have taken before this episode. Should "Storylines" precede "Creation and casting" perhaps?

• "She expressed her pride in Barlow's performance, as, "to introduce a character as somebody and then to completely change the character six weeks later, while still delivering the performances that Alice does, is a testament to a young actress." - This is a bit awkward. Maybe "Expressing pride in Barlow's performance, she said, "To introduce a character as somebody and then to completely change the character six weeks later, while still delivering the performances that Alice does, is a testament to a young actress."

Development

• The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotation marks and suggests using a blockquote for passages of four lines or more. The blockquote here is only 2.5 lines on my computer screen. I'd drop the fancy quotes for sure, and I'd probably drop the blockquote as well.

• Rae was depicted as a goth with an "emo persona". - Since nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked, emo should not be linked here unless this is a scare quote. If it's a direct quotation, it should have an inline citation to the source. If it's a scare quote, I'd drop the quotation marks and just say, "Rae was depicted as a goth with an emo persona."

Relationships

• Since "Rae" is part of the article title, rather than repeating "Rae" in the subheads, I'd use "With Ste and Brendan" and "With Ethan".

• "She enjoyed portraying this dynamic, and assessed that Rae "always felt like she had the upper hand" as she knew the truth about Brendan's sexuality." - I'd use the more-or-less invisible "said" rather than the redundant "assessed".

• "poured gunge over him in front of the entire village" - I assume this is slang for "ridiculed" or "scolded" or something like that, but I'm not sure. I don't suppose it means that they poured a liquid called "gunge" all over him.

Storylines

• "She is disliked Eli (Marc Silcock), an alternate persona of Newt's caused by his schizophrenia." - Missing word, "by" between "disliked" and "Eli"?

• "Rae is released without charge after Warren Fox (Jamie Lomas) tampers with the substance and it is found to be icing sugar." - What does "icing sugar" mean?

Oh, I suddenly see. It's powdered sugar. "Tampers" made me imagine that "icing sugar" was slang for "diluting cocaine", but that's not it at all. Finetooth (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "They then humiliate Ethan with the truth and throw gunge over him infront of the locals." - Repetition?

Reception

• "Rae charged in possession of icing sugar... " - Repetition?

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review. I shall make a start working through these points soon.Rain the 1 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 03:58 UTC)

---

Canadian comics

I've completely rewritten this page from scratch over the last month, and would like to get feedback. I think the subject of the article could definitely be made GA-class. Please pick nits and split hairs!

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a very comprehensive article. Because I am very strapped for time at present I have concentrated on identifying a few issues which may help to improve the article.

• Lead: The lead looks rather a long and daunting slab of prose, which may deter readers. There appears to be rather too much detail; remember, the lead is supposed to be a broad overview of the article's content. In the second paragraph we have arther more than that, with John Bengough, Hal Foster, Joe Shuster, and many other names and trends, all mentioned individually. This is the stuff of the text rather than of the lead, which I suggest couuld be reduced to around half of its present 700-word length.
• Redlinks: There are rather a lot of these, particularly in the earlier sections of the article. They should be used only when the subject is suffiently notable to provide a reasonable chance that an article will be written. It may be that you have been overgenerous in this respect.
• Citations:There are numerous instances of uncited statements, often at the ends of paragraphs, and there are some short paragraphs with no citations at all. As a rule of thumb I would say that every paragraph should have at least one citation, and ever paragaph should end with a citation.
• Images: Of 14 images, 11 are non-free. This is an exceptionally high proportion, unlikely to be acceptable. Wikipedia's general policy, defined in Wikipedia:Non-free content, is "to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions". A key element in a fair use rationale is the extent its presence would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Note the word "significantly".
• Works cited: These include a book by Duncan and Swift to which there are no citation.
• Prose: I have not given the article a full prose check, but I have noticed a couple of things:-
  • A tendency to repetition, for instance in "While Canadian comics have show varying degrees of British, Japanese and European influences over time, American comics have had the most notable influence on English-language comics, while French-language comics have tended to show a strong Franco-Belgian influence"
  • Overlong sentence such as: "The Golden Age of Comic Books and subsequent superhero boom kicked off with the June 1938 release of Action Comics #1, which had the first appearance of Superman by Jerry Siegel and Toronto-born Joe Shuster,[11] who modeled Superman's Metropolis after his memories of Toronto, and the newspaper Clark Kent worked for after the Toronto Daily Star, which he had delivered as a child."

One other thing. I notice from the article history that this is your virtually unaided work. It might be worth your while talking to and getting input from other editors who are active in this subject area. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've started working on your suggestions already. I just wanted to point out, though, that the Duncan and Smith references actually were there, but they pointed at the name of the book they wrote rather than the authors, so it wasn't clear. I've fixed that.

It would be great if more people helped me out with the article, but it doesn't seem many people are interested or motivated. It had actually been there since 2006 when I decided I would tackle it during the winter break. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I do believe I have managed to track down citaitons for every statement in the article (I've deleted the odd statement I couldn't get a good enough source for). I've rewritten the lead to be shorter and more general, rather than a historical synopsis. I've removed a large number of the redlinks (sometimes by starting the articles, sometimes by finding out there was already an article, and I just had the wrong name for it). I've tired to clean up the prose and cut down on overlong sentences. I removed most of the fair-use images (is it still too man?).

I've also managed to track down a couple of sources for Canadian editorial cartooning, which I had trouble finding before. I think that was the biggest hole content-wise in the article (I don't think there are any significant holes any more).

Where else could this article be improved? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 01:13 UTC)

---

Days Gone Bye

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach FA status. I have recently given the article a massive expansion, and a moderate copyedit. I would like to know some improvement I can make because setting it up for nomination.

Thanks, —DAP388 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 January 2012, 00:59 UTC)

---

Rajinikanth

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article an FA. I would be grateful if somebody could provide a more detailed review.

Thanks, —Commander _{(Ping me)} 09:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this isn't a detailed peer review (I am not a movie buff...), but I can say a few things:
  • Try using the automated checker; it found several problems.
  • I skimmed over the lead and noted some infelicitous phrases ("He was bestowed {such-and-such an honor}", for instance; it should be "{such-and-such an honor} was bestowed on him", or even better "he won {such-and-such an honor}"); perhaps the Guild of Copy-Editors could help? Their request pages are at WP:GOCE/FA for FA nominees, and WP:GOCE/REQ for more general requests.
  • You might check with the film peer review people.
• Allens (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 January 2012, 11:14 UTC)

---

Bachata Rosa

I've listed this article for peer review because the article was just copy-edited and I want to submit to GAN. However I have some concerns in which I need an expert opinion.

• Prose. The albums is not widely known compared to other albums that have received a GA and the albums is quite old so there's not alot of information I could find even through books.
• The section "Cultural impact". I didn't know where to put the information on how bachata gained attention in the Dominican Republic after the release of the album, so I made its own section, but I'm not sure if it's long enough to warrant its own section or it should be merged elsewhere.
• The Dutch (Netherlands) certifications not working anywhere, so access to the database is unavailable at the moment.
• I added two samples to represent two different genres but I need to know if the rations for both are okay.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 January 2012, 23:43 UTC)

---

Darren Osborne

I've listed this article for peer review because i am interested in getting the article to feature status. The article has recently been through two good article revies and is now at good article status. Any recommendations for improvement to the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The alt text for the main image could be fixed. MayhemMario 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure the Alex Carter quote should be in the first part of the main lead. MayhemMario 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 January 2012, 16:34 UTC)

---

One for the Road (Cheers)

I have worked hard to insert all I can. I don't need to check whether it meets the standards of GA; I simply want an honest evaluation and grade. "One for the Road" is the most-celebrated episode of Cheers, and I'm doing all I can to improve it. The plot section... I hope it doesn't violate copyrights or contain intricate details this time. Cheers, George Ho (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The article cannot be peer reviwed while there is an underconstruction banner in place. Unless this work is finished within the next 24 hours or so you should close, and renominate when the reconstruction is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Ahem! There were no major updates within five days. The "construction" banner is removed. This needs another review, please. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have read through the article. At present it has many weaknesses, which make it rather hard to review. I am sorry I won't be able to help furthet, but here are a few of the main problems:-

• Plot summary: You shouldn't assume that all your readers will be familiar with this series. For example, it ran in the UK nearly 20 years ago so there's lots of younger people who have neither seen it nor heard of it. So when you say "the gang are gathered at Cheers", people will ask "what gang?" and "What is Cheers?". You need to preface the plot summary with a short summary of what the series is about, perhaps along the lines: "The Cheers series follows the fortunes and inter-relationships of a group of Bostonians who meet regularly at "Cheers", their local bar". That way, people will at least have a context for the plot. You don't have to se my words, but you should include someting along those lines.
• Still with the plot summary, this should be much more general; you should not be summarising the script, you should be providing a broad summary of what happened in each part, in a way that makes sense to the general reader. From what you have written, each part reads like a series of unconnected events, and I can't make much sense of these various comings and goings
• I find some of the language distinctly odd, e.g. "Sam (Ted Danson), entering the gang scene, is relapsing sexual addiction since the previous episode..."; "they both turn out to be a gay couple" (can't follow that); "In the plane, Sam and Diane begin to consider disputes of themselves as a couple" - don't know what that means; "At their phone conversation...", etc.
• The "Production" section has little or no production information in it.
• Prose quality is a major problem throughout the article. I think you may need the help of another editor to get this right.
• You also appear to need help with the correct formatting of references. (Do people prefer any format to MLA format? MLA separates URLs, as well as printable versions do. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC))

Peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". There are hundreds of TV episode articles that have achieved Good Article status. It may be worth your while studying some of these and to try to model your article accordingly before returning it for further review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added the "Preface" section. If Brianboulton cannot review it again, then someone else will. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: I have skimmed down plot summary, but I hope the plot is general without flaws. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 January 2012, 01:40 UTC)

---

Couldn't Stand the Weather Tour

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make this a featured article. I don't believe there's too many examples of featured articles on concert tours, so I'd like to make this one of them. I'd appreciate if somebody would provide some suggestions and assistance in perfecting this fine work in progress.

Many thanks, User:Alanbarrybush

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, which I found interesting. I think it would need a fair amount of work before it could be a FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I agree that a model article is a great idea for examples to follow. I am not sure that Mozart family grand tour is the kind of model you have in mind, but Zoo TV Tour is a FA on a fairly recent rock concert tour and seems like an excellent model article.
• The current lead is too short - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. The total number of shows is in the lead and infobox, but not explicitly in the article (could count them up, I suppose)
• The lead needs to be expanded, My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Another way to think about it is to suppose someone could only read the lead - what are the absolute essentials about the tour you would want this reader to know?
• Make sure to provide context to the reader - there are allusions to Vaughan's death in 1990, but it is not clearly explained - an uninformaed reader would ths not understand "posthumous release" (and since the tour was by the band and not the man, is posthumous really the best word choice?). See WP:PCR
• The Background section should be about the background of the tour - the previous album and tour are OK, the album this tour was in support of is OK (in fact I would incluide more about the album - there is very little on it here). However, sentences like With Couldn't Stand the Weather selling over a million copies, the group toured Scandinavia and much of the United States. are not all background - the tour of Scandanavia and the US is THIS tour.
• Ditto with the whole hiring an extra guitarist and singer and letting them go during this tour is not background.
• The language is OK but not great - to make FA, the article will have to have a professional level of prose (this is usually one of the most difficult criteria for articles to meet at WP:FAC). One problem sentence as an example Their preceding Texas Flood Tour visited Germany for the first time and made many appearances on television. What does it mean that the tour went to Germany for the first time? I think that what it meant is that the band went there for the first time. Similarly, the tour can't really make a performance on tv or anywhere else, it is the band that performs (on tv or on stage), here as a part of a tour.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKING - common words like United States are not linked as almost every reader will know what the meaning is. Similarly, there is no need to link their previous tour twice in two sentences! The rule of thumb is to link once in the lead, and once in the body of the article, each on first use. Extra links can be in captions or notes
• Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness - I have read the article but still have a lot of questions. Who organized the tour? How much did it earn? Who was the opening act or were the opening acts?
• I notice that although there is the story about the extra musicians being hired and the guest musicians at Carnegie Hall, the other members of the band (Double Trouble) are not really explicitly identified (though they are mentioned). Again the average reader who does not know who the band was will have trouble here.
• Article kind of sounds like Carnegie Hall was the end of the tour, but it looks like there were about 30 shows after that.
• Identify obscure newspapers somehow by location - Many critics published favorable reviews about the tour; The Ledger said that the band didn't disappoint [in its Lakeland, Florida show], ...
• The connection between the WC Handy awards and the tour is not clear - did SRV win them for the tour? The album? Make this clearer (and if the tour did not lead to the awards, then it should not be in this article)
• I am not sure the image File:SRV Carnegie Hall.jpg meets WP:NFCC - SRV is already pictured in the tour poster (infobox image), so the reader already knows what he looks like. Please read WP:NFCC - fair use images can't be used just to illustrate and must increase the reader's understanding of the subject.
• Even if it is OK under NFCC, the image needs to be scaled down (made smaller)
• I would add info to the table following the Zoo TV Tour article - more on legs to the subheaders, add opening acts if known.
• 21 of the 32 refs are to a single source (Hopkins) - this may be a problem at FAC.
• I would work to reorganize the article so it tells the story of the tour in a more coherent manners - expand as much as possibel (again the Zoo tv tour is a good model). Once this is done, have someone look over the prose and copyedit it.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 January 2012, 07:46 UTC)

---

Chrisye

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to bring to FAC by mid February at the latest (so that the article can be on the main page for the 5 year anniversary of his death) and I would like some feedback on what can be expanded. Also, the biography I have has testimonials from numerous famous people, including former President Megawati Sukarnoputri. To cite this should I do:

• Sukarnoputri, Megawati (2007). "Dia Penyanyi yang Seniman [He Is an Artful Singer]". In Endah, Alberthiene (in Indonesian). Chrisye: Sebuah Memoar Musikal [Chrisye: A Musical Memoir]. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama. p. 339. ISBN 978-979-22-2606-5. 
  

or the standard

• Endah, Alberthiene (2007) (in Indonesian). Chrisye: Sebuah Memoar Musikal [Chrisye: A Musical Memoir]. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama. ISBN 978-979-22-2606-5. 

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would do the first and give the chapter information - more information is better as to the source of statements. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks... any content comments? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 January 2012, 00:25 UTC)

---

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 12)

I've listed this article for peer review because… to help get read for WP:FL. Any suggestions on satisfying the FL criteria are encouraged.

Thanks, —Mike Allen 03:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm not accustomed to reviewing lists about TV series, but I thought I'd give it shot since this one has been languishing for such a long time with no comments. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

Structure

• It seems a little odd to me to put cast changes before "Cast". I'm not sure there's any standard arrangement of the sections in series lists, but I was surprised to read about changes to a cast that had not yet been introduced.

• The "Cast changes and cast changes section and the "Guest stars" subsection seem longish to me in something identified as a "list". Thumbing through some of the featured lists about series (found at WP:FL#Media), it looks to me like the ratio of text to list is on the high side in this article. I would think about trimming "Cast changes and recurring characters" and "Guest stars" to include far fewer quotations, many of which are wordy but impart little in the way of information. An example of this is "Matteo said in an interview that she had not read the script prior to accepting the role and explained that, 'I just knew that they wanted me to do something on the show and I'm a fan of the show, I was really excited to be on this show. This is like a New York staple. It's part of our culture here'." This takes up space without adding anything substantial.

• It's often helpful to look at featured lists to see how other editors have handled similar materials. At first glance, Highlander: The Series (season 2) looks good to me, for example. The lead is compact and pithy. The three text sections are informative without overwhelming the list of episodes. The images fit nicely within the sections they illustrate.

Lead

• "The twelfth season of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit aired on NBC from September 22, 2010, to May 18, 2011." - Three things:

(1) "Twelfth" should be "12th" since it's bigger than nine, per the Manual of Style. You have it both ways (12 and twelve) here and there in the article. I recommend 12 throughout except when "twelve" starts a sentence.

(2) To avoid double-bolding, which the Manual of Style advises against, it's OK not to bold the title words in the lead. See The Office (U.S. season 3), a featured list, for example.

(3) Add "in the United States" after "aired" unless "North America" or something else is the case. You mention Australia in the first sentence of the main text, so maybe it aired there too? Not sure.

• "resigned his position as showrunner" - Link showrunner?

• I think it would be helpful to add a one- or two-sentence description of the series to the lead. Not everyone who reads the article will have seen any episodes. Something like this might get them up to speed: "The series is a set of police procedurals set in New York City and involving crimes of a sexual nature." You know the show better than I since I have never seen it, so you can probably figure out what to say better than I.

Cast changes and permanent characters

• "show, as a permanent ADA" - This should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use. I'd also link to district attorney, especially for foreign readers who may have no notion of what an ADA might be.

• "TV Guide later confirmed" - TV Guide needs italics.

Production

• "to meet LAPD Detective Rex Winters" - Spell out LAPD as well as abbreviate on first use.

• Link Manhattan in the caption?

Cast

• The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose rather than bulleted and numbered lists where feasible. I'd look for a way to compress the cast list into several paragraphs of straight prose. It's possible that this material could be merged with the "cast changes" material to make a single succinct prose section.

Guest stars

• " 'They have been branded and sodomized by someone,' reveals Baer... " - Nothing should be linked inside a direct quotation, per the Manual of Style. "Sodomized" should be unlinked here. If you really want a link to it, try paraphrasing instead of quoting. Something like this: ...played two of a trio of rape victims who had been branded and sodomized.

• I don't mean to sound negative. I think you can re-work this material to produce a featured list. The essence is there, but it needs rearranging and polishing. Shorter and more to the point would be an improvement, I think.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 December 2011, 03:47 UTC)

---

Language and literature

Canadian comics

I've completely rewritten this page from scratch over the last month, and would like to get feedback. I think the subject of the article could definitely be made GA-class. Please pick nits and split hairs!

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a very comprehensive article. Because I am very strapped for time at present I have concentrated on identifying a few issues which may help to improve the article.

• Lead: The lead looks rather a long and daunting slab of prose, which may deter readers. There appears to be rather too much detail; remember, the lead is supposed to be a broad overview of the article's content. In the second paragraph we have arther more than that, with John Bengough, Hal Foster, Joe Shuster, and many other names and trends, all mentioned individually. This is the stuff of the text rather than of the lead, which I suggest couuld be reduced to around half of its present 700-word length.
• Redlinks: There are rather a lot of these, particularly in the earlier sections of the article. They should be used only when the subject is suffiently notable to provide a reasonable chance that an article will be written. It may be that you have been overgenerous in this respect.
• Citations:There are numerous instances of uncited statements, often at the ends of paragraphs, and there are some short paragraphs with no citations at all. As a rule of thumb I would say that every paragraph should have at least one citation, and ever paragaph should end with a citation.
• Images: Of 14 images, 11 are non-free. This is an exceptionally high proportion, unlikely to be acceptable. Wikipedia's general policy, defined in Wikipedia:Non-free content, is "to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions". A key element in a fair use rationale is the extent its presence would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Note the word "significantly".
• Works cited: These include a book by Duncan and Swift to which there are no citation.
• Prose: I have not given the article a full prose check, but I have noticed a couple of things:-
  • A tendency to repetition, for instance in "While Canadian comics have show varying degrees of British, Japanese and European influences over time, American comics have had the most notable influence on English-language comics, while French-language comics have tended to show a strong Franco-Belgian influence"
  • Overlong sentence such as: "The Golden Age of Comic Books and subsequent superhero boom kicked off with the June 1938 release of Action Comics #1, which had the first appearance of Superman by Jerry Siegel and Toronto-born Joe Shuster,[11] who modeled Superman's Metropolis after his memories of Toronto, and the newspaper Clark Kent worked for after the Toronto Daily Star, which he had delivered as a child."

One other thing. I notice from the article history that this is your virtually unaided work. It might be worth your while talking to and getting input from other editors who are active in this subject area. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've started working on your suggestions already. I just wanted to point out, though, that the Duncan and Smith references actually were there, but they pointed at the name of the book they wrote rather than the authors, so it wasn't clear. I've fixed that.

It would be great if more people helped me out with the article, but it doesn't seem many people are interested or motivated. It had actually been there since 2006 when I decided I would tackle it during the winter break. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I do believe I have managed to track down citaitons for every statement in the article (I've deleted the odd statement I couldn't get a good enough source for). I've rewritten the lead to be shorter and more general, rather than a historical synopsis. I've removed a large number of the redlinks (sometimes by starting the articles, sometimes by finding out there was already an article, and I just had the wrong name for it). I've tired to clean up the prose and cut down on overlong sentences. I removed most of the fair-use images (is it still too man?).

I've also managed to track down a couple of sources for Canadian editorial cartooning, which I had trouble finding before. I think that was the biggest hole content-wise in the article (I don't think there are any significant holes any more).

Where else could this article be improved? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 01:07 UTC)

---

Everyday life

Hedley Verity

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC soon. It had a thorough GA review and I'm interested in any prose clean-up required, cricketing jargon and any instances of over-detailing.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 February 2012, 22:58 UTC)

---

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players

I'd like to get this article up to WP:FL standard, and would appreciate any pointers in that direction. Cheers! U+003F^? 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Not a lot to say, really, just to few points:-

• Compared with other player lists that I've seen at FL, yours appears somenwhat minimalistic. Other tables include columns for nationality (with appropriate flags); international appearances (maybe not too many of these at Tranmere), captaincy etc.

✓ Done I'll compare the list to the featured List of Watford F.C. players. Adding international honours is a good idea, though there aren't many who qualify. I'd prefer to avoid a nationality as it's just not known in many cases. Captaincy would be worthy of its own table, but I haven't found a list of captains anywhere. U+003F^? 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• In terms of presentation, your table looks a little cramped. Compare it with those of other player FLs; a little more generosity in column widths can make a big visual difference.

✓ Done At least with regards the years column. 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• "They played their first game under the name Belmont F.C" - should this be "games"?

✓ Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Tranmere have played in the Football League since, with..." Needs either "ever" before "since", or "then" after.

✓ Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do the figures include the 1945–46 FA Cup competition, in which matches were played on a non-standard (two-legged tie) basis?

Yes. Does this need to be clarified? U+003F^? 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• "league consecutive appearances" → "consecutive league appearances"

✓ Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Might it be worth mentioning that in between 1939 and 1946 Tranmere continued

✓ Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest rephrase to clarify that it was Accrington, not Tranmener, that resigned from the league.

✓ Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who is "Neil Brown", and why should he be considered a reliable source?

✓ Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's as much as I have. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review your umpteenth article for me. U+003F^? 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• General, article title probably needs (100 or more appearances) in it.

✗ Not done Isn't the normal procedure to not append that to the title of the main article? For example: List of Manchester United F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I just finished reviewing Liverpool players with fewer than 25 apps so that's why it was in my mind. Leave it to the FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Link Prenton Park.

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "was in 4th place in the" -> "was fourth in the"

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "then the second tier " reads a bit naff, maybe "which, at the time, was the second...."

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Link full back in the lead.

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "entire playing career" -> I'm sure we have an article for these legends... Maybe (if true) mention Bell also was such a player.

✓ Done Though Bell finished his career at Holyhead Town. 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "player-manager" has an article I believe...

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• " but these results are also omitted" can you explain why?

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jimmy Moreton's years say 1913- but the caption (and his article) say he joined TRFC in 1910... did he not play for three years?

I've clarified this in the key. Moreton joined the club in 1910, but first played in a relevant competition - here the FA Cup - in 1913. But this now seems confusing; would it make more sense to give years at the club where available (as per Soccerbase), but otherwise give years of service (following the 1921-1997 source)? U+003F^? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see where international players are referenced for those you use Soccerbase to cite...

