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: March 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

The Marshall Mathers LP

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to promote it to GA. :)

Thanks, Khanassassin ☪ 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 20:34 UTC)

---

Georg Solti

What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom? This is yet another of my efforts on classical music's great and good. As usual, comments on balance, prose, proportion and anything else will be gratefully received. My first Solti concert was more than forty years ago, and I have admired him (not in all repertoire, it's true) ever since. I'd like him to have the best article that can be managed. (One punctuation point: I have made a small stand for British punctuation rather than American in such phrases as "In 1961 Solti went...", avoiding the comma evidently normal in American usage.) Tim riley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 19:10 UTC)

---

Hold It Against Me

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to FA in the future.

Thanks, Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 22:13 UTC)

---

Willow Grove Park Mall

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I want to see what it needs to succeed at FAC

Thanks, Dough4872 04:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 04:45 UTC)

---

Sam and Diane

I have created and expanded this article for one month and would like to know your suggestions to make this either a GA-, A-, or FA-class. It has real-world coverage and references, and I wonder if there are a lot more or less than this article deserves.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 February 2012, 22:45 UTC)

---

Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa

I think the article has all the relevant information that a film article should have. I'd like to get further inputs on improving the article and going for a GAN. Lynch7 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lynch7 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's Comments

• In Cast, write 1 line summaries of characters as in Mr. and Mrs. Iyer
• "Development" is more about "Promotion"/release of the film. Development should be similar to Rang_De_Basanti#Development
• File:Vtvfilm.jpg: questionable fair use. I don't it meets Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria "Contextual significance": "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
• "The shooting started on February 14, 2009"; "London on 19 December 2009": Dates need references
• Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa (soundtrack) needs to be summarized in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! Something unexpected came up, and I don't think I will be able to attend to this for some weeks. I will surely work on it in some time (anyone else is welcome to take this up in the meanwhile!). Thanks again! Lynch7 13:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 February 2012, 17:08 UTC)

---

Hal Block

I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe the article could potentially be a feature article. I previously nominated it, but I was far too inexperienced and it wasn't prepared. I would be interested in any help improving the article. One previous area of failure was the pictures. I've attempted to ensure all pictures now used are in the public domain. However, any advice on any of the sections would be welcomed. While I've been nearly the sole contributor, I'm not proprietary about the article so please feel free to say anything. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 February 2012, 16:14 UTC)

---

Game of Thrones (season 1)

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been years since I took anything through the FLC process, and I would like to get this article to FL status as the cornerstone of a Game of Thrones (season 1) good topic. I will muddle through this myself, but a few pointers from an experienced reviewer can probably shortcut the overall effort needed to bring it up to FL standards.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments

I have no experience writing Featured Lists, but here are some suggestions to help you along:

• The lead needs strengthening per WP:LEAD. Perhaps consider expanding to include other areas covered in the article -- production, casting, filming, awards, etc.
• The "Music" section also seems somewhat skimpy. Anything to say about composition, orchestration, the theme song, etc.?
• Something more about the awesome title sequence would be interesting; I see that it was given an award, and that the "making-of" was on the DVD. Anything more to say about its production, reception?
• I also don't see any critical response/reviews section. Is that not standard?

I hope these comments help! María (yllosubmarine) 13:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get to working on these... Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 February 2012, 07:04 UTC)

---

Jordin Sparks discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FL. Any feedback and suggestions would be great! Thanks, Oz ^talk 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• No mention of soundtrack appearances in the lead. Y Done
• " and earned her a record deal " no need for "her" or replace "and" with "which". Y Done
• "was then released in" no need for "then". Y Done
• Link "certified" to Music recording sales certification. Y Done
• "As of November 2010," nearly March 2012, any update?
  • I'll try searching for more recent sales. Oz ^talk 03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "as of December 2010" ditto.

Otherwise, look forward to seeing it at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 17 February 2012, 22:09 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)

Finetooth comments: I'm no expert on single-song FAs either, but I'll give this one a whirl. I agree with Nikkimaria that the article could use an extensive copyedit. I fixed a few minor things, but I see more. I don't think there is any strict length minimum at FAC in general, but if I were writing about a single song with the goal of FA in mind, I'd probably choose one that was extraordinary in multiple ways. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to write about every song ever sung, but finding much to say about most of them looks difficult to me, a non-expert. Here, you might be able to add a bit more background for readers who know nothing about Selena or her band. What were her "diverse musical abilities"? How long had she been singing before she recorded this song? How old was she when she was murdered? I personally find the background information more interesting than the interpretation of the lyrics, which sound too thin to need much interpreting. Perhaps your best course of action would be to add a bit more background, seek a copyedit, and try GAN before leaping to FAC. Below are a few more comments, mostly about the lead.

• The link checker finds one suspicious link here. When I click through on this link in citation 20, it sends me to a general page that doesn't seem to support the claim. Since citation 19 supports the claim, maybe it would be best to delete citation 20.

Lead

• "It was composed by Selena y Los Dinos backup singer Pete Astudillo as well as her brother and principal record producer A.B. Quintanilla III." - Even though it would be unusual for a woman to be named "Pete", the sentence might be misunderstood to mean that Pete's brother is A.B. Quintanilla III. This could be avoided by changing "her" to "Selena's".

• "She also wanted the song to be included in the album to help enforce her crossover attempt." - Crossover from what to what? It would be helpful to readers who know nothing about Selena to know what "crossover" meant in this particular instance.

• "The lyrics convey the love felt by a lover who stays positive and constantly thinks of the happy times she and her lover had as couples." - Why "couples"? Were they not just one couple? Also, can this be stated more succinctly and without repeating "love" or "lover" three times?

• "Though in some parts of the song, the lover faces negative outcomes because of loneliness and withdrawal from her boyfriend during the night." - Grammar. This is not a complete sentence. Also, it uses a lot of words to say little. Couldn't this sentence be combined with the one that precedes it and compressed to something like "The lyrics convey the happiness of a lover and her loneliness when separated from her mate"?

• "The song was met with generally positive criticism by contemporary music critics." - Active voice is almost always punchier and less wordy than passive voice. Suggestion: "Contemporary music critics generally praised the song."

• "It was among the "Most-played clips" - Lowercase "m".

• "Though the song was never intended to be released as a single for any of Selena's albums, it managed to peak at number 22 on the US Rhythmic Top 40 chart." - I'm not sure what "for any of Selena's albums" means. The sentence would be clear to me if it said, "Though the song was never intended to be released as a single, it managed to peak at number 22 on the US Rhythmic Top 40 singles chart." However, I'm not quite sure that my sentence conveys your intended meaning.

• 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) 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be applying your comments by this weekend on the article. Thanks for you're comments. Best, 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 15 February 2012, 15:36 UTC)

---

Edmund Sharpe

I've listed this article for peer review because I should like to submit it at FAC. The main source is a self-published work, but this should not be a problem because it is highly detailed, scholarly, and IMO reliable. I have given details of the credentials of its author on the talk page.

Thanks, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a bit on how his scheme for Gothic architecture differed from Rickman's. For FAC I would expect more on this. The linking seems to fall off towards the end - eg when he moves abroad. Was he "conservative" or "Conservative/Tory"? More analysis of a couple of typical churches would be welcome. Were all his churches C of E? He seems to have had relatively Low Church views, something of a contrast with many Gothic Revivalists, something that might be mentioned. Can anything of his personality be detected beneath Victorian politeness? The main source would ideally be supplemented by parallel refs to other, if shorter sources. I'm ok with it, but others might not be. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Most enjoyable and soothing; what could be nicer than earning one's living designing churches and writing about their architecture? The following is the first half of my review, mainly concentrating on prose because I have no expertise to bring to the table.

• General prose point: there are some overlong sentences, e.g. in lead: "He started his career as an architect in Lancashire in 1835, initially on his own, then from 1845 in partnership with Edward Paley, mainly designing churches but also some secular buildings, including work on domestic properties and schools." Look for others, and try to avoid.
  • Dealt with that one; will look for others
• Also ther is a tendency towards overdetailing and some unnecessary wordiness in places. A particular example is in the last two sentences of the first "Early life" paragraph. Stripped to the essential information these could become: "In November 1823 his father died suddenly, aged 48,[6] and in the following April his mother moved the family to Lancaster,[7] where Martha resumed her teaching career."[8] Does more than this need to be said?
  • Fixed
• In the same section, "probably Hallwood Academy, close to the village of Halton" seems hardly necessary.
  • Deleted
• Some awkwardness in the phrasing: "Francis Sharpe then worked both as a farmer and as a music teacher, including teaching at a school in Runcorn". It's the "...ing ..ing" that's the main problem, though I wonder whether the reference to the Runcorn school is actually necessary?
  • No, it's gone.
• What did Sharpe read at Cambridge? Also, a quibble, but one does not "graduate" MA at Cambridge (see here for a summary of how the system works.
  • Not sure. Did they have specific subjects in those days, or was it a common curriculum? I'll enquire. MA admission clarified.
• What was a "Worts Travelling Fellowship"? Who awarded it?
  • Added, plus a footnote to say what it is.
• Lancaster practice: Surely Paley became Sharpe's partner rather than his "successor"? Is it necessary to includ the information that relates to the practice after Sharpe left it?
  • Paley was both, but partner first; changed. I've retained the rest because Austin has already been mentioned, and Henry was related to Sharpe.
• Re Immanuel Church, you say this was "built in 1835–36 to the design of his cousin", which seems clear, but then "The evidence is conflicting as to whether Sharpe either made or amended the design" which obscures the issue somewhat. Can you perhaps rephrase/clarify?
  • Clarified.
• "Two major influences on the Gothic Revival were A. W. N. Pugin (1812–52) and the Cambridge Camden Society". This statement might be better placed in the preceding paragraph, which introduces the Gothis revival. As it is, it seems somewhat isolated.
• Who describes Sharpe's early works as "pre-archaeological"?
  • I agree this was unclear. I've re-written it in parts, and explained the term "pre-archaeological".
• "brother of his future wife Elizabeth" → "his future brother-in-law"?
  • Fixed
• "Towards the end of his life, Sharpe designed one more church incorporating this material" - presumably terracotta, but this needs to be made clear.
  • Done.
• Sharpe was an architect, but: "...he built a bridge over the River Hyndburn at Fournessford" Did he actually "build" it, or design it (and maybe supervise the building)? The impression that he built these structures himself is increased by phrasing such as "he added several wings and a chapel; nearby he made extensions to the Union Workhouse." The wording here and elsewhere needs to clarify his precise role - architect, builder, site foreman etc.
  • I think I've "got" them all.
• "Arichitectural historian": the grammar goes awry at the end of the first paragraph. My suggestion: "The work, which was praised by John Ruskin in The Stones of Venice, consisted largely of drawings by Sharpe's pupils—Paley, Austin, and R. J. Withers—with text by Sharpe describing and analysing the tracery of Gothic windows."
  • Done.

I'll try and have the rest done in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the initial comments; I'll work on them. From what you have said (or not said) can I presume that you do not perceive any major obstacles in working the article towards FA — such matters as the general layout, sections, images, etc.? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at dealing with the points above; anything outstanding there? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the rest:

• Of the "six expeditions" those in England, though stated as being in different areas, are all in fact within the same small prt of the country – indeed, all within a radius of about 40 miles from where I live (Stamford). Was there a reason why Sharpe concentrated his researches in this particular region?
  • No idea; I'll ask Hughes.
• The mention of Sharpe's death and the published memorial would be better placed at the end of the section.
• "During the time that" → "While..."
  • Both done.
• Railway developer, England second paragraph: Can you clarify what was actually built?
  • Not clear to me either; I'll try to clarify.
• "About this time too..." Zap the word "too"
• Another overelaborate sentence: "In May 1842 Sharpe had been elected a Port Commissioner, and subsequently suggested the Morecambe Bay Harbour Project, proposing to build a new port at Poulton-le-Sands (soon to become part of Morecambe), and linking it to Lancaster by means of a ship canal." At least two sentences there.
  • Both done.
• "He also awarded himself the contract for building the harbour." Sounds a bit like Poo-Bah; can this be phrased so as to distinguish between his corporate capacities?
• "for a while" is a little indeterminate for an encyclopedia article. Tighten up?
• You have "In August 1863" followed by a comma. This is not normal BritEng usage, and you have not adopted this form elsewhere as far as I can see, so I suggest you drop it.
  • Last 2 dealt with.
• "..joining the local Heart of Oak Club in 1837" → "and had joined the local Heart of Oak Club in 1837" Can you explain the nature of this club with an appropriate adjective ("patriotic", "traditionalist", etc?)
  • Small expansion to explain.
• "These appointments gave him opportunity to observe the unsatisfactory state of sanitation of the town, and the determination to do something to improve it." Suggest rephrase/simplify: "Through these offices he became aware of the unsatisfactory state of sanitation in the town, and resolved to do something to improve it."
  • Fixed.
• "it was described as..." Who described it thus?
  • Cannot find a clear source; probably redundant, so deleted.
• "...owing to conflicts of interest there was constant friction between the [police] commission and the town council, the former tending to block any necessary reforms on grounds of cost to the ratepayers." How did the police commission come to be the guardian of ratepayers' interests?
  • Rephrased to clarify.
• "A campaign was initiated in 1847 by two Lancaster doctors, Thomas Howitt and Edward Denis de Vitre, and they were soon joined by Sharpe who drew extensively on his experience of having accompanied Professor Richard Owen (born and educated in Lancaster) on his tour of inspection of the town in 1844, the report of which was published the following year". Length and complexity issues - there is a similar problem with the sentence beginning "Though agreeing in principle..."
• "...and published another report" → "and published a further report" (to avoid repetition)
  • Both dealt with.
• Some of the information in the "Personal" section has been mentioned earlier, e.g. the move to Geneva, and could be abbreviated, for example: "In Geneva the family lived for about three years in "Richemont", a rented property on the road to Chêne-Bougeries."
  • Done.
• I am not sure that the "other interests" deserve such a lengthy section. Some of these interests (cricket, singing etc) are pretty marginal; I think the first two paragraphs could be condensed into a single sentence noting that Sharpe followed a number of sporting and cultural interests.
  • Some tightening; not too much because these are further factors in his being described a "Renaissance" man,
• Appraisal: suggest delete the word "Yet" from beginning of second paragraph, and "...Hughes considers Sharpe..."
  • Done.
• "He was also considered by some to have been an early pioneer of the Gothic Revival,[H] though this was "probably more for his books than for his buildings". Whose words are the quote? And "considered by some" is always risky; people might tag
  • First point clarified; second point: I give an example in a footnote.

That's all my specific remarks. I don't think this is far away from being a FAC (I have seen lesser articles promoted) though I would ecommend a little more prose combing for wordiness, relevance, repetitions etc, as I have not carried out a line-by-line prose examination. The general structure of the article looks good, and coverage seems comprehensive (almost too much so in place). I have noted what you say on the talkpage about the main source, and I think ths is fine. Please drop me a line when if/when you decide to take it to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 15 February 2012, 11:46 UTC)

---

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, Pinkie Pie 09:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A somewhat surprising topic that will bring smiles to many (and maybe tears to a few). I have been to Iceland; how did I miss this? Just a few questions:-

• The lead is not adequate at present. It should be expanded into a summray of the whole article, briefly mentioning each of the salient areas of the article, including for example the museum's history.
• The lead image description should be more informative. Is this the museum's official logo? It is described as the museum's "sign", but its location should be indicated.

Done by user:Snaevar Pinkie Pie 17:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• What makes Salon.com a reliable source?
• What is the language of the source in citation 8?

Icelandic, added to the citation. Pinkie Pie

• The sentence: "The museum also has a "folklore section" exhibiting mythological penises; its online catalogue lists specimens taken from elves, trolls, kelpies, and "The Nasty Ghost of Snaefell" is cited to the online catalogue. Is it possible to make the citation a little more detailed, to assist in finding this information?

Also done by user:Snaevar. Pinkie Pie 17:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• As the precise address of the museum is included in the article, what is the justification for incuding geographic coordinates?

Shouldn't all landmarks have geographic coordinates, even if the address is included in the article? Pinkie Pie

Where does that idea come from?? Brianboulton (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems consistant from article to article. Pinkie Pie 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet comments

• The cites are not consistent with how they say the language. There is (in Icelandic) and (Icelandic). The 2003 Jónsson cite should put the language in a cite parameter which would look like this: |language=Icelandic
• Cite 13, the catalogue, should have its actual title displayed in the cite. When I clicked on it, the title was "Fréttir af Reðasafninu:"
• The "size is everything" cite... who is the author? The byline says "AFP". Is AFP a person or a news agency? Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 28 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.

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

Hey Redtigerxyz, thank you for the comment. I find that your concern has got more to do with structure. I thought of mentioning her most notable work first, I then I decided to go by a chronological order of events to avoid POV. Thanks. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:33, 17 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)

Hey Animesh, thanks for the comments.

• I am intending to add images later on, if there are some particular images which could be useful in the article, then I'd be happy to add them.
• "Bobby Print" mentioned.
• I'm not sure how relevant songs would be in an article about her, unless these were just item numbers. There are always popular numbers, I'm not sure proper sources in regard to their notability could be found. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A passing mention of songs can be done saying how hit they were and still are. She got to be a part of those songs. Not that she contributed to the singing or music. But as indian actresses have to dance a lot in various songs and they are usually remembered by only through the videos of these old songs, its good to mention it. Just a suggestion! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another one... The Bobby look was imitated by Prachi Desai in the song (i guess) "Tum Jo Aaye Zindagi Mein" from Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But it was imitated and satirised on several occasions, so I can't see how mentioning this particular film would make much sense. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Was it? Didnt know that. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:46, 26 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)

• Looks quite interesting, I'll try to do a review within the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Mark. -- Cassianto (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting and well-written article. Rothorpe (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you R. I value your edits to Leno and for your support. See you at FAC hopefully. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
• The article looks like it's in pretty good shape to begin with, so that will make this more fun. I'm not an expert with the FA criteria, so you should probably get advice/copyediting from someone else, as well. I'll see what I can do though.
• Links: No dabs, subscription sources (such as the ODNB) should be noted as such. The WP:REPEATLINK script I use is showing Pantomime, Max Beerbohm, and Grand Order of Water Rats repeated one too many times.

• Both done. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The auto-peer review link is highlighting "Many considered Leno and Albert Chevalier to be Britain's two leading comic music hall singers of the late 19th century." You should note who the "Many" are who considered that.

• "Many" were not specified in the source so I have reworded. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I ran a couple scripts on the page, hopefully there are no problems with the changes.
• The ISBNs look like they need formatting. I think they should be consistent at 10 or 13 digits with consistent hyphen use.

