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

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

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

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

Arts

21 (Adele album)

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

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

Brief comments by Lemonade51

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

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

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

Comments by Jivesh

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Legolas

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

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

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

---

Missing My Baby

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

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

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Blake's 7

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate Blake's 7 for promotion to Good Article status, I think it's almost ready and would like some feedback from uninvolved editors to see whether it cuts the mustard before I nominate it. The article uses British English without Oxford commas, and 'series' (singular and plural) instead of 'season(s)' as is usual on UK TV articles. I'm thinking of using a table of video and DVD releases at the end of the article but it's rather large (31 rows for the VHS tapes) and I'm not sure whether the existing prose is sufficient. Comments on prose, images, layout and all other aspects of the article are welcomed. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Check italicization - titles like Brave New World should be in italics. be consistent in whether ship names are italicized, etc
• Don't use hyphens for line pauses, but instead either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes

Done - spaced en dashes. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why is Girlfriend capitalized?

Oops, it was a minor error - fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is an "alpha-grade worker"? In general, some of the plot points and aspects of the fictional world could be clearer for readers who don't watch the show

Done - he's now a " ...a worker of high social status classified as "alpha-grade"..." That's a good point which I'll deal with. Are there any other terms you found confusing or are unexplained? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• What makes this a reliable source? This? This? Check for other questionable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the IMDB and Youtube references - The Anorak Zone reference covers merchandise (annuals, books, magazines) that I couldn't find elsewhere. The latter 'Louise and Simon's Blake's 7 Fan Site' (blakes-7.co.uk) is an interview with the new rights-holders that can't be found elsewhere, the former reference is a press release which probably can be found elsewhere. Amended - actually one of my books covers the marvel comics, so I'll change that over later. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikkimaria, I'll deal with those issues over the next few days. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Comments

Just a look at the lead; I'll post my comments here:

• "Four series of Blake's 7 were produced and broadcast between 1978 and 1981." - do you mean "four seasons"?
• "A comparatively small range of Blake's 7 merchandise was issued by several companies." - "comparatively small range" is a bit awkward. Does the adverb need to be there? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi WP, thanks for taking he time to look at this article. British television tends to use 'series' (plural) instead of 'seasons', as do the Doctor Who, Hi De Hi, George and Mildred and other British TV articles. Above you'll find a 2008 discussion about this - I wanted 'seasons' then, as that's what my source material uses, but I agreed to leave it alone and 'series' does fit with other UK TV articles. '...comparatively small...' - I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing it at the time, but yes it's a small amount of merchandise compared to 'Star Trek' or 'Dr. Who'. Would '...a limited range...' be an improvement?

Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Limited range would work. I'll post more comments soon. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, WP; there's an ongoing peer review now; you can find the link at the top of the page, comments on all aspects of the article are welcome. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand we've disputed this, but the purpose of ellipses in quotations is to show that there is missing information in place of the ellipses. Without the ellipses, the quotation is otherwise modified and misused. However, in the beginning and end of quotes, they are not needed because it is usually obvious that there is missing information there and the quotations are integrated into the prose, so ellipses are not necessary. Take it as a kind word of advice. By the way, a lot of the article is actually really well written. GA should be no trouble for you, but I'll help you out with the PR in case I have a long list of concerns. ;-) Best wishes, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, WP. I know ellipses can look awkward on a page but I don't think that exempts us from being intellectually honest.Omission isn't always obvious (your "usually" bears this out!). I 'will look again at this article in that respect to see where I can omit the ellipses. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. ;-) However, are you sure there must be a space between a quotation mark and an ellipses? I've never seen this style used before... Thank you, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Per MOS:ELLIPSIS: "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis ("France, Germany, ... and Belgium"), except that there should be no space between an ellipsis and: * a quotation mark directly following the ellipsis ("France, Germany, and Belgium ...")". You're right - I'm wrong, at least at the closing end! :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Do we use "the" before London or not? Check for this inconsistency. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS Ark Royal (91) an FA doesn't use 'the' - I'm unaware of an official policy on the use of 'the' before ship names, but to write "the London" seems unwieldy so I've used London in preference to "the London". Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Jona's Comments

If I may baffle gab, here are my concerns while reading this interesting article:

Infobox

• Why does the run_time parameter reads "c. 50 minutes per episode"? Meerkat Manor, a FA television show, does not represent this. Also its best to use {{duration}} for this parameter.