✓ Done (where not in the book) 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would be tempted (tempted... but wait for FLC) to remove the ref column which is mostly blank and directly ref the player when you use Soccerbase.

OK I'll sit on this for now. U+003F^? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Likewise, tempted to put centrally aligned en-dashes for all players which aren't internationals rather than all those blank cells.

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thirdwise, tempted to identify captains if you can do so with appropriate reliability. I don't think a separate captain's list is worthwhile.

✗ Not done I can only reliably do this for the past 10-20 years. Is this partial coverage worth including? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, captain is almost meaningless to be fair. I think my lot have had two or three captains this year already. No longer really of any note.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mahon (for instance) has a Soccerbase end year of 2011, not 2010... is that end year supposed to be the last time they played or when they left the club? There's no key so I'm not sure, and right now (in that case) the source doesn't back up the text.

✓ Done Ooops. Undoubtedly a few errors like that have slipped through the net. I'll rerecheck. 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Check Eric Nixon's years, something odd there...!

✓ Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of spare space down the right-hand side, more photos are available....

I'll dig some more out. 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope some of that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I have a copy of The Complete Record in the post that covers 1884 to 2009 and should help with the clunkiness of current multiple sources. U+003F^? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 January 2012, 14:24 UTC)

---

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

I've listed this article for peer review because… I need advice for improvements, since I got it to GA, and now my goal is FA!

Thanks, Khanassassin (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• A few things, not a full review by any means:
  • The automated check found some things that need fixing.
  • The alt text checker also found some pictures without alt text.
  • The text is somewhat wordy; I fixed a few things in the lead, but I'm not the best person to spot this (being wordy myself!), so I would advise checking with the Guild of Copy-Editors, unless someone (else) here at peer review goes through the article and copy-edits it.
• Allens (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I'm going to give copyediting it a try. Allens (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still copyediting it, along with a few other articles, but you might want to take a look at expanding "Setting and characters" the same way as you and I did for Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon. Similarly, a screenshot would be nice. Allens (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 27 January 2012, 19:03 UTC)

---

Geoffrey Boycott

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because, after a successful GA, a failed FAC, and 2 x PR already, perhaps it is time for another stab at FAC.

Thanks, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Minor observation: reference 7 is used in the lede but nowhere else; my understanding is that everything in the lede should be repeated in the article. EdChem (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reused it in the stats section though seemed fairly redundant. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 192 is reporting as dead. Keith D (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaced. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments

• You have the 'wikiquote' template twice in the article. Remove one—or both, replacing it with the 'Sister project' template.
• For references 'BBC Sport' and 'BBC News' are the work, BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is the publisher. I have corrected one reference to demonstrate what you need to do for the others.
• Ref 192 is published on guardian.co.uk, not 'The Guardian' newspaper as it was a blog.
• Ref 194 needs first and last name of writer.
• For the sussession box, where it says '(deputised 1977/8)' you need to replace it as '(deputised 1977–78)'
• In 'Test matches' under records, would you say the list could be developed as a paragraph rather than a list? – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Done as suggested S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro1: I'm being rather nit-picky here, and feel free to disagree or argue. The article is looking very good overall, and the prose is pretty good. However, it's a long article and so there are bound to be slips that would be picked up at FAC. If I don't drive you to blind rage by my first lot of comments, I will add more later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead: Maybe more of an overview of his career is needed here. For example, his self imposed exile from the England team, his captaincy of Yorkshire (and England), and a bit more about his success on the playing side. Whatever his faults, he had a very impressive batting record but this does not really come across in the lead. Similarly, his successful years in the 1970s were clouded by accusations of slow-scoring and selfishness. Apart from one comment saying he was not selfish, this does not come across either.
• Maybe say when he averaged over 100? And 100.00, although I know why it is there, looks strange here and a simple "averaged over 100" would be enough.

Y Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "He was the eldest of three sons of Jane (14 November 1915–1978)": Are her dates necessary?

Y Done removed S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "chest by the handle of an unturned mangle": What is an unturned mangle and how would this affect his injury?

Y Done wikilinked S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the fate of his father is entirely relevant.

I personally find it interesting and relevant that his father died when he was quite young and in the midst of his playing career, but happy to remove it if other people concur. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "There, playing cricket…" Not sure "playing cricket" is needed. If there are any worries about ambiguity (I think it is obvious which sport we are talking about), the end of the sentence could be tweaked to "…in a school cricket match".

Y Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "demonstrating "outstanding ability."": This needs in-text attribution per WP:INTEXT.
• "he began to have difficulties reading the blackboard": Perhaps too specific; maybe "difficulties with his distance vision"?

I would personally rather leave this included as, according to the biography, it was the event of his difficulties reading the blackboard that led to the realisation that he needed glasses. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "At first, he played poorly at school in fragile spectacles before a more robust pair was fashioned for him at the behest of his uncle—a strong influence on his early game—similar to those glasses worn by cricketer Roy Marshall.": Too much going on here; the uncle part should go elsewhere if it is important, and the rest is a little too detailed. Was it the quality of the glasses, problems with their fragility, or just worry that they would break that affected his performance? Maybe something like: "Initially, his cricket was adversely affected by his new spectacles [give reason?], until he acquired a more robust pair."

Y Done reworded. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In the summer he played for the Leeds United under-18 football team alongside Billy Bremner and attracted the attention of Leeds United scouts." Was this one summer only?

That summer only, reworded. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "During the winter he played cricket in the nets at his uncle John Lawrence's house,[24] and was invited to the winter nets for Yorkshire Cricket Club by Clifford Hesketh.[25]": This repeats the previous mention of what happened in the winter; could the two mentions be combined?

Reworded. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "He also played for the Yorkshire Federation's Under-18 team, and for Barnsley, where he was noticed by Clifford Hesketh, a member of Yorkshire's County Cricket team committee.[26]": This seems to contradict the earlyer mention of Hesketh.

It's a jumble in the chronology, fixed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Last para of Early Life: Consecutive sentences begin Boycott, He, He, He.

Swapped one. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Boycott began playing for his home county in 1962 after topping the averages for Leeds, Yorkshire Colts and Yorkshire Second XI.": When did he play for Leeds? Or does it mean a Leeds league? And I don't think the Colts are mentioned anywhere in this section or the previous one.
• "Early years" is a little similar to "Early life" and maybe a better title could be used?

Renamed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of Early years is a little quote heavy for my liking. The quote from Foord (needs a ref) is a little weak in my view (he was hardly a flashing player as this quote would seem to suggest), and I'm never entirely taken with Dickie Bird as an authority on other players. Although I would not insist anything had to be done here, I can't help thinking that the section would flow just as well if the quotes came out and the first two paragraphs were combined.
• Maybe suggest how his second XI form earned his first team place in this section, rather than in the introduction to his county career.
• "he scored six and 21*": Only cricketers will understand the asterisk, and it is better to say (and link) "not out".
• I seem to remember he did not open the batting in 1963, and may have been promoted to opener during this season. Worth mentioning? (I think there is a reference in the 1964 Wisden which I may be able to dig out).
• "According to captain, Close, at Lord's after Yorkshire had slowly reached 22/1, he Close promoted himself to number three in the batting order so that he could urge Boycott into action.": Not sure what has happened but this sentence seems a bit messed up.
• "Boycott subsequently hit 15  fours and three sixes,[37] even though the modern-day fielding restrictions, which facilitate rapid scoring, did not exist in 1965.": Why mention modern fielding restrictions?
• We go from detailed accounts of his first seasons to barely mentioning some of the later ones in the 1960s: one innings (albeit an important one) from 1965, one match from 1966, one innings and his place in the averages from 1968, one innings 1970. Five innings in six seasons and nothing else. Even a brief summary of his performances would help. And maybe a new paragraph after the Gillette innings (I agree it needs quite a bit on that one innings, and I believe he once described it as his best innings).

More to follow if desired, and I'm up to the end of "Early years" so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments always welcome, though I'll have to get stuck in to them tomorrow - 12h shifts are a killer. Zzzzz. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More comments up to end of Later years

• "Boycott captained Yorkshire for eight seasons from 1971 to 1978, having been appointed following the sacking of Brian Close in 1970.": Already mentioned at the end of the previous section and I don't think it is needed again. The next sentence is a little similar to the end of the previous section as well. To be honest, I'd be inclined to leave these parts here and cut the captaincy bit from the previous section instead.
• "He also caused strife between his fellow players, including a reciprocated dislike for Richard Hutton, with many players leaving the club citing personal differences with Boycott as the reason for their departure.": Not sure about the phrasing here. Strife between suggests that he caused other players to fall out; is this correct? Also "with many players leaving" is not the best construction at FAC. Maybe something like "He also had difficulties with his fellow players, including a reciprocated dislike for Richard Hutton, and many players left the club citing personal differences with Boycott as their reason."
• Part about Transvaal is odd. Aside from the isolation question, if he went to play for them, why only play one match?
• "low in the Championship table": Not every season; e.g. 2nd in 1975.
• Without context, Trueman's criticism does not really make sense. On paper, his record was outstanding; it was the pace at which he scored that was controversial and this was blamed by some for Yorkshire's lack of success.
• "In 1974 Boycott's form dipped, when he scored only 75 runs in the first innings of the season, other than a non-championship century against Cambridge University." This doesn't quite make sense.
• "He did, however, score 152* against Worcestershire on 15 May to complete his tour of centuries against every first-class county.": Again, the use of * may not be a good idea, and "tour of centuries" is slightly odd phrasing.
• "A poll of the dressing room showed that 95% of the players wanted a permanent change in the captaincy.": Seems an oddly round figure! If possible, actual numbers may be better or it seems like pro-Boycott propaganda from the time.
• Passing Hutton's record of centuries makes sense to me as a dyed-in-the-wool Yorkshire fan, but may seem a little arbitrary to those not "in the know"!
• "He would experience growing friction with Hutton's son, Yorkshire's Richard, as well as with later Yorkshire captain John Hampshire.": Not sure about the phrasing and we are getting into repetitive "He... he..." sentence structures. Is this different "friction" from that mentioned earlier? If so, why and what caused it?
• "In the early 1980s Boycott continued his run of form, although a slow 347-ball knock of 140* incensed captain, Ray Illingworth, and created friction between Boycott and the rest of the Yorkshire Committee.": Repetition of "friction" and I think a date is necessary for this innings; why did it cause friction? And if it is the "rest" of the committee, who are the other members involved? Boycott? Illingworth? I think it should be made clear. And I think the asterisk needs to go.
• Are we giving batting figures here or not? They are given in 79 and 80, but then only single innings are mentioned later. Any particular reason? My inclination is to include them, but I am a sad completist so I would not insist on it. But the change in style does not seem to have any obvious reason.
• And another "friction" in the next paragraph.
• "while Boycott in his biography ": Presumably this is McKinstry's book, but this looks like it should say autobiography. Maybe something like "while Boycott told Leo McKinstry..."?
• "Of the replacement members, 17 were from the Members 84 Group": Maybe make it clear there was an election for members?
• "This was coupled with continued friction": Another friction
• "In particular, Boycott's place on both the team and the committee led to feelings of distrust from both – though Boycott denies this – which led to the loss of support from long-term ally Sid Fielden.": A little unclear; presumably distrust (or is it mistrust?) of Boycott, and what is Boycott denying? And why should this article be right and Boycott wrong? If we are including Boycott's denial, then it should be made clear who is making claims of distrust?
• "1986 saw Boycott score 890 runs": I'm not a fan of starting a sentence with a year or the use of "saw" in this sense, but those are only my opinions.
• "Both Brian Close and Ray Illingworth increasingly advocated his removal to Yorkshire's committee": Missing word?
• "He suggests that Close and Illingworth feared his popularity.": The previous sentence was written in the past tense, this is in the present.
• I seem to recall reading that he had the highest career average of a player based in England at the time of his retirement, passing that of Ranji. I may be able to dig out the reference if you want it.
• I think the official Yorkshire history has a bit more on his removal as captain and his feud with Hampshire. I'll try to dig it out and see what it says, but I seem to remember promising this before and failing to deliver!
• Watch out for too many sentences beginning "In" or "On".
• I fixed a few missing commas in 4 digit numbers, but may have missed some. Maybe check for others.

More to come if this doesn't finish you off! However, most of my comments are minor and this is looking good so far: probably just needs that last polish to make it ready for FAC. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 January 2012, 10:48 UTC)

---

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

Previous peer review

It's the second time I nominate this article on the behalf of WikiProject Tennis for a peer review. It has been totally rewritten, discussed, shortened to fit in size limit, so basically tried everything to meet the requirements of the previous peer review. Please take your time to read it and give some advises to make it reach FA status.

Thanks folks, Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "He didn't lose" Replace contraction. Please check throughout the article.
• "The Wimbledon Championships and the US Open"
• "Although his pace slowed by year's end, Djokovic only lost six matches, while winning seventy." --> "Although his pace slowed by year's end, Djokovic's remarkable win-loss ratio was six-seventy."
• "43 match" hyphens -- normally they'd be two separate words/numbers, but in this case they're adjectives when working together. Same with "their head to head matchup"; please check throughout the article.
• "US$12.6 million dollars"
• "but hit a ineffective" replace a with an.
• "But Djokovic let Federer to gain control" omit to.
• MOS encourages the inclusion of alt text.
• Two dead links.
• Please follow the "In/on [date], [text]" construction, where the comma goes after the date to separate two clauses.
• References should go after punctuation.
• Caption missing for infobox photo.
• Magazine/newspaper titles should be italicised.
• "3rd Greatest tennis" Why isn't "third greatest"?

Comments by Lemonade51 – Referencing looks to be a problem. Having said that, prose hasn't done itself any favours - this reads disjointed and can be easily expanded. The worrying thing is there are next to nothing quotes from Djokovic himself. What did he think about winning Wimbledon? Could he have done anything better this season? Does he think he has peaked? What do ex-pros and current tennis stars think about Djokovic's season? Has been answered I see.

• For any BBC website you cite, you can leave the author parameter blank if not stated anywhere in the publication. Remove 'BBC Sports staff', change publisher to 'BBC' and add 'work' as 'BBC Sport'. I've done an example for you to do with the others.
• Ref 4 published on guardian.co.uk not The Guardian newspaper. Similarly Ref 30 published on The Observer, not Guardian.
• "Djokovic met Federer in the semifinals of Indian Wells...Djokovic quickly broke Federer...Djokovic did this...Djokovic likes to hear about Djokovic...", It does read tiresome. You do know you can refer to him as 'he'?
• Under Miami Masters, "In the second half of March...", is that really the right terminology to use? – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 January 2012, 17:37 UTC)

---

Great Britain Olympic football team

I've listed this article for peer review because it's covering a relatively new topic, which will have significant amounts of info to add to it in the Summer of 2012. I'd really like to get it shipshape before that time. In particular I'm interested in what people think of the current history section, and the overall structure. I'm concerned that the article could end up being overly weighted towards the 2012 tournament, and would be interested in any tips on how to avoid this. Overall, as well, I think this could just benefit from a new pair of eyes. Oh, and it would be interesting if someone who isn't from the UK or into football (soccer) could look at it, to test how well the content is described.

Many Thanks, Pretty Green (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1: I read up to the end of the "Pre-1972" section, and my main concern is a lack of referencing. Many paragraphs and chunks of other sections are not referenced at all; I have not checked the quality or accurate representation of the other references. Such an article should be carefully referenced as it will probably get increasingly high traffic. There are also several prose issues. As it stands, the article is some way short of GA, even before any rapid changing which may arise from the Olympics is taken into account. I think the history section should be fully sorted out first, as the current team information will probably evolve rapidly and it would be good to have a stable base to work from. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the distinction between GB, GB&I, and UK needs to be cleared up. It is not clear where Ireland/Northern Ireland fits into this, and bear in mind that some readers may not appreciate the GB/UK distinction. And the lead states that the team is/was known as Great Britain and Northern Ireland/Great Britain and Ireland. The main body omits this completely. And why was the team never known as The United Kingdom? (I suspect this is an Olympic issue rather than to do with this article) This should be made clear somewhere: was Ireland/N Ireland a part of this or not?
• There should be no spaces before references. I corrected a couple, but there are many other instances.
• "represents Great Britain and Northern Ireland in international football competitions in the Olympic Games": Maybe just "…at the Olympic Games" as a football team is unlikely to compete in any other competition!
• "The selection is limited to players under the age of 23…": Maybe "Selection for the team is limited to players under the age of 23, although three older players are allowed [in the team? in the squad?]".
• Maybe stress when this age limit came in, as it presumably did not exist in the amateur days? A reader may think it applied throughout.
• "The team first competed at the 1908 Summer Olympics, controlled by the English Football Association (FA)": Was the team, the competition or the Olympics controlled by the FA? But see the next point
• "The team was controlled by the FA": We don't need both this AND the previous fact that the FA controlled the first team. Maybe cut the first mention of the FA and leave this one?
• "as an off-shoot of the English national amateur football team for this period" Most readers of this article will be unaware that such a team existed. Rather than just link, maybe add a sentence to explain what this was? And "for this period" is redundant.
• "occasionally players from the rest of the UK competed for the team": Maybe "represented the team" as competed for suggests they took part in a competition to play for the team.
• "After the FA abolished the distinction between amateur and professional players, and thus abolished the amateur team": When? And possibly why?
• "in the UK": I think everyone will know where London is.
• "The national football associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all oppose their players being selected for the team.": Why, and how will this work if they won't let him pick their players.
• "When the world's first football association, The Football Association (FA), was formed in 1863, its geographical remit was not clear: there was no specification of whether it covered just England, the UK as a whole or even the entire world." A little too wordy? Maybe "The geographical remit of The Football Association (FA), which formed in 1863 as the world's first such association, was originally unclear; it may have covered just England, the whole United Kingdom [not UK here as it is the first mention] or even the whole world". Although I think strong referencing is needed to show that such suggestions were ever seriously considered. And see below on referencing.
• "The question was answered…" Too dramatic? And no question has actually been asked here.
• Did the national teams arise from the creation of FAs or FAs come from the creation of national teams?
• "Football therefore developed with separate national teams representing separate associations for each of the countries of the United Kingdom and no 'United Kingdom football association' was ever formed.": Wordy. Maybe "Subsequently, each country of the United Kingdom was represented by a separate national team and a separate football association. No association ever formed for the whole United Kingdom."
• The first paragraph of Origins and composition is unreferenced. This really needs some good references.
• "When football was held as a demonstration sport at the 1900 Olympic Games, club teams entered with Upton Park representing the UK": Maybe "When football was held as a demonstration sport at the 1900 Olympic Games, club teams entered; Upton Park represented the UK".
• "Upton Park won the gold medal, which has since been retroactively awarded by the International Olympic Committee as a full gold." Close repetition of "Upton Park" which could be replaced with "the team". And I don't follow the "retroactively awarded" gold. Were they given a gold or not? (Or was it something like a "half-Gold"?) And "retrospectively" is the word needed here, not "retroactively".
• Up to the mention of the 1908 Olympics: this all seems to be unreferenced.
• "An arrangement was reached with the other Home Nations' FAs, under which a Great Britain team consisting of amateur players organised by the FA would enter future tournaments.": Unreferenced; also, a very short paragraph follows which could be combined with this one.
• How did the other "home" FAs react to this "Great Britain" team and how great a proportion of non-English players were included? Again, how did the other FAs react to their selection?
• Scores should use ndashes: i.e. 2–0, not 2-0.
• "The team withdrew from the 1924 and 1928 Games over disputes surrounding professionalism, which eventually led to the withdrawal of the Home Nations from FIFA, and the creation of the FIFA World Cup.[17]" This should be explained in far more detail. What disputes surrounding professionalism? What happened to FIFA? In fact, how does FIFA fit into this story regarding the Olympics? How was the dispute resolved as the team played in the Olympics again?
• The team failed to qualify: What form did qualification take? How did the team perform in this qualification?
• How did the composition of the GB side compare to the countries against which they competed? Presumably they were all amateur, but were the teams more representative or of a similar standard? Where did the GB players come from? Amateurs playing for league teams? Or just amateurs playing for clubs?
• From scanning the next section, it is not clear why there was a break after 1972; why did the ending of amateurism mean that a team could not be entered? Why could players not be found from somewhere other than the amateur England side?
• I have not checked sources or performed spot checks.

I do not watch peer reviews; any questions or comments should be made at my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 January 2012, 10:17 UTC)

---

National Football League Players Association

I've listed this article for peer review because…after extensive revision by TravisBernard, 66.234.33.8 and myself, we would like to take the article to FAC and would appreciate feedback before doing so.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments by Lemonade51

Thank you all for your effort on this – it's a very well written article. This does have the potential to be a WP:FAC. Good to see that the references are consistent. Without going into prose, the only trouble I have is in some cases the comma is overused in the wrong areas. Though at the time of doing this I am in desperate need of forty winks. Below are some suggestions/feedback:

• There are three dablinks.
• No need to put a comma between the month and date (such as 9 June, 2001 → 9 June 2001). See WP:DATES for more info. That applies to the references.
• "It has been at times a professional association, as well as a labor union." Tad ambiguous. You need to rephrase that, the use of 'at times' isn't appropriate in this case.
• In Precertification, "Creighton Miller, who was a former Notre Dame football player turned lawyer, continued to..."; no need for comma between continued and lawyer.
• For Refs 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19, use the template (subscription required) instead of 'Fee for article'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I addressed all of the points you bought up. Thank you for the feedback! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Sorry to be so slow to review.

Lede

• "the goal of the organization" The thing is, it has, I gather, achieved this goal (except when it chooses to lay down the burden, of course). Perhaps "function"?
• Break up that sentence in the first paragraph.
• In my opinion, in American English, the use of titles like "President" and "Executive Director" before a name of someone who does not hold public office looks mildly pretentious. I would go with "led by its president, ..."
• "receive official recognition by the NFL " perhaps, "recognized as the bargaining agent for the players by the NFL"
• I am somewhat uncomfortable with the repeated use of the passive voice in the second paragraph combined with causation being ascribed to a lawsuit. It makes for a very vague sounding paragraph.
• "the extended 1993 CBA," I know what this means, the reader may not.
• The third paragraph seems much too detailed. Can it be summarized in two or three sentences, and then perhaps a couple of sentences on what the NFLPA does when it's not in the limelight during labor negotiations?

Early history

• "The players originally began to unionize " I have no idea what "began to unionize" means. You go on to describe a gradual process towards collective bargaining over decades. Perhaps you need a more "Once upon a time" style beginning such as "From the early days of the NFL in the 1920s, there were labor grievances and disputes. " I'm sure you can find a ref. I would also restate the whole things about playing exhibition games for free as staying they only got paid if they made the regular season roster, and had to play exhibition games in order to make the roster (you can say that cut players received no pay for their efforts, for example. Just don't rail about the injustice of it all, if you understand my meaning. What they, in effect, wanted was a per diem.
• "left the NFL to play for" joined
• Were the players forgiven when the AAFC ended and Cleveland Baltimore and SF were allowed to join the NFL? Also, I would end this paragraph here and then discuss the 1950s events in the next paragraph

• I recall a famous story about how when a Packer dared bring an agent to a negotiation with Lombardi, he excused himself for a moment and returned to inform them they now needed to do their negotiating with the Eagles (as I recall). If you can find and source it, it might be worth an inclusion for the sake of color. Your call, obviously.