• ISBN's replaced with OCLCs complete with link. -- Cassianto (talk)

Cassianto, you should *not* replace ISBNs with OCLCs. ISBNs are better. OCLCs should only be used for books where ISBNs do not exist. But several of the ISBNs look wrong - they should all be 10 digits, or they should all be 13 digits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had another go. Some do not exist, despite extensive research on the internet and at the British Library this morning. So, as suggested, these will have to have OCLC number's added instead. I will continue on the further reading section later. Cassianto (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to think about trying to work some of the Further reading section into use as references, at FAC they might bring that up as a comprehensiveness issue.

Cassianto this is a good thought. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest noting in the lead that the GOWR was a entertainment industry charity and brotherhood or something.

• done. -- Cassianto (talk),

• "Born in Marylebone, London, he began to entertain as a child." Might want to avoid starting the paragraph with a pronoun.

• Would this not need to be a pronoun, as the previous para was talking of him and only him? Cassianto (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty understandable with the pronoun, but that came up during a GA review of an article I wrote, so I thought I'd pass it on. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's understood. Replaced.

• "He was the youngest of six children, including two brothers, John (1851–1893) and Henry and an elder sister Frances." Might want to take a stab at rephrasing this, see if you can smooth it out a bit. Cassianto (talk),

• I have removed the date as I think this was cluttering it up a bit. Will this do? Cassianto (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The word "Irish" was suggested by his stepfather, William, who thought that it would ensure greater success." Do we know why he thought that?

• we do now, fixed -- Cassianto (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• ""Patrick" was chosen so that Leno could earn a separate fee, 23 shillings per performance plus living expenses." Why did that name allow him to earn a separate fee?

• done. -- Cassianto (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The same year, the Lenos appeared in Belfast at the same time as Charles Dickens, who was giving lectures in local schools, and who encouraged the young Leno." Did he speak with Dickens personally or was it that he heard Dickens say something encouraging during a lecture?

• He met him. Fixed Cassianto (talk),

• "In October 1884, the Lenos gave up the lease on the theatre." Do we know why they did this?

• fixed. Cassianto (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1885, now married, he and Lydia moved to London where he gained new success with a solo act that featured comedy patter, dancing and song." Do we know when they married?

• I have added the marriage year to the Personal life section. Strange, I thought I had already added this. Cassianto (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "On the night of his London debut, he appeared in three music halls: the Foresters' Music Hall in Mile End, Middlesex Music Hall in Drury Lane and Gatti's-in-the-Road, where he earned £5 a week." Was this what he earned from all three or just the last one?

• All three. Elaborated on. Cassianto (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "included Collins Music Hall in Islington," I suggest linking Islington here.

• done. Cassianto (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• You start consecutive sentences "Though..." and "Although..." in the 1880s section. Might want to vary that up a bit.

• changed. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I made some copyedits, feel free to revert if you don't think they're improvements. (Also, keep in mind that British English doesn't come naturally to me.)
• "Like his alcoholic father and stepfather, Leno began to drink heavily, and by 1901 he had became an alcoholic." Do we know what kind of drinks he preferred?

• The source simply says "spirits and stout". Cannot elaborate further. I will add. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's fine, I was just thinking if he had a particular obsession with a certain drink it might be worth adding. (I.e. Hitchens and Whisky) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Try to be consistent in serial comma use/non-use, i.e. "a police officer, a Spanish bandit, a fireman, and a hairdresser." vs "including "The Detective", "My Old Man", "Chimney on Fire", "The Fasting Man", "The Jap", "All Through A Little Piece of Bacon" and "The Detective Camera"."

Fixed now. I eliminated the serial comma. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... which he performed at London's Surrey Theatre in 1886, having been spotted singing "Going to Buy Milk" by the Surrey Theatre manager, George Conquest." Could the cause and effect here be spelled out a little better?
• "which had the improbable title" What made the title improbable?

swapped improbable to unique, as I bet there was no other performance with that kind of title! Cassianto (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "His performances proved popular with audiences..." This is the same starting a paragraph with a pronoun thing I mentioned above, use your best judgment here.

changed to noun. Cassianto (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "because he disagreed with the hiring of music hall performers to take on acting roles." Is there a good way to tighten this up?

I have re-worded slightly. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "pantomimes, running until 28 March 1902." How long did it run total?

I don't think this is an issue if they always started within a couple of days of Christmas. We just need to say "Christmas" pantomime. Cassianto, please confirm. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this is probably one of those things that is obvious to Brits that a lot of Americans wouldn't realize. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. I'm an American too. We don't even know what pantomime is, but I think that if anyone has read this far into the article and hasn't read the link for pantomime, then at least the fact that we repeatedly refer to them as Christmas pantomimes ought to clue the readers into the idea that they started on Christmas. Normally, such entertainments only ran six or eight weeks (kind of like the Radio City Christmas Spectactular) Mark, do you think that the point that Leno's pantos were unusually successful is clear enough? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the point about it being usually successful is clear now. I was curious because I wasn't sure if they started right before Christmas or if it was a Christmas season thing starting in early December. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pantomime's here in blighty are not nearly as successful as they were then, but are still considered to be a traditional part of Christmas. Sadly, they now feature non-entity celebrities who are famed for nothing more than a shampoo commercial. They are closely linked to music hall, and as a result burlesque for you guys due to the variety, spontaneity and audience participation. The Leno panto's at Drury Lane were famed, primarily for their austentatios and elaborate productions, and of course for Leno and his co-stars. If you go there today, you are reminded of the panto days as there are plaques, bill posters and photo's and press cuttings on the wall's . The theatre is now owned by Andrew Lloyd-Webber who is always vocally proud of it's history.[1] Hope this helps. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, I'll try to look that up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gents, it started on Christmas eve and finished on 28 March 1902. (I hope they had an intermission! :-) ) -- Cassianto (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "He earned £200 a week." Maybe think about supplying a modern equivalent, I've seen it done, though I'm not sure about the templates etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments and copy edits, everyone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks to me like this article is very well-written, not a whole lot of copy edits needed in my view (though there are doubtless some reviewers who could find a few things. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• More Comments/Questions
• "a further two shows, the musical farce, In Gay Piccadilly! and Mr. Wix of Wickham" Is the second comma needed here?

done Cassianto (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1897, Leno went to America..." Is the name of the ship he traveled on known?

I have access to shipping records but it may be difficult to cite. I have tried to steer clear of such detail as it caused problems at Stanley Holloway's FAC. I will look and ask for cite advice if found Cassianto (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, I was just thinking if he sailed on a famous boat it would be nice to note that. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Silver Albatross" was the boat. No not famous. I'll leave this. Cassianto (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "However, he rejected all later offers to tour the United States and Australia." Interesting, I wonder why that was?

elaborated on. Cassianto (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... the first paper to bear an individual's name." Does this need to be qualified somehow, or was it really the first paper ever to bear someone's name?

Please double-check the source, but if says "first", I have no reason to doubt it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Double checked and reworded with slight extension. -- Cassianto (talk),

• "In 1880, Leno met Sarah Lydia Reynolds (1866–1942), a Birmingham-born comedy singer, while appearing at King Ohmy's Circus of Varieties, Rochdale." Who was appearing at the circus?

Nobody notable. Harry Clayton, Arthur West and Charles Deswart... No me neither!. Cassianto (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I think the question is: Was it Leno or Lydia (or both) who was appearing at the circus? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah got ya! Both. They met there whilst performing. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the Personal life section you have "They married in 1883" twice.

deleted. Cassianto (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should this be "St. George's Church, Hulme, in Manchester" or "St. George's Church, in Hulme, Manchester"?

done. Cassianto (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Leno owned two acres of land" Should probably add a conversion template here.

• "where he produced cabbages, potatoes, poultry, butter and eggs, of which he would send dozens as Christmas presents." I assume he sent dozens of eggs, do you think it is clear enough though? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reworded. Cassianto (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I reworded it again. It doesn't matter how many. Now it just says that he sent gifts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Leno began to drink heavily after performances, and by 1901, like his father and stepfather before him, he had become an alcoholic". Do we know when he began to drink heavily after performances?
• "It was often a result of his diminishing ability to remember his lines and inaudibility in performance." What does "It" refer to here?

specified further. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to mention in the text where he's buried (it's just in a caption now).

added. Cassianto (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Phew, that was an interesting article to read. It's in pretty good shape. I might have a few more suggestions, but I think this is about as much advice as I can offer. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That was great Mark, keep them coming! -- Cassianto (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a small issue that I didn't notice before: you might think about trying to vary the words you begin paragraphs with. In the Decline in health and death section you start 4 out of 5 paragraphs with "Leno..." and before that you start 4 out of 5 with "In...". Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think I'm pretty much done with my review, I might find a couple other small things to mention though sooner or later. I think this is solidly at GA quality, and likely on it's way to FA. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank's for an excellent and thorough review Mark. I hope all of your points have been answered to your satisfaction. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tim Riley

I think you have done a splendid job with this article. I particularly like the way you have incorporated the "Personal life" section into the chronological structure in what seems (but I'm quite sure wasn't) a completely effortless way. A few drafting points:

• I don't remember seeing the names of performers italicised in other music hall articles, and I would think about removing the itals from The Comic Trio (Mr & Mrs Leno and Dan Patrick) In Their Really Funny Entertainments, Songs and Dances and from Dan Leno himself (at the mention of his new stage name in the 1880s section).

Thanks for your kind comments Tim. They have now been swapped from Itals to inverts. I have swapped ALL previous stage names as opposed to just the ones you mention above for consistancy. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• You should, I think, be consistent about capitalising the definite article in the names of theatres; at present you have, e.g., "The Grand Varieties Theatre" but "the Queen's Theatre", and so on. I'd lower case them if it were my decision (except where they are upper cased within quotations), but whether you prefer "The" or "the", it would be good to be consistent throughout.

fixed. Cassianto (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Later career
  • "In 1896, impresario Milton Bode" – this is a tabloid journalese construction, and you have wisely avoided it elsewhere in the article. British style guides counsel against it, and so do I. Adding "the" before "impresario" would transform the prose.

added. -- Cassianto (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I'd be inclined to put "the King's Jester" in inverted commas rather than in italics, both in the text and in the image caption

changed-- Cassianto (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• References/Sources
  • I don't know whether Hickory Wood is a double-barrelled surname or if Hickory was a given name and Wood the surname. If it is the latter, he should be just "Wood, p. xx" in the references; if it is the former, then he should be "Hickory Wood, J." in the list of books.

See afterthought.-- Cassianto (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Ref 90: I imagine "p. x" refers to a page in the preface, but I merely mention it on the off-chance that "x" should be an ordinary number.

changed to 10. -- Cassianto (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are the only drafting points that struck me on reading the current version of the article. I have read earlier contributions to this peer review with interest: some very good stuff there, which has benefited the article considerably. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought: I see Hickory Wood qualified for a Times obituary (29 August 1913, p. 7), in which it is made clear that his surname was Wood, and Hickory was a given (or to be precise a taken) name. So you have him listed correctly in the "Sources", but should drop the "Hickory" from the various mentions in the "References" section. Tim riley (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All references changed to Wood. -- Cassianto (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for your comments. I hope this has been done to your satisfaction. If there is any more let me know. -- Cassianto (talk)|

Looks good to me. If I were reviewing it for GA (which as an occasional contributor to the article I can't, of course) I don't think I'd find much to quibble at. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Yomangani

I haven't had a chance to look through it in detail, but here a few comments picked at random (and ordered randomly). I may add to them later.

• It's pretty solid, but occasionally you have some short sentences that interrupt the flow and leave the reader with more questions than answers (e.g. "He earned £200 a week". For what? Those two pantomimes? That year? In general?), and some pronouns get a bit overworked when they are detached from the subjects by several intervening sentences.

• Thanks for the comments. I have adjusted this lightly by combining the two sentences and elaborating on the fee. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• ...where he became known as "The Great Little Leno, the Quintessence of Irish Comedians (meaning performer of comic songs). Something's off there. Presumably there should be quote marks after Comedians and the explanation put into a footnote, but it may be the parentheses are part of the title. I couldn't tell.

• fixed. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mother Goose, the following year's Drury Lane pantomime... This paragraph needs reworking as Mother Goose has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph.

• removed repeated info. Fixed -- Cassianto (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• These productions included: Jack and the Beanstalk These productions? What are they examples of? Productions in which they appeared in palaquins? Productions in which Leno and Campbell appeared? Productions at Drury Lane? Yomangani^talk 12:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• These productions, meaning productions in which Leno and Campbell appeared in at Drury Lane. Elaborated on slightly to reflect this. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  

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

Comments

• "portrayed by Welsh actress Eve Myles" I would have this straight after "fictional character".
• "episodes of Torchwood's parent show, Doctor Who" do you feel you need to say this after, in the previous sentence, you say " Torchwood, a spin-off to the long-running show Doctor Who,"?
• "Across the various situations she is placed in, Gwen remains "grounded" by her family life, which critics have responded positively to." -> "Across the various situations in which she is placed, Gwen remains "grounded" by her family life, to which critics have responded positively."
• "rewards Gwen" is it a reward? Or is it simply an offer?
• "Following from this" no need for "from" and probably no need to repeat Gwen as she was the last subject of the previous sentence.
• "aired as a five-part serial in" -> "aired in five parts in" to avoid series/serial?
• Is it 456 or 4-5-6? Our own article to which you link seems confused.
• Something Borrowed is a dab link.
• "During series two, the Torchwood website, www.torchwood.org.uk" this is a little incongruous for me, a little bit adverty if you know what I mean, I really don't think you need to put the URL into the prose.
• " by Gary Russell - an insider's look into Torchwood collects " -> " by Gary Russell – an insider's look into Torchwood – collects "
• According to our article, Afternoon Play should be in italics.
• "guest starred" should be hyphenated in my mind.
• Lead Writer, Executive Producer, unnecessarily capitalised, and you link Exec Prod on the second instance.
• " that Torchwood are "taking the Welsh global"" are or is?
• "2005-6" -> "2005–06".
• "archetype[59] " missing full stop.
• ""It was completely - one too many "
• Don't think that's the G-star you mean to link.
• The Telegraph should be The Daily Telegraph.
• The Radio Times should be the Radio Times.
• Anne Frank's diary should be in italics.
• What is SFX?
• Barrowman caption does need a full stop.
• Refs - sometimes you link Torchwood, sometimes not, be consistent.
• Refs - ditto to BBC Two (but not BBC Three or BBC One oddly).
• Refs - ditto to Doctor Who. I'd suggest you either link first only, all of them or none them. Check all refs.
• Ref 18 spare "
• Ref 19 too.
• All refs need to use spaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens per WP:DASH.
• Ref 55, e.g., all titles should be per MOS, so Exclusive: Who Dunnt? See ref 80 for more over-capitalisation.
• Ref 60 poorly formatted.
• The Telegraph in refs is surely The Daily Telegraph?
• And The Guardian...
• Check all "works" are shown in italics.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs, see refs 133 and 134.
• Is it BBC or BBC News Online? Be consistent and link consistently.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Canadian comics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
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)

Yomangani's comments (or comment):

I know it is the Wikipedia done thing to set out the article's ambitions as to scope right away, but the opening couple of sentences here rather suck out any desire to read further. Not any easy problem to solve, but perhaps you could try working in the considered authors and media later on in the lead after the more interesting stuff about the dual comic cultures. Yomangani^talk 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reworded anything, but I rearranged the order. Is that more what you had in mind? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:34, 13 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)

Comments

• Lead image caption does not need a full stop.
• Is it the first episode or is it the pilot episode?
• "wakes up in an abandoned hospital from a coma" consider making it "wakes up from a coma in an abandoned hospital"
• "been riddled with" overtaken by?
• "where his wife and son are. After finding out that both Lori and his son" -> "to find his wife, Lori, and their son. After discovering that they are both missing..."
• "in a neighbors house" in a "neighbor's" house.
• We don't tend to wikilink common locations like London...
• However, I would link Nielsen rating appropriately in the lead, this is very US-centric.
• "The two men are shot, " -> "They shoot the two men"?
• " for an undisclosed amount of time" -> "undisclosed period".
• No need to link hospital.
• "more walkers" - make it clear that these are the zombies you've previously referred to.
• "breaks down into tears" maybe USENg, but I'd say "breaks down in tears"
• "he encounters (and shoots) a " don't think you need the parentheses here.
• "find any gas" replace gas with fuel so it's internationally understandable!
• " tank crewman; therefore deafening" no need for the semi-colon, just a comma, and no need for "therefore" either.
• Link M1 tank.
• "The Walking Dead setups at the 2010 San Diego Comic Con International." no need for the full stop.
• "Robert Kirkman[2]" no need for his name to be bold. Same for other quotes.
• Instead of linking Willy Loman, why not just link Death of a Salesman?
• "scriptment" I've never heard of this before. Do you just mean script?
• "was split half and embellished, subsequently making it into an arc between two episodes" split in half? And what two episodes?
• "revelation. t’s extremely faithful." missing letter?
• "The Mist (2007)," I think, the second time, you don't really need to repeat the year.
• " premiered in Hong Kong" any reason why Hong Kong is selected out of the 119 countries other than the US where it premiered?
• " (2002).[36][26]" I tend to expect footnotes to be in numerical order.
• "It debuted in 120 countries in 33 languages.[38]" you've already mentioned that it debuted in 120 countries...
• Link FX.
• Don't mix date formats in the references.
• Ensure reference titles comply with MOS, e.g. avoid CAPITALS, en-dashes (see ref 41).

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have seen this episode, thanks for your work on the article. I agree with TRM's comments above - here are some more suggestions for improvement.