Not done - 'duration' is a parameter that relates to music infoboxes, television uses 'runtime'; 'c.' means 'circa' which is Latin for 'approximately'. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "and was inspired by sources such as" - what does "sources" mean in this sentence?

"Sources" in this context means sources of inspiration (film and other media) that were drawn upon by the creator and writers of the programme. 'Changed to "fictional media texts". Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why is Roj Blake wikilinked at its second occurrence?

Fixed Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "they commandeer an inferior spacecraft" - is this a typo?

No it isn't a typo; to commandeer is to take something from somebody for a specific reason, usually applied to a legal authority (police, military etc). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In the final episode, Avon discovers Blake's location and suspecting Blake of betraying the group to the Federation, kills him." - is not in past-tense tone, the rest of lead is in past-tense except for this sentence.

We use the present tense to describe fictional events that occur within the narrative per WP:WAF. This also tells the reader whether fictional or real-world events are being described. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "and its memorable final episode" sounds like an WP:OPED to me

removed 'memorable' Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "but broadcasterClive James called it" - needs space

Fixed - thanks :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Music and sound effects were released by the BBC, toys and models were produced and books, magazines and annuals were published." - this reads like a run-off, xx was released, xy were published, and ab were published.

Yes I think this needs re-wording - I'll be onto it later.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Done - sentence re-worded. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

References

• FN#58 and FN#77 needs to be fixed

Done - formatting errors Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format (compare FN#75 and #77)

Done - #77 dates converted to full d-m-y format. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing those reference problems to me, I'll fix them as soon as I can. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ajona, thanks for commenting here, you've been very helpful. :-) This should be discussed at the peer review page; would you mind if I move these conversations into that page? It would help keep all the relevant comments together. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 January 2012, 01:46 UTC)

---

Monteverdi's lost operas

I've been working on this article on and off (mainly off) for at least a couple of years. Monteverdi isn't a "core topic" and I doubt if he achieves eye-catching traffic scores, but he is a key figure in the history of opera. For this reason the operas he wrote and which are now lost are of interest to the musically minded (or to some of them anyway). If you can't stand the music there's some nice pics. All aspects open for review and all comments are welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Background
  • "Monteverdi's long creative life is largely contained in two phases" – I see what you mean, but it reads oddly. Not sure if it's the present tense, but I feel it could be put more smoothly. Perhaps something on the lines of "Most of M's works during his long life were composed in two phases…"?

• • I have rephrased, I hope more smoothly. Check it out Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • "suggests that the high rate of loss is indicative that in that age" – creaks a bit, perhaps. What about something to the effect that he "suggests that the high rate of loss indicates that in Monteverdi's times…"?

• • Rephrased, more or less per you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• For Mantua
  • Caption of image. You might consider adding that Bacchus is shown as a medium pace right arm seam bowler, and has just been called for No Ball by the umpiress on his right.

• • I agree, Bacchus's bowling action left much to be desired, but I understand that he was primarily a batsman.
    • That riposte is without doubt the most brilliant reply I have ever had on WP, blast you! Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Not so brilliant, really. As a shot in the dark, I googled "Bacchus cricketer", and bingo, good ole Wikipedia did the rest!

• • "Ariadne whom he believes will…" – not an accusative, if we're being strictly grammatical; either "whom he believes to be" or "who he believes will be"

• • rephrased, and got rid of th "who v. whom" conundrum. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Frederico Follini? He's "Federico" elsewhere in the Wikipedia Monteverdi articles. I will check them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Indeed he is (my typo), and I hope as "Follino" rather than "Follini"

• • Monteverdi's fellow-composer – I'm a bit puzzled by the quote. This chap was only 20 years younger than Monteverdi, so why is he talking of "early music"?

• • I simply recorded the quote. I don't know what Gagliano meant by "early music", so I've nipped that out of the quote. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Le nozze d'Enea in Lavinia
  • "to better demonstrate the range of his musical genius" – you know, and I know, that the taboo against split infinitives is very silly, but many otherwise sensible people subscribe to it, and if I were you I'd play for safety and rejig the sentence to avoid it.