• "They were eventually supported by 11 of the 12 teams that were in the league at the time, and they announced the formation of the NFLPA in 1956." Well ... players on the teams anyway. You need to clear this up, Also, I dislike the way you've used "they", you are talking about people being supported, and so it reads oddly. Can you say supported the formation of the organization? Additionally, it would be interesting to know the attitude of the owners at that time.
• "new association initially requested " I think you can say "new association's initial demands". That's a perfectly proper term in a labor context and carries no disrespect to the organization. I take it they were also asking recognition as the players' exclusive bargaining agent on labor matters? They did want to be recognized as a union from the start, I assume. You need to explain this. Also for "unable to perform" suggest "unable to play". Or perhaps omit the whole phrase and rely on "injured" to carry that implication.
• You should mention the Seals were a baseball team.
• " Don Shula of the Baltimore Colts," gently make it clear to the reader that he was then a player by mentioning his position.
• You can't personalize Radovich by telling his story and then only refer to him winning his lawsuit by leaving the reader to discern it by referring to a successful lawsuit with his last name! You have to say something like "Their hand was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the NFL had wrongfully (whatever) to Radovich by (whatever)." That kind thing. Find someplace to do a pipe to the article on the court decision. Also, I would omit the "For example" with which you introduce him. He is not an example, he is a central figure of this part of the story.
• I would combine the first two subsections under the name "Formation and struggle for recognition"
• Miller need not be given his first name the second time he is mentioned. Can Bell's quote be explained a bit? I think a reader sufficiently interested to get this far would want to know.
• "Miller refused" This phrasing in this context implies that Miller was being unreasonable. Also "grievance committee" needs to say inline who says so. My POV meter is twitching at this passage.
• "The players " Why now the players? Surely Miller was an instrument in this? The switch to the general when we start talking about something positive again makes me think there's a bit of favorability to the anti-Miller position. I should add that I know only what I've read here about the history of the NFLPA and really have no position.
• "this was a misconception as the NFL could play the associations against each other in negotiations. " This reads very oddly, like the AFL, NFL, and NFLPA would all be part of the same negotiation, which was not the case. Sugguest you give this another look.
• "In partial response to this misguided threat," First, "misguided" is a very strong term. I don't understand what threat. The AFL could hardly avoid being a factor in negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. They could hardly ignore the elephant in the room. You have to make it clear what was done wrong and what the NFL was responding to.
• It might be wise to mention the fate of the forfeited pension contributions, if any. I trust they were eventually restored?
• "On January 14, 1964," This should probably be a new paragraph.
• As Addison is unfamiliar to most today, I would mention his position.
• The last sentence of the paragraph obscures the obvious. Simply state that with the merger, players could no longer use the leverage of being able to sign with the other league to get more money out of their existing team. That's what it was all about and why the leagues eventually had to merge once it became clear the AFL was not going away.
• "weak constitution" Not really. What it was that as the NFLPA really had no leverage as they had no power to strike. You might want to relate it, if you can, to resentment over the changes that basically were being imposed on them as the leagues merged. They had lost their leverage of being able to change leagues and no doubt were pretty unhappy about it. You should tie this in with the changes that were going on. This sounds too much in isolation. Also, did the NFLPA play any role in the AFL-NFL War which preceded the merger, such as Davis's raid on the quarterbacks?
• why are events being told backwards in chronology? In addition, as soon as you begin to mention Parrish's efforts, you should make clear that he proposed to be independent of the existing NFLPA organization.
• O'Brien: If someone is not notable enough to be a blue link, and you are only going to mention him once, unless you are making a point by making him a redlink, it is probably unnecessary to mention him at all.
• " and declared itself an unaffiliated union" The significance of this may be lost upon the reader. Make it clear how this was a major change from its prior role. It should also be made clearer that the two events, that is, the NFLPA becoming a union and Miller departing, accomplished an awful lot of what Parrish was seeking.
• "Sources speculated that he quit" Who? The sources you have found, or a reporter's sources. Very unclear. You may want to attribute to someone's name, and also preface his name by a one-word job description like "writer" or "lawyer" so the reader gets the significance of what you are saying.

More later. Generally quite good but needs a little cleaning up before prime time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Formation

• The first sentence makes the rest of the paragraph anticlimactic. I would try to phrase this a little more dramatically, and then end with something like "Despite the union's success in reaching a CBA (an acronym you need somewhere in there), many players were dissatisfied because ..."
• "the owners relented" How? It was a strike, not a lockout. POV meter twitching again.
• "they were forced to accept the owners' terms" Were guns placed to their heads?
• The minimum salaries and lack of recourse to arbitration are presented as unreasonable. I don't know if they are or are not. I am becoming increasingly concerned that there are POV issues in this article.
• "As the merger of the AFL and NFL became official in 1970, the unions" multiple issues here. I would say "effective" rather than "official"; it's still imprecise because what was undecided is how to institute an integrated schedule that included the regular season, but at least it's commonly used. Clearly, though, with the AFL "ending" after 1969, there was no place for two unions.
• "Jealousy between both associations and fear on the part of the AFL players strained the negotiation process." I would omit. It's clear from the following sentences that the NFLers (the majority, I would think) wanted a NFL guy (so to speak) the AFLers an AFL guy.
• "The NFL owners continued, however, to treat the players lightly in negotiations," This is certainly POV, and I doubt you could find universal acceptance for this statement, especially from the NFL owners still active from then. I am going to leave it here for a while. I want you to consider whether or not there is a pro-player bias in this article. The Writer 2.0, drop me a note on my talk page when you think it's ready for me to look furhter. There is no point in my going through it when you may be inclined to make changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• A few more things, sorry to be so slow, am gearing up again.

Recognition and certification

• "the concessions the players received were not as pronounced as they hoped, leaving many members frustrated." Perhaps "many players felt that the agreement did not get them as many benefits as they had hoped, leaving them dissatisfied."
• "compromised by agreeing to" agreed to. Also, at the end of the sentence, I would conclude "; there was at yet no neutral arbitration".
• I would inform the reader that the Colts were an NFL team which was moving to the AFC, predominately made up of former NFL teams. That kinda thing anyway. Accordingly, it was an adept compromise.
• It might be wise to mention what issue was at stake in 1970. The owners are sounding unreasonable, be careful.
• You mention the NLRB approval twice. I would remedy this by deleting the word "successfully" when you talk about the filing with the NLRB.
• "option clause and the NFL revenue clause," Are we talking "reserve clause" here? Also, I would mention, when you talk about compensation, that the compensation in question can include players.
• Why not start the paragraph by mentioning the filing of the free agency lawsuit? That way you stay in alphabetical order.
• "individual contracts to protect players and guarantee their salaries." I have no idea what this means. Mackey should be italicized where the case is meant.
• As Mackey was to achieve free agency, if it did not do so, I would not describe it as successful. Start with what Mackey called for without characterizing it, then go on and chronicle what the union did in response to it. Consign the legal citation to a footnote, but link to the article on the case, if there is one.
• I would like to see the story of the 1982 strike more completely told. The story seems to pick up in the middle. Perhaps say a little more about how the strike came to be. Possibly incorporate the All Star Game stuff into the section, not have it separate.
• It should also be made clear that the schedule and playoff changes were for that season only.
• "significantly less than those of" Significantly lower than those in
• "Say where RFK Stadium is on first mention.

Upshaw era

• The introductory text needs to be referenced.
• What were the players demanding? Again, a little more background is needed here. Also, I'd link to NYJ, it's been a long time
• "replacement players as other strikebreakers." Why "other"?
• "in place" Consider striking.
• You should concisely mention the names of the courts for Doty and the appeals court. I would give the names fully and then shorter forms later.
• "a deadline later ruled to be in violation of federal labor laws and backpay for the strike" backpay probably should be back pay, but please look at this phrase as it doesn't seem to be that clear.
• " (so-called "Plan B") " You might want to make clear who called it this. As you never mention it again consider whether it is needed.

DeMaurice Smith era

• " the issue that dominated discussion was the 2011 lockout." As he still serves, perhaps "has been"?
• The list of issues seems a bit random.
• I found the description of the 2011 lockout unsatisfying. Surely there is more of interest to say without overdoing it? Also can something more be said about what the terms of the settlement were?
• I think you need more about what the union does between industrial actions.

NFLPA game. Is this really worth having for one sentence? Consider a See Also.

• That's about it. Very good but needs a few tweaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 January 2012, 23:11 UTC)

---

The Secret of Monkey Island

I've listed this article for peer review because I and a bunch of good fellas (Guyinblack25, S@bre and JimmyBlackwing) turned the article into quality GA after three months of hard work, and I think that it can reach even more. I would like to know what needs to be corrected/added in order to promote the article to FA.

Thanks, Electroguv (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - it reads well and seems pretty close to FAC to me. Here are some mostly nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• This seems a little awkward to me, especially the "which focused the game on exploration" phrase Gilbert's frustrations with contemporary adventure titles led him to make the player character's death impossible, which focused the game on exploration. perhaps something like "which meant that gameplay focused on exploration"?
• I would clarify this is a remake of the original game (the preceding sentence is on the sequel) LucasArts released a remake [of the original game] in 2009, which was also well-received by the gaming press.

Gameplay

• Tighten? ...topics for discussion that are listed in a dialog tree; the game is considered to be one of the first titles to incorporate such a system.[5]

Plot

• can you avoid two uses of island in one sentence? A youth named Guybrush Threepwood arrives on Mêlée Island, a fictional island in the Caribbean, with the desire to become a pirate. perhaps A youth named Guybrush Threepwood arrives on the fictional Mêlée Island, with the desire to become a pirate in the Caribbean.
• Tighten / avoid two uses of island in one sentence When Guybrush reaches Monkey Island, he discovers a village of cannibals in a dispute with Herman Toothrot, a ragged castaway marooned on the island there.
• The root is little confusing for me - is it used to make the elixir? If so, could it be He settles their quarrel, and then recovers a magical "voodoo root" from LeChuck's ship for the cannibals, who provide him with a seltzer bottle of "voodoo root elixir" that can destroy ghosts.

Origin and writing

• Mechanic? A guy with a wrench? The game's insult swordfighting mechanic was influenced by swashbuckling movies starring Errol Flynn, which Gilbert, Schafer and Grossman often watched for inspiration.
• is it supposed to be "in hell there would be mushrooms" (and not "here")?? such as Guybrush's line "I had a feeling in hell here would be mushrooms", which came from Schafer's own hatred of fungi.[14]
• I know it is linked, but I would add a few words of description about the book After having read Tim Powers' [historical fantasy novel] On Stranger Tides, he decided to add paranormal themes to the game's plot.
• How about The developers included Cobb, a character from Loom (another 1990 LucasArts title). When approached for conversation, Cobb encourages the player to purchase Loom.[19]

Creative and technical design

• I like this formulation much better The team decided to make it impossible for the player character to die, which focused gameplay primarily on world exploration.[9]
• I would make it clearer that the top image is from the original game and the bottom image is from the 2009 special edition - this is a very nice use of fair use material and allows the reader to compare the versions
• Is it worth mentioning that he is standing in front of the SCUMM Bar in both images (inside joke)?

Special edition

• "remade" is awkward - perhaps "2009"? The developers included the function to switch between the remade and original audiovisuals at will.[33][34]
• Avoid passive voice where possible The remake's idea was conceived in 2008 by LucasArts's game producer Craig Derrick and his team.[34] could be the much smoother and a bit tighter LucasArts's game producer Craig Derrick and his team conceived the idea of the remake in 2008.[34]
• I am not sure exactly what this means The designers made the cursor contextual to the game objects as the primary interface.

Reception

• Should the price be mentioned here somehow (even a comparison to how much it cost compared to other games at the same time?) Although they believed that the game was too expensive, they summarized it as ...

Legacy

• It is not clear to me which version of the game made the various top 10 lists / halls of fame.
• Also, the game was selected as one of five games for the exhibition The Art of Video Games in the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 2011.[59] could be something like Also, the original version was one of five selected for the exhibition The Art of Video Games in the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 2011.[59]
• Unclear - what is he referring to - the original Grog XD or the erroneous news story?

General

• Watch out for WP:OVERLINKing.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 January 2012, 12:33 UTC)

---

Philosophy and religion

Gregory of Nyssa

Hi. I'm a relatively new editor, and I wondering how I would need to improve the article in order for it to be featured. I feel it's comprehensive (only slightly shorter than Gregory of Nazianzus, which is a FA), but I'm sure there are some matters I've overlooked so far. Thanks, He to Hecuba (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's Comments

• Gregory of Nazianzus is not the best example to follow. It is a 2007 FA, which has many problems like uncited facts, missing page numbers, usage of primary sources etc. It should go for a FAR. Wilfrid is a better model
• "was named after Gregory Thaumaturgus": Who is Gregory Thaumaturgus? Adding a short summary "the 3rd century saint Gregory Thaumaturgus" adds some context. " Valens split Cappadocia" who is Valens? Amphilochius of Iconium, Desmothenes of Pontus ...
  • Y Done. I've clarified all of these apart from Demosthenes of Pontus. Nothing is known of Demosthenes apart from his name and the fact that he convened the synod of Ancyra. I presume it doesn't need to be as long as the article on Wilfrid, simply because there's so little extent biographical information about Gregory.
• Missing parent's names in the start of "Early life and education". Their names appear in St. Basil's article
  • Will work on this. This isn't a simple issue, as his parents names vary in primary sources, and it's difficult to decide which secondary readings are correct.
    • Add all/major names, if no consensus between scholars. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Which grandmother is Macrina the Elder? paternal/maternal?
  • Y Done.
• " his brother: for instance, while Basil", exchange brother and Basil. When you read "his brother", it is unclear who are talking about? Naucratius, Peter, Basil??
  • Y Done
• Who is synod? link jargon. Explain by short summary. Who are Cappadocian Fathers???
  • I don't think the word synod needs to be explained in this context, but I've linked to it. It is explained who the Cappadocian Fathers are in the lede.
    • I meant what are the Cappadocian Fathers?? Importance??? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • "Gregory, his brother Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus are collectively known as the Cappadocian Fathers". They're just three saints who are venerated together in Eastern Christianity - major theological similarities and historical connexions.
• What are the primary sources of his biography? Add a section
  • Will do, good suggestion.
• Primary sources of his theology? Writings? Add section
  • Will do.
    • Catholic Encyclopedia might help. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Add reference for "Died c. 395"
  • His date of death is unknown. I can cite it to no. 15, but I see no real need - it's presumed by virtually every source that he died around then.
    • Catholic Encyclopedia says after 395/6. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • See page 114 of the Brilll Dictionary. The latest mention of an event in connexion with him is 394, so 395/6 seems to be pure conjecture.
• What are his relics??
  • Bones. There's very little information concerning them as his veneration is pretty limited.
    • Say that. There are variety of relics like clothes, bones, personal objects etc. Right? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • In Christianity, only the bones are generally considered a "relic" of the saint.
• " he was a homoousian, and Against Eunomius affirms the truth" something is wrong in this sentence
  • What in particular is wrong ? --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't it be something like " and was against Eunomius, which affirms ... " --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • "Against Eunomius" is a book by Gregory. The sentence will be less ambiguous when I've written about his theological works in detail. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 February 2012, 20:53 UTC)

---

Augustinian theodicy

Previous peer review

After bringing this article to GA status in December, I've recently begun editing it again. I am hoping I can get it to Featured Article quality in the future. My two main issues with what I had previously done were was sourcing (a lot of the references were unreliable) and the prose (it wasn't written as well as it could be). It would be good to get feedback on both of those areas, as well as any general comments that could help it reach FA status.

Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

• Make explicit that this is a Chiristian perception of evil/God. OR is it sectarian??
• " first developed by Augustine of Hippo", " was supported by Thomas Aquinas", " Alvin Plantinga's free will defence" etc. add dates in lead to a sense of history
• More context. The article needs 2-3 lines about "evidential problem of evil". Without understanding the problem, it is impossible to grasp its response, the theodicy.
• "Augustinian theodicy was first identified by John Hick" Who is John Hick? date. Give a short summary for all historical figures eg. "the 13th century theologian and priest Thomas Aquinas" in lead, "in which Paul" -> the apostle Paul
• jargon like "ex nihilo" needs to be linked
• "Reception": either have the Organization concept-wise or person-wise. John Hick has his section and then his ideas are repeated in "concept of Hell"
• Any modern scholarship on this issue??

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I'll look at making those changes now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've done most of what you've recommended from points 1 to 5. I plan to re-write the lead tomorrow when I'm less tired, as I've neglected that. I also need to take another look at the reception section, as you said - I'll try and categorise those by thinkers, which should then help find more recent opinion. Thank you again for your feedback - I appreciate it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In the reception section, I have removed the section of Hell (which simply repeated the section on Hick) and renamed one of the sections after the philosopher. I have retained 'process theology' as a section, because it encompasses the view of a school of thinking, rather than a specific person; I have also maintained the 'scientific implications' section as it is, because it is not an argument from a philosopher, per se, but a summary of the scientific issues the theodicy has, proposed by numerous thinkers. Would that be ok? I plan to have a look at the section on Plantinga and determine whether it should be included in the development or the reception section, with reference to how the sources refer to his arguments (as a response or a development). I will then look for contemporary opinion and finally look to readdress the lead. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to read more about the primary sources of Augustinian theodicy. What works of Augustine et al have the theodicy? or is it an oral tradition?
• What is the official position of the Church or sects??
• Add dates for all people mentioned in all sections
• After reading the article twice, I still think it is difficult to flow, mainly due to the fact that there are no many concepts to understand. May be a reorganization with logical grouping of the concepts, would help. Not sure, an expert in Christianity may suggest you something better. I suggest the following:
  • Development/History: Names of works and authors who advocated the theodicy. Emergence of rival theodicies in chronology
  • Outline: The problem of evil and sections on the major ideas of the theodicy. Any examples given by the authors to explain the arguments
  • Opposition: arguments against

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read through the article, but as a suggestion about sourcing: I have a copy of Brown's biography of Augustine and it looks like it might have some useful information for the development section. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Also, it looks like "Tyler & Reid" are listed in the references section, but not the bibliography. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments; they are very helpful. I plan to work on the article tomorrow; Redtigerxyz, your structure looks decent. I might retain the sections already in place, but expand upon, especially the outline section. Perhaps if the key ideas are presented in the outline, they will then be easier to follow, both in the development & reception section. Mark, thank you for that source - it looks very helpful. I shall try to find where in Confessions and City of God Augustine's main argument lies, as well as take a look Aquinas' and Calvin's view. When it comes to the reaction of church bodies, should that come in the development or the reception section, do you think? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 February 2012, 22:56 UTC)

---

Egyptian mythology

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC, and it should have at least one other pair of eyes first. All my sources are Egyptologists, and I would particularly like input on what other perspectives might need inclusion.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments of Redtigerxyz

I am not a specialist in Eqyptian mythology,

• More images needed
• Who is John Baines or Jan Assmann? Give a brief description to let the reader know why his views are noteworthy
• Topics which may be needed, if available: Syncretism of myths, Influence on other mythologies, Origin theories, Modern interpretations, retelling/art depiction in other cultures or modern times

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks an interesting and well-produced article which I hope I shall enjoy reviewing. It may take me a little while as it's quite long, but I will post when I can. As a starter, here are some comments on the lead:-

• Readers may wonder what you mean by "understanding the cosmos". Do you mean by this the ordered universe, or any orderly system?
• The language is at times too academic and obscure for a lead, part of the function of which is to draw readers in. The lengthy sentence beginning "The rarity of..." should I think be simplified or omitted. The second senetnce of the second paragraph ("The events of this mythic past...") lost me, I'm afraid. Simpliication requested.
• The first sentence of the second paragraphs is grammatically flawed. Possible fix: "Inspired by the cycles of nature, the Egyptians saw time in the present as a series of recurring patterns, whereas they perceived the earliest periods of time as more linear". On further reflection I would lose the qualifying "more".
• "Egyptian religion" should be rendered as "Ancient Egptian religion", as is the linked article. Most people interpret "Egyptian religion" as Islam.
• A few words could be linked which aren't, e.g. "cosmos, "amulet".

More will follow Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are comments on a few more sections:

Definition

• This section does not seem to lead to a "definition". Rather, it outlines what appears to be an unresolved debate, so perhaps the section heading should change.
• The formulation "scholars like Vincent Arieh Tobin and Susanne Bickel" is odd if you actually mean Tobin and Bickel. I would say, e.g. "However, recent scholars including Vincent Arieh Tobin and Susanne Bickel..." etc

Content and meaning

• a tenses conflict arises between "believed" and "govern" in the second sentence. There are other instances of this through the article.

Sources

• Some of the sentence constructions are a bit awkward and hard to follow. An example is "Among these papyri are hymns, which in the course of praising a god may allude to the god's mythological roles, and texts describing temple rituals, many of which are based partly on myth."
• Is there a suitable link to "Greco-Roman period"? There seem quite a few possibles but I don't know which is best.
• There is some tendency to write in declarative sentences, e.g. "It is unclear that..." This wording suggests an editorial judgement rather than the summary of a source.

Cosmology

• "The earth is a flat piece of land, the god Geb, over which arches the sky, usually represented by the goddess Nut." There seem to be words missing from this sentence. I assume the meaning is "The earth, personified by the god Geb, is a flat piece of land over which arches the sky, usually represented by the goddess Nut".
• "Egyptians saw even stories that were set in that time as being perpetually true." I imagine that should be "even saw"?

Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 18:56 UTC)

---

Ahalya

Previous peer review

Ahalya recently failed a FAC. Continuing the process of improvement further to improve the article to FA status. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for another great article. Just one point to start with:

• I can't quite make sense of "Liberated by Rama, Ahalya rises from stone, a 19th century Kalighat painting." Should it mean something like "Rama liberates Ahalya from stone in this 19th-century Kalighat painting."? Saravask 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Tweaked a bit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Can comment further this weekend. Saravask 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. "seduction with" — wrong preposition; should be "seduction of"
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
2. "modern age poetry" — needs WP:HYPHEN: "modern-age poetry"
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
3. "depicted as on the book" — "as" is redundant
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
4. "Tulsidas's 16th century" — hyphen needed: "16th-century"
   1. Not needed per WP:CENTURY. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. "Bhakti era poets" — needs WP:HYPHEN
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
6. "an epic heroine, who is no longer" — extra comma
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
7. "temple dancer tradition" — WP:HYPHEN
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
8. "include the dance Mohiniyattam" — could be "include the mohiniyattam dance"
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
9. "king of gods - Zeus" — unclear spaced hyphen; probably was supposed to be a dash
   1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
10. "and Harivamsa (0–300)" — there is no year zero
    1. Done. Changed other dates per WP:CENTURY too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
11. "and against our (Indian/Hindu) culture" — Is the parenthetical insertion his/hers, or yours? If the latter, then should replace parens with brackets.
    1. author's. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
12. "(and Hindu society's) rape" — same question
    1. author's. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
13. "river Godavari" — Not sure about this, but could be "River Godavari" in Indian English; same for Narmada, etc. See Godavari River and River Thames.
    1. "the river Godavari" is used by Karnataka Water resources Dept. I have seen "River Godavari" too. No one convention IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
14. "The Vamana Purana mentions" — work of title needs italics
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
15. "Malay adaptation, Hikayat Seri Rama, and" — same issue
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
16. I decided to just implement some of the above; if others don't like the changes, they can revert per WP:BRD.
    1. Thanks for your edits. Adding Done to your comments, wherever the comments are addressed mostly by you. :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
17. I'm not necessarily 100% satisfied with the rest of the prose, but that probably just comes down to personal style differences, which are to some extent allowed by MOS. So I'll leave that less-important stuff, which involve parentheses and commas, unmentioned.
18. "The place where Ahalya practised penance and was redeemed, has been celebrated ..." — awkward/unnecessary comma
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Per SandyGeorgia at Kolkata, reference titles should either all be in sentence case, or they should all be in title case. At the moment, it's a mix of the two. Inconsistent per Nikkimaria's comment in the FAC.
    1. This policy is unclear to me. Have asked Sandy for help. Will fix later. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    2. Converted to title case. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
20. From my novice point of view, with the possible exception of the other source formatting issues raised by Nikkimaria (I haven't scrutinised every ref), this appears ready for another FAC.
21. The above points are just opinions attempting to effect a certain style—take them or leave them.
22. I lack the knowledge to agree or disagree with Fowler's prose-related FAC comments.