• I would include a hat note for the album Days Gone By here, and put one for this article there
• It seems odd to list the guest stars in the infobox, but not list Andrew Lincoln or the guy who plays Shane there, or mention Lincoln at all in the lead.
• I am not sure the images from Comic Con are truly free - it seems to me as if they are of a tableaux in one case and in the other contain promotional art that would be copyrighted by AMC or the show - images will be reviewed at FAC, so they might be seen as WP:FAIR USE there.
• The Accolades section is one sentence - seems as if it might be better if it were combined with the Critical reception section
• There are free images of Kirkman and Darabont and of Andrew Lincoln and Jon Bernthal which might be used here - when this becomes an FA and appears on the Main Page, it helps to have a free image that can be shown on the Main Page
• The most difficult criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English - see. This seems to me like it would have some difficulties at FAC with its prose. I will try to point out some examples, though this is not a complete list. This needs a serious copyedit.
• Just in the lead "riddled with zombies" is awkward and he already knows where his home is, so he doesn't really have to locate it (he does need to locate his family) Realizing that the world has been riddled with zombies, Grimes ventures out to locate his home where his wife and son are.
• Avoid passive voice where possible and tighten where possible Robert Kirkman, the creator of the series of comic books of the same name, initially considered the idea of creating a television show based on the comic series. However, such ideas were never pursued by Kirkman. could be something like Robert Kirkman, creator of the comic book series of the same name, considered creating a television show based on the comic, but never pursued it.
• It is usually "expressed interest in" Frank Darabont later expressed interest of developing the series for television
• This is unclear - was Hurd writer, director and exective producer too? This couls also be tightened In the announcement, the executives of the network stated that Darabont would serve as a writer, director, and an executive producer for the show alongside with Gale Anne Hurd. to something like The network executives announced that Darabont would serve as a writer and directorfor the show; Darabont and Gale Anne Hurd served as executive producers.
• Having said it is is Atlanta, Georgia, I think the article can just use Atlanta thereafter
• Is Hurd a man or a woman? He and she are used here Hurd recalled that he had heard of the comics before, and upon reading it, felt that it would be great for film.[3] She stated: "When I first read the book, I thought
• Things are shot "on film" and CGI is used for effects, not really for editing It was wholly shot in 16 mm film, and was edited using computer-generated imagery.
• This makes no sense - "following the months proceeding its release" - do you mean "in the months preceding its release" - "Day Gone Bye" was heavily promoted following the months proceeding its release;...
• Again this does not make sense Several critics noted comparisons to the episode with those of Lost. perhaps "Several critics compared the show with the pilot for Lost."?
• These are just examples from the lead - please get a copy edit before taking this to FAC
• 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 _><>°^° 03:31, 26 February 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)
• Brianboulton has advised that you may wish to check for peer reviewers with an interest in this particular area and specifically ask them if they would go over the article in question. Allens (talk | contribs) 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area, but I can advise on Manual of Style issues, layout, and prose. I'll do this today (perhaps extending into tomorrow). For starters, the link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds four dead URLs in the citations and a couple of others that look suspicious. See here. Finetooth (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article. The prose is generally clear, and the article seems comprehensive to me, an outsider with no special knowledge of the subject. However, it is far from FA-worthy. I have concerns about the sourcing; a spot check indicates to me that in some cases the supporting citations do not support the claims they are attached to. This is a big problem that will have to be fixed. I'm also concerned that some of the sections include what I consider unnecessary detail; celebrity news generally has a short half-life, and much of it has little encyclopedic value, in my opinion. What follows is not a complete line-by-line review, which I think would be premature. However, I think it should give you plenty to think about. Good luck with improving the article.

Lead

• Claims do not usually need supporting citations in the lead if the lead is a summary of the main text sections, as it should be. If the lead is a summary, the claims should appear in the main text, and the supporting citations should go there.
• "Within a few years of his career... - Tighten by deleting "of his career"?
• "He is one of the most influential actors in the film industry due to his overwhelming back-driven influence on politics in the state and also many columnist suggest it reportedly." - This is awkward and ungrammatical. Also, I'm not sure what "back-driven influence" might mean. In addition, do you mean "repeatedly" rather than "reportedly"?
• "He was bestowed the Padma Bhushan... " - Tighten to "He won the Padma Bhushan... "?

Early life

• "where he had his elementary education in Kannada" - What is Kannada? Unless you link it here on first use, many readers will have no idea.
• "out of which the most notable role performed by him" - Tighten to "in which his most notable role was"?
• "the film was directed by K. Balachander" - Is there a special reason to include the initial on any but the first reference to Balachander? If not, I'd change all but the first to "Balachander".

Experimentation

• "The success of Bhuvana Oru Kelvikkuri prompted Muthuraman to make a mushy melodrama with Rajinikanth as a hero sacrificing everything for his siblings in Aarilirunthu Arubathu Varai (1979)." - The phrase "mushy melodrama" caught my eye here, but it turns out that the source does not seem to support the claim. Although Aarilinthu Aarupathuvarai is mentioned near the end of the supporting document, the film is not described as a melodrama, and the article says nothing about a hero who makes sacrifices. Where do the claims come from? Who says the film is a "mushy melodrama"?
• "In 1982, he starred in Pokkiri Raja and Thanikattu Raja. Moondru Mugam had Rajinikanth playing three roles for the first time." - Needs a source.

Commercial stardom

• I would break the huge first paragraph into two or three smaller paragraphs if only to give the readers a rest now and then. Beyond that, I'm wondering if it's really necessary to comment on so many of Rajini's minor films. I would think about trimming some of the material. Here's an example: "Annamalai, which released in 1992, was yet another friendship eccentric film and was loosely based on the 1987 Bollywood film Khudgarz." Here's another: "He made a cameo in Peddarayudu for his friend Mohan Babu and also helped him in obtaining the remake rights." Foreign readers may well be interested in this actor, but I'm not sure they will want this level of detail.

• "as his films began to take on a whole new dimension in terms of expectations, hype and revenue. His political clout... " - The words "hype" and "clout" probably qualify as slang. Better might be "advertising" and "power".

• "It was also during this time that he started taking active participation in politics as his films began to take on a whole new dimension in terms of expectations, hype and revenue. His political clout also steadily rose with the cinematic tide, a trend which actually began with the release of Annamalai in 1992 and arguably climaxed during the time of Padayappa's release in 1999. Being his 150th film, Padayappa, directed by Ravikumar, turned out to be the largest blockbuster in his career at that time." - These claims do not seem to be supported in any way by the cited source, which is an article about Muthu.

Health scare

• I would break the huge first paragraph into two or three smaller ones. Here too I wonder whether readers need this much detail. Here is an example: "The hospital restricted unauthorised visitors and Latha requested media and the public to not crowd outside the hospital in order to allow Rajinikanth to rest." A good deal of this section includes detail that had news value for a short time, but it's doubtful that these details have lasting importance or encyclopedic value.

Popularity

• "Many also cite reasons for Rajinikanth's popularity as coming from his larger-than-life super-hero appearance in many films, supported by gravity-defying stunts and charismatic expressions, all while attempting to maintain modesty in real-life." - The citation for these claims does not support the claims. The given URL links to a general Slate page with a "sorry" message.

Religious views

• "He considers his Guru Swami Satchidananda to be his role model." - Needs a source.

Influence in politics

• "Rajinikanth said, "Even God cannot save Tamil Nadu if AIADMK returns to power." - Direct quotations need a source. The inline citation for a direct quotation should be placed right after the end of the quotation and its punctuation.

Images

• File:Billa Rajini.jpg has a fair-use rationale for its use in another article but not in this one. If you use it in this article, you must provide a reasonable rationale. Since the article has other images of Rajini, I doubt that a reasonable rationale exists.

• File:Chitti Evil.jpg has the same problem, no fair-use rationale for its use in this article.

• File:Rajinikanth at Soundarya's reception.jpg is tagged for deletion.

References

• Citation 2 is malformed.

• If you take this to FAC at some point, every citation will be checked. To make things go smoothly, it's best to make every citation perfect before FAC, if possible. One of the questions that often arises is "What makes this a reliable source"? Newspapers and books are generally reliable sources per WP:RS, and many web sites qualify as reliable. However, fan sites, blogs, some dot-coms, and some articles with no named author may not be reliable. You need to be sure that behindwoods.com, Bharatwaves.com, rediff.com, Tamilomovie.com, and others meet the WP:RS guidelines. I don't know if they do or not, but you need to consider each of these and make sure.

• Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 14 should include the author, Manisha Lakhe, and the date of publication. In general, 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.

• 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) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Yeah, reading the lead again, the Alex Carter part in my opinion is not meant to be in the first paragraphy, maybe the second or third? MayhemMario 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed it completely from the lead as the first part of the lead is about the actors who have played him and i don't think it would fit into any other part of the lead. D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Darren later helped his father to fake his own death as part of a scam, which drew comparisons to the John Darwin disappearance case", 1. Maybe link his father? 2. And what? Did it attract negative reception? MayhemMario 13:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Linked his father and the comparisons were criticising the storyline for echoing the case, i'll explain it in the lead D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• In HO articles, do you not put the actor/actress name in brackets behind the characetrs name?
• Maybe link "shotgun marriage".

Were to? D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Forced marriage#Shotgun wedding. MayhemMario 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats about marriage because the woman is pregnant while Hannah wasn't pregnant, they just thought it'd be a good idea at the time and they were drunk. D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ashley Taylor Dawson has received numerous awards and nominations for his portrayal of Darren, no need to include full actor name, Dawson will be fine.
• A lot of linking issues. By the time ive got down to the "fatherhood" section, I've forgotten who Suzanne is, etc. MayhemMario 13:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what can be done about this, were not supposed to link to the same article more than once, i might be wrong on that though. D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Language and literature

Free Culture (book)

I've listed this article for peer review because it's an assigned article for Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (Michael Mandiberg) and, since an unaffiliated editor has markedly improved the page recently, I'd like to request comments as to what the students should focus on to possibly push the article up to featured article status. Thanks, Banaticus (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

WP:FAC is a noble goal, but I think perhaps you should caution the students to think in terms of baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day, etc. It's great that you've initiated a PR, but after this I would suggest maybe WP:GAC -- provided that the article is much improved from what I'm seeing now. (Note: my idea of "improved" may be different than your own.)

In its current form, the article seems like only a re-hashing of the book's outline. Other than a brief section on "Derivative works", the article is an outline and summary of the book. I suggest you alert the students to this proposed structure of a non-fiction book. As the page states, a general book article may contain:

1. A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers (see also WP:LEAD)
2. A book synopsis
3. Information about its publication
4. A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view)
5. Noteworthy citations and sources

The way I see it, the current "Synopsis" in the article is great -- keep that. But despite the amount of work and level of detail, the "Outline" is largely unnecessary and repetitive. Two important factors are currently missing from the article:

• When was the book published? By whom? Why? The fact that it was published on the internet is notable, and should perhaps have been mentioned in news articles.
• Was it popular? Did it sell well? What did the critics think about it? What effect has it had?

Another important point I want to make is the lack of reliable, secondary sources. The only reference I see is to Lessig's book: the book on which the article is based. This is a primary source. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Once you begin to research and add new info, unrelated to synopsis/summary, such as what I've suggested above, you should find outside sources to support that info. I see several sources listed at Lawrence Lessig that may prove helpful, but as an online ambassador, Banaticus, you should be able to point them in a more scholarly direction.

I hope these suggestions help. There's quite a bit of work to be done, but with some hard work I'm sure the article will be improved. María (yllosubmarine) 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to other potential reviewers: the article is being worked on in a sandbox, so the current version of the article is probably not stable. (Would have been nice to know that before I reviewed, sigh.) As I stated here, the PR is rather premature. María (yllosubmarine) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 22:09 UTC)

---

Berge Meere und Giganten

I've listed this article for peer review because… ...it's just made good article status and I'd like to make it a featured article in the near future, if possible. The article is about the 1924 science fiction novel by Alfred Döblin, better known as the author of Berlin Alexanderplatz. Thanks, Sindinero (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 February 2012, 07:07 UTC)

---

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know where it needs to be improved.

Thanks, Greg Heffley 23:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

Hi, Greg. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here, but the article does need quite a bit of work -- beginning with research and expansion. I would suggest looking to high-quality articles dedicated to book series for children. Harry Potter and A Series of Unfortunate Events are both Good Articles, and as you can see they include quite a bit of information about the series' plot, genre, themes, publishing history, achievement, reception, films, etc., etc. Depending on what sources you may find (Google is a good place to start), here is what you may consider adding/expanding:

• Expand the book summaries, keeping writing about fiction guidelines in mind. At the moment there's only one sentence per book, so this can be expanded quite a bit to explain plot development, character growth, etc. (New section: "Plot summary".)
• Where do the books take place? Who are the main characters? (New section: "Characters".)
• Are there recurrent themes? What genre do the books fall under? (New section(s): "Themes" and/or "Genre".)
• The current section, "Diary of a Wimpy Kid", would work better as "Background" or "Origin" since that's what it's about -- the genesis of the series, beginning with the first book. More could be said about this, such as how/where Jeff Kinney got the idea for the series, what inspired him, etc. (Expand.)

I hope these suggestions help. Sorry it isn't much of a review, but the PR instructions do state that this process is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." Because Wimpy Kid isn't exactly high quality at the moment, it's difficult to review in such a way. Again, my suggestion is to look at other articles on series of children's books for inspiration. You can find a list of such articles at Category:Series of children's books. Good luck, María (yllosubmarine) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 February 2012, 23:23 UTC)

---

Everyday life

Harry Lee (cricketer)

I've listed this article for peer review because having got the article promoted to good status, I am looking for comments and thoughts on how to improve the article to featured standard.

• Good article review
• MilHist A-class review

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 17:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 February 2012, 17:33 UTC)

---

Nintendo DSi

Previous peer review

I would like editors to identify additional areas of concern that I may have missed. Similar to what Andy brought up.

Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 09:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 February 2012, 09:10 UTC)

---

Oxford United F.C.

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been largely improved from the two failed FAC attempts, and i would like comments on what else needs to be done to get in to FA status (third-time lucky). Please be nit-picky. Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 16:45 UTC)

---

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed a GA candidacy (and a GA review), along with the peer review that came before that. Now WWB and I wish to take it on to FA, but we want to have this peer review first to focus specifically on the Featured Article Criteria. The more we fix up now, the less we have to do at FAC, right?

Anyways, WWB has a large COI in this article and, as a member of Wikiproject Cooperation (as is he), i'm here to help assist in the improvement of this article. Depending on how extensive the improvements suggested in this peer review are, we may need to make a userspace version of the article so that WWB can help as well, since he will not be actively editing the mainspace version of the article. But, for now, I think it's best to see what sort of peer review responses we get.

Thanks, Silverseren^C 05:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 February 2012, 05:53 UTC)

---

Raiden (Metal Gear)

I've started editing this article some months ago considering the amount of sources I could find to expand the reception and creation sections. However, I have doubts about what does this article require before a copyedit and GA review, since it's still a C-Class. My main doubts are the organization and length from the sections.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 16 February 2012, 23:12 UTC)

---

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)

Comments

• "in 40 Tests " link to Test cricket.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should medium paced be medium-paced? Check all these, although I have to admit I'm not entirely ever sure about this!

• I think it should, so I changed it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "remains (as of 2011). " -> "which, as of 2012, remains."

"*Fixed (and reworked that part). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " over the next few years" -> "over the following years"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " Source: [1], " in the infobox, would prefer "Source: [Crickinfo]"

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Consider linking Sunday school in case that's not a universally common term.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "in total he took 29 wickets " you haven't said how many games he played so this "in total" is a little difficult to put into context.

• No idea how many games it was, but I still think we need "in total" so no-one thinks it was in one game or in his career, etc. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You relink Yorkshire Country Cricket Club here but not bowling average. Is there a reason?

• Linked average on first mention after lead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "By 1926, when he scored 488 runs and took 62 wickets " would be worth making it clear that this is what he managed to achieve during the entire season and not in some mega-match.

• Clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aha, you do link bowling average, just quite a way down the paragraph.

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Professional cricketer" I think I count 8 consecutive sentences where you refer to him as Verity. Can we rework this a little for less jarring prose?

• Ouch. Fixed some: it is a bit tricky at the start of the section as using "he" would be ambiguous, but tried to sort some of the others. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Beginning to attract more notice" a bit odd-sounding, maybe "attract more attention"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "and came top " -> "and finished top"?

• Not sure about either one, so went for "topped". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The senior professionals in the Yorkshire team, Rhodes and Emmott Robinson, discussed tactics with Verity and his friend and team-mate Bill Bowes, and analysed their errors." I don't know about you but there are quite a few "and"s in this sentence...

• Took one out and re-ordered sentence to make it less jarring. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "to take ten wickets in a " maybe clarify that this was "all" ten wickets for those who aren't quite sure of the significance of this performance.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could link "six" to Boundary (cricket)#Scoring runs for those who don't know what that means.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Observation - it rained a lot during Verity's career, didn't it?!

• Oh yes! Bill Bowes actually that when Verity came into the team, it did nothing but rain, to the former's resigned amusement! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" you've already linked and abbreviated this.

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "this remains the best analysis recorded in first-class cricket in 2011" not quite what you mean, perhaps "as of 2012, this remains the best bowling analysis recorded in first-class cricket."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Chosen for the first " prefer the more conventional "Selected..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "so that Verity bowled just five overs" -> "restricting Verity to five overs"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "owing to England's Bodyline tactics." -> "as England once again resorted to Bodyline tactics" (as you've said they did it a couple of times already, I thought it might be nice to reflect that).

• Reworded this to reflect it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "he took part in partnerships" reads oddly to me, "he formed partnerships" perhaps?

• Went for "shared". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " overs in the first innings,[29] In Australia's second innings" something not quite right...

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "when he was permitted to use more attacking tactics" what does this mean, who gave him permission? Was it Bodyline spin?!

• Ha! Tried to reword to explain this without going into too much detail over attacking spin bowling. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could link West Indies cricket team.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "although other players declined " -> "although others declined..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the high number " not keen but brainfreeze stops me thinking of an alternative.

• Had a go at this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is Sind the same as Sindh cricket team?

• Yup, linked (but kept the spelling of Sind as that is what the source gives. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "HMS Verity" should be "HMS Verity".

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You relink "Flight (cricket)" here, any reason?

• I think for the benefit of the non-specialist; it's not obvious that "flight" as a skill and "flighting the ball" are the same thing, I don't think. But maybe I'm being dim. However, it was deliberate, whether it is right or not! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could link "South Africa cricket team"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Last seven sentences of "Career in the mid-1930s" has "Verity" nine times...

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who was Voce?

• Clarified and rather naughtily linked inside a quote as he is not otherwise mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You link Leveson-Gower on only the third instance...

• FIxed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the batsmen played in a negative fashion, despite pitches that were very good for batting. High scoring games " don't seem to go together for me...

• Not quite sure what you mean. The batting was deadly dull, even though the pitches were really good and they could have scored quickly and safely. The result was big, slow scores and someone or other wrote that both sides took it all far too seriously. Should any of this go in to make it clearer?--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Egypt, Syria, we don't tend to link obvious country names any more.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note 3, MCC or M.C.C.?

• MCC, unfortunately. I much prefer the old-fashioned look of M.C.C. but it really buggers the punctuation... --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 68 missing a full stop.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 103 missing a pp.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, very helpful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Philosophy and religion

Korban Olah

I've listed this article for peer review because… it needs fixing. The subject of the article is the burnt offering in the case of Noah, Ancient Israel, mentioned under the term "burnt offering" in English language Bibles, English language Talmud, and academic works.

• (1) it was created as a fork from holocaust (sacrifice) on Dec 7 2010, from which the deleted/moved material was then restored, creating duplication. Inevitably that means there's a clean up issue back there as well.
• (2) the forked article was created using a WP:TITLE contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE and with other POV problems. Same sort of oddness and circular POV problems created by entitling/creating e.g. fork of History of Roman Catholicism in Japan as Kirishitan, for example. The original Hebrew term is [olah], the term korban olah (WP:CAPS) is rarely used in English language texts.
• (3) lack of any scholarly sources relevant to the actual historical period - added a WikiProject Ancient Near East banner.