• • Point taken, reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And that meagre collection is the sum of my quibbles and suggestions. I've tinkered with a few typos, but please check that you're happy with my changes. One oddity: I ran the dab checker, and it came up with a single link, "Dionysius": but there is no mention of Dionysius in the article. Very odd. You'll be adding alt-text before going on to FAC, I assume.

I am unable to explain the mystery dablink. At one time I had Bacchus erroneously pipeliked to Dionysius instead of Dionysus. I removed this a while ago, yet somehow the dablink maintains a ghostly presence. I'll ask someone with technicl skills, e.g. Ruhrfisch, how I can fix this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed the article, and alternated between feeling indignant on Monteverdi's behalf for the run-around he got from his aristocratic bosses and thinking he was quite capable of pretty strenuous running around on his own account. – Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing a subject not dearest to your heart, but you's probably prefer to read about the lost operas than the extant ones! I think I've fixed your concerns, but I will probably have to rejig further, to meet the blessed E's comments below. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Note that I've discovered Template:Efn which is wonderful for getting rid of that obnoxious {{#tag:ref||group=name}} syntax Lead:

• "He was one of the first exponents of the emergent genre of opera, and played a significant role during the first half of the 17th century in its development from a courtly entertainment into the principal form of public musical theatre." wow, that's a mouthful - can we break this up a bit? Leads generally are less "dense" than body text ... this is pretty dense for the lead.

• See my note below on the lead generally Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure on the MOS for this ... but for "In the following 36 years he wrote nine further operas,..." I think you want either "In the following 36 years he wrote 9 further operas,..." or "In the following thirty-six years he wrote nine further operas,.."

• See below

• Quickie explanation for intermedi? I know you have the link but...

• Brief explanation added. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Does L'orfeo also survive? If so, we probably need to make that clearer in the sentence starting "Of the works..."

• See note below

• "Of seven other operas he composed either in part or in whole, the music has been lost with the exception of fragments." Does this mean the words/libretto survive? Or that the only thing surviving is fragments of the music? If the latter - I think "Fragments of the music for seven other operas he wrote either in part or in full also survive." would be better phrasing, less ambiguous.

Wording has been replaced, per below Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Most of the information relating to the lost operas has been deduced from contemporary documents, from which it is not always possible to determine how much music for individual works was actually written." Totally lost me with what you're trying to say in the second part here - Actually, I'm totally lost on the whole second paragraph of the lead. What are we covering in this article - the seven works for which we have something still surviving? I think the lead needs to be explicit here - in one of the first sentences - stating what we're covering here. Also .. I would expect a listing of all the titles covered by this article in the lead.

• WaYYY too many sentences start "Of the ..." or "Of (number)..."

• Following your criticisms I re-read the lead and found it unsatisfactory. I have rewritten it; I hope it's now clear that (a) the article is about the seven "lost" operas out of the ten Monteverdi wrote, (b) that apart from a couple of fragments the music for these seven works has disappeared, although in some cases the libretto has been found and (c) of the seven "lost" works it is known that four were completed and performed and three were aborted by Monteverdi. These are the critical points, though I shall probably add a litle more to the lead as this review progresses. But please let me know if anything remains unclear at present. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Greatly improved, thank you! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Background:

• "maestro di capella" is .. what?

• translation in lead Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "This timespan of more than 50 years covers the period from the inception of opera as a form of courtly entertainment in the final decade of the 16th century, to a point towards the middle of the 17th century when the genre had achieved widespread acceptance as the principal form of public musical theatre." Ouch. Convoluted and I got lost somewhere in there... can we break this down a bit?

• Yes, rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Italian word "opera", short for opera in musica ("musical work"), was not applied generally before 1634." Sounds awkward. Suggest "The Italian word "opera", short for opera in musica ("musical work"), was not in general use before 1634."

• Your suggestion is adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The first works now generally considered as "operas" are Jacopo Peri's Dafne of 1597, and Euridice (1600) for which both Peri and Giulio Caccini provided music." I think what this is trying to say (but it took rereading it twice) is that Peri wrote Dafne by himself and collaborated with Caccini on Euridice? Can we make this clearer?