As I said before, I find this a fascinating article that is FAC-worthy. Great work; nice-looking page. If needed, can comment further next weekend. Cheers. Saravask 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better now. Will wait until other reviewers comment before adding more, if needed. Saravask 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 17:41 UTC)

---

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed Good Article and I'd like to try to improve it further if I can. It's a fairly short article and there isn't much in the way of available source material that I can find, so I'm not sure if Featured Article status is attainable. I might like to give it a shot though, so a general peer review would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

This looks pretty good overall. I don't think the length of the article or the paucity of source material would stand in the way of FA status if the article is comprehensive.

• "In the mid-1880s, Rosenberg traveled to Hawaii and become popular with locals, leading to his introduction to King Kalākaua by 1886. He claimed to be a fortune teller and began making predictions about the king's future.": Did he become popular as a fortune teller or was this role claimed after he met the king? I think this should be made clearer.
  • Rephrased, hope that it's clearer.
• "By the fall of 1886, Rosenberg had left San Francisco for the Hawaii": It may be better to be more precise in dating this, per WP:SEASON. Also, should it be "for the Hawaii"?
  • It's a bit tricky for me to figure out how to write this, it's unknown when he arrived, but it is definitely know that he was there by November '86. Fixed "the".
• Do we know where the Torah and yad came from?
  • No, I think that's a mystery, there's nothing in the sources about that.
• ""At that time, Rosenberg had a long white beard and a charming and witty personality": Need to say who thought so to avoid editorial voice.
  • Done.
• "At that time, Rosenberg had a long white beard and a charming and witty personality. He casted optimistic horoscopes for anyone who wanted one, using his Torah and yad." It is not quite clear which references support these statements and I could not tell from a quick check. Also, how did he use the Torah and yad to cast a horoscope?
  • Good question, I removed part of that bit.
• "By November 1886, King Kalākaua trusted Rosenberg's skill as a fortune teller": A few points. First, as above, the dating could be more precise. When did he first meet the king? Second, the sentence kind of implies that he did not trust Rosenberg before this, which may or may not be true. Third, is there anything that can explain what made the king trust him?
  • Ok, I took a stab at rephrasing/clarifying all that.
• "…and two months later, he granted Rosenberg a private audience at ʻIolani Palace": Where and how did they meet prior to this?
  • Looked at the source again, clarified.
• "Lorrin A. Thurston recalled that after Rosenberg became close with the King, Rosenberg routinely visited for several consecutive days at a time and the pair held long conversations." A little uncomfortable as it stands. Suggest "After becoming close to the king, Rosenberg routinely visited him for several consecutive days… according to Lorrin A Thurston."
  • Done.
• "This claim encouraged the king as he was seeking to restore aspects of Hawaiian religion and he established a society dedicated to the cause." May be smoother to say "This claim encouraged the king, who sought to restore aspects of Hawaiian religion and had established a society dedicated to this cause."
  • Done
• "leading to the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii (known as the Bayonet Constitution)" It may help the reader here to briefly explain how this constitution impacted on the king. It is mentioned later but could be better if it was explained at this point. And could it be dated more precisely to show how it fits into Rosenberg's chronology?
  • Ok, tried to spell out more detail.
• The start of the paragraph beginning "In late January" about his customs job could perhaps be smoothed a little by merging one or two of the sentences to make it less choppy. Not a huge issue, though. Also, there is perhaps too much repetition of "customs" and "customs office".
• Changed one.
• "The gossip columnist of the Hawaiian Gazette alleged that though Rosenberg did no work at the customs office, he collected a regular salary nonetheless": Possibly remove some redundancy: "The gossip columnist of the Hawaiian Gazette alleged that though Rosenberg did no work at the customs office, [but still] he collected a regular salary nonetheless."
  • Done
• ""His Majesty Kalākaua I to Abraham Rosenberg" was inscribed on the cup and one side of the medal.": Fussy, but for precision it may be better to say "The cup and [one side of the] medal were inscribed with the words "His Majesty Kalākaua I to Abraham Rosenberg"."
  • Done.
• "The reverse side of the medal featured a profile of the king and there was a gold crown on the side that attached to a blue ribbon." A little unclear. What has the blue ribbon to do with it? I read this as "there was a gold crown on the side that didn't have the profile of the king on it". In this case, this should be put before it says "reverse side" or it looks like the medal had three sides.
  • Tried to clarify the details there.
• "The king's decision to give him lavish gifts also was criticized in The Hawaiian Gazette." Also is unnecessary as no other criticism is recorded. If you want to avoid a short sentence, perhaps add it to "On June 1, Rosenberg received a gold medal and a silver cup from the king": "On June 1, Rosenberg received a gold medal and a silver cup from the king, a decision criticised in The Hawaiian Gazette".
  • Done
• "Perhaps foreseeing the future…": Not in the source and reads like editorial opinion.
  • Removed.
• Is his cause of death known?
  • No, I don't believe any of the sources contain a cause of death. They do note that he hobbled late in life though.
• How was the Torah lost and recovered? Although not strictly relevant, it would be interesting to have the information here.
  • Found a source, added to article.
• Are there any "judgements" of him, either contemporary or "scholarly". For example, the "Rogues, Rascals and Villains" article paints him as a fraud. Are there other views which agree or disagree?
  • Added a few, but there isn't much there.
• I have not performed any spot checks on sources.
• I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness or source quality of the article. However, most obvious questions seem to be answered, such as a Jewish presence on Hawaii before Rosenberg. Possibly a little more on religion(s) there at the time, or a little more background on the king (although again, most relevant questions seem to be answered). So, with the strong qualification that I am far from an expert and know nothing of the people or period, it looks comprehensive enough for me.
  • Thanks, I mentioned a bit more about religions then.
• Similarly, I do not know if all the relevant sources and authorities are included but there is nothing that indicates any problems.
• I'm not sure about the lead image of the yad. It comes from a 1970 article and therefore would not be PD as far as I can see. The licence is almost certainly wrong.
  • Thanks for pointing that out, I've nominated it for deletion at Commons.
• Although not essential, some other images may help the article, of either people or places mentioned, if available.
  • Added a couple.

I do not usually watch peer reviews, so please let me know of any problems or questions on my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent feedback, some of these will be easier than others, but I think review this will improve the article a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief further comments

• "Opinions of Rosenberg have been mixed, some see him as a charlatan, but he has also been characterized as a good-natured mystic and is commemorated with a display in a Hawaiian Jewish temple": I'm not sure the main body backs up these opinions of him.
• Watch out for repetition of "king" in last paragraph of the lead. Also, consecutive sentences begin "The king".
• I think "remained in the possession" is better than "remained with...".
• "After they became close, they routinely visited for several consecutive days at a time..." The last sentence was only about the king; I would suggest a slight rephrase, not least to avoid repetition of "they": "After becoming close, the king and Rosenberg routinely visited each other for ..."
• Fourth paragraph of Hawaii: Too many sentences beginning with "In [date]...": needs some more variety.

I have only had a quick look, but nothing else jumped out. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Done, thanks. I think this has been a very productive peer review. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 January 2012, 23:38 UTC)

---

Mother Teresa

Previous peer review

This recently delisted GA needs feedback from experienced editors here at Peer Review. Comments on how to treat Mother Teresa's reception are particularly welcome:

• Should the article contain a "Criticism" section, or should praise nd criticism be woven together? I've noticed that few GA- and FA-class articles have criticism sections, but there's no set policy. Feedback from experienced GA and FA participants/delegates is appreciated since this article will hopefully be renominated next year
• Suggestions on how to handle spinoff articles dealing with critical comments, such as Christopher Hitchens' critiques of MT
• Thoughts on which praise and which criticism to include. Rival cottage industries churn out books, websites and blogs extolling and condemning MT; some of them aren't noteworthy and others are shameless rehashes of others' work; do all of them merit inclusion?

Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

After a quick glance at the article there are a number of dead linked references. Plus a quick note about point 3, anything that doesn't past as a reliable source shouldn't be included. Mattg82 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have read though the article with interest. I have not carried out a detailed prose review, though there are clearly issues there; I have noted a few of the prose-related problems at the end of this review. More general problems which in my view need attention are:-

• Basic article construction: Biographical articles tend to consist of "life" sections (largely chronological) and "assessment" sections. Your article conforms to this. Typically the "life" sections will occupy most of the text—two-thirds or more. In your article the text is about 5200 words, not counting the lead, of which the "life" sections account for a mere 1785 words, or just over a third of the article, with the remaining two-thirds concerned with "assessment". This is the reverse of the usual proportions, and makes me wonder if the "life" sections are detailed enough. The impression I got reading them was that they were skimpy compared with the amount of detail in the later sections. I would ask you to look again at the first four sections, that deal with Mother Teresa's life, and consider whether these do represent a full and comprehensive account. (It may be that some biographical material has strayed into the "assessment" sections and should be relocated).
• Another "construction" point: the lead at present is too short to fulfil its required function to provide a general overview of the whole article, touching on all the major aspects covered in the main article's text. It needs to be lengthened.
• The article is considerably under-cited. There is one "citation needed" tag in place, but there could be many more. There are uncited quotations and other statements at the ends of numerous paragraphs, which is particularly noticeable. A rule of thumb is to ensure that every separate paragraph ends with a citation.
• "Legacy and depictions in popular culture" section: The name is a misnomer. A partial list of commemorations is not a legacy, and the details given of films aren't worth elevating into a separate subsection, though they could be woven into the main text. As to "legacy", ask yourself: "What did Mother Teresa leave behind for the benefit of later generations?" That should be the substance of a legacy section; the list of commemnorations can be left to the link.
• There are various format errors/inconsistencies in the citations, including "pp." for single page refs, use of "page" rather than "p.", different formats for retrieval dates and for ISBNs, etc.
• Too many external links, and a very lengthy further reading list, might suggests that the article itself is not comprehensive and needs to be supported by other material. I suggest you prune these; they are bound to contain considerable overlaps of material.
• Nobel Peace Prizes are not offices whereby the holder is either "preceded by" or "followed by". They are lifetime awards; it is irrelevant who won it the year before or the year after. Suggest you delete this pointless information.
• Prose often lacks flow, and particularly in the "life" sections tends to be jerkily written in short paragraphs. There are also some oddities of phrasing; examples:-
  • "Her father, Nikollë Bojaxhiu was possibly stemming from Prizren, Kosovo" - "stemming from" not idiomatic English (you could simply leave out "stemming")
  • "She never again saw her mother or sister" (normal phrasing would place "again" at the end of the sentence"
  • "Dr. Fox makes it a point to contrast hospice, on the one hand, with what he calls "Mother Teresa's Care for the Dying" on the other hand; noting that, while hospice emphasizes minimizing suffering with professional medical care and attention to expressed needs and wishes of the patient, her approach does not." The word "hospice" is not a mass noun that can be used in this way. In each case you should say "hospices" (plural).
  • Not strictly a prose point, but you should use a better location description for Darjeeling than "near the Himalayas" - that's far too vague.
  • You should also clarify why "Sister" Teresa became "Mother Teresa". All you have is a quote: "Though no one knew it at the time, Sister Teresa had just become Mother Teresa". Why was this so?
• I would recommend a top-to-bottom copyedit.

I hope these points will give you a basis for beginning to improve the article. If you need to discuss any point with me,please leave a note on my talkpage. Note: I have not considered the "dead link" points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

• Lead: I would start with "Mother Teresa (born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu) ... ". First common name, then birth name.
• What is Missionaries of Charity should be explained in lead. The "religious congregation" part should be included
• Similarly "Bharat Ratna" should be explained as India's highest civilian honour
• The article needs a copyedit. Odd constructions like "She never again saw her mother or sister"
• Explain jargon. Give some context. Eg. "Bengali" -> the Bengali language
• "Her efforts quickly caught the attention of Indian officials, including the prime minister," Which prime minister? Nehru???
• All quotes need references "the hungry, the naked...."
• WP:OVERLINK: Calcutta is linked thrice in "Missionaries of Charity"

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 December 2011, 16:03 UTC)

---

Social sciences and society

Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a Singaporean charitable organisation serving the intellectually disabled! The organisation turns 50 this year and the goal is GA status for this article. Could you support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by pointing out any and all issues that would prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria? The Management section is of particular concern. Should I mention the awards, which were by Singapore government bodies? Is the official website a better source for the sentence about corporate structure, than a 1993 news article whose information may be outdated? What other information could be added to this short section and is there a better name for the section?

I hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Comments

As far as I can see, there is generally not much keeping this from being a GA. I'll give suggestions for general improvements anyway:

• You have one DAB link.

  Done, please check The rehabilitation link now points to rehabilitation (neuropsychology) though I am unsure whether this is the best article to link to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think that's good. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "They run four special schools and a centre called MINDSville@Napiri, which offers several types of therapy and residential care." - I would remove the "several types of" because without those words, the sentence really means the same thing, but it's tighter.

  Done The intended meaning was that there are several options for residential care, besides the usual ones provided by most similar organisations, and likewise, wide options for therapy, but I guess it does not come across, so removing the redundant phrase. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Founded in 1962, MINDS is among the largest charities in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries and yearly expenses of S$21 million." - You could link "S$" to Singaporean dollar. I'm sure you'll get many foreign readers (like yours truly) here.

  Done Thanks for pointing that out, foreign reader! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Since the term "retarded" had acquired negative connotations and the organisation had started services for adults," - "Since" to "After" works a lot nicer here. The word "since" is a bit awkward in causal clauses.

  Clarification needed Simply changing "Since" to "After" would make the "had"s grammatically incorrect. How should I reword the sentence? Or would simply changing "Since" to "As", which would not mess up the "had"s, be fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  I guess you could keep it as is. It's kind of a strange word to use in place of "because" (which you can also use). I guess I read a bit too much into WP:CHECKLIST. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Last but not least" - Very informal transition. I don't think you need a transitional term here. Simply removing will do.

  Done, please check Removed the transition, but the last sentence does seem awkward without a transition. Would "In addition" (with or without moving the sentence so it is the second of the paragraph) do? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  "In addition" would for GAN, but have in mind that additive terms and transitions are frowned upon in FAC, to which you probably won't take it though. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "MINDS is one of the oldest and largest voluntary welfare organisations in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries and yearly expenses of S$21 million." - could link S$ here too.

  Done See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Awards that MINDS have won include the 2001 President's Social Service Award (for MINDS Youth Group)" - Subject/verb disagreemtn? Do you mean "has won"?

  Clarification needed In British English, when are collective nouns plural and when are they singular? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  I guess I could be wrong. Based on what I observe, you refer to them as an organization in singular and as a group of people in plural? There's a MOS page on this I'm sure, but I just cannot find it... —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sources look good. Although, if you were to take the article to FAC, the article may not be comprehensive enough, so try and see if it can be expanded.

  Comment I would never take any of my GAs or potential GAs to FAC! As a non-native English speaker writing on poorly covered topics, I know my limits. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a great topic you've worked on and well written too. My review may not appear thorough, but I've read it for concerns that may be raised at GAN and I did not find many. I'm no expert at the subject area, but I think you've gotten a great outside opinion on your work. Hope this helps, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I agree that you have given a great outside opinion. The questions I posed about the Management section could be answered, should you feel like doing a further review of this article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. You're welcome for the review! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 February 2012, 15:40 UTC)

---

Acharya Habba

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this article a WP:GA. Thanks, Sourav Mohanty (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, a few things that I've noticed with a short going-over:
  • The automated checker indicated a few problems with the text & headings according to the Manual of Style.
  • The alt text checker indicated several pictures without alt text.
  • I've done some copyediting on it to make it more understandable by a worldwide audience; please go over my changes to make sure I haven't misunderstood something! (If I did, that indicates a need for clarification...) I did not, of course, change spellings to American versions, despite my browser protesting at their British/Indian versions...
  • Is there only one Acharya Institute, as is indicated by the article on the Acharya Institute of Technology, or are there more than one? The article keeps referring to "Acharya Institutes", but also treats it as singular some places.
  • The "Events" section badly needs expanding with descriptions of each of these events, which are otherwise rather hard in many (not all) cases to figure out. Even in cases in which they're reasonably easy ("fashion show", for instance), it is advisable to put in some information as to why this particular event is different from the average, or is unusually important for the festival - if neither is the case, then I suggest skipping it. This should not be a listing of every event at the festival, in my opinion (following, for instance, the guidance of the anime convention workgroup).
  • The name "Smt.Nagarathnama" is unclear - is this some abbreviation at the start followed (without a space) by the name of someone? Please expand the abbreviation, and possibly give some reference for who this is, unless it's on the main page for the Acharya Institute.
• Please let me know if further feedback is needed. Allens (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 February 2012, 14:57 UTC)

---

Death panel

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently delisted as a good article over concerns about prose quality and stability. I'd like to make sure it meets the good article criteria.

Thanks, Jesanj (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Initial comment: A main problem with this article is the question of its title. I have read the discussion on the talkpage, and find the arguments in favour of retaining this title unconvincing. This is not a neutral title; it was invented by Palin for a purpose, but even she conceded that it was meant figuratively, not realistically. Leaving the title as it is lends credence to the actual existence of such panels. The article is about a political controversy, and should be indicated as such. Either "Death panel" controversy, or even just "Death panel" would avoid misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I start a discussion at the talk page and throw out multiple ideas? (I favor myth as I show here: User:Jesanj#Myth). Jesanj (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought "Death panel" would be simple/uncontroversial so I moved it there. Jesanj (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm new here in Peer review, so maybe I'm stepping out of order. I'm wondering if this term, used by Palin, deserves a whole article by itself. Shouldn't it be integrated into another article about her campaign stances? It's given too much weight, IMO, in this article. It's just one of her many positions on this and related issues. P MathewTownsend (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No problem. But I'm not sure what you mean by articles giving themselves too much weight. Perhaps you favor Garber's opinion when she wrote (about Wikipedia) "And, significantly: missing from the discussion is talk of Sarah Palin and her fictional-fantastical 'death panels.' ".[1] Jesanj (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know who Garber is, but her piece, written August 18, 2009, makes sense to me and the Columbia Review of Journalism is a credible source. She is complimenting Wikipedia for not distracting the political discussion on health care with talk of "death panels" and "YouTube-tastic sideshows that the mainstream media—again, both traditional and digital—have found so irresistible in covering the health care debates. Missing,[from Wikipedia] in general, are the frustrating and distracting little dramas that, overall, have taxed attention, promoted misinformation, and stifled true conversation." In other words, she compliments Wikipedia: "Wikipedia provides, essentially, what traditional news outlets, both in print and online, have been trying—with varying degrees of success—to create: a thorough, comprehensive, and vitriol-free examination of the health care conversation. One that defers to information rather than sideshows."

Isn't that good? Or am I missing the point? MathewTownsend (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

p.s. There are 5 dead links in the citations. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Garber didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Some sideshows become notable, and analyzing them is presenting information (see Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories). Thanks for finding the dead links. Jesanj (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 January 2012, 00:29 UTC)

---

Trinity University (Texas)

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am looking for a quality scale review. the page has been improved and updated.

Thanks, Crepic (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images shouldn't have fixed pixel widths overriding user and device defaults. Selery (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest getting more references - particularly look at unreferenced sections like "Trinity University Press". My general rule of thumb for whether something should be included, unless it's specifically mentioned in the University Style Guide as something to mention always, is whether it's gotten an external citation for reference (for instance, student clubs only get mentioned if they have an external citation). Of course, don't over-reference either - I probably tend to do this... Allens (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article - While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. I agree with the comments above, here are some more suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not follow WP:LEAD which says that it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - the "awarded 649 degrees in 2007-2008" is one example of this, check for others.
• The lead needs to be expanded to be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, even if it is just a sentence or a phrase, but alumni are not even mentioned in the lead (as one example)
• Biggest problem with the article I see is a lack of references. Article needs more references, for example the whole first paragraph of History has no refs, and almosy none of the alumni have any refs at all
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Make sure the article uses sources which are reliable (see WP:RS) and that it is uses sources independent of the university as much as possible.
• Photo of the mural is almost certainly of copyrighted art work and probably does not meet WP:NFCC criteria for use here
• Sentences like this need a date / year to make sure they are put into context Trinity's 2,693 students come from 48 states plus 58 countries. Students of color account for 23 percent of undergraduate and graduate students. See WP:PCR
• Avoid vague time expressions like "recent/ly" as these can quickly become dated. In YEAR or As of YEAR work
• Avoid bullet point lists and short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they impede the narrative flow of the article.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Review by GrapedApe

• Needs much better referencing.
• File:Trinity University.png - needs a detailed non-free use rationale. Y Done
• File:Trinity U Campus.jpg - blatant copyvio. Deleted.
• File:Coates LibrarySA.jpg - Derivative work w/o fair use rationale Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coates LibrarySA.jpg
• Questions raised about the others at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TU Murch Tower.JPG.
• "is afforded the opportunity to maintain a selective admissions policy and small class sizes" WP:BOOSTERISM
• "Recent alumni have enrolled in graduate programs at Duke, Princeton, Harvard,..." So what? Probably cut that part.
• ..."humanities in robust numbers" too vague. Cite it.
• "An analysis by the Office of Institutional Research..." What is that?
• Thanks for putting the rankings in their own section, not in the lead. A+
• Doubtful that you need 5 refs for 2007 Trinity v. Millsaps football game
  • --GrapedApe (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 January 2012, 22:15 UTC)

---

History

James G. Blaine

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's mostly good, but want to see if there are any weak spots that need improvement before nominating it for Featured Article.

Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 February 2012, 14:57 UTC)

---

Luzhniki disaster

Hi, after the recent Port Said Stadium clashes I paid attention to somewhat similar Luzhniki disaster in 1982. I discovered that Wikipedia article about this disaster was a start-class and pretty basic. I worked a lot on it recently. Unfortunately, English is not my native language. Would you be so kind to let me know how could I improve this article and correct my most obvious mistakes?

Thanks, Potorochin (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Not a full review by any means:
  • Try the toolbox on the right-hand side of this page, specifically the automated checker and the alt text checker.
  • If you're wanting copyediting, you might look into posting it on the WP:GUILD requests page, although be forewarned that it's rather backlogged.
• Allens (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, I'm taking a look:
  • I'm doing some copy-editing.
  • You tend to over-link (something that I also do...); common terms like "girl" do not need to be linked.
  • You need to take a closer look at the specifications for the citation templates - try looking at some of the ways I've changed them.
• Allens (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I already see a great job that you are doing on this article. I'm not going to interfere with editing this article, while you work on it. Would you please let me know when you finish, so that I may continue editing it according to your advices? Thank you again --Potorochin (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I've about finished copyediting it - I suspect I may have missed some problems with earlier references, though (particularly on things like the lastname/firstname formatting). Would you like to try fixing those, or should I? Allens (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't bother, you already did a great job. I had a good laugh, when I realized what kind of stupid mistakes I managed to make like crash instead of crush. I'll try to keep editing this article following your advices. But if you have a chance to come back, say, the next day, and take a look on this article again, it would be awesome. Thank you --Potorochin (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite welcome; I'll try to come back by and take a look tomorrow or the next day (I have a class to teach tomorrow evening). Glad you can laugh on the mistakes - silly mistakes happen to all of us, even when writing in our first language...Allens (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When you return back to this article would you take a look on the use of articles in this article? There are no articles in the Russian language, so I just put them here and there, wherever I feel they belong to. If you take a look on the list of contents, you'll see that I used "The disaster", "The match", "The crush", but "Aftermath", "Investigation", "Trial", etc.- I really have no idea when to use those articles and when not to :( --Potorochin (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 February 2012, 21:43 UTC)

---

R v Peacock

I've listed this article for peer review because it covers an important current event to have occurred in British law, and has recently undergone a revamp.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 5 February 2012, 21:58 UTC)

---

Invasions of the British Isles

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like guidance on how to deal with the article's blank sections, and how to effectively utilize the higher-quality, full sections that I think could propel some version of this article to a GAN. Any ideas?