Thanks, In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed a merge to pull back the forked duplication.. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 February 2012, 00:14 UTC)

---

Irenaean theodicy

Previous peer review

I created and worked on this article near the end of last year and it acieved GA status in November. I've recently been working on it again and would like to get the article to FA at some point. I'm looking for any constructive feedback from editors to help me improve the article. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Under present rules (see red highlight on WP:PR page) editors are restricted to one PR nomination. This is because too few editors are reviewing here, creating a lengthy backlog and long wait times for reviews. You should either close this review until the Augustinian theodicy review is complete, or close that one to allow this to proceed. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I had meant to close the other one, but forgot. I'll do that now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 February 2012, 23:10 UTC)

---

Social sciences and society

Bowling Green State University

I've listed this article for peer review because… the page has been improved, expanded, and updated over the past few months and weeks. Significant expansion of the article to become a comprehensive, well sourced and cited article close to GA status. Thanks, Bhockey10 (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 February 2012, 18:44 UTC)

---

Street Children in Thailand

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help with this article. I'm quite new with wikipedia. Thanks a lot!

Thanks, Ec3371ngo32 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)EC3371ngo32

(Peer review added on Friday 24 February 2012, 04:23 UTC)

---

The Doon School

I've listed this article for peer review because… it is a potential Good Article (Schools). Not many good school articles have emerged from India except this and a few others. I will be extremely grateful for any suggestions and constructive criticism from experienced school editors. Thanks very much!

Thanks, Merlaysamuel (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at it, time available determining exactly when (teaching responsibilities on my part). I already note:

• The lead is a bit confusing to those with different educational systems ("C form"? "D form"? taking a test at age 13 but with the entering grade specified - do you not have any students who are promoted two or more grades/standards?); at the minimum, some explanatory links would help. (I realize that it's in British English, and that this should not be changed.)
• The automated checker found some problems, as did the alt text checker.

• You might want to work on these in the meantime. Allens (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and suggestions Allens. Will get on it right away....!

Merlaysamuel (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quite welcome. I also note that there are quite a number of {{cite web}} instances that should actually be {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}. For instance, the Wall Street Journal's online edition should be {{cite news}} with "|newspaper=Wall Street Journal"; similarly, a book cited from Google Books should be cited as a book, with ISBN (can be gotten from the book's Google page). (Both of these will have "|url=" still.) Allens (talk | contribs) 11:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm going to have to do a complete overhaul or the references, probably in line with what was done at SMAC (some cite templates for books and such in the bibliography section, then individual notes would only be page numbers linking to the larger citation). CW to CN/CB...alright, on my mental checklist :P Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• The only problem with notes + page numbers is that, unless one constructs them manually, they don't seem to allow for separate URLs (e.g., different Google Books links) for different pages. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve this - see Joan Pujol Garcia for an instance. Any thoughts? Allens (talk | contribs) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• We ran into that same problem over at Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Notes, but it was an easy choice since all of the sources were either offline books or fairly short online sources in which we felt comfortable linking to the first page and letting the reader navigate to the fifth. Of course, there's always the ability to, in a format like "1. ^[[#Shah|Shah (2000)]], p.1.", link the page number separately (and individually) to Google books. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh. I should also mention that I've installed a script (User:Ucucha/duplinks - Stfg over at the Guild of Copy-Editors told me about it) that checks for duplicate links, so I'll be going through the entire article with it soon, thus saving some manual effort. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 20 February 2012, 17:00 UTC)

---

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

The article has just been passed as a GA after a fairly long process, and I'd like to try to get it to FA quality. I'd love if someone who has experience with the FA criteria could take a good look at it and point out issues that would gain Opposes at WP:FAC. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk page about possible neutrality/spin issues, so attention to that would be appreciated, as well.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohmigod total April Fools material! Have you considered doing work on Flat Earth Society as well? ;) ResMar 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm confused why he says "that is what they are"; isn't he part of the organization?
  • Rephrased, the quote was actually the writer for The Economist speaking about the organisation. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Mitch Ames reverted the change, I'll take it up on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "facing humanity and the Earth's biosphere" Isn't it more the Earth's biosphere then humanity?
  • Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "was founded..." Founded when? What year?
  • The newsletter was first published in 1991, he had the idea for a while before then: "In his imagination, if nowhere else, Mr Knight became the founder of the Human Extinction Movement;"[2]. I don't think there was any formal founding of the group before '91 though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "requested that individuals commit to stop procreating" Awkward structure.
  • Good point, I took a stab at smoothing it out. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "in 1996, VHEMT..." VHEMT or this one fool?
  • lol, be nice :) I checked the source again and rephrased it a bit for clarity. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "adopted a logo" When? If unknown you should say "around this time"
  • Hmm, good question. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "primary advocate of the movement's platforms" Whatawho?
  • Hmm, that is a bit rough. I was trying to paraphrase "principal spokesman"[3] without saying "principal spokesman". Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But what's wrong with spokesman? ResMar 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing, I guess: changed. Should I say, "serves as spokesman for the movement" or "serves as the spokesman for the movement"? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• "psychologist James Ormrod claims" claims implies that he's a member
  • I didn't see that, good catch. Took a stab at rephrasing for clarity. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "such as gardening" He's not being sarcastic?
  • I don't think so, I do wonder sometimes though, the quote from the article was "While he accepts the existence of sexual drive, he thinks the need for children is 'cultural conditioning', and that such desires could be channelled elsewhere: perhaps into gardening, adopting a stream, caring for old people, or by having a pet."[4] Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright I'll strike this. ResMar 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• "argues that talking about population control is seen as taboo" This seems more like a "fact" then an argument
  • Didn't think of that, rephrased.
• "a one child per family limit as a preferable alternative to human extinction" Wouldn't the end result be the same?
  • Huh, I didn't think of that either. I'll check the source again, but I think my rephrasing here works. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Short article but interesting. The tone in the last section is obviously strained; hard to talk about this without going into overt bashing. ResMar 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, that one hadn't occurred to me. Earth day had come to mind, actually, not sure if they'd let us though. Thanks for peer reviewing. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your help, I took a first run through the points, I'll revisit again later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of the lead? It looks a little gaunt to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead is a bit short I suppose. The article is probably long enough to be two paragraphs. ResMar 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well there you go, looks fine now. ResMar 03:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 February 2012, 15:33 UTC)

---

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)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks like it is ready for GAN, here are some fairly minor suggestions for improvement.

• Any chance for an image or two? Perhaps a photo of one of their facilities? Or if they have a logo, that could be shown here under WP:FAIR USE
• It would help to identify when these statistics were valid "...MINDS is among the largest charities in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries and yearly expenses of S$21 million." From the ref it appears this is as of 2005, so it may have changed since.
• MOS says to define abbreviations on first use, so "Singapore Association for Retarded Children (SARC)"
• Ditto for AESN
• 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
• Any idea when Ng became executive director?
• Any other named leaders in their 50 year history?
• Are there any events planned for their 50th anniversary this year?
• 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 _><>°^° 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Foley Square trial

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. This article is currently wrapping-up a GA review, but the GA criteria do not scrutinize the prose with the same level of detail as an FA review. The PR reviewer may want to wait for the GA review to finish (any day now?) or just start immediately ... either way is fine with me. I'd appreciate it if the PR reviewer were someone familiar with the FAC process and the FA criteria, and is willing to nit-pick the prose.

Thanks, Noleander (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 23:12 UTC)

---

United States free speech exceptions

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the prose of the article prior to another go at GA.

Thanks and best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this PR. --Noleander (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Begin comments

• "... that right a somewhat limited one." the word "somewhat" is too informal; could be deleted
• "..Restrictions that are based off communicative impact .." - Poorly worded. Re-write
• "but that still means .." phrase "still means" is too informal
• " types of speech (e.g., political) are .." The abbreviation "e.g." should be avoided. Consider "for example" or "such as"
• "Various intellectual property rights are speech restrictions, but are permissible" - Hard to read. Better is something like "Another class of permissible restrictions on speech are based on intellectual property rights".
• "Threats of violence "directed ... to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death" are generally unprotected" - There is no need for a quote here. Quotes should be rarely used in WP encyclopedia articles - only when they original quote has some special or historical significance. That is not the case here. Just paraphrase the concept in plain english. Quotes in this article should only be used to quote a Supreme Court decision.
• "... exceptions, as noted by Professor Eugene Volokh. "Threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes...". Remove mention of Eugene Volokh. There are many authors on this topic, and there is no need to single out one (that can be done in rare situations, but this sentence does not need a specific source named). Also, remove quotes from him.
• "Main article: Virginia v. Black" - There are dozens of cases on this issue, I suppose. If Virginia v. Black is the most important one, it may be okay to refer to it, but use "See also" template, not "main" template.
• ".... case involving "offensive speech"" - No need to enclose "offensive speech" in quote marks.
• "..There is a fifth category of analysis highlighted by Professor Volokh. ..." - Remove all references to this one source. Continue using as a citation (footnote) but no need to name the source in the article.
• Overall, the prose is not of the quality expected for GA quality.
• Overall, the article is not very thorough: since this article was created independently from Freedom of speech in the United States, this needs to be especially comprehensive. Otherwise, why split it off?
• I think the GA review for this article mentioned that there is a lot of overlap between this article and Freedom of speech in the United States. Rather than invest much work in this article, it is probably better to work on the "Exceptions" sections in that other article. After that is perfect, then consider splitting it off as a new article (see WP:CONTENT FORK and WP:SPLITTING).

End comments from Noleander --Noleander (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Noleander! Lord Roem (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have finished the specific prose suggestions you listed above. I will look into expanding the article so it is more complete. Thanks again for your review, feel free to close the PR at your leisure. All the best, Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 February 2012, 02:58 UTC)

---

Lucius Arruntius the Younger

I've listed this article for peer review because... I'd like to make it better and for it to achieve GA status and to learn more about how to write good articles.

Thanks, Flaviusvulso (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• A few things (not really a full review):

• The article is rather short. What other information is available about this guy? For instance, more about any other offices held, what he did while in various offices, family life, and similar would be nice. During what times was he most popular? Any idea what his reaction was to the Senate's do-nothing attitude regarding the Tiber? (And are those Roman colonies that were objecting to diverting its tributaries?)
• Is there more analysis available from historians' commentaries?
• The alt text checker found that the pictures don't have alt text.

"alt text" added. Flaviusvulso (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Allens (talk | contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have rated the article as initially Start-level, but it may well deserve a higher rating (especially when it's been modified as per the above). I encourage you to submit it to the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject's assessment department for an updated assessment. I would say the same for the Biography WikiProject, except that they ask that any peer review for it be done before an assessment takes place. (I have tried to increase the likelihood of their peer-reviewing this work by making it show up in the listing of articles to be peer reviewed there.) Allens (talk | contribs) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments - predominantly technical issues but other stuff too.

• I would agree it's rather slim. The lead of most GAs that I've ever reviewed is usually more than three sentences.
• There may well be a decent infobox you can use in the lead. I note we have no "image" of Lucius but there may be something in a {{infobox person}} or similar that may embellish the article.
• Look for context specific links, e.g. instead of just linking admiral, perhaps look for a way to link Roman navy?
• "He was appointed consul..." the last person mentioned was his father, but I assume you didn't mean him?
• Per WP:HEAD, things like "Life As A Senator" should be "Life as a senator" i.e. avoid unwarranted overcapitalisation.
• ""a man of stainless virtues",[2], rich, daring, having brilliant accomplishments and corresponding popularity.[1]" no need for the comma after [2] but the "rich, daring, having brilliant accomplishments..." sounds more like another quote and should be in quote marks.
• Don't force image sizes (other than lead images), just use thumb or thumb|upright for images (landscape and portrait respectively).
• "Map showing the course of the Tiber river." isn't a complete sentence so no full stop needed.
• Refs 9 and 10, you have pp. for a single page reference. This is usually caused by the parameter in the citation template saying pages= instead of page=
• Don't think you need the 1st centry deaths category since you have a 37 deaths category which is more specific.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on a new version based on your suggestions.Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 February 2012, 05:57 UTC)

---

Adolf Galland

I've listed this article for peer review because a while ago Dapi89 (talk · contribs) and I had been working on this article, with the bulk of the work attributed to Dapi89 so far. Unfortunately Dapi89 chose to retire from Wikipedia leaving the article more or less where it stands now. I want to continue his work and move the article further up the quality scale. To establish a new baseline for improvement I seek feedback on the article as it stands now.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nimbus227. I've had a reasonably thorough look at the article and it looks very good. Excuse the numbered points but it might help to improve the article.

1. The lead appears quite long (too many paragraphs). It's not a hard and fast rule but four paragraphs is the recommended max. Painful as it might be to do it I think some detail could be removed from the lead to compress it.
2. The article itself appears quite long but it does seem to stay on topic and it is a big subject to tackle, I would look through it again for anything that isn't directly related to Galland. Another option would be to split it but I don't know quite how that would be achieved with this article as his life and the events are all part of the same story.
3. It looks well referenced with many citations reflecting the length of the article, there are whole paragraphs though with many statements/claims in that are supported by just one cite at the end, it would get picked up at FA level.
4. One note is uncited (Blenheim identification - who is making the assumption?), the other two shouldn't need citing
5. The multiple stacked navboxes can be collapsed to tidy things, it's in use at Supermarine Spitfire.

done

Hope that helps, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet comments

• Check UK English spelling: I found hospitalization and center.
  • I fixed these.
• I intend to go through the article and make it comply with WP:DASH. There are too many jumbled hyphens and dashes to list here.
  • I did the dash work.
• Citation style is various. To prep the article for FAC, the citations should be made more consistent. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • For instance, the imdb.com cites don't have a publisher or accessdate. The Cull et al reference has no page numbers, and the Cull 1995 cite does not refer to a book (unless the year is wrong). I added a full stop to the end of one page range to match article style.
• Three dots—ellipses—should be properly formatted per WP:ELLIPSIS.
• The external links could use some more descriptive prose to tell the reader what to expect. For instance, one of them has a photo of Galland's gravestone but the link does not say so. Another external link to svetskirat.net uses copyright violation photos and non-English language. Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Looks very good. Three minor suggestions: (1) I would not normally use blockquotes for anything shorter than four lines on a computer screen. The one-liner about Mickey Mouse looks especially odd, but the two- and three-liners look odd to me as well. (2) Nothing should be linked from inside a direct quotation; therefore the two links in the block quotation in "Last combat" should be removed. (3) I don't think you need to link traffic accident in the "Personal life" section. Finetooth (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 February 2012, 08:25 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 please 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. But I feel myself very unsure in using them :( --Potorochin (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly take another look, and I understand completely; that's a very common difficulty. (I found the differences in articles between English and Spanish a headache when I was learning my minimal bit of Spanish, and those languages are not extremely far apart.) My wife, as it happens, isn't a native English speaker, and I don't think Hebrew has articles either (or, even if it does, I'm sure the rules are rather different); I will inquire of her and take a look at her grammar books for any helpful rules of thumb (I do it by instinct, which isn't a very helpful rule description for you in learning how to do it...). Allens (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

At least for telling when to use "the", you might take a look in a book for native Russian speakers on learning Bulgarian or Macedonian (assuming you don't know one of them already) - they're apparently about the only Slavic languages with articles (as a suffix onto the verb, as it turns out). I was just checking out the Wikipedia article on articles - very interesting! Allens (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a very nice "Advanced Grammar in Use" by Martin Hewings, which has several pages of rules only about articles. But I find some of these rules so ambiguous sometimes, that I just have to retreat to my intuition. And as I'm not a woman, my intuition is not faultless :) --Potorochin (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh! Don't tell my wife, but neither is a woman's... Reading over well-written material in English (stay away from newspapers for this! They tend to leave out articles, particularly tabloids or in titles) may help you learn. My wife also says to ask a native Russian speaker with good command of them about it (although I suspect you're already better than most!). The article on English articles may be of assistance. Allens (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I never heard about the "Contains Cyrillic text" template. Oh gush, I feel myself absolute novice now... --Potorochin (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Actually, I only thought of it when I was looking at the "lang-ru" template (I concluded it wasn't suitable for names, since those aren't in a different language, "just" in a different alphabet & pronunciation system). I went up a level and noticed the Cyrillic text one, and remembered seeing it in other articles. (I also just found the "outdent" template that I just used...) Allens (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This article looks very nice now, but it's still labeled as a start-class article. Do you think it would be appropriate, if you, as an experienced user, who already thoroughly examined this article, will do its reassessment now? --Potorochin (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Talk page, it's down as a C-class article (higher than Start-class). For a higher one, you should probably inquire at the assessment departments of the WikiProjects whose banners are on the Talk page - I'm not a member of any of them, so I don't have experience with their assessment rules, at least for anything more than Stub vs Start classes. You might be interested in becoming a member of one or more of them - that's generally just a matter of putting your name on a page - then asking for the assessment to be examined. (For instance, they can tell you if there's anything specific to those projects that needs doing.) Allens (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! I see that the Start-to-C-class change just happened today, so it already has been assessed for going higher than Start-class. You may still want to sign up on those WikiProjects, partially to ask them what improvements would make it B-class. Allens (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Allens, for a HUGE contribution to this article. You walked much more than an extra mile for me! I consider this article really important, as, I hope, it would eventually clarify a lot of uncertainties, still surrounding this tragic event of the modern history, for researchers and enquiring readers from all over the world.

I probably wouldn't make any more changes myself in the text of this article, as I'm afraid to create new grammar mistakes. But I may try to continue improving citations for this article, so that they fully comply with Cite news and other templates. I hope it would also speed up the promotion of this article from C to B-class.

As regarding this peer review, I might leave it for a while. It should be closed automatically after one month of its creation, anyway, so, there is no need to close it manually now, in case somebody else would decide to contribute to this article.

Thank you very much again --Potorochin (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cloudz679

Lead

• "Until than" - typo (then)

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "3" - three

• I agree on "than" -> "then". "three" is incorrect when it's matched with a number in numeric form, namely 340. Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disaster/Match

• "(According to some reports the total number of tickets sold was 16,643.)" - this should have a citation and not be in parentheses.

Y Partly Done Not sure I removed the parentheses. As regarding the citation: according to the investigator, about 16,000 tickets were sold; according to the stadium director about 16,500 tickets were sold. The figure of 16,643 tickets I found in several blogs of FC Spartak fans. From one side, I know, that blogs are not a reliable source of information, that is why I didn't cite them. From the other side, the figure of 16,643 tickets perfectly correlates with the two official figures. And it is a very specific figure (I didn't find any other specific figures of the number of tickets sold). So it just looks like this figure is actually accurate. The only problem, that it was not cited originally. Of course, I can through this figure away from the article, but I sincerely feel that it's an accurate figure and I wouldn't not be happy to sacrifice it just because of my inability to find the original source. What should I do: 1) through it away and forget about it? 2) cite one of the fan's blogs where this figure is present? 3) do not cite this figure, but move it from the main body of the article down to the "Notes" section? 4) do not use separate sentence for this figure and incorporate it (in parentheses) into the sentence with an official figure? --Potorochin (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1982, the Luzhniki Stadium had no cover (the cover was only installed in 1997)" - again the parentheses are not appropriate.

• I disagree on the second one; the parentheses can't simply be removed, but will need to be replaced with a ";".

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "On the 16th minute" - wrong preposition (in).

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the first goal for Spartak was scored by Edgar Gess." - word order, Edgar Gess scored the first goal for Spartak.

✓ Done Though, I think, the previous version better expressed the idea, that after the first goal so early in the game the FC Spartak fans could have been more inclined to leave the match earlier, as they were confident in the win of their team and they didn't expect the score to change anymore --Potorochin (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want another option, try "In the 16th minute Spartak took the lead through an Edgar Gess strike". Cloudz679 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disaster/Crush

• "the Stairway 1." - incorrect use of the. Delete.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "as a leader of the country" - incorrect use of a. Delete.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "all of the fatalities died of compressive asphyxia" - use victims instead of fatalities.

• I would say "deceased victims"; after all, not all the victims died. Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "He even went so far as firing (on 17 December 1982, two months after the stampede)" - On 17 December 1982, two months after the stampede, he even…

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "placed in the Butyrka prison" - incorrect use of the. Delete.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Lyzhin, a World War II veteran, was admitted to the hospital after a heart attack." - incorrect use of the. Delete.

• That depends on whether American (use "the") or British (optional "the") English is desired. Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "last-minute unexpected goal" - I don't know how you can establish the truth of "unexpected". Delete.

✓ Done I suppose no fan would leave the stadium if he/she thinks that the score is about to change. Some unofficial reports on the second Ibrox disaster, and the Luzhniki disaster as well, even speculated that the stampedes happened because of some fans, who were leaving the stadium, turned back after hearing of a scored goal- so nobody expected these goals. But you are right, there is no proof for the "unexpectedness" of these goals, and, as this word doesn't bear any importance for the contents of this article, I won't hesitate to delete it.

Media coverage/before 1989

• I know the quote is translated from Russian, but preposition "on" (the Grand Sports Arena) should be "at".

✓ Done Warning I've done this translation myself, as the only other (which I found) English translation, made from the original note in Vechernyaya Moskva, was pretty shortened and somewhat misleading, comparing to the Russian original. Here it is:"As spectators made their way out of a football match at the Lenin Stadium, an accident took place as a result of non-compliance with safety regulations. There were casualties. An inquiry will be held" There were also many translations made not from the original note, but from its much shortened and inaccurate version presented in the "dark secret" article of Sovetsky Sport. They sounded like this: "Yesterday in Luzhniki after the football match an accident occurred. There are some injured among the spectators." That is why I included the original Russian text of this note from Vechernyaya Moskva in the "Notes" section. I realize that this quotation might probably be used in future by English-speaking researchers, so if you think there is any way to improve it and to make it sound more accurate and coherent in English, please let me know. --Potorochin (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see much of a way to improve it. Are the latter two sentences as abrupt in Russian as they sound in English? Allens (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, they are. Here is this text of a note, as it appeared in the "dark secret" article: "Вчера в Лужниках после окончания футбольного матча произошел несчастный случай. Среди болельщиков имеются пострадавшие" And the Sovetsky Sport's journalists even used the quotation marks when they provided this text of a note. When I read it the first time, it struck me, that this quotation just doesn't sound like the "newspaper style" (e.g. no newspaper in 1982 would write "Luzhniki" instead of the "Central Lenin Stadium", etc.). Actually this incorrect quotation in the Wikipedia article, moved me to check this quotation and other publicized facts of this disaster and to find out that the vast majority of the information about the Luzhniki disaster in the modern media is just a replication of the incorrect and misguiding information from one single article, "Luzhniki's Dark Secret". --Potorochin (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "published (on 21 and 24 October 1982) detailed accounts of this match" - again the parentheses are used incorrectly. Move the information about the dates to the end of the clause.

✓ Done I moved the dates to the front of this sentence, as I don't know how to put them to the end in a coherent way. --Potorochin (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would not say that the parentheses are used incorrectly, simply that there are better ways to put it in terms of style. Allens (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "and, probably, other news agencies" - not recommended. If other agencies reported it, name and reference them, if there is no evidence, remove this part completely.

✓ Done I removed it. Though taking into consideration that ANSA is an Italian news agency and this match involved the Soviet and the Dutch teams and journalists, they most probably used the reports from ANP or some larger international news agency. But, as I didn't find any references to other agencies, I'd better not mention this idea, you are right. --Potorochin (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "should be understand" - understood (grammar, passive).

✓ Done I replaced it with "should be understood" --Potorochin (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "other Western newspapers informed" - reported.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "that there were 3 people killed and 60 injured in this stampede" - that three people had been killed and 60 injured in this stampede.

• I disagree - the MoS says to match the numbers used in the rest of the sentence. Keep it as "3". Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• 3 → three.

• Again, I disagree. Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Three days later, on 26 October The New York Times informed" - reported.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "La Stampa informed" - reported.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "By 1987, El País lowered" - had lowered.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Until 1989, none of these figures were neither confirmed, nor challenged, by the Soviet officials." - Delete "none of".

✓ Done Replaced "none of ... neither ..., nor" with "none of ... either ..., or" --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

18 April

• "The journalists noticed, that no information" - delete comma.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Luzhniki was ever revealed" - Luzhniki had ever been revealed.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "admitted in the article that they are not familiar with the archived evidence" - that they were not…

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "accusing the police officers on the stadium in provoking this disaster" - at the stadium of provoking...

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

20 July

• "information was withdrawn" - information was hidden.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "no journalist ever approached him" - no journalist had ever approached him.

✓ Done This passage was removed --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "simple request,- advised the detective." - simple request, the detective advised.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

21 July

• "Two months later, in August 1989, the Moscow Prosecutor's Office in a special press conference in Moscow confirmed that there were 66 fatalities of the disaster in Luzhniki." In a special press conference in Moscow in August 1989, the Moscow Prosecutor's Office confirmed that there had been 66 fatalities in the disaster in Luzhniki.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

27 September

• "On 27 September 1989, Sovetsky Sport finally admitted that information, provided by their journalists" - delete comma after information.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Western media outlet reported" - has reported.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Sun newspaper published in the UK a sensational article about the Hillsborough disaster" - The Sun newspaper published a sensational article in the UK about the Hillsborough disaster.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

After 1989

• "In 2007 NTV aired in Russia its "Fatal Goal" (Роковой гол) documentary about the Luzhniki disaster" - aired its "Fatal Goal" (Роковой гол) documentary in Russia about the Luzhniki disaster.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "In 2008, ESPN Classic aired throughout Europe a Dutch documentary "Russian Night, the hidden football disaster"." - aired a Dutch documentary "Russian Night, the hidden football disaster" throughout Europe.

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes

• "Both photos were made when the footballers were leaving the pitch after the game" - Both photos were taken…

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have only addressed the grammar but I hope it helps to improve the article. Cloudz679 12:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, picture caption "After 1997: An evening football match in cold weather, as on 20 October 1982". Confusing. Is it in 1982 or after 1997? Make sure this is clear. Cloudz679 12:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Well, I thought it is clear enough, but if it is not, I just removed "as on 20 October 1982" --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• As you can see, I wouldn't leave the article frozen in regard to grammar - I can certainly mess up! Allens (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• One more I've just seen! "went so far as firing" should be "went as far as firing". This is actually a common mistake with Czech speakers of English as well. Cloudz679 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just discovered the hidden text at the top of this peer review: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" I was using these templates recently in my replies in this review, and I found them quite helpful in navigating through this review (it's not so small, as it used to be) and also in realizing what else should be done. Please let me know, if the use of these templates is really unacceptable in such review and I remove them immediately. --Potorochin (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I missed that one also when I was looking at peer reviews initially. You might substitute the ✓ Done and ✗ Not done versions. Allens (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Substitute them with... ? --Potorochin (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are those not showing up for you? They're {{done-t}} and {{not done-t}} instead of {{done}} and {{not done}}. In other words, substitute the former for the latter. Allens (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got it :) --Potorochin (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To Cloudz and Allens:

I'd like to make some clarifications. On 11-12 February Allens generously spent a lot of time copyediting this article. I do appreciate greatly his time and efforts and I realize the very high quality of his edits. I revealed in this peer review above, my intention not to mess up with the text of this article anymore, as I realize how difficult it is to get an editor (and especially such a good editor as Allens) to copyedit your article, because of a huge backlog of the articles needed this job.

But afterwards, after searching through the publications about this disaster in other European languages (not English or Russian) I discovered several new facts which, as I understood, ought to be included in this Wikipedia article for its completeness and accuracy. So I added a considerable amount of new information, using my poor knowledge of the English grammar. I realized that this article need to be copyedited again. But I knew from Allens's user page that he is a doctor and a college professor. And, realizing how busy he is, I would never bother him again asking for a new copyedit of this article.

So I would like now to apologize to Allens that my recent edits, made after 12 February, have concealed his great job on this article before, and that this article, which is marked as being copyedited by Allens just a week ago, may not have looked like Category B article in terms of grammar and style after my edits. I'm really sorry :( --Potorochin (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't say that your grammar and style are "poor". (I've seen very bad English, including from my students - for whom English is a native language! - and yours isn't it.) As I said above (sorry for my lateness on getting back to you on that), I would not want you to try to freeze the article - I don't own it any more than you or Cloudz679 do, and I'm happy to hear that you've been updating it with more info. (I'm impressed by your knowledge of languages!) I may well have the time a bit down the road to at least skim over the article to look for anything that jumps out at me - between semesters/quarters, or even before that (one thing that helps me as a copyeditor and Wikipedia contributor is that I read and type very fast, not to brag...). I doubt there will be that much, though. Allens (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have to say, looking at the article I had no preconceptions that anyone had really gone through it. I was aware of the first two lines of this page, where Allens had said he had no time for it, and being a football-related article I thought I would take a look for myself and make some comments. Although Allens agreed with most of my recommendations, I don't believe this is any reflection on the standard of his work, and frequently any editor can see something another editor, even a very high quality one, cannot. As for the article itself, I think it is really useful - and will continue to be - so this is a great reason to have it on Wikipedia, looking as good as possible. One day we might see this as a good article - in the mean time, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you would like a second opinion on anything. Cloudz679 10:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I actually have asked for a copyediting (from someone else!) of an article that's mostly written by me, Gloucester County College, and that's after having asked for a peer review for it. It's definitely the case that one person will see what another won't. Allens (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to thank Cloudz and Allens for a great job on improving the grammar and style of this article. What else, do you think, could be done for this article to get closer to the B-class standards? --Potorochin (talk) 07:39, 20 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)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting article, which needs further attention in a number of respects:-

Lead

• Is it possible to remove the twitter hashtag stuff from the first line? It's an inelegant introduction to the article, and could be incorporated into the second paragraph where you mention the legal significance of the tweeting.
• You should also remove the term "notable", per WP:PEACOCK
• Michael Peacock's birthdate is irrelevant at this point
• The word "something", in "something which was illegal", is redundant.
• In British law, one is not "found innocent", or at least that's not how we say it. The correct term is "acquitted", or possibly "found not guilty", but why use three word when one will do?
• Link BDSM
• The sentence "Peacock was the only individual to have pleaded 'not guilty' under the Act for the kind of gay BDSM pornography he published and won their case" is confusing and ungrammatical. When you say "Peacock was the only individual..." is that still the case? If so this should be "is the only individual", otherwise "was at the time the only individual". To avoid the grammatic tangle at the end, I suggest you delete the words "and won their case" and instead insert the word "successfully" before "pleaded". Also, this significant fact should be mentioned in the body of the article and cited there, rather than in the lead.
• Final lead sentence needs much attention. Remove peacock terms "notable" and the first "significant"; rephrase "the 14 December 2011 guidance from the Lord Chief Justice..." - dates should not be employed as adjectives. And do you really mean "allowed tweeting in English Courts", or allowed evidence from tweeting..." etc?

Details of the case

• Repetitive prose: You have "working...worker...work" in very close proximity
• "mid 40s" → "mid-40s"
• "Sleazy Michael" should be in quotes
• I would say "the Craiglist website" rather than "the website Craigslist"
• The words "to perform" (after "illegal")are redundant. In the same sentence you say "at the time". Does this mean thatthe acts have since become illegal? If not, you should remove these words, too.
• More redundant words: "to be" after "DVDs"; "subsequently" in the final line.
• "As a result of this" - as a result of what?

Trial

• More redundancies in the first sentence: "finally" and "taking place". I won't mention others, but you need to be fully aware of this characteristic in your prose and to watch for it carefully.
• "outdated" is not hyphenated
• Amazingly enough, not everybody knows what "tweeting" means, so you need to elaborate a bit beyond stating that "Myles Jackman tweeted throughout the trial".
• "Jackman himself recognised it" → "Jackman recognised it" - and you need to be clearer about what is meant by "it".
• "Friday 6 January 2012" is clumsy. I'd drop the day, which is not relevant anyway.
• Link/xplain the term "recorder". Many readers won't be familiar with it.

Aftermath

• I'd call the CPS the "prosecuting legal authority"
• "Specialist Lawyers..." why the capital L? Likewise the W in "Sex Worker"
• Slangy abbreviations such as "aka" should be avoided.
• As Jackman has been mentioned in an earlier section, he doesn't ned this full introduction here. Do we need to know the name of his firm?
• Avoid contractions, e.g. "didn't"
• "its director Vivienne Pattison" → "the group's director Vivienne Pattison"
• "she related that while "As a society we are moving to a place where porn is considered as kind of fun between consenting adults..." I don't think "related" is the right word here. And are you sure the quotation should start with "As..." (with a capital A)?

Press response

• Why "Press" rather than "Media"
• Was the Guardian the only paper to comment?
  • Nichy" Hodgson?

From what I can gather, The Guardian was indeed the only major British paper to cover the story. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Sources

• What makes "Storyful" a reliable source?
• Ref 10: Publisher details missing. What makes this blog a reliable source?

Dablink

• Link on Escort goes to a disambiguation page

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you want to raise any questions arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this Brian, I will make many of your suggested improvements to the page, crossing out your suggestions as and when I undertake them. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 18 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)

'Comments - I concur with Brian's comments above. The article needs a lot more work before it would benefit from Peer Review. The best thing you can do is start reading and researching the subject. A good place to start would be with the various Oxford Histories of the various subject areas - they will not only give a good overview but also point you towards more works to read and do research in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this article from this peer review. Thanks to both of you for your input. dci | TALK 19:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Finetooth comments: I agree that the article has FA potential and is in relatively good shape. However, it is not yet ready for FAC. It's an interesting and important article, and I'd like to encourage you to improve it. Here are some suggestions:

• Citation 1, used in multiple places, links to a PDF document that is 103 pages long. To make it useful to fact checkers, it should include the page number or numbers that support the claim(s) in each instance. Otherwise, it's quite difficult to determine whether the document supports the claim(s). Since different claims will be supported by different pages, making this change will be a fairly big job and will result in non-identical citations. It will probably not always be possible for a single citation to specific pages in this long document to cover all of the claims in a paragraph. To keep the Reference section from becoming cluttered, you might add a "Works cited" or "Sources" section to the article, list the complete bibliographic information for the PDF there, and use short-form refs like "Accident report, p. 5" for the inline citations.

Lead

• The two "caused by" phrases tacked onto the ends of the final two sentences are awkward. Juxtaposition suggests that the wing was caused by maintenance procedures and that the public was caused by accidents. Reading twice sorts this out, but it would be better to revise for clarity.

Aircraft

• "On the day of the accident the records had not been removed from the aircraft, as was standard procedure,[clarification needed] and were destroyed in the accident." I agree with whoever added the tag that this is not clear. Which records? Glancing quickly at the 103-page PDF, I see that at least some data was recovered from the flight recorders. (See page 4).

Accident

• Could speeds be added for V_R here and so on for this particular case? Some specific numbers appear later in the article, but it would useful to have them where we first encounter these terms.

• "The number one electrical bus, whose generator was attached... " - A bus isn't a "who", so I would re-word this slightly. Also, it might be helpful to link "electrical bus" to something or to briefly explain it.

• "the deadliest aviation accident in the United States to date" - Since "to date" is not specific, I'd be inclined to delete it and let note 1 provide the caveats.

• "the intersection of Touhy Avenue (Illinois Route 72) and Mount Prospect Road" - Link Illinois Route 72?

Investigation

• "In response to the accident, slat relief valves were mandated to prevent slat retraction in case of hydraulic line damage." - I'm not sure what this means. The logic of the sentence implies that after the line was damaged, someone told the valves to prevent the slat(s) on the left wing from retracting. Could the situation be explained more clearly?

• "Wind tunnel and flight simulator tests... " - Link wind tunnel?

• "after the uncommanded retraction of the slats" - I don't think "uncommanded" is a real word. Maybe just "after the slats retracted"?

Engine separation

• "Investigators looked at the plane's maintenance history and found that its most recent service was eight weeks before the crash, in which engine number one had been removed from the aircraft." - This sentence is a bit awkward and wordy. Suggestion: "The plane's maintenance history showed that the number one engine had been removed from the aircraft during its most recent service, eight weeks before the crash."

• "The procedure recommended by McDonnell Douglas called for the engine to be removed from the pylon prior to detaching the pylon itself, but American Airlines, along with Continental Airlines and United Airlines, had begun to use a procedure that saved approximately 200 man-hours per aircraft and "more importantly from a safety standpoint, it would reduce the number of disconnects (of systems such as hydraulic and fuel lines, electrical cables, and wiring) from 72 to 27."[1]" - Too complex. Mismatch of verbs (called, would reduce). I'd recommend using two separate sentences to explain this.

• "The new procedure involved mechanics removing the engine with the pylon and engine as a single unit." - Tighten by one word by deleting "mechanics"?

• "The field service representative from McDonnell Douglas said the company would "not encourage this procedure due to the element of risk" and had so advised American Airlines." - Straight past tense, "did not encourage" rather than "would not encourage"?

• "the engine would rock like a see-saw and jam against the pylon attachment points" - Straight past, "rocked" and "jammed"?

The DC-10 years after

• The section head lacks clarity and doesn't meet Manual of Style guidelines. Suggestion: "Aftermath".

• "Despite losing an engine and all flight controls and crash-landing in a huge fireball (which was caught on video by a local news crew), 185 people would survive the accident." - The people didn't lose an engine. Suggestion: "Although the aircraft lost an engine and all flight controls and crash-landed in a huge fireball (which was caught on video by a local news crew), 185 people survived the accident".