Thank you, DCItalk 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article appears to be in a very early stage of its development. There is no lead to speak of; there are sections tagged for expansion (one section is completely empty); there is a great deal of uncited material; there is no information given subsequent to 1560; no serious work has been done to investigate images...I could go on. In response to the question "Any ideas", I'd simply say do a lot more serious research using the enormous amount of published material relevant to this subject. Or gather a group of likeminded editors to share the task and make it into a co-operative project. There has been no serious work done on this article for months; the nominator's most recent edit was in August 2011. Peer review is not the arena for initiating projects; it is, as its front page makes clear, "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". My advice, therefore, is to withdraw the article from review, do the work, then bring it back. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 February 2012, 17:38 UTC)

---

British infantry brigades of the First World War

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FL. The list is sortable and I am working through the red links, and I believe it is FL standard. I would appreciate any and all comments especially on the small prose section. Thanks, Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D This looks pretty good Jim. My suggestions are:

• The 'served' column includes lots and lots of over-linking
• For FA class, the article probably also should state when the brigades were formed and disbanded and the periods they served in the different areas (I do realise that this is a huge amount of work though)
• The grammar in the first paragraph of the lead is a bit rough
• More material on how the organisation of infantry brigades changed over time would be good (including their nominal manpower). You should also note that the brigades included a headquarters and sometimes had additional battalions attached/detached
• Information on the kinds of tasks brigades were expected to undertake would be good (for instance, what trench frontage were brigades normally assigned on the Western Front?). This might be difficult to find though.
• What was the rank of officers who commanded brigades?
• Can you find a photo of an entire brigade on parade? The current generic one of infantry advancing isn't very interesting.
• The first two paragraphs of the 'Background' section seem pretty generic and don't directly relate to the topic of this article.
• You probably need to explain what the differences in the different types of brigades were (for instance, what's a 'Second line Territorial Army brigade'?)
• In a FL review you'll need to explain why The Long, Long Trail is a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick gives me something to work on. Last time I had an article at FL, they wanted all the battles linked, the reason why escapes me now. I anticipated the question about the Long Long Trail and prepared this about the author Chris Baker.

• Was the chairman of the Western Front Association [2]
• Given over 1,000 talks on First World War [3]
• Web site cited in other publications [4]
• Web site cited in books [5] [6]
• Cited by Google scholar search [7]
• Web site recommended by Intute which confirms his membership of the University of Birmingham's Centre for First World War Studies. [8]
• Has had at least one article published in a journal [9]
• Published author — The Battle for Flanders: German Defeat on the Lys 1918 [10]
• Founder of Fourteen-Eighteen which provides research services for private clients, universities, broadcast media, museums, regimental associations and others who wish to locate, obtain and understand documents from the period of the First World War. [11]

Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 February 2012, 10:44 UTC)

---

Iraq War in Anbar Province

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm developing this as a WP:FA, and would like some guidance. It has already achieved WP:GA status.

Thanks, Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have not studied the prose of this impressive-looking article, but I have a few general points:-

• It seems to me that many of the section titles breach MOS requirements expressed in MOS:HEAD, specifically through the frequent use of "The..." and "the" in titles. In some instances the title seems overcomplicated, e.g. "The Marines take over and the Blackwater killings".

Doing... I just reordered the article by year. I still need to figure out to to rearrange the "Aftermath" section. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Likewise, date ranges rendered as "January 2005 – December 2005" rather than "January–December 2005" seem unnecessarily repetitive.

Fixed Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Citations appear to be lacking in the following instances:-
  • Latter part of first paragraph of the "The Marines take over..." section
  • Final part of third paragraph of the "First Battle of Fallujah" section
  • Last sentence of first paragraph of "Haditha killings"
  • Last sentence of final paragraph of same section
  • Last sentence of "The MRAPs" section
• Use of boldings in quotations contrary to WP:BOLDING

Fixed Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate the vast amount of work that has gone into the article, but perhaps 31 images and 14 highlighted quotations is overcrowding the prose? Some of the quotations are no more than decorative soundbites.

Doing...I tried to trim the fat, but were there any specific ones you had in mind? Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of the "See also" links to Diyala campaign and Ninawa campaign?

Fixed Those were other campaigns in Iraq, but I removed them for clarity. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope these few comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 February 2012, 00:33 UTC)

---

John de Gray

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think he's important and hefty enough to head to FAC and would like comments on its prose, the comprehensiveness, and the clarity - the ability of a non-specialist to understand the topic.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am no specialist on the topic, but am quite interested in history in general and enjoy reading about medieval societies.
• I'd advise rephrasing the first sentence in the lead. How does the following sound?
  • John de Gray (died 18 October 1214) was a medieval English Bishop of Norwich and the elected but unconfirmed Archbishop of Canterbury?
• The second sentence, too, could be rephrased. Here's an idea:
  • He was employed in the service of John of England, even before John's coronation as king. For his services, de Gray was rewarded with a number of ecclesiastical offices, culminating in his pro forma election to Norwich in 1200.
• Could something else be substituted for the word "quashed"?
• I'm now reading into the "Early life" section. Here, a double-link can be found, "Prince John." This is the third time a new term describing John of England has been used, potentially confusing an unknowledgeable reader. Perhaps you could stick with "John" until after you reach his coronation, whereupon using "King John" would make more sense.
• I have a little feeling that quickly describing pro forma would be a good idea. However, a reader should be able to infer this from the next sentence, and I don't see this as a major issue.
• As with "King/Prince/John of England," you use the terms "royal" and "regal" interchangeably. I'd suggest "royal," for the sake of clarity alone, but either should be okay.
• There are hardly any issues with the "Archbishop-elect" section.
• "In Ireland:" serving as governor there for the king..." Why not simply "royal governor?"
• Persecuting? This certainly does not sound neutral, and it is unsourced, no matter what the de Braose article uses as section headings.
  • I'm all right with keeping the word in there, as long as some source is found describing a "persecution."
• "Episcopal affairs and later career": You describe that de Gray's ability to raise money was useful for the King, yet this is alluded to earlier. I'm not sure how you feel about this, or if you can think of another way to decrease redundancy while still giving the reader the correct impression that he was a money-lender who the King often depended on.
• The article as a whole is quite readable, fascinating, and smooth. I'd support this in an FA candidacy, and I hope that, after a few minor revisions, you nominate it. DCItalk 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• One thing: The (lone) image needs alt text. Allens (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 29 January 2012, 01:39 UTC)

---

Jimmy Carter

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article to good article status as part of my mission to get every president to be a good article.

Thanks, Iankap99 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Atlantic and Pacific fleets" fleets should be capitalised since it's part of a proper name.
• "He married Rosalynn Smith in 1946; they have four children." Missing a ref.
• Two paragraphs under "Naval career" are unreferenced. Please check throughout the article.
• MOS calls for the provisions of alt text.
• "4 Four U.S. Presidents. Former"
• Various dead links.
• "U.S. Boycott of the Moscow Olympics" Why's Boycott capitalised? Same with Airline in "U.S. Airline Industry".
• Doing...
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 January 2012, 03:48 UTC)

---

American Airlines Flight 191

I think this would make a great featured article. There has been a lot of recent work on the article through science and technology, I think some review of it as a historical event (the most deadly air accident prior to 9/11) would be merited to get it nominated as a featured article.

Thanks, WGFinley (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 January 2012, 20:29 UTC)

---

Ottoman Empire

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to help it become a GA status article.

Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

I know the GA criteria, but having never been through the GA process, I'm not very familiar with how the criteria are applied in practice. My comments are mainly aimed toward general improvement—which I think is reasonable, because a lot of general improvement will be needed before this article is ready for a GA submission.

Overall

• Length: There are nearly 14,000 words in this article, whereas preferably there shouldn't be more than 10,000 even for a large topic. See WP:Article size. I have some specific suggestions below about what to cut.

• Structure: There are a few sections too many, and disproportionate attention is given to some subjects. Probably several sections should be shortened and consolidated. See WP:Manual of Style/Layout. Some detailed suggestions below.

References

• There are in-line citations, but their placement is very spotty; large chunks of the article lack them. The minimum standard for a Good Article is: a citation at the end of every paragraph, every statement that is likely to be challenged, and every direct quotation. It also looks clumsy and is almost always unnecessary to have more than two or three citations in one place.

• The reference style is inconsistent. Some of the in-line citations contain commentary rather than just references in support of a statement in the body, even though there is a "Footnotes" section for notes containing commentary. Either the combine the two, or separate them. The references in support don't have a consistent format; for example, book references sometimes provide the place of publication and sometimes don't, and website references often have nothing more than a linked title and an access date. Absolute consistency isn't in the GA criteria, but general consistency is a good idea in any case. WP:Manual of Style/Layout, Help:Footnotes, and WP:Citing sources have a good bit of information on the organization of references.

• The sources themselves are largely reliable, but many are less than ideal—general reference works like the Encyclopedia Britannica, out-of-date historians like Arnold Toynbee, online scans of Ottoman banknotes. The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journal articles and books written by academics, which, as the "Further reading" section shows, are abundant on a topic like this. Look through the references and further reading, identify the most recent and general of the highly reliable sources, and get your hands on as many as you can. Then use them to support as much of the unreferenced content, and the content with the weakest sources, as you can. If you use sources that are now in the "Further reading" section as references, move them from one to the other; that section is oversized.

Images and templates

• It's not in the GA criteria, but I really feel there are too many, or at least too many in the same places. The images are bunched together in many places, looking cluttered, while other sections have no images at all. Look through the clusters of images and decide which are most relevant to the text at hand. The templates aren't as bad, but there are some places where they and the images are really crowded, like the start of the article body and the very bottom of the page. Some of them might be better removed.

History section

• A lot of the article bloat is here. With sub-articles for so many of these sections, a lot of the detail can be removed, in accordance with WP:Summary style. The "Decline and modernization" section is particularly oversized. For example, the "Modernization" section contains very long lists of the reforms during the Tanzimat period, which surely can be summarized; the first paragraph of the "Crimean War" section is mostly irrelevant to the Ottoman Empire; and the detail about the Congress of Berlin is terribly disproportionate to its overall significance in six centuries of Ottoman history. I want to emphasize that these are only examples, and a lot of cutting is needed in a lot of places. When that is done, several of the sections can be combined, making the article body and the table of contents shorter.

Fall of the Ottoman Empire

• I seriously question whether we need separate articles on Fall of the Ottoman Empire and Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, although that's not directly relevant to this article. I am certain that the "Fall" section in this article should be merged with the sections on dissolution above it.

Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire

• In contrast, this section should be expanded, although not hugely.

Economy

• This part is missing some fundamental things like currency. It should look more like an overview of all the topics in the main article on the Ottoman economy.

State

• I can't really judge whether this is a good overview of the topic without seeing the relevant sources, but it doesn't look bad at a glance. I question the relevance of the last paragraph, though.

Society

• This part might better be titled "Social structure", like the corresponding sub-article, to make clear why there's a section separate from "Culture". The section doesn't feel cohesive in its organization, and some parts, like the bit about plague, seem to have been thrown into it as a catch-all section. It might work better if it mentioned the aristocracy, like the sub-article does, and moved down (or up) the social hierarchy.

Culture

• On the surface, it looks decent. The paragraphs on different aspects of the culture don't connect very well, but that's hard to do with such disparate subject matter.

Demographics

• The sections on "Language" and "Religion" look fairly decent (although "Religion" has a tag complaining that it doesn't give enough attention to Islam; with a little expansion on the subject, the tag should be removed). The strange part is "The Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan" and its single subsection. The section is all about the views of one scholar and should probably just be removed. In its place, I would recommend a section on "Ethnicities", about all the peoples within the empire. The views of the one scholar might be useful as a source for that section but don't need nearly as much weight as they're given now.

Law

• My thoughts about this section are much like those about the "State" section.

Military

• Fairly decent, but, like the History section, it seems to give disproportionate attention to more recent times, including a very short-lived air force. The Ottoman military must have been far more famous when it was the terror of Europe, and more needs to be said about that period.

There's a lot of material to work with in this article, but it's much in need of somebody to reorganize and streamline it. I wish you well in that effort. Let me know if you need any other help. A. Parrot (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 January 2012, 17:52 UTC)

---

Military history of Canada

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to see if others think the readability, presentation, coverage, neutrality, sourcing are in order as per our policies and general guidelines on this type of subject. The ultimate goal is GA status then FA over time. Thanks, Moxy (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

I've read through the article and have a couple of minor suggestions which you might consider. Feel free to ignore if you disagree:

• watch out for date format consistency: sometimes you have ddmmyyyy (e.g. "19 March 2011"), but then elsewhere mmddyyyy (e.g. "November 27, 2010"). Either way is fine, but it should be consistent;

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• in the Iraq War section, the article has an image of "one of four Canadian ships deployed to the Persian Gulf in relation to the Iraq War", however, the prose doesn't mention the deployment of ships. Would it be possible to add a short sentence on this, explaining their role?

Fixed - The Canadian Forces involvement was delegated to ship escort duties and expanded participation in Task Force 151 to free up American assets.REF .. Moxy (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• the Libyan civil war section didn't really give me a good understanding of Canada's contribution to the NATO action. I understand that you don't want to write too much on this so that it doesn't overshadow earlier, larger conflicts, but I wonder if a small sentence or clause could be added. For instance, maybe: "Canada's contribution included the deployment of a number of naval and air assets, which were grouped together as part of Operation Mobile."

Fixed - your sentence is great and has been inserted - the old ref covers the new info added REF.Moxy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In July 2006, for instance, Canada ranked 51st on the list of UN peacekeepers". Is there a ranking that could be provided as a comparison? I assume it was higher previously, do we know what it was at the peak of Canada's involvement for instance? If so, maybe just add a short sentence on that.

Fixed - Were in November of 1990 Canada had 1002 troops out of a total UN deployment of 10,304.REF.Moxy (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Anyway, good luck with the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• The TOC is quite long, especially given that some of the subsections are short - perhaps merge a few?

Not sure how to do this in a good way... so I added {{TOC limit}}.Moxy (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few different ways. The easiest approach would be to limit the TOC so that lower-level headings aren't included (ex. you'd have 4.1 but 4.1.1 wouldn't appear); I wouldn't advocate that solution, simply because it's so inelegant. I'm not sure subsections of American Revolution are needed at all; you could also potentially put Maritime theatre first and then merge St Lawrence and Loyalists. I would suggest merging the creation of the army and navy. "Forces in Europe" could be merged into the main Cold War Years part; Vietnam could either also be moved there or potentially merged with Korea. Yugoslav and Somali could be merged... Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have merged a few sections and made the TOC see less sections. What do you think now? Not the exact solution above but???Moxy (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the article is quite long in general - some of the more detailed material might be better in the more specific daughter articles. Military history of Australia, a comparable GA, is about 40kB shorter

Fixed - Military history of Canada = Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10768 words) and References (text only): 1655 B vs Military history of Australia = Prose size (text only): 91 kB (14682 words) and References (text only): 1154 B.Moxy (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some American spellings have snuck in and should be "corrected" to Canadian

Y Done by Nikkimaria . Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• See here for dead external links and here for dablinks

Fixed x2 .. Moxy (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images: Source links for File:Death_of_General_Montcalm.jpg and File:Dolphin_(Canadian_Air_Force).jpg are dead. File:Battle_of_Saint-Denis.jpg claims to be PD because author died over 70 years ago, but no author is listed. Since France does not have freedom of panorama, might need to double-check licensing for the Vimy memorial. File:421sabres.jpg needs page number

File:Death_of_General_Montcalm.jpg... replaced - File:Dolphin_(Canadian_Air_Force).jpg.. fixed - File:Battle_of_Saint-Denis.jpg ...replaced - Vimy memorial not sure what I can do. File:421sabres.jpg I guess I will remove as I dont have the book to get the page number.Moxy (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some overlinking: St. John's twice in as many paragraphs, Fenian raids linked in body text when already hatnoted, etc

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in which spelling of Algonquin/Algonkian is used. In general, copy-editing needed

Fixed Algonquin is the term now used all over.Moxy (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Try to avoid non-neutral phrasings like "age-old tension"

Fixed found 3 examples.Moxy (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• There seems to be some overlap between the Aboriginals section and the 17th century section

Fixed - I believe my reorder - moving a paragraph to the lower section will help.Moxy (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Later, militias were developed on the larger seigneuries" - you haven't yet explained what a seigneurie is

Do you think simply linking Seigneurial system of New France would be enough for our readers to read more if they like?Moxy (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would help. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Trafford is a vanity press, so for books published by them you'll need to be prepared to explain the expertise of the author(s) if/when this goes to FAC. Same with self-published sources

Fixed - replaced by books/authors from Ashgate Publishing and University of Cambridge.Moxy (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 59: what's the end page of that range?

Pls explain more.Moxy (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 137: don't use Ibid

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above points, I'm seeing a lot of prose, MOS and formatting-related inconsistencies that would definitely be raised at FAC (and prose probably at GAN). If you like, I can do some work with those issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As per the norm your spot on. Yes pls jump in were you like - trim at will. As above I will work on what I can. Copy edit for Canadian vs American is a hard one for me. Refs no problems I can take care of.Moxy (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D I know almost nothing about pre-World War I Canadian military history, so my comments will be focused on the post-1914 era.

• "Acadia was plunged into what some historians have described as a civil war in Acadia" - repetitive

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• The coverage of the colonial era is largely a summary of the (amazingly frequent) conflicts. Material on the inter-war garrisons/militia and fortifications (or lack thereof) would be useful

Have add maps - this help?Moxy (talk)

• "the Conservative Party was adamantly in favour of raising divisions for service in South Africa" - did it really want to raise several division-sized units? This would have been a huge contribution.

Fixed Ref says 8,000 troops so changed to a "of raising 8,000 troops" Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• The coverage of the Spanish Civil War seems overly detailed

Fixed I think trimmed out 2 sentences.Moxy (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the First Canadian Army was a multi-national formation

I cant find a ref for this.Moxy (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Canada's huge role in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan should be noted
• The material on Canada's role in the Cold War is a bit short.

Fixed}.Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• As well as the forces stationed in Europe, there were fairly significant forces in Canada which would have been deployed to Europe in the event of a crisis, and the Canadian Navy was structured to hunt submarines in the North Atlantic. I'm pretty sure that some Canadian air defence units had US-owned nuclear tipped missiles for a period as well, which you may want to include. More generally, you could summarise the changes in the military's force structure during the Cold War and after it ended.

Thats alot to add - see what I can do. Moxy (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The coverage of last year's war in Libya doesn't really explain what the Canadian forces deployed to the region did (which I understand was quite significant). PM Harper's claim about the Libyan people having freed themselves should be removed - this is patent nonsense given that the rebels were heavily dependent on foreign air support for most of the war and probably would have been defeated without it

Above striked out Removed - there is with a link.. "Canada's contribution included the deployment of a number of naval and air assets, which were grouped together as part of Operation Mobile."Moxy (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• The 'Canadian Crown and the Forces' section is much too long. I'd suggest summarising this down to two sections

Fixed I have removed an entire section the one on the naming of buildings, boats etc...Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's currently no coverage of Canada's arms industry

Fixed - somewhat fixed add section on expenditures and mention throughout the article of when there are arms increases and decrees (i.e With the election of the Conservatives in 1911, in part because the Liberals had lost support in Quebec, the navy was starved for funds, but it was greatly expanded during the First World War .Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• What have Canada's experiences with integrating women into the 'mainstream' of the military been?

Not sure about this one .. Will have to read up on it. Have any suggestions for books,Moxy (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• The article should note that the Canadian Forces have been placing a greater emphasis on operating in the country's north in recent years, and plan to continue this in the future Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed See below (Additions and trimming).Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As per above comments I will look at every point. That said seem to be lots here to add to this over view article pls jump in if you can because size is a concern (I have made more room Prose size (text only): 63 kB (10361 words) .Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tricky. It's long, but I agree there needs to be a bit more info on CF operations on Canadian soil in general, as right now the 20th and 21st centuries cover actions abroad almost exclusively. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One option would be to split the article into pre and post-1867 articles. The entire military history of Canada is a difficult topic to cover in a single article. The alternative would be to ruthlesslessly edit down the material on the many colonial-era conflicts, which seems to be much more detailed than that on the conflicts of the 20s century (particularly given the much smaller forces involved and limited scope of most of the wars). Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A split would not be a bad Idea. I would prefer to have one parent article that leads to all the others. That said I (i hope others to) will work on reaming points (I have to read up on them). Then see were we stand sizes wise and GA level wise. PS thank you all for taking the time to write your comments for this review, thus helping the article progress in a positive manner .Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Additions and trimming

• Have trimmed the pre 20th century entries for size a bit.Moxy (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about domestic operations missing from article.Moxy (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added "October Crisis" (1970)
• Added "Oka Crisis" (1990)
• Added "Operation Recuperation" (ice storm of 1998)
• Added "Operation Peregrine" (2003 fires) that also mentions ""Operation Assistance"

Concerns about missing Cold war: like communism .Moxy (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added "Igor Gouzenko"
• Added "PROFUNC"

Size after trim and additions

The article is smaller then the WWII and Military history of Australia GA articles, so I think we are ok for size.Moxy (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• File size: 692 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 129 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
• Wiki text: 174 kB
• Prose size (text only): 65 kB (10664 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1711 B
  

(Peer review added on Friday 13 January 2012, 23:44 UTC)

---

Pain fitzJohn

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to FAC, and it desperately needs attention from someone in terms of prose, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility by the non-specialist. The more the merrier! All serious comments very much welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief but srs comments from Nikkimaria

• "One historian, Bruce Coplestone-Crow" - the same one mentioned a couple of paragraphs earlier?
• "Pain endeavoured to secure more lands around Ludlow in order to secure his hold" - can we avoid repeating "secure" here?
• "Pain was killed by the Welsh in an ambush,[12][notes 8] from a javelin blow to the head" - suggest moving the javelin blow to before the ambush
• Gilbert Lacy or Gilbert de Lacy?
• "19th century accounts" -> "19th-century accounts", or preferably "Nineteenth-century accounts" since it's the head of a sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

This looks very good to me - here are a few niggles I found on reading it. They are almost all concerned with providing more context to the reader

• In Early life, I think it would help to explain the last name (fitz = son of) explicitly - only needs one sentence or phrase added
• In Marriage and lands, I assume de Lacy died and his daughter / niece (our hero's wife) inherited much of his land - could this be made clearer? Pain did not receive the entirety of the lands of Hugh de Lacy; some went to Jocelin de Dinan and others went to Miles of Gloucester.[20]
• What are knights fees?
• I see that the third paragraph of Early life addresses some of the issue raised above (inheriting de Lacy lands). Perhaps the material should come earlier in the section?
• Under Henry I, any reason not to include an image of King Henry?
• I would add Henry's accession date to Pain was too young to serve King William Rufus, but there is evidence that he may have been a chamberlain, one of the officials in charge of the royal household, for King Henry I.
• clarify or link body servant?
• In Under Stephen, could the whole Stephen vs. Matilda succession issue be made somewhat clearer - it is alluded to but never explicitly explained
• Death - Agree with Nikki on the javelin blow wording
• Can anything be added about Agnes and her two marriages?