Notable victims

• I think this would be better rendered as straight prose rather than as a bulleted list. One possibility would be to group the Playboy material into a separate paragraph and to group the others into a second paragraph, or vice versa. I would also shorten the Leonard Stogel part of this; the list of groups is unnecessary, though you might say "California Jam and other musical groups".

History and media

• This section has the left-overs that seem to accumulate in many articles. I'd consider relegating the Chorba material to a note and merging the other three items with the "Aftermath" section. It might be that "Aftermath" would work as one section with three subsections: "DC-10", "Media coverage", and "Notable victims".

Notes

• The two links to external sites should be changed to inline citations. The direct links violate Manual of Style guidelines and will not survive scrutiny at FAC.

• "Three are of particular importance to the understanding of this accident" - I would delete this part of the sentence since it is a personal observation rather than a claim supported by a reliable source.

References

• The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent throughout.
• Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, the author, Chris Kilroy, is missing from citation 4, and citations 8 and 9 lack dates of most recent access.
• What makes AirDisaster.com a reliable source?
• The abbreviation for a single page is p., for multiple pages it is pp.
• Newspaper names should appear in italics.
• To add hyphens to the ISBNs that don't already have them, you can use a converter here.

Images

• The source link for File:AA191-responders.png is dead. Perhaps it could be replaced with a live URL?
• File:AA191-crash-site.png uses the same dead link.
• Ditto for File:DC-10 engine-pylon.svg.
• Is "png" the best format for the two FAA photos? Why not "jpg"?

• 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) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Geography and places

Italy

I've listed this article for peer review to get a wider perspective of particular areas where the article should be improved and perhaps expanded on. It would be very helpful if concrete suggestions were given so that a number of editors can tackle improving the article. Many thanks Connolly15 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I enjoyed this article. It is long (108 kilobytes of text), but not excessively so, I think. However, it is not at present in any state to be put forward for GA or FA. First, and most importantly, it is fatally lacking in references in far too many sections, which I have identified below. Secondly, the prose is generally fine but the spelling is all over the place, with UK English spellings in the lead, followed by a mixture of English and American spellings in the main article ("centre" but "defense", "organised" but "civilization" etc).

A less serious point is that for parenthetical dashes you need to standardise either on en dashes with spaces or em dashes without; at present you have a mixture of both and other variants.

Detailed comments:

• Etymology
  • "the corpus of the solutions" – could be plainer.
• Prehistory and antiquity
  • Refs 27 to 33 – are they all really needed? They do rather hit one in the eye.
  • "the ground that Western civilization is based upon" – "the ground on which Western civilization is based", perhaps?
• Middle Ages
  • "Germanic Tribe" – capital T needed?
  • "Notable amongst them" – I never know what "amongst" has got that "among" hasn't, apart from two unnecessary letters
  • "that of Ferrara and of Mantua" – I think perhaps either "those of Ferrara and Mantua", or else "that of Ferrara and that of Mantua".
• Italian unification and Liberal Italy
  • "during the disastrous Franco-Prussian War of 1870" – only "disastrous" from the French viewpoint.
• Geography
  • "Although the country comprises the Italian peninsula and most of the southern Alpine basin, some of Italy's territory extends beyond the Alpine basin" – some repetition of previous sentence here
  • "Herculanum" – shouldn't it be Herculaneum?
• Environment
  • There are some statements in this section that could soon be out of date, and would benefit from being rewritten so that they will remain correct:
    • "it now ranks 84th in the world for ecological sustainability" ("in 2012 it ranked...")
    • "In the last decade, Italy has become…)" ("In the decade from 2002 Italy became…)".
    • "Renewable energies now make up about 12%..."
• Climate
  • "The climate of the "Po valley region [is] continental ... with harsh winters and hot summers"." As you give two citations it isn't clear whom you are quoting. (And does the direct speech add anything here?)
• Government
  • "the Chamber of Deputies (that meets in Palazzo Montecitorio)" – "which" rather than "that", perhaps? The latter reads like a defining clause. Ditto for the Senate.
  • ""Mr. Berlusconi's cabinet." – the normal WP style is not to use "Mr." here.
• Law and criminal justice
  • "which would later expand" – which later expanded?
  • "Italy has only the 47th highest murder rate" – another statement that would be better with a date.
• Military
  • "From 1999, military service is voluntary" – has been voluntary, perhaps?
  • Second para has no references for its statements. Third para has only one. Fourth para has none.
• Economy
  • "the biggest chunk of Italian public debt" – "chunk" seems a bit slangy for an encyclopaedia article.
• Demographics
  • "…persisted until the 1970s, after which they start…" – tenses need to match
• Religion
  • "although the Catholic Church is no longer officially the state religion – the church isn't a religion; Catholicism is. Suggest "although it is no longer officially the state religion."
  • Ref 138 – I'd be inclined to move it to the end of the sentence.
  • "Italian-Jews" – hyphen needed?
• Education
  • The Wall Street Journal – should be italicised, I think
• Culture
  • First, second and third paras are short of refs for some statements. Fourth, fifth and sixth and last have no refs at all.
• Music
  • No refs in first two paras.
  • "Opera house" or "operahouse"? – you have both
  • Last para has no refs.
• Cinema
  • Unreferenced statements in both paras
• Science
  • No refs at all.
• Cuisine
  • Second para has no refs.

I hope these points are useful. Happy to comment further if wished. – Tim riley (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 February 2012, 13:59 UTC)

---

Sakib

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some grammar and language check, also it needs some improvement.

Thanks, Historyfeelings - talk 07:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Reasonable structure to the article, suggest you look at similar FAs to see what level of detail is expected.
• The Karak dab needs to be fixed.
• The link to the name in Arabic shouldn't be a transwiki link, it should be a link to Arabic language followed by the translation.
• A lot of copyediting needs to be done really, I'll point some out but suggest it goes to a good copyeditor as well.
• In general, translate metric units (e.g. 8 km) into Imperial ones (e.g. 8 km (5 mi)).
• A lot of the article is unreferenced, e.g. the "The name" section.
• Per WP:HEAD, that section should just be called "Name" or even better, something like "Etymology"
• Avoid linking very common terms like "water" and "rain" and "mountain" and "valley" for instance.
• Don't link individual dates or years.
• Fix the [citation needed] tag (and provide more citations throughout).
• The various tables and graphs are somewhat messy, if you add more text throughout it might help reduce the clutter.
• Hight should be Height.
• " are: [12] [13] [14]" don't put a space between the colon and the ref, and don't put spaces between refs.
• "maximum temperature Average(°C)" -> "Maximum temperature average (°C)"
• Don't see a need to have the "hide" feature for the table.
• "City is famous for its Olive, fig, Grape and " -> "The city is noted for its olive and fig trees..." no such thing as a Grape tree, avoid capitalising nouns which are not proper nouns.
• Galleries generally avoided, if you expanded the article you could use one or two of these images in the expanded sections.
• References need to be properly formatted, you could use the {{cite web}} template for a consistent look.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 February 2012, 07:10 UTC)

---

Wiesbaden

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article an GA.

Thanks, Zeeuwsebad (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Wiesbaden looks a nice place, but the article needs a lot of attention if it is to make GA. Main points:-

• The banner relating to absorption of content from German Wikipedia should be dealt with or removed
• The lead needs to be expanded into a proper summary of the whole article, touching albeit briefly on all the significant aspects of the main text.
• The article has far too few citations. Some citation tags have been added, but there could be dozens more. Many sections are without any citations at all.
• The prose lacks flow. This is mainly due to the large number of very short paragraphs, combined with what looks like an excessive number of sections and subsections. Consider combining short paragraphs to form longer ones, and also whether this many subsections is necessary.
• Bullet points should be avoided in the general prose. They're OK for obvious lists such as "Notable residents" but not, for example, in the World War II section.
• The images are interesting, but there may be too many of them. The small gallery below the St Elizabth's Church section looks unnecessary. Images overdominate and crowd the text in some places, for example in the Geographical Setting and Modern era sections where the text is squeezed by the left-right alignments. It may be possible to reposition some of the images into less crowded parts of the article.
• Minor point, but "Geographical Setting" should be "Geographical setting" per MOS
• What was the basis of the selection of "notable" residents? Some are clearly notable in the true sense of the word, but Melody Perkins? Rudolf von Ribbentrop? (and why, alone, does Ribbentrop have a year of birth?)
• "Famous visitors": the visits of Wagner, Brahms and Dostoyevsky have been mentioned earlier in the article in the context of the spa, and don't need to be repeated here. The professional concert engagements of musicians hardly qualify as "visits". I see little merit in this section and advise you to delete it.
• Likewise, the very brief "rivalry" and "fictional" sections smack of trivia and should in my view be ditched.
• All German-language sources should be marked as such. All online sources that are not from print media should have retrieval dates.

I have not carried out a prose check – although I would avoid using the word "plus" as a synonym for "and". All in all, there is plenty of work still to be done on this promising article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 February 2012, 12:10 UTC)

---

Hyderabad, India

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now a GA and it has the potential to become an FA. Unless we kick start it with a PR, nothing can be done. The article is now comparable to other Indian FA's, and almost all possible fixes have been made. X.One ^SOS 06:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Yet to meet FA criteria 1b (comprehensiveness). Specific areas to work on are as follows. (I had only a cursory glance on the article, so may have missed something, please excuse).

Demographics More data needed; just population is not enough. Sex ratio, literacy, density, religious break-up are needed. If available, data of slums (either from census or sample surveys) is needed. Among these data, if something is noticeably different from national or state data, an explanatory line may be added (not must though, just to quench the curiosity of the reader).

Culture Mention cinema, theater, literature, architecture, any idiosyncrasies or peculiarities of the city. I see some info on cinema and theater are there in Media section, but probably these are more suitable in culture. As of now, the Culture section is too much cuisine-heavy.

Other comments No data on healthcare. Data on crime is missing. May be incorporated in Demographics section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Economy Some inline comments inserted. Please address. There is no mention of informal sector of economy; I think a large number of people in Hyderabad are involved in informal sector, right? Presently, the economy section is too much tech-heavy. At times, the section reads like advertisement brochure— 4th best city to live, best place to business!. You are not selling the city!! These are ok, but not everything. There are no poor people there? Any estimate of unemployment? Any percentage of population available who are in informal sector? (I understand not every data will be available, but as much as possible is warranted). Besides the recent tech developments, Hyderabad might house important national institutions, such as Andhra Bank. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Slum data : Y Done
• Sex ratio : Y Done
• Literacy rate : Y Done

Will work on the others shortly. X.One ^SOS 07:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment on demography. The growth rate between 2001 and 2011 is a phenomenal 87.2% !! I doubt if just population increase can cause that. There might have been increase in the area under Hyderabad city? What are the population densities in 2001 and 2011? If addition of newer areas under the city limit is a major reason for such population increase, that deserves a mention. If for some other reason, that also needs to be mentioned. 87% decennial growth rate for such a metropolitan city is unbelievable. --Dwaipayan (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

History The Telengana dispute deserves mention, as (IMHO) the disputeb and movement is actually quite old, although the agitation is new, right?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, it deserves a mention. I'll see if I can sort this out soon. X.One ^SOS 11:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Telangana bit and density : Y Done X.One ^SOS 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Education The following sentence "The International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad (IIIT) since 1998 and the Indian Institute Of Technology (IIT) since 2008 were set up with the technical and financial collaboration with the Government of Japan, as well as the Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS) since 2008." So all the three institutes were in collaboration with Japan?

Also, Osmania Medical College deserves a mention as the article mentions relatively less significant institutes such as Wigan & Leigh College.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 February 2012, 06:45 UTC)

---

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)

Comments by Dana Boomer

Hi! I see that you have done quite a bit of work on this article and made a nice start. Here are some thoughts for improvement:

• First, references are probably the biggest issue with the article at the moment:
  • There are a ton of dead links. These need to be fixed, as they essentially leave the information they support unreferenced.
  • Local government section has three fact tags.
  • Besides the fact tags, there are quite a few areas missing references. The majority of the history section is unreferenced, as is the majority of the Boundaries section, the entire Geology and terrain section, significant chunks of the Elections section, etc.
  • References need more information. Web refs should have a title, publisher and access date at the very least - authors, publication dates, etc. should be given where applicable.
• The weight given to various facets of the article seems a little disproportionate to me. For instance, the governance of the state is give over three times the amount of space that the history section is... Is two sentences really all that can be said about the geology and terrain?
• There are a lot of short, choppy sections, which make the article flow poorly. These should be expanded or combined with other sections for better flow. Same with lots of short, choppy paragraphs - some are OK, but lots of successive ones lead to poor flow.
• There is a clarification needed tag in the Boundaries section.

Overall, I think this articles needs quite a bit of work on the references before much else happens. Because of the amount of referencing work that is needed, I have not done close checks of prose, reference reliability or images, as these often change as significant referencing work is done. Despite all of these comments, I think you have done a good job in beginning to improve and reference the article. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Disavian

Glancing over the article, I have a few suggestions, many of which Dana has already covered:

• It looks like the History section does not adequately summarize the history of the state - certainly something has happened since 1870!
• Now that I look at it, I feel that a lot of the sections - for example, sports - do not give a detailed enough summary of that aspect of the state.
• Consider using citation templates for all of the references present in the article. {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} are the two I use the most.
• Remove specific image sizes so that the user's set image size preference makes a difference. Also consider adding alt text.
• You may want to combine a few of the shorter sections. For example, cities might fit under geography, and education might fit under infrastructure.
• Sourcing absolutely has to be a priority. As a good guideline, every paragraph should have at least one citation. This will also help you expand each section.
• I'd suggest looking at a high-quality article that covers a similar subject matter. After poking around, I discovered that Virginia is a featured article, so you can probably get some good ideas by comparing this article to that one.

You're doing a good job so far, though :) Disavian (talk) 17:39, 17 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)

Why was this peer review page closed and archived? No review was made... AstroCog (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot archives any PR with no comments in the past 14 days. I have reopened it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a review in a bit then, since the bot is being impatient! CMD (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a big article. Over 139kB total of which 73kB is prose. That's a lot. This article should be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, giving a thorough but brief overview of Denmark. Length may bring more information, but keep in mind it will also bring boredom. If we can make readers interested in Denmark, hopefully they'll learn more.

I'll be doing this review section by section, so I apologise in advance if I take longer than you'd wish (and sorry this is only happening after a submission weeks ago). If what I say is unclear, or you have an alternative suggestion you'd like to ask, or if I just say something totally wrong just tell me here. I'm giving an outside perspective, and what I say are suggestions.

Lead

The lead seems quite disorganised. I feel it doesn't give a clear overview, yet at the same time goes into too much detail in certain areas.

• The lead theoretically shouldn't have information that isn't covered in the body (although the "(Danish: Kongeriget Danmark, pronounced [ˈkɔŋəʁiːəð ˈdanmɑɡ̊] ( listen) [note 1])" type stuff I've not once seen questioned, and I think should be fine). Because of this, there isn't really a need for references, as it should all be referenced in the body. Currently, the references in the lead are used only in the lead. This indicates to me that the information was placed directly into it and sourced there, which it shouldn't be. Make sure all information in the lead is in the body, and is sourced in the body.
• I suggest Greenland/Faroe information is grouped together. Currently there's a bit in the first paragraph, and a bit in the last (including the defining of Denmark as a unitary state). Group it together in the first paragraph so that the rest of the lead can deal with Denmark proper, which seems to be the focus of the article.
• The three notes in the lead are probably not needed. The state's pronunciation in regional languages isn't that important, as they don't apply to the whole state anyway. I've seen it argued that in fact no translations should be needed on the English wikipedia, but I think having the title in the state's official language is fine. Thus I'd remove that first note, and leave that to the interwiki links. The other two notes (and the prose they're attached to) go into a bit too much detail from the lead. I'd turn them into prose in either Administrative divisions or Politics.
• "Denmark proper is the hegemonial part, where the residual judicial, executive and legislative power rests" --> "Denmark proper is the hegemonial area, where judicial, executive, and legislative power resides"
• I'd cut down the information on what the exact definition of the Faroese and Greenlandic people are. Just keep it "The Faroe Islands are defined to be a community of people within the kingdom, and the Greenlandic people are defined as a separate people with the right to self-determination" or something similar. Again such detail is much more readily included in the body.
• Reword "Denmark's shores extend to both the Baltic and North Seas" somehow. It may be useful to combine it with a note that it is located where the two seas meet alongside the dominium maris baltici information.
• I'd remove the translations for the names of each island. It falls into the realm of trivia, and is more appropriately dealt with on the individual pages of those islands. In addition, as it stands the note "(commonly considered a part of Jutland)" is more confusing than explanatory. Either list the North Jutlandic Island as an island or don't.

• I think what the lead most needs is expansion in scope. I'd suggest adding a very short summary of history, "consolidated in the 8th century, entered a series of unions and wars with other Scandinavian countries, gave home rule and independence to overseas territories in the 20th century" or something (I have complete faith you can make a better summary than that).
• I'd also think slightly more about the people and their culture could be included, and perhaps economic information. We know the people are happy, uncorrupt, live in a welfare state, speak Danish, and are Scandinavian. Impressive for the short space given to that, but are those all the important points? The lead could go up to four paragraphs, as long as they're not too long!

CMD (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for picking this up and thanks for the suggestions. I don't mind going through the article section by section and I agree it's easier. Following your suggestions, I've made edits to the lead; grouping together information and adding other rankings. I've also followed the example of other country articles by removing references for the various rankings, i.e. '16th on the Human Development Index', as these can be found in the respective articles. I know there's still a little bit more work to be done on the lead though, so any other pointers are welcome. -- Peter (Talk page) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead is looking much better. It is probably not worth going over it again until the rest of the article is good. The lead reflects the article, not the other way around. As for the rankings, while it's fine to have them in the lead without sources, they should be in the body with sources. Mention per capita income in the economy section, the Corruption Perception Index in demographics (or perhaps Politics?), mention happiness in demographics (or is this the same as life satisfacation?), etc. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

• What does the unification of Denmark have to do with Etymology? Were the Danes divided before this? Were they all considered Danes at that point in history?
• Reference [10] (after "Most handbooks derive") is placed weirdly. What exactly is it sourcing?
• References [12] and [15] don't seem to be references, but notes. If they're notable and sourceable, include them in the prose.
• Linking to birth certificate in the picture caption seems like the kind of linking WP:OVERLINK deplores
• There's little I want to say about this section as it stands, because much of it seems terribly unreferenced. Source it, and perhaps rearrange (who knows, there may be enough material out there to make a standalone article). It seems haphazard, going from the 12th century Chronicon Lethrense to the 10th century jelling stones (although I gather that's because the Chronicon describes history?)

History

• This is a long section, which probably could be greatly condensed (I like to look at these sections as analogous to - slightly larger - leads of their main articles). At the same time, much of it seems unsourced. The quick and dirty fix is to simply remove all the unsourced information, or move it to History of Denmark if you're feeling particularly productive! You can then edit from there. The long fix is figuring out what information is the most important to give a concise yet thorough history of Denmark, and using that information and sourcing. Have fun either way!

• Prehistory could use some dates, estimates I suppose, for when the Danes arrived to Jutland.
• Was the territory of the Danes just Jutland and the surrounding islands, or were they spread over a bit more of Scandinavia?

• In Viking Age it's mentioned they were the first to reach Iceland, getting there from the Faroes. When did they get to the Faroes? Were the Faroes under some Danish king at that point (or whatever kingdoms are in what are now Denmark)?
• It's mentioned Greenland and Vinland were settled. It's probably worth mentioning how the settlements were eventually isolated and died out. (I was coincidentally reading a book about this just earlier today. Are there good articles on the settlements that can be wikilinked to?)
• "and Frankish sources (e.g. Notker of St Gall) provide the earliest historical evidence of the Danes." By "historical evidence" do you mean written record/recorded history?
• Much of the second and third paragraph seem to be the kind of unnecessary detail that, while fascinating to weird people like me, is a bit too detailed for this summary article.
• "The Danes were united..." What were they before? Warring kingdoms? Tribes? Earlier you discuss a "southern border of the Danes", which wouldn't make sense if they weren't united.
• Is Cnut the Great the same person as Canute the Great? How were Denmark and England divided? Who is Sweyn Estridsen? What is the relevance of Duke Robert of Flanders? Again, this is probably a good example of far too much detail, which would need even more to be explained properly.
• When did the massive flotillas of Scandinavians start meeting? I'm a bit lost here, as I still don't know how the Viking system was arranged at this time. Was the Norweigian kingdom a separate united Kingdom?

So unfortunately I don't know enough about Danish history to figure out what's missing here, and how the bits connect. I can only say I don't fully grasp the events here, although perhaps I'm just somehow dumb, which I apologise for. Any thoughts on this? Will continue review later. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• There are no citations in the whole Medieval Denmark section. It seems to contain some very interesting points though. Was this the period of dominium maris baltici?

• Who was the Battle of Falköping fought agains?
• Why was Margarets nephew crowned instead of her (I'm assuming she was ruling at the time?)
• How did Sweden get a king if it was part of the union?

• Protestant reformation is another section which lacks citations.
• (1534–1536) is given for the wars extant, yet it says that "The massacre of Skipper Clement's peasant army at Aalborg in December 1534 brought an end to the war". Did the war end in 1534 or 1536?

• Is it really fair to say attention had been given to the south if much of the previous information had been about wars in Estonia or with Sweden?
• Who are "the Hansa"?
• Lots of citation needed in modern history too.
• Who was the Battle of Lutter lost to?
• I was under the impression Bornholm revolted against Sweden rather than was given back.

• 20th and 21st history section again without a great deal of sourcing. Other than that it seems to cover the important points.
• The two WWII pictures in this section don't add too much to the text, I'd suggest just keeping the EU one.

Overall, I'd say the section needs to be greatly reduced. It is supposed to be a summary of history, so perhaps consider it a large lead for the history article (albeit with sources). Different country articles have different lengths, some with no subsections at all. CMD (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes,I agree that it can be cut-down a lot. In fact, some parts of that sections are slightly more detailed than the History of Denmark article, so I'm going to try moving some of the information there. But as you pointed out, there are lots of errors which have been missed. History will still need subsections, but they can be much smaller and not correspond directly with 'History of Denmark'. I'll start on this today. --Peter (Talk page) 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Engineering and technology

Kingfisher Airlines

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the artilce for GA in some time, and with all recent additions, woyld like to know what is best suited for the article.

Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Doing... Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 15:10 UTC)

---

Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania)

I've listed this article for peer review because Horseshoe Curve is an important part of Pennsylvania history. It allowed quick [relatively] travel over the Allegheny Mountains for the first time. The curve became so vital to the industry of the United States that it was the target of sabotage by Nazi Germany in World War II. It's a unique bit of engineering technology and is still both a major rail line and, also, a tourist attraction. The eventual goal is FA and I believe it satisfies the required criteria, but any suggestions to make the article are better are most welcome.

Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't do FAs much, so my only question is the length: aren't both intro and body substantially shorter than FAs normally are? Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • According to WP:Featured articles/By length, the shortest of all 3472 FAs is Tropical Depression Ten (2005); Horseshoe Curve would be around 3363rd. I do not believe an FAC can failed based on length (like DYK). The intro I can expand though, having realized I forgot some things that should be in it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very good work so far. I would want good documentation for the claim about Nazi sabotage, which so far is lacking. The description of the funicular makes me want a photo, especially since the cars are painted with PRR colors, presumably PRR red. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Had photos of the funicular, added it to Commons; I don't think there is an opening in the article to place it. How is the info on Operation Pastorius lacking exactly? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I suppose the sentence Targeted by Nazi Germany in World War II, Horseshoe Curve was and still is a major rail line in the lede without any inline citation drew my rather hasty observation about documentation. That sentence should be split, and recast with mention of Operation Pastorius. It turns out that there is a bad link in the inline citations, which can be corrected by not having the link, since the paper magazine can still be the source. In general, should the lede have citations, or should they all be left to the detailed sections later in the article? I will go look at the commons image of the funicular. Perhaps the funicular image and some details about it could go in the Railroaders Memorial Museum article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Adding details on the visitors center, including the funicular, to the musuem article is a great idea. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What about a terrain map showing why the curve was needed to get over the mountains? Where does the railroad go, exactly, going west? Also, what is the grade on the curve? And what is that pond in the middle of the curve? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A terrian map would be a good idea (maybe showing the route of railroad throught the mountains), but I have no idea how one would draw the map. The pond inside the curve is the first of three reservoirs that supply drinking water to Altoona. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • You or I could request a map from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, but they do ask for some possible sources, so we would need to look into that. I have seen terrain maps elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I am unsure about the sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Look at [5] as a starting point for a map. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The map request is at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Horseshoe_Curve_.28Pennsylvania.29. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
          

(Peer review added on Sunday 19 February 2012, 20:20 UTC)

---

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)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article. The prose is highly readable, and the article generally follows the Manual of Style guidelines. However, the article does not yet meet WP:V, as I note below, and it depends so heavily on materials published by SRI that it might not meet WP:NPOV in places. It's hard to be more specific about the point-of-view issues because of the sourcing issues. I have some other suggestions as well.

Infobox

• If you can figure out how to do it, I'd suggest moving File:SRI International HQ.jpg up to replace the logo, which simply repeats the name.
  • I put the logo at the top of the infobox, and put the HQ image where the logo goes... not sure how I feel about that. Hmm. Disavian (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Layout

• If possible, place images entirely within the sections they illustrate. For example, File:SRI Packet Radio Van.jpg would look better if moved up a bit so that it does not overlap a section boundary and displace an edit button. Also, avoid making text sandwiches like the one in the "Recent history" section; just move the images slightly in relation to one another until the text sandwich has been eliminated. Also, directional images should face into the page, if possible. Thus File:SRI Packet Radio Van.jpg should be positioned on the left rather than the right side of the page.
  • I attempted to make these changes. I think one issue is that a lot of SRI's really notable history happened in the 1960s-1970s and I had more images than prose for the "Rapid expansion" section. Disavian (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

• Common terms like "policy", "education", and "matter" should not be linked since most readers of English already know what they mean. Also, it's generally unnecessary to link terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. I would not link "artificial intelligence" more than once in the main text, for example. Most readers will not need even one link to this fairly common term, although I would probably link it just once, on first use.

Lead

• For readers who have never heard of DARPA, perhaps "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)" would be better on first use.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "SRI's mission is discovery and the application of science and technology for knowledge, commerce, prosperity, and peace." - This is what SRI says about itself in its mission statement, but can SRI be neutral about itself? Since it's juxtaposed with the students' alternate view, I'd take care here to attribute the claim with a qualifier like "SRI describes its mission as... ".
  • Done. I generally dislike mission statements, and have half a mind to take this one out, but it does mirror well with the student unrest bit. Disavian (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Curtis Carlson, Ph.D." - Wikipedia generally avoids identifying people by their academic credentials but prefers a brief description such as "physicist".
  • Ah, yes. I'm usually a stickler about that. Done. Disavian (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Year 2011 revenue for SRI was approximately $585 million." - To avoid using a date as an adjective, maybe this would be better: "Revenue for SRI in 2011 was approximately $585 million."
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "SRI International Sarnoff is being used as a brand name for a period of time for business activities based in Princeton, New Jersey." - Tighten by deleting "for a period of time".
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Early history

• The first paragraph lacks a source or sources. My rule of thumb for meeting the WP:V guidelines is to provide a source for any set of statistics (including dates), any claim that is unusual or apt to be questioned, any direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source support all of the claims in a paragraph, the citation goes at the very end of the paragraph. The same concerns arise in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this subsection and elsewhere in the article. The last part of paragraph 5 also needs a source or sources. It's very important to fix these sourcing problems before nominating the article for GA.
• The image File:SRI Air Pollution study 1949.jpg does not appear on my computer screen, but I don't see what has gone wrong. Clicking through to the Commons, I see that the image is directional, facing left. It should therefore be placed on the right side of the article so that it faces into the page rather than out.
  • I posted on the help desk about this, we'll see if anyone can help. I don't remember seeing that issue before this week, so it might be a temporary problem. Wikipedia:Help desk#A couple image issues. Disavian (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that it's a problem with the thumbnail generated at the specific size of 220px - if I manually specify another size, it works just fine. I could probably do a little auto leveling on the image, upload the new version, and it will be fixed. Disavian (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Diversification

• "several landmark education and economic studies" - I'd stay away from adjectives like "landmark", since they imply a judgment that might violate WP:NPOV. Much of this section lacks sources, and readers may suspect that it is SRI boilerplate. Ditto for the next section. Words like "landmark" may add to this impression, and the fact that the Nielson book was published by SRI might make readers wonder whether the article is essentially neutral or whether it wanders into promotion for SRI.
  • A lot of the language in the article (particularly the history section) is from long before I "adopted" it. I definitely agree that the article could use a thorough copyediting for NPOV issues, but they're not terribly bad. Disavian (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

References

• The date formatting should be consistent throughout this section. Citations 23 and 24, for example, use a different formatting from most of the rest. They should all be done in the same way.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• For books, include the place of publication. If this information is not in your notes, you can generally find it via WorldCat.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Since most of the ISBNs in the article are hyphenated, I'd track down and include the hyphens for all. An ISBN converter lives here.

Further reading

• These should be listed in alphabetical order. Also, I wouldn't list Nielson again since his book is already in "Works cited".
  • I alphaed them by title within their subsections, and took the Nielson book out. Disavian (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Other

• The article has one dead link, here.
  • I think I took care of that while you were writing your review. The refs could still use some work, though. Disavian (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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) 22:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this article. It looks like I have my work cut out for me :) Disavian (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 January 2012, 21:31 UTC)

---

Natural sciences and mathematics

Deep vein thrombosis

I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked the most on four sections (Classification, Causes, Pathophysiology, and Prevention), and I would like feedback on these sections.

Thanks, Biosthmors (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 18:50 UTC)

---

Period 8 element

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive suggestions on how to improve it to GA.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 09:02 UTC)

---

Group 12 element

I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it and I want to know what is missing before putting it for GAN. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs has some comments on the talk page (Talk:Group 12 element#A few ideas). The "Chemistry and compounds" sections would benefit from some more discussion IMHO (e.g. the organometallic chemistry) and some more references for the uncited sentences. The discussion on the inclusion of group 12 into the transition metals could be put into a separate section (see Group 3 element#Group borders). Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This source may be useful: http://www.che.uc.edu/jensen/W.%20B.%20Jensen/Reprints/091.%20Zn-Cd-Hg.pdf Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 February 2012, 22:07 UTC)

---

Transitional fossil

This is a very important topic, and the article could use improvement. I would like to one day bring this to GA and then FA status. It needs more review by relevant experts, since I am not a scientist myself and merely incorporated text from other sources. I would like a peer review to further show what those issues are so we can move forward. I know some sections need expanding and clarification. The article has just gone through a copy-edit. It includes some notes that may be useful:Talk:Transitional_fossil#GOCE_copy_edit.2C_February_2012

Thanks, Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I may have time to offer a thorough review soon, but just glancing over the page, I ask that you replace the Tiktaalik roseae reconstruction immediately. The first tetrapods were solely aquatic, and any image that suggests that they came onto land is outdated. Yes, I know the textbooks still use these images, but paleontologists who study tetrapod evolution will tell you these illustration only perpetuate myths. If you want better images, I suggest putting in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That is just the sort of commentary that is needed. I have also removed the image from the tiktaalik article (which is where I initially got it). I have replaced the image with another one from the tiktaalik article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Although File:Tiktaalik BW.jpg is better, I still suggest having a new one made at the Paleoart review. The posture of the fish suggests it is holding itself up on land. It would be best to have it redrawn as a fish swimming in murky water. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

An alternative is using a picture of the fossil, like File:Tiktaalik belgium II.jpg. We could also need a better image of Thrinaxodon, preferably one showing wiskers, scale and some hairs here and there. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We can digitally remove the shadow on the current Tiktaalik image, which would make it look less like it's on land. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the NSF restoration has grass on it. *facepalm* -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway I'll try my hand at creating a restoration for Tiktaalik. Will post what I make in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review#Tiktaalik Here is the link to the Tiktaalik Paleoart review. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Obsidian Soul. If you would like, I could try putting you in touch with an expert who is knowledgeable about the fish's anatomy in order to offer suggestions and critique your preliminary work. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2 : There really need to be more non-vertebrate examples. I'll look around a bit, since I actually have a bit of time, but my expertise lies with plants, not invertebrates. The fossil Archaeopteris (the tree, not the bird, note the different ending) is one of the classic examples, as its fragments were originally thought to belong to two completely separate divisions of plants, until Charles Beck found connected fossil material. The tree had gymnospermous wood, but the leaves produced spores like a fern, instead of seeds. The fossil Pleuromeia is also believed to be transitional between the giant scale trees of the carboniferous and the more modest-sized modern genus Isoetes (quillworts). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We clearly need more plants! We should perhaps also include a human ancestor, I'm thinking Homo erectus specifically. The problem is that the example section can become overlong compared to the rest. Should we drop a couple of vertebrates? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that having all the current examples (plus a couple more) would be a problem. The strength of the article will lie in presenting examples, rather than in simply defining a term. If this were simply a definition, then it would be a Wiktionary entry. The current vertebrate listings are certainly spread out phylogenetically (ray-finned fish, early tetrapod, bird, mammal), so there's diversity present in the vertebrate selections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My vote is to get rid of the "Examples" section. Instead, while discussing the topic, examples can be given in the text with illustrations nearby. If we really want to list examples, then maybe we should create a list article. From my experience, once you start listing examples, then everyone and their mother will want to list their favorite example. Again, it's better to work the examples into the text, with a preference for (up-to-date) textbook examples, particularly when explaining terms. For example, Tiktaalik and tetrapod evolution is a great case to bring up with discussing the incompleteness of the fossil record (due to the fossil footprints but lack of land-dwelling tetrapods in the fossil record at that time). Archaeopteris is good for discussing early discoveries, and how opinions change as we learn and uncover more fossils. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now the section seems like a bunch of random examples thrown together to prove a point that's already discussed in the proceeding sections. There's already a list of transitional fossils if readers want examples, and all the information in these examples can be found in their respective articles. Some of the more famous examples like Archaeopteryx can be discussed in a section about cultural perceptions. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Smokey, I don't see that your criticisms can be addressed. What would make any selection of examples not "random" (one of your criticisms). Why do you say they're "thrown together"? Why shouldn't examples be used to illustrate the point? Isn't that what a good article will do?

The problem with relying on the aforementioned "List" article is that it suffers from being a mass agglomeration of snippets that will presumably continue to grow randomly longer. By contrast, a small selection of examples included in this article can be written so as to illustrate carefully and clearly the current point. They also can be selected so as to present the more classic and clear-cut fossils, rather than a full list of all somewhat obscurely transitional and often argued-over fossils. Now, it might be possible, and even preferrable, to incoporate the selected list into the body text of the article, but we shouldn't leave readers having to go look everything up to figure out what is transitional about the fossils. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What's making the examples seem a little random to me is the placement of very famous fossils like Archaeopteryx with more obscure ones like Runcaria. If we are to keep an Examples section, I think there needs to be more explanation as to why they are notable, mentioning a bit about their discovery and cultural impact. A textbook source for all these examples might be a good idea.