Could a map showing important places in his life or his significant holds be added?

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 29 December 2011, 16:44 UTC)

---

Geography and places

Georgia (U.S. state)

I have listed this article to be reviewed because I feel that it's a highly important article and I'm at an impasse to what I should do next (as far as improvement) I know there are probably things that I would overlook that others would easily spot. Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated and noted.

Thanks, Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 February 2012, 16:59 UTC)

---

Denmark

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I - and other editors - realise that this article still needs some improvements and an 'outside' look at the article would be valuable. Note that this article recently merged with Kingdom of Denmark, so any suggestions on cutting back/rewording the lead would be valuable. I hope that some key areas for improvement can be identified and hopefully work can start on getting this article back to GA status!

Thanks, Peter (Talk page) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 February 2012, 23:13 UTC)

---

Wilson, Arkansas

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently overhauled this page and would like to know where to go next. I sincerely appreciate your time and comments.

Thanks, Brandonrush (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. It's a good start, and the illustrations are fetching. The potential is here for an article of at least GA quality. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

• Possibilities for expansion include material about climate, geology, education, and government. You can get other ideas by visiting WP:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline.

• It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar materials. You'll find a list of the featured articles about towns and cities at WP:FA#Geography and places. A featured article about a town of similar size to Wilson is Stephens City, Virginia.

• The history section should include the history of the area before 1886, if you can find sources. Who lived here before the town existed? Who lived here before European explorers visited Arkansas? Probably something about the Nodena site belongs here, but there must be more to say than what appears in the "Tourism" subsection.

• Generally, every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph needs an inline citation to a reliable source. If one source supports all the claims in a paragraph, the citation should go at the end of the paragraph. In the existing article, the first paragraph of the "Geography" section includes unsourced claims. The first paragraph of the "Economy" section lacks a source or sources.

• Avoid overlinking. Generally, it's sufficient to link special terms no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text. For example, "cotton" should not be linked three times in the "Economy" section, and common words like "museum", "village", and "religion" should not be linked at all. WP:OVERLINK has details.

• Rather than using tiny superscripts and abbreviating all of the units, try this: 2.8 square kilometres (1.1 sq mi). I used the {{convert}} template for these, but you can do them by hand if you prefer. The convention in Wikipedia articles is to spell out the primary units and to abbreviate the secondary ones (metric in this case). The convert template does this automatically. A hyphen can be added to the template with the |adj=on parameter. It's quite a versatile template that can do lots of other things like convert temperatures.

• Use consistent date formatting throughout the "Reference" section.

• The dab-checker tool at the top of this review page finds two dabs, here.

• When you have finished making other changes and feel that the article is nearly complete, you should revise the lead to make sure that it summarizes the entire article. My rule of thumb for inclusion is to try to at least mention each of the main text sections in some way. WP:LEAD has details.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 29 January 2012, 02:18 UTC)

---

Montana

I've listed this article for peer review because there seems to be great divisions about what should and should not be on this page moving forward. The page is clearly lacking, but some basic comments on each section should help out a great deal to point out what should be the obvious.

Thanks, Dsetay (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sp33dyphil

• The lead should be expanded.
• There are various improperly-formatted {[Cn}} templates and lots of unreferenced paragraphs.
• MOS calls for the inclusion of alt text.
• There are various bare URLs and at least one dead link.
• "Law and government" and "Politics" should somehow be merged.
• "Culture" should come under "Demographics".
• There are lots of issues here. I suggest having a look at other GA/FA geographic articles before improving Montana in your user space. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this important article. Here are a few suggestions for improvement, some of which overlap with what Sp33dyphil says above.

• Most importantly, the article needs inline citations to reliable sources in order to meet WP:V. Entire sections of the existing article make claims that are not supported by any source(s). The "History" section is an example, but there are others. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every unusual claim, every set of statistics (including dates), every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the citation should be placed at the end of the paragraph.

• When the article is fully sourced and the final form is pretty well settled, the lead should be rewritten to be an inviting summary of the whole article. Nothing should appear in the lead that is not discussed in the main text sections, and all of the main text sections should be mentioned in the lead in some way, if possible. For a long article like this, a lead of four paragraphs would be normal. WP:LEAD has details.

• To avoid a choppy feel and look, it's best to avoid extremely short sections or subsections like "American Indian reservations". The two main possibilities for fixing the problem are to expand or merge. The reservation material would probably fit nicely into the "History" section, for example.

• Try to place images entirely within the sections they illustrate. Avoid displacing edit buttons or heads with images or allowing them to overlap section boundaries. Avoid creating text sandwiches like the one in the "Economy" section.

• Lists are sometimes useful, but the Manual of Style recommends using straight prose paragraphs rather than lists where feasible. The short lists of sports teams could easily be rendered in prose, for example.

• Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, URL, date of publication, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found. Since many of the citations use the "cite" family of citation templates, you should stick with that format for the rest.

• The link-checker tool at the top of this review page finds seven dead or suspicious URLs in the citations.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 January 2012, 20:21 UTC)

---

Dorset

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because we have ambitions to take the article to FA status.

Thanking you in advance--Ykraps (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Spinningspark

• The external links tool shows a number of dead and suspicious links. These need to be fixed, or alternative references found.
• I recommend archiving web pages at a site such as WebCite to protect against link rot.
• Images should have WP:ALT text for FA.

• - Done, I think. This wasn't something I was familiar with previously.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• A citation to the Flag Institute should be provided for the flag.

• - Done but not sure if in the correct place.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The flag is often unofficially named St Wite's Cross". This is not verified by the source which merely says that their own website used to call it this. Also, why is this site considered a RS?

• - The Flag Institute note its other name so I will use that as a reference if that's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• In principle, facts in the infobox do not need citing if they are also in the body of the article, although many articles do. Before nominating for FA, you should at least thoroughly check that all facts are consistent with the article body and have a citation in place there.

lede

• ceremonial county, Dorset County Council, non-metropolitan county, Unitary authorities of England, and Poole should be linked on first use.

• - Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Poole and Weymouth are linked multiple times (there may be others, please check). It is acceptable to repeat a link in the lede and body, but not usually otherwise without good reason.

• - Done

• "...delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for up to 150 years" (two places). Slightly odd phrasing, would "delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for nearly 150 years" be just as accurate?

• - Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

History

• "The first human visitors to Dorset were Mesolithic". An expert archeological source is needed for this, it is unlikely to be true.

• - Done Added a second source although I'm not sure why you find this unlikely. There is archaeological evidence of Mesolithic settlement at Portland, Dewlish and Cranborne. Cullingford is a professional historian with a first from King's and later while at Merton, specialised in the History of Dorset.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• 600BC space needed. If desired, spaces can be prevented from breaking between lines with a non-breaking space (html code  ) or the template {{nowrap}}.

• - Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• oak forest. Contiguous links are deprecated, and forest is probably WP:OVERLINK in any case.

• - Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the 12th-century civil war" the link is piped to a list. This should be disambiguated with a link to the intended target.

• - Done Linked to The Anarchy.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The flagship San Salvador..." It does not appear to be true that she was a flagship, see here for instance.

• - Done Changed to 'Spanish galleon' although it appears to be a moot point. The Wikipedia article also claims she was a flagship and, as one of the largest and most heavily armed, it seems likely she was.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• The above is the second important error cited to Cullingford found so far. I would recommend finding alternative sources, or at least minimising use of this source to things he seems to have some expertise in.

• - Noted but I'm not entirely convinced the errors are Cullingford's--Ykraps (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Studland repeated link

• - Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "slighting". This word is obsolete, according to the OED, except in professional historian's jargon. Replace with razing or demolition.

• - Noted, however after some discussion we feel that this word is the one generally used in this context and most accurately describes the damage inflicted.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1645 some 5,000 angry civilians..." Can we have the location of this gathering please.

• - Done Already given in the lead but agreed it should be noted in the main body of the article.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "74 were executed; 29 were hanged, drawn and quartered" is that 74 were executed including... or as well as.

• - Done (including)--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "...was for many years the largest man-made harbour in the world". When did it cease to be so and why?

• - I believe this was when the Jebel Ali port in Dubai was constructed (1976?). Portland is widely held to be the second largest at the moment although, depending on how you measure it, Zeebruge may also have a claim. Also I believe there is a port currently under construction in China(?) that will soon put Jebel Ali in the shade. I didn't want to put all this in the article because not only would it have been too long but would also have required the reader to extrapolate the information from three different references. Perhaps we should consider changing the sentence to "When built.....", which can easily be referenced from a single source.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Portland, Weymouth and Poole harbours were the main embarkation points on D-Day" Another possible Cullingford exaggeration, please check other sources, this map seems to indicate that Dorset was the embarkation point for the Omaha Beach landings, but this was only one of five on D-Day.

• - It also shows Poole to be the embarkation point for Utah beach. I think 'main' in this context is in reference to the amount of troops, half a million from Portland alone. The harbours in Dorset were chosen as the 'main' embarkation points not just because of their size but also because of their close proximity to the Cotentin peninsula. I will consider how to make this sentence less contentious. Done - Simply removed 'the'.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bournmouth is multiply linked

• - Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Settlements

• "Bournemouth and Christchurch were transferred to within Dorset" remove "within", it is superfluous and clunky.

• - Agreed, Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Physical geography

• "...an enormous variety of landscapes determined by the underlying geology." Landscape is not just determined by underlying geology, there are many other factors: glaciation, weathering, river and sea erosion etc. For the same reason, geology of Dorset might be better described as a see also rather than main article.

• - This means that the enormous variety of landscapes is caused by the underlying geology and not the other factors you mention. I will have a think about how to make this clearer. Done Changed to, "wide variety of underlying geology that is partly responsible for the diverse landscape".--Ykraps (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Almost every type of rock from early Jurassic to the mid-Tertiary..." Jurassic and Tertiary are geological periods, not types of rock.

• - I read that to mean that every rock from within that period is to be found in Dorset. I will consider how to make this less ambiguous. Done It appears that user:MasterOfHisOwnDomain has already fixed this.--Ykraps (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• More repeated links: limestone

• - Done--Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• "non-resistant" should be explained

• - Done. Simpler to remove.--Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Formatting of conversions needs to be consistent. So far I have seen (277 metres / 909 feet), 8 km/5 mi, and 900 mm (35 in). All different.

• - Done Changed so all conversions appear in brackets, 900 mm (35 in) for example. This appears to be the format favoured by Somerset, a featured article.--Ykraps (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The county has one of the highest proportion of conservation areas..." Agreement problem

Climate

• 1541–1885 hours. Inconsistent use of commas as number delimiters.

• - Done

• Consider adding a climate chart such as in Essex

Demography

• In the table, consistent use of periods in abbreviations: C.C., but UA. Also, the abbreviations should be defined somewhere, either as a bracket after first use of the term in running text, a wikilink to the appropriate article, or a footnote. Same problem in Economy section.

• - Done. Probably less messy to write out in full.--Ykraps (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• South East Dorset conurbation. Repeated wikilink

• - and Christchurch. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• "...a decline in its population caused by continuing negative rates of natural increase..." A difficult clause to parse and almost a truism.

• - This really needs to be read in context with the rest of the paragraph. This was, albeit temporary, a complete reversal in trend and (in my opinion) well worth including. A change in population such as this can be the result of a number of factors and an explanation of the cause is necessary. Believe me, if you were into this sort of thing, you would find this very exciting! :) --Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• per 1000. Inconsistent use of commas. This is per 1000 per year and should be explained somewhere, perhaps in a footnote, or perhaps on first use.

• - There is already a link to the Wikipedia article on birth rates, which explains how they are calculated. Is this sufficient, or do you think it needs to explained in the text also?--Ykraps (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics

• "West Dorset, East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, Christchurch and Weymouth and Portland". Serial comma required as there are two "and"s in the list.
• Minister for Government Policy does not link to a useful article on the subject. I don't think there is such a Ministry. See the MP's own article.
• FN.118 is an unannotated map which requires a degree of WP:SYNTH to interpret.

Economy and industry

• "...increase in permanent grass and land set aside." If set-aside is meant, it should be linked. Does "grass" mean grass set-aside and what is the difference to land set-aside?

• - Done. Permanent grass is always grass and never cultivated for crops. Because it is never cultivated, it cannot be set aside. I have added a comma and linked set-aside.

• "...up to £74M GVA for the area." Inconsistent representation of millions.

• - Done

• "Dorset has little manufacturing industry, at 10.3% of employment in 2008. This was slightly above the average for Great Britain..." This seems somewhat contradictory - "little manufacturing", but "above average". The Birmingham article puts manufacturing at 10% of employment and this is the city that used to be called the workshop of the world. I wonder if this figure is merely a reflection of the general trend in the country as a whole in recent decades rather than something specific to Dorset. What is more the sources cited are government statistics which merely give the figures without any commentary. Further, the figure given is not supported by the source FN.122 which has 11.9%, seemingly indicating just the opposite.

• - 11.9% is for the administrative county. When the two U.A.s are included, the percentage of manufacturing for the county as a whole drops to 10.3%. The sum is shown hidden in the text and supported by the three following references. You are correct that there has been a decline in industry across the UK and 10.3% is above average, but that doesn't stop it being a small amount. Comparison with Birmingham, which is a city, is unfair; manufacturing in the West Midlands stands at 13.8%. See also Derbyshire (20.4%), East Staffordshire (20.9%), Cumbria (17.1%). --Ykraps (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• The above is just one statistic I checked at random because the claim seemed a little strange. In view of that result, it would be a good idea before FA to do a more thorough trawl of the accuracy of numerical data in the article. FAC is very hot on verifying against sources nowadays, especially where the nominator has not previously had succesful FAs. You are likely to have a hard time at FA if failed verifications of that sort are noticed, even if you put them right promptly. Once the error has been highlighted on the FAC page the damage has been done and people will be leaning to oppose more than they would have otherwise.

• - Noted, however I hope some of your fears have been addressed--Ykraps (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Culture

• "Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra which was founded in 1893.[149]" Fails verification

• Supported by FN.150 which has now been added to end of the sentence. Barret (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Dorset County Museum in Dorchester was founded in 1846" Fails verification

• BBC source added. Barret (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Dorset contains 190 Conservation Areas, more than 1,500 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, over 30 registered parks and gardens and 12,850 listed buildings, many of which—over 6,000—are in the west of the county.[157][158]" Fails verification. FN.157 is dead and FN.158 does not seem to contain any relevant information.
• "Of the 229 that are Grade I listed, 174 are churches or places of worship,[159]" It takes some WP:SYNTH of FN.159 to extract this fact. Also FN.159 appears to be the work of a single individual, and has no official status so its qualfication as WP:RS is questionable.
• I am stopping the review of the culture section here. Nearly every fact I have tried to verify from the cited sources has proved to be problematic. The whole section needs rewriting from scratch from reliable sources so further review is pointless.

Transport and Education sections

• Not reviewed. It has become clear that this article needs some serious work on referencing and is therefore likely to change substantially. Further review now would be a wasted effort.

References

• I have not examined the references in detail for reliability. The many problems found incidentally are enough to show that you should thoroughly review and improve the referencing before submitting for FA.
• Books which are too old to have an ISBN should be referenced to some other catalogue index. For instance, http://www.worldcat.org/ will provide an OCLC number for most books which can be added with a link via the {{OCLC}} template.
• SpinningSpark 10:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 January 2012, 13:25 UTC)

---

Hawaii hotspot

Previous peer review

I may just be beating my head against the wall here, but this article is at the top of my list of old projects I never finished, probably soured by my experience with three failed FACs. Alright. Round four. Need advice, and a whole lot of it. ResMar 01:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My goal here is to get the content all tidy whist avoiding a rewrite as much as possible. ResMar 04:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just skimming through the article, I'm most concerned about the problem raised in Talk:Hawaii_hotspot#Lack_of_focus - i.e. that there's too much generic Hawaiian volcanism info with no obvious relationship to the hotspot. The whole section on Hawaii_hotspot#Eruption_phenomena could usefully be dropped, I think, along with the ʻaʻā/pāhoehoe paragraph in the preceding Lava section. Alternatively, if these parts have an important connection with the topic (the hotspot) that I'm missing, they could be rewritten to explain the connection. Many of the images also seem off-topic, including both the infobox images. Other images seem misplaced, e.g. the one showing the Loa and Kea trends comes about four sections before this is mentioned in the text. --Avenue (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the offending content, anything else that looks specifically off-topic? ResMar 23:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot better now. I think gaps in coverage might now be a bigger problem than extraneous information. The new lead infobox image is good, showing the hotspot trail (although a tighter crop might be better), but the lower one (showing the bathymetry of the SE Hawaiian islands) still seems essentially off-topic, and its caption is terrible. I'll try to find a better place for it further down the page. --Avenue (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Come now, I just finished chopping things up and now it's too short? Fickle fickle! ResMar 22:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's gaps in the article's coverage, not its length, that bother me. There's a section on the swell, yes, but it doesn't cover the Hawaii's moat-arch structure. Landslides are mentioned briefly, and only in the context of Maui Nui. They are a much more widespread phenonemon than that, and I think they deserve more coverage here. Most importantly, there's no mention of the North and South Arch volcanic fields produced by the hotspot.[12][13][14]

The article seems poorly structured towards the end to me. The Characteristics section seems a bit unfocussed, and the Volcanoes section doesn't seem well integrated with the rest. I'd suggest renaming the latter something broader like "Volcanism and other effects", and moving some of the material from the Characteristics section into that.

The images aren't bad now, but I think the article still cries out for an illustration of the seismic tomography results. I've been searching, but I haven't seen a free picture of that yet. --Avenue (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Landslides I can look through this for, but I don't know what a moat-arch is, and looking at some abstracts from the literature on the north-south stuff, I dare say I hardly understand it. How open would you be to doing it yourself? ResMar 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll tackle a new para or two on them with Giant Hawaiian Underwater Landslides (Science vol. 264). The rest, well... ResMar 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Take this with a grain of salt:

• The first paragraph in the lead needs to be rewritten for clarity, as it is clunky and difficult to understand for someone not familiar with the topic.

I'm rewriting the lead entirely right now. ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, partially rewrote lead, will finish the last para once I get Characteristics organized. ResMar 20:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• The structure of the lead doesn't make sense. For example, the second paragraph should come first and the first paragraph should come second.

See above. ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Does the article mention some of the problems with the theory? I would have to look at my notes, but I believe Clague & Dalrymple (1987) covered this topic. I see now that some of this is covered in the "Moving hotspot theory" section, but this is also important enough to touch upon in the lead.

Rewriting the lead, yeah it talks about how the theory isn't 100% accepted. ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty unhappy with the lead section. Strangely, it appears to be written backwards. I would like you to pretend that you know nothing about the subject and try reading it with a "beginner's mind". You will then see what I mean.

Rewriting =) ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Citation 42 doesn't support the content. It appears that you meant to cite 43 instead. Please take a look.
• Format of the references section is a complete mess. You need to choose a single format and make all the references adhere to it

Spent a half-hour doing some intensive reference maintenance, it won't be perfect but it's better now, no? I'm thinking of what to do with the books; I think I'll merge them in as best I can. ResMar 22:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I dislike the "Hotspot characteristics" section, as it doesn't seem very structured. This might work better as a table or in any format that presents the data to the reader in a logical way. That it has a "number of unique features" is expected and not exactly a surprise. Bottom line: it duplicates the second-level "Characteristics" section. In case you've forgotten, we read second-level headings starting with the title of the article, so it really reads "Hawaii hotspot#Characteristics", which is a duplicate.

I'm going to merge this into characteristics later. ResMar 20:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 21:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

More later. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• One of the odd things I have noticed with this article is that it uses a seamount infobox while the article is really about a hotspot. It could probably be replaced with {{Geobox}}. Volcanoguy 01:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Source needed at the end of the third paragraph in the "Wilson's stationary hotspot theory" section. Volcanoguy 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The bend is obvious, but I slapped on a reference for the "challenged" part. ResMar 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just finished a lot of work on it, could really use the comments guys! ResMar 16:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

=S ResMar 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Awickert

Taking it from the top. Of course I won't mention the good things, of which there are clearly plenty. In a number of cases for simple things, I just edited the article myself. Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede

• "caused by a shift in the direction of the Hawaiian hotspot" - I think that those authors claim that the hotspot moved in some way. So "shift in direction of motion" or some more elegant way of saying that would be more informative; as it stands, it could also seem like that the hotspot changed orientation in the mantle or something Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hotspot theory

Made a few tweaks, but I think this section is very good:

• "relatively rapid pace of about 4 centimeters (1.6 in) per year" - make a note of plate velocities here, to show what "relatively" means; will give the reader a better idea of the implications of a mobile hotspot Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)": name change to IODP in 2004; not crucial, but perhaps good to reflect this here if you can do so without interrupting the flow of the text Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "In 2003, these lava samples ... [end of section]": A lot of repetition here; I think that the story can be told: (1) Traditional example of changes in plate motion; (2) what if hotspots move? (3) go test; (4) findings. Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I've removed the stuff that basically goes "bend again". ResMar 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 January 2012, 01:46 UTC)

---

2011 Virginia earthquake

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the quality of the article from GA status to FA status. I would like edits that would help it attain that status. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jsayre64—

Lead

• At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "Several aftershocks, ranging up to 4.5 M_w in magnitude occurred after the main tremor." I'd suggest a comma after the word magnitude.
• In the second paragraph, it says, "…along with a magnitude-5.8 quake on the New York-Ontario border in 1944…" Make sure the dash used here is an en dash.
• Issue brought up on talk page here
• Read WP:LEADCITE about how the lead should generally not cite information that's also cited in the main text. WP:LEAD lists other MOS guidelines and suggestions that are necessary for an article to achieve FA status.

note: I've removed all of the citations that I felt I could. Some of the information in the lede is not repeated elsewhere in the article... should it be? In this article, the lede is a description of the 'event' and the remainder of the article describes the causes and effects. Not sure how to procede. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:LEAD, the body of the article should contain everything discussed in the lead. Honestly, I don't see how this article is even a GA--it lacks MoS compliance throughout (particularly WP:LEAD but also other parts of WP:LAYOUT) and the prose is disorganized and rough in some areas. I suggest these things be reviewed and revised thoroughly before it heads to FAC. Auree ★ 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overall, the lead could use some expansion. The second paragraph should be more than just one sentence if it is to be its own paragraph. A more detailed summary of the damage and other effects of the quake would take care of this problem.

Geology

• At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "During the Cenozoic Era, some of these structures have been further reactivated in a reverse sense." I don't understand what the latter half of that sentence is trying to say.
• A diagram such as File:Nor rev.png would be very useful to illustrate the plate tectonics explained in this section.

Impact

• In the second paragraph, it says, "Western rock is relatively young, which means it absorbs a lot of the shaking caused by earthquakes." I'd substitute therefore or a similar word for which means.

Virginia

• When the article mentions a place and how far it away it was from the epicenter of the earthquake, it should specify which cardinal direction it was from the epicenter.
• Also in the first paragraph, it says, "Fallen chimneys and other structural damage to buildings was reported in Mineral and in Louisa, the county seat." It's redundant to say again that there was damage to buildings in Mineral.
• In the second paragraph, it says, "The two nuclear reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station, located 10 mi (16 km) from the epicenter, shut down automatically seconds before off-site power was lost because multiple reactor sensors detected a slight power reduction as a result of vibrations in the reactor or monitoring devices." Break this into two sentences for better prose flow.

note: I took a stab at rewriting that sentence but I'm not wild about it still - if someone would like to take a look at it! Wikipelli ^Talk 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

• The last sentence in the third paragraph needs a citation.
• The first sentence in the fourth paragraph is, "Staff at the National Zoo reported that the behavior of some of the animals in the park suggested that they anticipated the quake seconds or even minutes before they felt it." The animals must have felt it or somehow sensed it. They certainly can't predict earthquakes.