Following what's been said, I think the best way in which examples can illustrate a point is to put them right next to the specific points, not group them by themselves in an Examples section (Archaeopteryx with Missing Links and the Polish tetrapod footprints with Limitations of the fossil record, for instance). Smokeybjb (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For a layman (which is what an encyclopdia is for) this article would be very dry and theoretical, and very hard to understand, without examples. Many a beginning reader would actually do better to read the examples first and the theoretical part afterwards. --Stfg (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For a layman, examples can be offered (in summary) in the lead, along with an opening illustration (example with an informative caption). If you throw the readers straight into examples in the body, you will be struggling to explain terms along the way. What better way to introduce both than to turn it around and illustrate theory with examples. An example of a featured article with this structure is Lemur. Not only does the lead list special lemur adaptations, but the body does *not* have a "Examples of lemur adaptations" section. Instead, examples are given throughout the "Anatomy and physiology", "Behavior", and "Ecology" sections. I still strongly believe that an article with an "Examples" section is just as unprofessionally written as an article with a "Images" or "Gallery" section. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "examples", not "examples section". "Transitional fossil" is a more difficult concept than "lemur", but anyway, illustrating the concepts with examples at the point where the concepts are introduced, without a separate section, is fine. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'm glad we're on roughly the same page. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea of a cultural section, citing the classical "Icons of Evolution" like Archaeopteryx, Ichthyostega, Java man (or perhaps Lucy) and Cooksonia or Rhynia (just to have a plant). Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started adding a history section, an alternative to the examples. Please have a look at it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First problem I see is that you're using the name Rhynia for a plant that is now called Aglaophyton. The story there is much more complicated by the fact that Rhynia is the name of a fossil vascular plant, but the fossils now called Aglaophyton, on reexamination, were found to lack vascular tissue. Also, you'll have to be more specific than Cooksonia, which has turned out to be a polyphyletic assemblage of several species and has undergone extensive reinterpretation in the past 15 years. It's also wrong to call it the "ancestor" of vascular plants. There still ought to be mention of Archaeopteris as a classical icon of evolution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was using Rhynia for Rhynia gwynne-vaughanii, which to the best of my knowledge is still called Rhynia. The reason I wanted it (over Archaeopteris) is that I am trying to make a section on the history of transitional fossils, and old Rhynia is very much an old classic. If you read what is now the history section in the article, you'll see what I'm after. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll need to completely rewrite that section, because what you've written describes Aglaophyton rather than R. gwynne-vaughanii. I still don't understand why you don't think Archaeopteris is a classic as well. It has been around for more than 60 years, and is included in introductory biology classes as a classic example of a transitional fossil. It's also much easier to explain why it's transitional than either Aglaophyton and Rhynia, since more people are familiar with ferns and gymnosperms than with the architecture of the bryophyte sporophyte or alternation of generations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I took what is in the section from the page on R. gwynne-vaughanii, so if what I wrote needs a complete rewrite, then so does the Rhynia article. Seeing that you are a botanist, would you have a look at it (I'm a zoologist I'm afraid)? I'm all for having more plants, but the reason I primarily wanted Rhynia is that my trusty old "Studies in Paleobotany" (1967) spends a whole chapter on it (Archaeopteris is mentioned in passim), and the little weed was still all the rage when I started studying biology in the early 1990s. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In 1967, Aglaophyton was still considered a species of Rhynia. The detailed studies of vascular tissue had not yet been completed. As I am rather busy offline for the forseeable future, the best person to have rework the information is either User:Peter coxhead or User:Smith609. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 3 : The "Comparison with intermediate forms" looks suspect to me. I'm not sure this distinction in terminology is widespread, and I've certainly not seen it made in botanical papers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We haven't been able to track down a source, and in zoology too, the two terms are used interchangeably a lot. The article will in my view not suffer in scope or clarity by removing it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Having thought things over, I feel the article misses some words as to the definition and cultural aspect of transitional fossils. First off, what's separating the examples we have from any other evolutionary transitions? Why is Tiktaalik more important than let's say Osteolepis, Panderichthys or Diplovertebron? And why is still Archaeopteryx the quintessential transitional, when there's been found a heap of other small feathery theropods? I believe both answers are firmly rooted in culture, and that this rather non-scientific aspect needs to be mentioned. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps expand the role of media hype or mention that virtually all fossils represent transitional/intermediate forms? Some possible sources:

• Tarver, J. E.; Donoghue, P. C. J.; Benton, M. J. (2010). "Is evolutionary history repeatedly rewritten in light of new fossil discoveries?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278 (1705): 599. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0663. 
• Horenstein, S. (2009). "Paleontology and Evolution in the News". Evolution: Education and Outreach 2 (2): 318–325. doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0130-7. 
• Evolution, missing links and climate change: recent advances in understanding transformational macroevolution (John Long)
• Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs (Anthony J. Martin)
• Ida: Humankind's Earliest Ancestor! (Not Really) (Michael Lemonick, TIME Science)
• The Fossil Fallacy (Michael Shermer, Skeptic)

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 February 2012, 23:19 UTC)

---

Neurotoxin

I've listed this article for peer review because…

As a specialist in the field, I have made significant contributions to this article, improving it from just a few paragraphs to nearly its current form. It has been edited now for a few months by other users on Wikipedia, and I think it could now benefit from a review by those with significant knowledge in the field. I am specifically looking for comments about ways to improve the material presented. I have included what I believe to be a rather thorough presentation of the pathologies and treatments involved with each neurotoxin exposure, but I'm sure there is some primary research that will be missing. Suggestions on other material that should be included would be helpful (including other possible neurotoxins).

Thanks, Rysin (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• A few things, not a full review by any means:
  • The automated checker found a few things - I have to agree with it that the table of contents is too long, which in this case probably indicates a need to split the article up into subpages, with summaries of the subpages on the current page.
  • The alt text checker also found some images without alt text.
  • If you're wanting a review by others with knowledge in the field, this isn't the best place for that - try the pages of the neurology and toxicity task forces first, then the larger WikiProjects it's a part of.
  • Primary research is not what is emphasized on Wikipedia, but information interpreted by secondary research (e.g., review papers).
  • For ways to improve what's presented, you may wish to also check with the Guild of Copy-Editors (WP:GUILD).
• Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh. One other thing. It is not clear exactly why "inhibitors" and "receptor antagonists" are divided into two sections. Receptor agonists are easily understandable as being separate (and admittedly there are compounds that act as both agonists and antagonists).Allens (talk | contribs) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• A few possible additional toxins, such as strychnine, can be found in the Category:Neurotoxins and its subcategories. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 17 February 2012, 00:19 UTC)

---

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)

Comments from Niagara

• Kilometres is abbreivated in the lead, but elsewhere in the prose, it is spelled out; it should be consistently one or the other.
  • Same goes with the spelling "-meter" and "-metre"; percent and %; "US", "U.S." and "United States", C$ and CAD$, US$ and $.
• Inconsistent use of unit conversions (US gallon converted but not litres; US$ to € once, but nowhere else)
• "It is no stranger to natural disasters; in addition to earthquakes, it has been struck frequently by tropical cyclones, which have caused flooding and widespread damage."
  • Too many "it"s, why not just separate the sentences? — "Haiti is no stranger to natural disasters. In addition to earthquakes, it has been struck frequently by tropical cyclones, which have caused flooding and widespread damage."
• "The damage from the quake was more severe than for other quakes of similar magnitude due to the shallow depth of the quake." — One sentence paragraph, could be merged into the preceeding paragraph.
• "The quake seriously damaged the control tower at Toussaint L'Ouverture International Airport and the Port-au-Prince seaport, which rendered the harbor unusable for immediate rescue operations. The Gonaïves seaport, in the northern part of Haiti, remained operational."
  • Change the sentences so that the airport and seaports are in their own respective setences — "The quake seriously damaged the control tower at Toussaint L'Ouverture International Airport. Damage to the Port-au-Prince seaport rendered the harbor unusable for immediate rescue operation, however, the Gonaïves seaport in northern Haiti remained operational."
• "As a result, a machine translation program to translate between English and Haitian Creole had to be written quickly."
  • Reference needed for that.
• The "Status of the recovery" section is a very long "wall-of-text", would be possible to add a photo or two to break-up the visual monotony. That section is also one of the longest in article and could be pared down a bit, some suggestions where are:
  • The second paragraph could be trimmed as it talks about preparing for the 2010 hurricane season, which has come and gone.
  • The third paragraph could be nixed as it is mostly a quote and adds nothing new that wasn't already implied in the first paragraph of the section.

Definitetly comprehensive and informative, but needs a lot syle cleanup. Considering reviewing an article from the backlog as that how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 February 2012, 00:35 UTC)

---

General

Speech generating device

I've listed this article for peer review because I have a long term goal to get the subject more completely covered on wikipedia - maybe even to FA one day - there was also an issue with the article's GA status being challenged very soon after the status was achieved so I think a peer review might resolve any lingering doubts in the community.

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 16:01 UTC)

---

Police officers charged criminally in Canada

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new article created by myself and I expect it will be contraversial. One editor already tried, see talk page and edit history. I would like suggestions on how to make the article stronger, so it cannot be deleted by editors who take offence to the topic.

Thanks, JunoBeach (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: the article appears to have been deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 18:54 UTC)

---

Richard Henry Savage

This article is about a worldly man who had two very strong careers, one as a military engineer and one as a writer. His greater fame came from his books which were all highly popular pulp novels, fast-moving and easy to read; nothing very snobby.

It gained GA a while back and has been resting quietly since then. I would like to push it farther to FA, but I don't have very much objectivity about it. New eyes would be very good! Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Well done in developing the article on this interesting and diverse character. At present the prose requires some further attention, and there are issues of clarification and relevance. A general concern is that so little of the article deals with Savage's activity as a writer, which is highlighted in the first sentence and which is, you imply above, what he is chiefly remembered for. There is a legacy section with no legacy in it. Here are my detailed comments:-

• Lead: MOS indicates a maximum of four paragraphs. For a relatively short (under 2000w) article, this lead is too long and should be cut back; a lead should be a broad-brush summary.
• There is no reason for the single citation in the lead, since the same fact is given in the text and should be cited there.
• Prose and general issues
  • "Savage joined with his family" → "Savage joined his family". The sentence containing this phrase is overlong, and should be split.
  • Some readers may wonder how Savage came to study law with a US Senator. Did he work in the senator's law office, or was this an informal arrangement?
  • "The Civil War found Savage immediately joining the Union Army but his father had him discharged for extreme youth." - very awkward phrasing. I suggest: "At the start of the Civil War Savage joined the Union Army, but his father secured his discharge on the grounds of his extreme youth".
  • In what capacity did Savage's father "push to keep California on the Union side" Did he have political influence?
  • Clarify whether his appointment as Collector of Internal Revenue was statewide or nationwide. The years 1861-73 are not part of the job title, so I would say : "...in which capacity he served between 1861 and 1873".
  • "Through his influence..." - "his" referring to whom? Lincoln? Please clarify. This is another of those sentences that needs reorganising and splitting. Why was Savage crossing the Panama isthmus? What are plebes?
  • What is the meaning of "brevet" when attached to a military rank?
  • Avoid POV or peacock terms such as "Savage served ably..."
  • "Through President Grant..." Explain how he was able to secure the assistance of Grant.
  • "Beginning in 1871, Savage traveled to Egypt..." Unless the journey took a very long time, you should delete "Beginning"
  • You serve with, not at the rank of captain, and to clarify that this captaincy was in the Egyptian Army. This is not altogether clear at the moment.
  • I, and maybe other readers, will wonder how, without any apparent training, Savage was able to serve as chief engineer to a railroad.
  • I'm not sure that the information about Savage's daughter's much later marriage has any relevance here.
  • Individuals such as Henry George should be properly introduced, rather than merely named and linked.
  • More clarity necessary about the publication dates of Savage's various books
  • The "Critical Review" section has one single review, which is hardly worthy of a section to itself. Is there no other recorded criticism of any of Savage's words? If not, it would be better to paraphrase the main points of the Overland Monthly review and tack this on to the previous section.
  • The beginning of the "New York" section is verbose and overdetailed. I recommend: "In 1896, Savage sued his publisher for $12,000 in unpaid royalties. The publisher..."
  • The first paragraph of this section seems somewhat anecdotal and disconnected. I recommend that you eliminate most of this and move more quickly to Savage's service in the Spanish-American War. Likewise, the last paragraph has nothing to do with New York life, and very little to do with Savage.
  • "Death and legacy" - where's the legacy?
• Images
  • File:Richard Henry Savage.jpg The proper licence is PD-US, not PD-old. You can't claim auhor's life plus 70 years if the author of the image is unknown.
  • Same issue with File:Richard Henry Savage - signature.jpg
  • - and File:Richard Henry Savage 1890s.jpg

As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please ping my talkpage if you wish to raise any questions with me, or if you want me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 23 February 2012, 23:38 UTC)

---

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)

Comments by A. Parrot

The article looks to be neutral in its approach, which is commendable with such an emotionally charged subject. It also looks reasonably well organized, with some exceptions that I describe below.

The references are mostly news sources and look pretty reliable. (A reviewer might question The Idiot's Guide to Pakistan, but the author is a journalist who spent years there and is presumably well informed.) My one suggestion about sources is to find more academic and analytical sources, like the paper by C. Christine Fair or the book by Zahid Hussain. When writing articles myself, I strive to find the gist of a subject, the big picture, and make it clearly visible to the reader amid the details. Sources that analyze the situation in Pakistan, and not just news articles about the latest terrorist attack or political announcement, will help do that.

Because the article leans so heavily on news sources, it does sometimes feel choppy, with single sentences on particular events strung together into paragraphs of loosely related information. That may not be a problem in a GA review unless, because of that lack of cohesion, the article leaves out essential information—the gist that I was talking about—or confuses the reader. I saw one case where I think it does both of those things, which I describe under "Relations with other militant groups", below.

Lead

• The lead specifies "the TTP" as an alternate name, but the article sometimes says "the TTP" and sometimes "TTP". It should be consistent.

• It says in the lead that the TTP is also called the Pakistani Taliban, yet in the next sentence it says, "Most, but not all, Pakistani Taliban groups coalesce under the TTP." That suggests that "Pakistani Taliban" can mean something other than the TTP. The distinction should be clarified. For example, you could say (assuming that this is factually correct), "Most, but not all, groups that are commonly called the 'Pakistani Taliban' are part of the TTP." Also, because the lead should reflect what is in the article body, there should be something about what defines "Pakistani Taliban" in the body.

• The second paragraph nicely draws a distinction between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. The "however" in the third sentence, though, makes it feel like the attacks on the US described in the rest of the paragraph are a similarity with the Afghan Taliban, in contrast with the differences described above (people seem to forget this, but the Afghan Taliban has never launched attacks in the United States). Also, rearranging the third and fourth sentences to put events in chronological order (Camp Chapman attack, Qari Mehsud's declaration about US cities, Times Square bombing) would make sense.

• "In 2009 Pakistan launched offensives to force the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan from its territory in South Waziristan." That kind of leaves the reader hanging, because it doesn't give the results of the offensives or the current state of affairs. I suggest replacing that sentence with a paragraph about the areas in which the TTP is operating or has operated (has it ever reached far outside the tribal areas?), and how its fight with the government of Pakistan is going.

• The War in North-West Pakistan, and perhaps terrorism in Pakistan, should be mentioned and linked somewhere in the lead.

History

• The BBC quote is long, and I don't see a particular reason why it shouldn't be paraphrased.

• "The TTP soon held a shura to appoint his successor". This probably needs a brief gloss, e.g., "…soon held a shura, or council, to appoint his successor."

• The section on the TTP's designation as a terrorist organization needs some expansion to justify its existence as a separate section. The statement about the US designation mentions some of the measures the US government has taken as a result of the designation; if more detail is available it might be useful to include. The British and Canadian designations need some indication of why those designations make any practical difference for the TTP. I also wonder about the exact reasoning for the designation—was it just "the TTP has blown up X and killed Y and Z and is therefore a terrorist organization", or was there some kind of statement about the TTP's geopolitical significance? And finally, does Pakistan label the TTP as terrorists?

Relations with other militant groups

• The bold heading saying "Cross-border controversy" should either be changed into a real heading or eliminated. I favor the latter, because a section with a single subsection is rather clumsy organization. I realize that cross-border issues are a significant part of the relationship between the TTP and the Afghan Taliban, but if the text about them is so long that it seems to need a separate section, perhaps it should be trimmed.

• The section on the Punjabi Taliban needs some clarifying. If the organization is merely alleged to exist, as the first sentences of the section suggest, who alleges it? It may be an untraceable rumor that is widespread among the Pakistani public, but if so it should be explicitly stated. Was the term really invented by Rehman Malik, as Sharif claims, and what exactly were the "ethnic grounds" for his claim? Are any ethnic groups particularly apt to repeat the rumor out of dislike for Punjabis?

Yet in other sentences, the Punjabi Taliban appears to be real. For example: "TTP has significant recruits from Punjab based sectarian organizations also called Punjabi Taliban." (Punjabi Taliban organizations that are somehow "other" than the imaginary Punjabi Taliban? Who's to say they aren't the Punjabi Taliban?) And the quotation from C. Christine Fair, referring to "the movement", seems to be speaking of the Punjabi Taliban and implying that it is a real organization. I think the confusion here demonstrates the problem with writing style that I mentioned above: statements are reliably sourced and relevant to the topic but don't necessarily form a cohesive picture when strung together. A few sentences at the start of the section should state how certain or uncertain it is that the Punjabi Taliban exists, who argues over the issue, and why.

Claimed and alleged attacks

• The title looks redundant at first glance. I think I grasp the distinction now: attacks that the TTP has claimed responsibility for versus attacks that outsiders have accused them of. The title should probably be reworded so it is clearer and doesn't seem redundant.

• This list is pretty long, which looks cumbersome. More useful than a litany of TTP attacks would be a summary of its usual tactics and targets, and the most significant attacks it has made. Perhaps you could make a section on "Attacks" with a subsection for the list and a subsection for the analysis, or maybe you could just turn the list into an article.

I wish you well in your efforts. Let me know if you need any other help. A. Parrot (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 January 2012, 20:45 UTC)

---

Lists

List of Friends episodes

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this is far from WP:FLC but can be with some suggestions/ideas. Having looked at other featured lists similar to this, I have managed to add all production numbers on each episode and a summary of Nielsen ratings. Any comments will be appreciated, thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 21:27 UTC)

---

LCD Soundsystem discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like input on how I can make this a Featured List soon.

Thanks, What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 06:05 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)

Comments

• In the Singles and Other charted songs sections, you've used multiple references in some columns. Please make those columns like refs #84, #85 and #86.
• For the RIANZ singles certifications (from May 2007 to July 2011) use this archived source because that website doesn't work anymore.
• Also the rianz.org.nz sources don't work anymore because the website has been changed to nztop40.co.nz.
• In the Video albums table, you've linked RIAA, MC, and BPI again. Also a lot of WP:OVERLINK in the Notes column.
• A lot of overlinking in the Music videos table.
• For ref #3, instead of Music-mix.ew.com, use Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc
• Publisher is missing for ref #4 (which is Viacom).
• For ref #9, use [[People (magazine)|People]]. Time Inc
• Publishers missing for refs #10 and #11.
• Ref #16 is a dead link.
• For ref #17, instead of Billboard.biz, change it so it looks like ref #12.
• References still need a lot of work. The Hung Medien sources like australian-charts.com should not be italicized, and the Allmusic, Allmovie, Billboard, MTV and Rap-Up sources are missing publishers.

Oz ^talk 04:20, 23 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)

Comments

• No image for the infobox?
• "Selena had released 22 music videos and 12 video/live albums during her career" no need for "had".
• No need to link orchestra.
• "which is a duet with" just "a duet with" is fine (you don't need "which is a").
• "it featured Selena and a couple of people dancing" -> "featuring Selena and two people dancing..."
• " dancing the cumbia dance in a beach house" -> "dancing to the cumbia in a beach house" and delink "beach house".
• "dancing in the styles of hip hop." -> "hip-hop dancing."
• Link Joshua Tree National Park and make the capitalisation correct.
• You could mention in one sentence how/why Selena died.
• ""Viviras Selena", which is a tribute song," don't need "which is".
• "was only featured in two scenes" -> "was featured in only two scenes"
• "During Selena's tenth death anniversary " -> "In 2005, ten years after Selena's death..."
• Make the tables conform with MOS:DTT, i.e. focus on the accessibility. You aren't prohibited from using colours for pure visual appeal, but please use col and row scopes.
• Song titles don't match reliable sources with their capitalisation.
• Don't think you need a separate table for posthumous videos, merge the tables into one sortable table.
• "Video/Live albums" as a title isn't good, at least decapitalise and make it "Video/live albums"...
• No need for the bullet points in the certifications column.
• Ensure all references comply with WP:DASH (i.e. en-dashes not spaced hyphens) and have publisher/publication dates wherever possible.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 January 2012, 19:50 UTC)

---

WikiProject peer-reviews

• WikiProject Military history: Richard Henry Savage • Charles Lindbergh • Adolf Galland • Invasions of the British Isles

Archives

• 2012:
  • March (current)
  • January, February

• 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