Though I'm not ready to say they 'certainly can't predict earthquakes' ;) Wikipelli ^Talk 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite done reviewing the article, but it's looking great (none of these is a major content issue). Jsayre64 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The information in the lead's second paragraph could be stated again in the Geology section and the information in the third paragraph of the lead is also suitable for the second paragraph of the Impact section. Then you would be able to eliminate all of the citations in the lead. As for the third issue I brought up regarding the Virginia section, it reads just fine now. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia

• At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "The 1740 Mt. Calvert mansion, historic site and museum located on the Patuxent River in Upper Marlboro, received substantial structural damage…" Why not state and link to the name of this specific landmark?
• In the second paragraph, it says, "In Dover, fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout the capital city." A more well-worded sentence might be: "Fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout Dover, the capital city." Same thing in the next sentence, which speaks of Georgetown, the seat of Sussex County.
• At the end of the third paragraph, link to Patriot Coal.

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York

• In the first paragraph, it says, "The Three Mile Island nuclear plant south of Harrisburg continued to operate during the earthquake." Since the four sentences preceding this one talk about damage and people evacuating buildings, it would be nice to include a however to differentiate from this sentence.
• The second-to-last sentence in this paragraph is, "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation conducted inspections on bridges across the state to check for possible damage." I propose slightly less wording: "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation inspected bridges across the state for damage."
• In the second paragraph, it says, "In Burlington, Temple B'nai Israel's 1801 synagogue building sustained some water damage…" Be a bit more clear about this water damage.

New England

• Link to Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency.

Midwestern states

• Link to Columbus, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan in the same style as the wikilink to New Haven, Connecticut in the previous section.
• In the second paragraph, it says, "Tremors from the earthquake were also felt in Detroit, Michigan as far north as Saginaw, and as far west as communities on Lake Michigan." Saginaw isn't that far north in Michigan, so I wouldn't stress its geographic location. Also, there needs to be a comma after "Detroit, Michigan."

Canada

• In the first paragraph, be a bit more specific about the "precautionary measures," eliminate the extra space after "Sudbury" and cite reference 88 at the end of the paragraph before citing the other two references.
• Since the second paragraph is only one sentence long, it should be combined with the first paragraph. Also, avoid beginning a sentence with a numeral.

Internet activity and social media

• I believe there is no hyphen needed in the first sentence, and I think web site is one word.
• In the second paragraph, there is no need to state the years of events that also occurred in 2011.

(Applies to whole article)

• Be sure to use the WP:NBSP when the manual of style recommends using it.
• FAC reviewers are quite particular about citation formatting, so you should use a standard method for access dates; ex. the day before the month or the month before the day. There are other minor inconsistencies, such as writing the publisher's name in italics, as well. Most of these are pointed out during the FAC and can easily be resolved then.
• In the last paragraph of the Geology section, where the United States Geological Survey is mentioned, add the acronym USGS in parentheses and refer to the agency as such in the rest of the article.
• More links could be added to the External links section, unless most relevant sources have been cited in the text.
• Use the toolbox on the right-hand side of the top of this page to hunt down and resolve other issues.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Best of luck at FAC. I hope these suggestions help bring the article closer to achieving that FA star. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 January 2012, 20:47 UTC)

---

Blackford County, Indiana

Previous peer review

I've listed this article (Blackford County, Indiana) for peer review because it has been upgraded substantially, and I would like to get it to a featured article classification.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I see that the article received a lengthy peer review from Finetooth in September. You made no responses to that review, or even an acknowledgement; peer reviewing is a pretty thankless task, and a word or two of thanks never goes amiss! I have not had time to review the article in detail, but a few points stood out from a fast skim:-

Brianboulton—thank you for looking over Blackford County. I really do appreciate you taking the time, and I know this article is a little more lengthy than most. Finetooth and I communicated using our talk pages, and I made significant changes to Blackford County using his suggestions. He also edited a photo for me. Perhaps we should have used the peer review page for communication—my inexperience shows.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Originally, Blackford County was patterned somewhat after Warren County, Indiana and the guidlines in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties. At the suggestion of FineTooth, the Geography section was moved to the front, with the image map, to make it easier for the reader to relate to the History section. (I liked that suggestion.) During FA review, one reviewer did not like the Geography section, and wanted all references to communities to be removed from that section and added to History (not my preference). Some changes were made to the Geography section, but it seemed like the article was moving "in circles".TwoScars (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder about the usefulness of a single set of coordinates for an area of over 400m². Is it some project requirement that these details are included? What point is actually fixed by these coordinates?

The coordinates are for the center of the county, which happens to be near the county seat. Warren County, Indiana, a featured article, also has coordinates for the center of the county.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the counties that had FA or GA status use a single set of coordinates for the center of the county.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the prose seems a little heavy-footed. Example: "Shamrock Lakes is Blackford County's only incorporated town.[29] Incorporated May 21, 1973, Shamrock Lakes was the only town to incorporate in Indiana in the previous 50 years." Note repetition of town's name, and "Incorporated ... incorporated ... incorporate", all within two short sentences

I will try to work on that this weekend. It probably happened as a result of multiple edits. It may present a challenge, since "incorporate" is an important word in this instance.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up Shamrock Lakes, will check elsewhere too.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image map: nice work on your part, but is its location in the "Extinct settlements" section the best placing, since it gives information on existing settlements, too?

The location of the image map is a result the previous peer review and FA reveiw. I originally had it "higher" in the Geography section, and a subheader for unincorporated communities. I am open to suggestions.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved the image map higher, next to a new subheader called Communities.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder what criteria were used to select the four notable people from the county? I am not doubting their notability, just curious about why these four only. Also, I think you should include birth and death (where appropriate) dates for all four.

I will research their birth and death dates. These are really the four most notable. A fifth person was dropped after the first peer reveiw. There are two additional people that could be added because they have Wikipedia pages (Henry Crimmel and Edward Everett Cox), but I do not believe those two are as famous as the four I already have listed. Crimmel and Cox were more famous regionally, while the other four had national impact.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Finally, I noticed that some of the footnotes contain uncited information.

Which footnotes? The patents note links to the patents—should they have a cite?TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Added footnotes for the patents. This leaves a footnote with some math/calculations, and a note about MapQuest, without some type of cite. Do these need cites?TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A problem with using the Patent Footnote Template is that it links to Espacenet, which does not have old patents in its database. This causes an error. Perhaps I will try to "fake" the template (make it look like the template is being used when it really is not) to avoid the error message.TwoScars (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Patent templates are now still included, but commented out. Footnotes have appearance of template, but link to Google Patents (which works for these old patents) instead of Espacenet.TwoScars (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a very limited review, but it may be worth your considering these points and, at least as far as my prose comment is concerned, looking for similar instances. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 January 2012, 15:59 UTC)

---

Engineering and technology

SRI International

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the article before I nominate it for GA. Thanks, Disavian (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 January 2012, 21:31 UTC)

---

Natural sciences and mathematics

2010 Haiti earthquake

Obviously one of the most significant and tragic events of our time. The article is quite large and very comprehensive, though there might be issues with its content (such as outdated info, lack of accuracy and neutrality) and the prose. It is quite large, so even comments on just parts of the article would be much appreciated. As a community, I hope we can collaborate to the best of our ability to bring this top-importance article up to standard. Thanks, Auree ★ 00:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting: there are a couple of dead links, some of the citations could be smoothed out for conformity, and there's one big old ugly error message. ResMar 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick automated check and alt text check reveal some problems (e.g., inconsistent spelling between British and US usages). Allens (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 February 2012, 00:35 UTC)

---

Cyclone Rewa

I've listed this article for peer review because… i want Rewa to become a Featured article but have been advised to go down the route of peer review first Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This has a lot of information about the storm, but the prose needs considerable work to reach FA standards. In addition, the article might need an "Aftermath" section to be considered comprehensive. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• Should the article include an "Aftermath" section? I see that many FA storm articles include follow-up information that might be needed to meet the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive. A complete list of FA storm articles is at WP:FA#Meteorology. See Cyclone Waka, for example.
  • I dont think that there is anything around for an aftermath section, one of the problems is that Queensland was affected by a much more significant flood about 10 days after.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to add another couple of images? Any images of storm damage?
  • It might be possible to add a few images of the storm itself, but i doubt there will be any images of the damage available under a suitable license.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the paragraphs, such as the last paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section and the entire "Australia" subsection, are much too long for readability. Try breaking them into somewhat smaller paragraphs. You want to give the readers a place to rest their eyes now and again and not get lost in a sea of type. It shouldn't be hard to find logical break points.

Lead

• "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean." - I would modify this by adding the years; i.e., "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean in 1993–94."

• Double-check the links in the lead to eliminate overlinking. For example, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia are linked twice. My rule of thumb is to link something no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text.

• Link the first use of a special term rather than a later use. For example, Papua New Guinea should be linked on first use in the second paragraph rather than on second use in the third paragraph. Ditto for New Zealand. There might be others.

• Link Mackay, Queensland?

Meteorological history

• "Early on 26 December... " - I would add the year here too even though it's in the inbox.

• "Later that day the JTWC reported that the depression had intensified into tropical storm 05P before TCWC Nadi reported that the system had developed into a Category 1 tropical cyclone, and named it Rewa, while it was located about 500 km (310 mi) to the south-east of Honiara on the Solomon Island of Guadalcanal." - This might be slightly too complicated for one sentence. Who named it Rewa, the JTWC or TCWC Nadi?

• "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, with the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre taking responsibility for the system." - The "with plus -ing" construction is usually weaker than various alternatives. Suggestion: "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, where the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre took responsibility for tracking the system."

• "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified further before it started to rapidly deepen further early on 2 January, as it continued to move towards the south-south-east." - Unnecessarily wordy. Suggestion: "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified before rapidly deepening early on 2 January as the storm continued south-south-east."

• "Both agencies then reported later that day... " - I had a writing teacher who used to pounce on the word "then" when used in this way. "When else"? he would ask. His point was that "then" is often redundant in a chronological narrative. You can often delete it with no ill effect. There's a similar "then" two sentences before this one in the phrase "TCWC Brisbane then reported early... " I suggest deleting these and tracking down any similar ones and deleting them.

• "Both agencies then reported later that day at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached its peak intensity, with the JTWC reporting that Rewa had peaked with 1-minute windspeeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." - Here's another "with plus -ing". A better variant would be this: "Both agencies reported at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached peak intensity. The JTWC said that Rewa had achieved one-minute wind speeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." To improve the prose in this article, it would be good to hunt down all the "with plus -ing" sentences and recast them.

• "However during a subsequent reanalysis of the data... " - Delete "subsequent"?
  • Deleted.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New Guinea

• "Cyclone Rewa affected Papua New Guinea, on two separate occasions while it was active, with the cyclone first affecting the country between 28 December and 1 January, before grazing the archipelago between 12 and 14 January.[16][5] Ahead of Rewa affecting the archipelago, TCWC Port Moresby issued cyclone alerts for various parts including Sudest, Rossel and Samarai islands, while authorities urged people not to go to beaches.[10][17] As it affected the archipelago, Rewa brought heavy rainfall, high seas, and wind gusts of up to 100 km/h (60 mph) to parts of the archipelago... " - Here and in other places in the article, the language is too repetitive.

Other

• The article has one dab found by the dab tool at the top of this page. It is here.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Agree that the prose isn't up to standard yet. By the way, what English is used (or should be used) here? Auree ★ 15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would guess that it has to be in Australian English but i dont see that it really matters since as Sp33dyphil said here: "There isn't much difference between Australian and British English, except for a drop in sophistication in normal talking and several different words. But, the latter do not apply to meteorology, so I wouldn't/can't change anything in the article to suit your perceived need". Ps I am away for most of the weekend so i will tackle the comments on here early next week.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 January 2012, 07:33 UTC)

---

Bambusa vulgaris

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take this to the status of a good article at least, if not a featured article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of great info and well referenced, so great job!

• If you're working towards GA, then you might start at with the bones of the article, the basic structure, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. You'll want to rearrange/rename some of your sections to match that. It will also point out a few areas that the article may be weak in, like the physical description, natural ecology, & taxonomy. Generally the article needs, IMO, to lean back some towards the natural species, natual ecology, nat. description, etc. All that great culture info should be in balance (in qty.) with info about the natural species.
• Also see the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Foreign language common names I agree with them that these lists of foreign common names are not desirable.
• Some of your refs can be moved to the end of sentences or paragraphs to improve readability. You might also possibly be able to use Bundling if the refs are getting too thick.
• In your list of varieties, I wonder if Commons would have pics of some of these you could link the names to. Might be nice to see examples with Commons links on some of them. Keep up the good work! --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Is it the type species for the genus? Allens (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Answer: I don't think so. Bambusa tulda is very important too. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Type species of Bambusa is Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss (Syn: Bambusa arundinacea (Retz.) Willd.), the thorny bamboo of India. --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Update. I hope I have managed to adress Tom Hulse's issues to some degree. Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Toxicity" section says that the plant "harms the soil", but provides no details about how this is supposed to occur. It is also an entire section for a single, short sentence. I would expect there to be at least some information about a toxin, based on the section title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanding. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Description" section needs to be considerably expanded with a botanical description (but not too technical!). The entry in the Flora of China seems to be a good starting point: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242307754. Wikipedia doesn't need all the detail, but as a very rough guide, I would myself expect to include about half the information properly paraphrased and expanded into complete English sentences. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's one concern. I have posted it to the article talk page (here). A solution there would help tremendously in expanding the description section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Varieties" don't seem to be botanical varieties but largely cultivars. I would move most if not all of this material to under "Uses" in cultivation. Only true botanical varieties should be dealt with in the "botanical" sections of the article. Are there any recognized botanical varieties? The Flora of China seems to treat them as cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Dieter Ohrnberger (Bamboos of the world) these are all botanical varieties, not just cultivars. Moving the "use" parts to "uses" section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction. This source clarifies them as cultivars. I am putting them in the right place. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Review that first paragraph in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Taxonomy again. Right now you have mostly "Description" material in beginning of the "Taxonomy" section. You also still need more focus on the wild species. Terms like "ornamental", "boiled in water", "cultivated", "used for", etc. go only in the "Uses" and "Cultivation" section. Also, all variety names that are not natural growers in the wild (e.g. a variegated cultivar only occuring in nurseries) need to be separated away from the natural taxa; perhaps in a paragraph about cultivars. For a good example of what they want for a Taxonomy section, see Peter's Schlumbergera#Taxonomy.--Tom Hulse (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving "use" parts to "uses" section. Is there any example of how I can deal with cultivars? Also, I have been looking for an article that gives me good example of how to deal with the taxonomy of a species. Taxonomy of a genus deals with much historical information, and list of specieses within the genus. Any suggestion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in "Category:FA-Class plant articles" would be a good place to look? Allens (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link Allens mentioned: Wikipedia:Featured articles. Look under the Biology section and start clicking on plant names such as Adenanthos cuneatus. You might be able to approach GA status with a simpler taxonomy section such as Commelina communis or Schlumbergera opuntioides. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I was mentioning (and finally managed to get the link working for) is FA-class WikiProject Plant(s) articles; thanks, though! Allens (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've done a slight bit of grammatical cleanup (check to make sure the commas-before-and is consistent throughout the article, one way or another; it was inconsistent in the paragraphs I was looking at), and noted something needing clarification: Are the bitter shoots older ones, or what? They're apparently not used for food, unlike the young shoots? Allens (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of grammatical cleanup, I'm spotting quite a few lacunae in articles ("the", "an", "a") and a few other grammatical errors; I'm trying to correct these, but asking the Guild of Copy-Editors to take a look may be a good idea. In addition, I'm putting a number of unit conversions in using the "Convert" template. Allens (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another area that can use some work (I'm trying, but I'm not a botanist!) is linking in, explaining, or replacing various botanical terms; for instance, what are "pseudospikelets"? Allens (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm continuing to work on grammar/style, but I am noting quite a few places needing clarification. I'm guessing that, in the "Food" section, 0.0 grams of carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of dietary fiber mean 0.0 grams of digestible carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of insoluble fiber? That's how I've modified it to read. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• In regard to "cultivation", the mention of problems with meiosis should really be right after the "no seeds" statement, if that's why there aren't any seeds. "When a stem dies, the clump usually survives" - this refers to the stem dying after (uselessly) flowering? Some comment that this sort of thing is common among bamboo may be a good idea. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Under "toxicity", exactly what sort of dosage is needed in order to have toxic effects? Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, the picture needs alt text; some more pictures (of, say, the young shoots at the edible stage) might be nice. Allens (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for attempting to explain "pseudospikelets", but the explanation is close to non-comprehensible to a non-botanist like myself (and I am a biologist, with my dissertation research being partially in phylogenetics, so I have some experience with plant terms insofar as they show relatedness between organisms). Also, exactly what is meant by "In Bangladesh, is carrier for deadly bamboo blight for the common bamboo"? What is the carrier for deadly bamboo blight for this bamboo (which is said to be "common bamboo" in the first paragraph)? Allens (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote the explanation of pseudospikelets, check if it works. The Bangladesh pathogen is named (that was a silly mistake). Still trying to determine the color of the shoot, and consistent information on its bitterness. I have worked on most of your concerns, though "cultivation" and "toxicity" would require more work. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better on pseudospikelets, thanks! Understand on cultivation and toxicity, etc. Allens (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Worked on cultivation and toxicity. Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Update. Worked on most of the issues raised, and working on the few left. The biggest concern now is the "taxonomy" part. Apparently I can't get across to the kind of information that's supposed to be there. Can someone actually lend a hand? Even a couple of online sources would do, as I'll be able to extract information from those sources. Also, it needs to name appropriate synonyms, not the mistake that was there earlier. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• Made some tweaks - comments to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd place the information in footnote 2 into the text proper. In most of the Featured Articles I write, I give a summary of the history, so Banksia marginata and Noisy Miner (currently at FAC) are two examples.

Any extra information on cultivars so it doesn't look so listy

splitting the prose into many small subsections can make the whole article look a bit choppy. I'd combine some subsections - particularly in the uses section which has information split up a bit. I'd take out the section subheaders and place all the like information together there.

Comment. I kept those small sections so that it remains easier to expand. I believe a lot more expansion needs to go into each of those sections. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good point. I'll see how it looks later. The other thing to consider is that the article needs a lead, so any summary-type sentences are good for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting to the issues. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 January 2012, 13:15 UTC)

---

Mauna Loa

Previous peer review

This is an aging FA dated from 2006, and it's showing. I'm listing the article for peer review to get an assessment of how much needs to be done/redone to meet current standards, and plan to do so sometime in the near future, and then run it by FAR. Oh, and don't nom it at FAR just yet, I need to get to it...thanks, ResMar 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of things from a brief check:
  • I fixed one thing the automated check spotted (unattributed "it has been") and filled in one reference using Reflinks.
  • The alt text checker has spotted a number of images without alt text.
• Allens (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• A few more things:
  • "No recent eruptions of the volcano have caused fatalities, but eruptions in 1926 and 1950 destroyed villages, and the city of Hilo is partly built on lava flows from the late 19th century" from the lead - this is not clear; did the eruptions in 1926 and 1950 cause fatalities? Did those causing the lava flows that Hilo is built on?
  • How are volcanoes (e.g., Mauna Loa and Kīlauea) defined as being separate? How far down do the lava flows need to be apart in order to be considered separate volcanoes? To the hotspot, or what?
  • "Mauna Loa is shaped like a shield, because its lava is extremely fluid (it has low viscosity), and its slopes are not steep." That it is a shield volcano means that its slopes are not steep, as far as I know. Why aren't they steep? Please explain the relationship between viscosity and shape. I would suspect that the eruptions not being explosive also contributes to the shape (no jagged edges from explosions).
  • "city of Hilo is the wettest in the United States" - IIRC, it's right next to what is considered a tropical rain forest, which should be mentioned.
  • "skies are very often clear" - this is one reason astronomical observatories are on the Big Island, IIRC. Perhaps they should be mentioned here, with a reference to the more complete section below?
  • Not much is mentioned about what types of igneous rocks are produced, other than one reference to "rough rock" - which would be rather an understatement if it was obsidian! Or is it entirely "tholeiitic basalt"?
  • "Dr. Judd traveled between the summit and the Recruiting Station to tend the many who suffered from altitude sickness or had worn out their shoes on the rough rock" - how well was he able to do treatment for altitude sickness in 1840? The latter portion of this sentence is also problematic; shouldn't it be something like "or had cut their feet, having worn out their shoes on the rough rock"?
  • How about emissions of gasses, as well as lava and the (stated to be rare) flying rocks? CO2 is mentioned briefly under Observatories; what level of outgassing (and from where) is present? Any other outgassing?
  • Any usage of heat for geothermal power or similar?
  • I also fixed a few minor things (degassing to outgassing, for instance).
  • Doing... Not really finished yet (have to take care of other things) - and someone with more editorial experience than I have should probably also take a look.
• Allens (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• OK, a few more:
  • The second paragraph under "Archibald Menzies" does not have adequate referencing toward the end.
  • The "Others" and "Wilkes expedition" sections are also lacking referencing in some places (or at least appear to be so - I would make sure each paragraph has a citation at its end, even if it's the same as the previous paragraph's - ideally, one locates more than one...).
  • Given the longest quiet period in recorded history, is there a worry that an eruption may happen soon due to pressure building up? This is only partially answered under "Current activity" - is that there hasn't been an eruption another factor in the likelihood of one rising?
  • I see now the material regarding the separate volcanoes given differing chemistry - but "separate shallow magma chambers"? Are there deep magma chambers that they may share?
  • The first "Flank collapse" paragraph may not have sufficient citations; ditto for the first three paragraphs under "Monitoring".
  • Citations need to be copied from the appropriate article for "Since October 2006, the Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy (AMIBA) has been exploring the origin of the universe" under Observatories.
  • ✓ Done, at least for me.
• Allens (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I will work on this sometime in the near future—I'm getting all three remaining tasks running at different states of completion—but I'll keep this open for now, in the hopes of a second editorial review. The more I do now, the better, no? ResMar 03:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 January 2012, 23:42 UTC)

---

Hurricane Lenny

I plan on taking this to FAC in the future, and I'd like some feedback on the article before I did so. Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - This article is in need of a basic copy-edit. Check for proper usage of hyphenated compounds, commas after date clauses (e.g. "and on November 14 the National Hurricane Center (NHC) upgraded it" needs a comma after "November 14"), unnecessarily wordy constructions ("as well as" when "and" would suffice; double-clause sentences with multiple subjects referring to the same thing), missing words and typos (I've seen several), and style inconsistencies (such as whether the serial comma is implemented or not). There is also some overlinking. Auree ★ 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• You might take a look at listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests. Allens (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, I requested a copyedit. As for hyphenated compounds, I see a few usages of "record-breaking" (which I thought appropriate) and "island-wide" (which again seems fine). I think they're fine. I fixed the date clause thingy, removed "as well as"ses. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I meant that there are instances where a hyphen is lacking when it's needed. Auree ★ 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Oops :/ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is good, although small glitches mar the effect in places, as others note above. I did quite a bit of proofing, and I have other suggestions as listed below. Please revert any of my edits that you think are wooden-headed. I tried to use a light touch.

Thanks Finetooth - the prose has been much improved after your c/e. I also had a go at tweaking the MH a bit, so some of your suggestions below might have been fixed in my run. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "On the island, the hurricane destroyed over 200 properties, and there were three deaths." - Stick with active voice? Suggestion: "On the island, the hurricane destroyed more than 200 properties and killed three people."

Meteorological history

• "The origins of Hurricane Lenny were from a low pressure area that was first observed in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on November 8." - Active voice? Suggestion: "Hurricane Lenny formed in a low-pressure area that was first observed in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on November 8."

• "It developed an area of convective that day, although for the next few days the system remained poorly defined." - I think you mean "convection" rather than "convective".

This was fixed in my copy-edit. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Upon first becoming a tropical cyclone, the depression's convection was fairly disorganized, and the National Hurricane Center did not anticipate any strengthening for three days." - I don't think you can say that the convection became a tropical cyclone since "convection" is a name for a kind of air movement. The cyclone and its movements are different things. Suggestion: "When Lenny first became a tropical cyclone, its convection was fairly disorganized, and the National Hurricane Center did not anticipate any strengthening for three days."

Removed redundant ""Upon first becoming a tropical cyclone" in the copy-edit. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The path resulted from its movement along the southern end of a trough over the western Atlantic Ocean that extended from the lower to the upper levels of the atmosphere." - Would it be helpful to specifically state the general orientation of the trough, which I assume was also west–east? Also, move "the Western Atlantic Ocean" to the end of the sentence for clarity?

• "the group also reported a minimum pressure of 933 mbar, which was a drop of 34 mbar in 24 hours" - Should these have conversions to inches of mercury, such as: 933 millibars (27.6 inHg)?

• "Around the time it peaked in intensity, Lenny slowed its motion due to moving between two ridges." - Does this mean its forward motion? Suggestion: "Around the time of its peak intensity, Lenny's forward motion slowed as the storm passed between two atmospheric ridges." Or something like that.

I had tweaked this to something slightly different -- how does that read? Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your version is good. Finetooth (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Despite favorable conditions, the hurricane began weakening as it turned to an eastward drift, possibly due to upwelling of cooler waters." - Slightly contradictory. Maybe "despite apparently favorable conditions for strengthening"? If the conditions had really been favorable for strengthening, the hurricane would have strengthened.

• "Late on November 19, Lenny weakened to tropical storm intensity, after the center became exposed from the convection due to increased wind shear." - Would it be more clear just to say "Late on November 19, Lenny weakened to tropical storm intensity as increased wind shear disrupted the center"?

Preparations

• "southern coast of the Dominican Republic, and only a hurricane watch was issued for the southern coast of Haiti" - Link Dominican Republic and Haiti? I think these are the first mention of these places in the article.

• "A hurricane watch was issued for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands late on November 15, which was upgraded... " - Since it was not the date that was upgraded, I'd suggest moving things around a bit, like this: "Late on November 15, a hurricane watch, upgraded to a hurricane warning six hours later, was issued for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands."

• "After Lenny made its closest approach to the island, the hurricane warning was downgraded to a tropical storm warning on November 17, which was discontinued the following day along with the advisories in the Virgin Islands." - Same problem here. Suggestion: "After Lenny made its closest approach to the island, the hurricane warning was downgraded on November 17 to a tropical storm warning, which was discontinued the next day along with the advisories in the Virgin Islands."

Impact

• Since the death toll box displaces an edit button, I'd consider moving it down. Alternatively, you might merge the opening paragraph with the "Central Caribbean" subsection.

• "on the storm's fringe killed a man after striking him with a beam." - Could you add what kind of beam? Wooden? Torn loose from a house?

Lesser Antilles

• "On Saba, there was an unofficial wind gust of 167 mph (268 km/h) before the instrument blew away." - Rather than "instrument", it would be good to say what kind of instrument. Anemometer, maybe?

• "The sustained wind report at the airport was the highest land observation from Lenny." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "The sustained wind report at the airport was the highest recorded for Lenny over any land mass." Or something like that.

• "Due to the hurricane's unusual track from the west, it produced unparalleled waves of 10–16 (3–5 m) along the western coast of St. Martin,[31] which damaged or destroyed many boats." - Suggestion: "The hurricane's unusual west–east track produced unparalleled waves of 10 to 16 ft (3.0 to 4.9 m) along the west coast of St. Martin."

• "power utilities" - Maybe just "utilities" since these seemed to have included telephone lines, which are not the same as power lines.

• "High damage to tourist areas caused a decrease in cruise lines. - Maybe this should say "in cruise-line business" rather than the lines themselves. Or did some companies go out of business altogether?

References

• Who is the publisher of the material in citation 44? Is this a reliable source?

• Citation 46 needs publisher data.

• Is Island Sun in citation 21 a newspaper? If so, it should appear in italics.

• Is the cruise line named in citation 50 a reliable source?

• In citation 49, instead of naming the Wayback Machine, shouldn't you use the same kind of formatting found in citation 57?

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 January 2012, 18:25 UTC)

---

Alkali metal

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because now that it is a GA, I'd like further feedback on what more could be done to improve it even further past GA. I have addressed most of the comments in the previous peer review. There are still some "citation needed" tags.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Throwing alkali metals in water should probably be covered in more detail. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Links: [15] (sodium and potassium only) and [16] (all the alkali metals except francium). Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Brainiac faked explosions might be included. Double sharp (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this important article. I think it needs a fair amount of work to get to FA (A class and FA are the only two levels above GA), so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Noble gas is a FA and seems like it would be a good model for this. It is also an older FA and standards have gotten tighter since it was promoted. Caesium and Francium are alkali metals and FAs and so would be good models too.
• There is one dab link that will need to be fixed (see toolbox on this PR page) and here
• I do not think the first sentence of the lead follows WP:LEAD well enough - The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is - I would use the word group in the first sentence (as that has a specific meaning in the periodic table) and would also mention that these are all very reactive metals that readily form +1 cations (ions / cations are not even mentioned in the current lead that I can see)
• There are a bunch of MOS issues that would be a problem at FAC - I will try to point them out before discussing other aspects of the article
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Hydrogen is linked twice in just the lead
• Headers need to follow WP:HEAD and not repeat the name of the of the article if at all possible - so "Concept of alkali metals" could be just "Concept", and "Discovery of the alkali metals" could just be "Discovery" (the reader already knows this is about the alkali metals)
• Two headers with "This section is empty. You can help by adding to it." below - these need to be made into proper sections or else eliminated.
• Lots of citation needed tags and even a [when?] tag that I saw - all of these would have to be cleaned up before it stood a chance at FAC
• There are also some places that need citations (but are not marked). For example the first paragraph of Hydrogen has no refs and needs at least one. Or The alkali metals have the lowest first ionization energies in their respective periods of the periodic table because of their low effective nuclear charge and the ability to attain noble gas configuration by losing just one electron. The second ionization energy of all of the alkali metals is very high; thus, they almost always lose a single electron, forming cations. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If one or more sentences follow a ref, but there is not a ref at the end of these, then they need a ref.
• Captions should better explain the image's relevance to the article - for example Mendeleev's Periodic Table shows Tl as an alkali metal (could some sort of highlight color or box be added to the image to make this clearer?)
• Or something like this "Petalite, the lithium mineral from which the element Li was first isolated"
• Be consistent on spelling - Wikipedia uses "Caesium", but Cesium is also used 13 times here (its use in ref titles is OK)
• Be consistent on how refs are formatted too - for example Mark WInters' Web Elements is cited in a t least three different ways Winter, Mark. "Geological information". Francium. The University of Sheffield. Retrieved 26 March 2007. versus Winter, Mark (2011). "WebElements Periodic Table of the Elements | Lithium | historical information". Retrieved 27 November 2011. versus Winter, Mark. "WebElements Periodic Table of the Elements | Potassium | Key Information". Webelements. Retrieved 27 November 2011.
• There are any number of good books on the periodic table, but searching "periodic table" in the references I did not see any of them cited here. I would make sure the references used are from the best sources possible (and make sure to include print sources too)
• The lead either needs no refs (since it is a summary of the article, which has the refs)(please note that direct quotes and extraordinary claims in the lead still need refs), or it is cited like the rest of the article.
• Avoid needless repetition - the lead repeats the whole "H - Group 1, but not an alkali metal" spiel in two consecutive paragraphs, for example
• Or the electrolysis of NaOH is explained in the same level of detail twice (under Discovery of Na and of K - K can be much briefer)
• Or the fact that UUe has not yet been made does not really belong in Production since it was explained in some detail in the section on Uue just above it.
• Bold font for Uue does not follow WP:ITALIC
• OK, on to specifics on the chemistry / organization
• There is a general tendency in the article to confuce the element with its compounds. Two examples:
  • Sodium is not the same as sodium chloride / sodium salts: Sodium has been known since ancient times; salt has been an important commodity in human activities, as testified by the English word salary, referring to salarium, the wafers of salt sometimes given to Roman soldiers along with their other wages.
  • Potassium is not used as a fertilizer - its salts are Potassium is often used as a fertilizer,[85] as it is an important element for plant nutrition. I note that the ref (in German) title refers to salts of potassium (Kalisalze). Also the ref is from 1868 - surely there is a more recent ref for the importance of K salts as fertilizers?
• There is only one mention of the name Natrium (and no explanation) and no mention of the name Kalium, yet they give the symbols to Na and K
• It seems very odd to say twice in the lead that Hydrogen is NOT an alkali metal (which I agree with) and then start the article with a section on ... Hydrogen. I would combine this with the section on "Substances sometimes considered alkali metals" and put it after the Characteristics section
• If you mention "the notable exception that potassium is less dense than sodium" in the lead, the article should point this out in the body (and offer an explanation too)
• I was surprised to see there is no mention of the overall formula of alklali metal halide salts (MX), and shocked that the alkali metal oxides are not mentioned at all - since they do not all follow the expected M₂O formula, and instead there are oxides, peroxides, and superoxides, I would definitely include that in this article. Such systematic chemistry is useful to mention in this article, and makes more sense here than in the articles on the individual elements.
• Since Occurrence describes ores and sources mentioned in Production, would it make sense to have Occurrence before Production?
• For each element, I would discuss uses of the pure element (metal) first, then discuss the compounds (salts)
• There was a bad case in Brazil several years ago where a radioactive Cs salt was sent to a dump and poor people who salvaged items from the dump found it and used it as a glowing body powder / decoration - lots of radioactive poisoning.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 January 2012, 16:01 UTC)

---

General

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan

I've listed this article for peer review because… another editor and I are attempting to get this article up to Good Article status. We both have looked at this article for a long time and believe that the article would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. In particular, I hope that someone would help suggesting ways to generally improve the content. Is there too much information? Too little? Does the layout/structure make sense? Is is grammatically correct? Are there any sudden leaps in logic? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, RDavi404 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 January 2012, 20:45 UTC)

---

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

Previous peer review

In May 1999, Manchester United Football Club won an unprecedented treble of trophies and arguably completed the most successful season in their history and perhaps English football. The season will live long in the memory of United fans because of the climax in the Champions League final but also to football fans in all walks of life, notably as they recorded the biggest away defeat in Premier League history and perhaps contributed to the best FA Cup semi-final in recent times. Off the field, it was a season of controversy – the club were on the brink of takeover by Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB, resulting in the involvement of the government. This article has recieved a peer review before which prose was identified as the biggest concern; subsequently being addressed. It holds a WP:GA standing but I am curious to see if this can be a WP:FAC. As of now, there isn't any season articles which have met the criteria. Does there need to be more depth in coverage, how can the WP:LEAD be improved? Any comments or suggestions will be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 January 2012, 20:08 UTC)

---

Lists

List of Malmö FF seasons

I've listed this list for peer review because I think it needs further work before FLC. The two major areas for improvement are of course the lead and the "1920-Present" section. I would also appreciate any constructive advice regarding the list layout and format.

Thanks, Reckless182 (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a little bit of a shuffle through (as you probably saw), just a minor copy-edit and alt-text on the images, also a tiny bit of work on the tables. The lead can wait; the tables need work now.

• Firstly, the sorting is rather strange. The first step to resolving this is ensuring that there is an entry in every single space on this table. Even if nothing is applicable at all, just put an en-dash.
• Where Malmo played in two leagues in one year (Allsvenskan and Mästerskapsserien, for example), separate the entires with a ---- within the box to create two entries within a single box which will still sort as "Allsvenskan". At the moment you have two entries arguing with each other when the table attempts to sort and it buggers up. If this isn't clear, I will put an example:

 |-
 |[[1991 in Swedish football|1991]]
 |[[1991 Allsvenskan|Allsvenskan]]
 ----
 [[1991 Mästerskapsserien|Mästerskapsserien]]
 |18 <!-- Allsvenskan matches -->
 ---- 
 10 <!-- Mästerskapsserien matches -->
 |7 <!-- Allsvenskan wins -->
 ----
 3 <!-- Mästerskapsserien wins -->
 [and so on]

• If I were you I would start by working through the table and fixing these.
• Under 1933–34, replace "DSQ" with an endash. It will help with sorting. If you have a word with letters in there with "1st", "2nd", "3rd" and so on, it makes the table sort these as words rather than numbers ... which isn't really useful for us (in this case).
• Move the up and down arrows to the "Pos" column, and where they are present force the table's sorting with {{sort|1|1st {{up-arrow|alt=promoted}}}}. This makes the table easier to follow.
• It may be worth putting an actual en-dash in the "key to cup record" as well as the description, as not everybody will know what it is.
• It may be helpful to have a section of the key where it has a quick, simple and easy key to refer to giving the English and Swedish names of all of the different competitions; for example:

*Allsvenskan – "The All-Swedish"; Sweden's top football league, held since 1924
*Svenska Mästerskapet – "Swedish Masters Cup"; a cup held between 1896 and 1925 to decide the Swedish football champions
[and so on]

• This will, I think, help enormously in making the article engaging and making people interested.

• That's all for now. After we've sorted the tables out we'll do some work on the lead. I look forward to following this list's progress. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I think you're going to hate me for this: for FLC the top scorers' names are going to have to be formatted with the {{sortname}} template, so they sort by the players' surnames. Yes, thought so, you hate me now. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I always appreciate constructive criticism! I'll get to it later. I believe I have fixed the other sorting issues and I have also clarified and added to the key section. Hopefully it works and looks a lot better now. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• It looks much better now but there's still a way to go. Keep on working on it and I'll check back later. You've done a very good job so far. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• {{sortname}} has now been applied to all top scorers and I've tested the sorting function which now seems to be working in a good fashion, please correct me if I'm wrong. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone trough the sorting and I've detected issues with the league parameters (W, D, L, GF, GA and Points). There are also some issues regarding the sorting of the other competitions, Svenska Cupen, Supercupen and the European competitions. How do I solve this? --Reckless182 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• You've got the same issue as before: numbers are sorting as letters. To resolve this, for every number below 10, use a sort template, like this: {{sort|09|9}}. On the other competitions, put an en-dash into every cell. Blank spaces bugger up the sorting. You may also want to force en-dashes to the bottom, like this: {{sort|Zz|–}}. One more thing: in the prose you refer to "Distriksmästerskapen", but in the table there is "Distriksmästerskapet". Is this correct? I don't speak Swedish at all, so don't know. Also, you may want to combine the refs on the "2011" row into one. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've done this last one, and also added a picture to liven the list up a bit. I hope you don't mind. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well done on what you've done on the cup sorting, that is perfect. Keep up the good work. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I believe that all sorting is fixed as of now. I also changed Distriktmästerskapen to Distriksmästerskapet, both can be used but we better be consistent. The picture is a nice addition to the list, I have no objections whatsoever! --Reckless182 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, that table looks great now. Now let's turn to the lead. In the list of seasons I did for Luton, I just put a potted history of the club here, but as you've got a separate history section here we have to do something different. If I were you I would put a very brief history of the club in the first paragraph, then the second paragraph as you have it, then put some stuff about top scorers, lowest league position (and when), unbeaten seasons, seasons with highest percentage of wins, etc. Just see what you can come up with and I'll have a look over it when you're done. Great job on the table! —Cliftonian (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• What do you think of this for the brief history of the club?

"Malmö Fotbollförening were founded on 24 February 1910 by 19 members of a predecessor club named BK Idrott who for a short period of time merged with local town rival IFK Malmö. After participating in regional competitions and national cup play in Svenska Mästerskapet for the 1910's the club joined the newly created league system in 1920. With the exception of Malmö FF's one season apperance in the unofficial first tier of Swedish, Svenska Serien, the club played in the second tier of Swedish football for the entire 1920's. In 1931 they first participated in Allsvenskan, the first tier of Swedish football created in 1924. Following a brief spell in the second tier after being relegated by the Swedish Football Association having been found guilty breaching amateur relegations Malmö FF became a permanent feature in Allsvenskan and had several periods of success, particularly in the early 1950's, 1970's and the 1980's. The club were regulated for the first time since 1934 in 1999 but spent only season in the second tier before being promoted once again. Malmö FF had their first major success since the 1980's in 2004 and 2010 when they won the league."

and this for the record paragraph:

"As of 2012, Malmö FF have played 102 seasons of which 76 have been spent in Allsvenskan, 13 seasons in various divisions of the second tier of Swedish football and 11 seasons outside the league system. They have won Allsvenskan 19 times and been relegated two times, first in 1934 and later in 1999. Their worst league finish up to date came in the 1926–27 season when they finished in 6th position in the second tier. Malmö FF's best performance in terms of the highest percentage of wins and the fact that they remained unbeaten through the entire season was in 1950 when they won 20 out of 22 league games, drawing in 2 games and losing none. The season also holds the club record of most league goals scored in a season with 82. The 1949–50 season is a part of the still standing record in Swedish football of 49 league matches without defeat. Looking at goal scorers Hans Håkansson holds the record of scoring most league goals for Malmö FF during a single season, scoring 30 goals in 18 matches for the 1935–36 season when the club played in the second tier of the league system, Bo Larsson holds the record of scoring the most Allsvenskan goals during a single season, scoring 28 goals in 22 matches during the 1965 season. Overall Malmö FF holds the record for most consecutive Allsvenskan league titles with five titles between 1985 and 1989 and the most consecutive Allsvenskan seasons played with 63 seasons between 1936 and 1999."

I'm thinking that these might be better of for the List of Malmö FF records and statistics but we could still use them here. What do you reckon? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think for records directly relevant to seasons are more appropriate here. Here is my version of what you have written:

Malmö Fotbollförening, commonly called Malmö FF, are a Swedish professional football club based in Malmö, who currently play in the highest tier of Swedish football, Allsvenskan. Malmö FF were founded on 24 February 1910 by 19 members of a predecessor club named BK Idrott, who for a short time had been merged with cross-town rivals IFK Malmö. After participating in regional competitions and national cup play in Svenska Mästerskapet during the 1910s, Malmö FF joined Sweden's newly-created national league system in 1920, and played in the second tier of Swedish football for the next decade – with the exception of one season in Svenska Serien, then unofficially the top football league in Sweden. Allsvenskan was established as Sweden's official first tier in 1924, and Malmö FF first took part in 1931. The Swedish Football Association prohibited professionalism at this time, and Malmö FF were demoted in 1934 for having paid players. They were promoted back in 1936, and have since had several periods of consistent success, most notably in the early 1950s, the 1970s and the 1980s. The pinnacle of the club's history came in 1979, when, as finalists in both the European Cup and Intercontinental Cup, Malmö FF were ranked as one of the strongest clubs in the world. After winning a record five consecutive Allsvenskan titles between 1985 and 1989, the club won nothing during the 1990s and were relegated for the first time in 1999, though they returned to the top flight a year later. They have since remained in Allsvenskan, and won league titles in 2004 and 2010.

As of 2012, Malmö FF have played 102 seasons, 89 of which have been spent within the Swedish league system. The club have contested Allsvenskan 76 times, and have won the competition on 19 occasions. Malmö FF have been demoted once (in 1934) and relegated once (in 1999); their 63 successive Allsvenskan seasons between 1936 and 1999 is a league record. Their worst league finish to date is sixth in the second tier, their placing at the end of the 1926–27 season. The 1950 season was Malmö FF's best in terms of league performance: the team were unbeaten all year, won 20 out of 22 league games, and collectively scored 82 league goals, a club record which still stands. Hans Håkansson holds the record for most league goals for Malmö FF during a single season, having scoring 30 goals in 18 second-tier matches during the 1935–36 season. Excluding second-tier seasons, however, the record belongs to Bo Larsson, whose tally of 28 goals in 22 games during 1965 remains unmatched today.

• I think maybe this is good? —Cliftonian (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds perfect. Should we place both these in the history section or do you think that one might be a good paragraph to have in the lead? I'm thinking that maybe the lead might look better with an additional paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would put these two paragraphs as the lead, and leave the existing "history" section as it is. But it's up to you. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done! I'll add more sources to the lead later. Do you have any other feedback on the prose? --Reckless182 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have a look at the footnotes either this evening or tomorrow; the lead and the history look very good now. The article is starting to look in excellent shape overall. Keep it up! —Cliftonian (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing: if you know when the Swedish FA started allowing professionalism in Allsvenskan, that would be very good to put in. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have now added references for the lead section and some additional ones for the footnotes. Have a look and see if you think that anything can be improved. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 5 February 2012, 16:46 UTC)

---

Usher discography

Previous peer review

The article has improved quite a bit since its last peer review, it looks to have potential of being a featured list. Suggestions for improvements/changes would be appreciated.

Thanks, Rayman95 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 February 2012, 14:22 UTC)

---

Selena videography

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take the article to FLC

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 January 2012, 19:50 UTC)

---

Selena singles discography

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take the article to FLC very soon. Also it has been c/e by a GOCE member.

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This reads well - glad it got a copyedit already. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• One dab link here - circular redirect I think here
• I looked at the most recent discography FL (which is 50 Cent discography) and the lead here seems way more detailed than that article's lead. It might help to trim the lead here a bit.
• One thing I noticed that seems strange is that there is a lot of material on Mexican chart performance in the lead, but the only charts shown in the body of the article are the US charts - no Mexican charts are listed / shown. I think the lead should be consistent with the article - either the Mexican charts should be in the lists or they should be removed from the lead.
• Needs a ref It peaked within the top 10 on the Hot Latin Tracks and Latin Regional Mexican Airplay charts.
• This needs to be qualified "Amor prohibido" and "No me queda más" became the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995.[19][20] - most successful in the world? in the US? in Mexico? in certain markets? what?
• Also needs a ref "No me queda más" peaked at number one on the Hot Latin Tracks and on the Latin Regional Mexican Airplay charts, giving Selena a second number one single from Amor prohibido (1994).
• New Zealand chart also in the lead, but not in the article body - again should be consistent (both or none)
• Also true for the French and Spanish charts (in lead only)
• Tense is wrong here - should be "had" not "has" As of 2005, "Dreaming of You" has sold over 254,000 digital copies. " This also seems like it needs its own ref
• A lot of the awards seem like the do not belong here (but in the awards article / list) - 50 Cent discography does not list awards in its lead.
• Canadian and UK charts in lead, not in list.
• I did not check any refs, but I do see that there are no dead external links.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed chart positions coming from off-line sources, everything else is fixed. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 January 2012, 04:49 UTC)

---

WikiProject peer-reviews

• WikiProject Military history: Invasions of the British Isles • British infantry brigades of the First World War • Iraq War in Anbar Province • Military history of Canada

Archives

• 2012:
  • February (current)
  • January

• 2011:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2010:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2009:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2008:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2007:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2004 and older:
  • December 2004
  • Archive 3, Archive 2, Archive 1