• It's not that simple. They were rivals rather than collaborators, and wrote their musical settings independently. I don't want to get into this, but I have tweaked the wording slightly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "...and the use of recitative, aria and arioso as well as choruses in the vocal parts." Need to explicate the words "recitative", "aria" and "arioso" a bit here so you don't lose your readers to other articles.

• Hmm, I have to disagree here. These words are the common currency of opera; even people who know little of opera will usually have an idea what these words mean, and for the tiny minority who don't, the links are there. The alternative would be to ruin the prose flow with paranthetical explanations, e.g. for recitative ("a form of sung speech used between arias and other formal numbers to advance the plot"). With less usual tems such as "intermedi", I have incorporated a brief explanation, but to apply it to the extent you suggest is not, I think, justified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "For example, Monteverdi's torneo Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1624) is a work whose precise genre has proved particularly difficult to define." But apparantly it's a torneo? If it really is subject to debate, suggest not defining it in the sentence - looks very ... strange.

• Good point - definition removed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Monteverdi composed, in all, 24 works for the stage. Of these, ten are usually classified as operas, of which the music for seven has been lost apart from a few fragments." I think you need all numerals here ... since you're comparing/contrasting all the same type of thing.

• Yes, done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "...their loss is that they may contain musical links..." reads odd. Suggest "...their loss is that they might have shown musical links..."

• That's better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Link for Libretto and explanation on first usage?

• Done (in lead)

L'Arianna:

• "...and set the ballet Ballo delle ingrate." Huh?

• Improved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Linkie "soprano"?

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "...could hold an audience of several thousands." be "could hold an audience of several thousand."?

• Either is used in BritEng. The singular form would normally be followed by a specific noun, e.g. "persons". Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I gather the libretto survives?

• Yes. I've added a note to this effect. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Le nozze:

• "maestro della musica" is ... what?

• Alternative title to "maestro di capella", but I should stick to the one title. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Thus, late in 1616 Striggio asked him to set Scipione Agnelli's libretto Le nozze di Tetide, as part of the celebrations..." I don't get the "set" bit here.

• set to music" - fixed here and elsewhere Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Andromeda:

• A "ballo" is what? Yeah, there's a link, but you can lose readers that way.

• Explanation added. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "still with 400 lines of the Andromeda libretto to set" ... we need to define this jargon of "set" somewhere - I sorta get the gist of it, but it's jargony and should be explained on first usage so you don't confuse non-specialists. Again ... "librettos were often the subject of numerous settings by " is going to be opaque to non-specialists.

• See note above. I think the meaning of "setting" in this context is now clear. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Two abortive:

• "about a women who feigns madness" is this "a woman" or "about women"?

• Woman (typo)

La finta:

• "appreciation of the composer's innovatory style" awkward - more usual would be "appreciation of the composer's innovative style"

• Yes

• "...theme in commedia dell'arte which..." "commedia dell'arte" is what?

• I've made this "the commedia dell'arte tradition", but the link will have to do for any detailed explanation which cannot be achieved in a few words. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Linkie "Italian theatre"?

• What link did you have in mind?

• I was hoping for something specifically Italian in History of theatre but no such luck... that's the general idea I had... but we seem to be lacking any overview history of Italian theatre article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Linkie "Paulo Sacrati"?

• It's a redlink; I've never heard of him otherwise so I wonder about his notability?

Armida:

• Linkie "Girolamo Mocenigo"?

• Even less notable than Sacrati, I'd say. Very much doubt he's worth a redlink, honestly

Proserpina:

• Quickie explanation for canzonetta?

• It's a song, and easier to say so in English so I've done that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quickie explanation for "balli"?

• Its the plural of "ballo" which is already explained and linked.

• Okay, so it was added to a repetroire after his death but when did it fall out of the repetoire?

• No information in any sources on that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Le Nozze:

• Linkie for "Michelangelo Torcigliani"?

• I think about this. In my view redlinks should be used when there is a possible chance that an article will be written on the subject. I know that some editors like to use them whenever possible, but when overused they can confuse the uninformed reader and can be unsightly. But as I say, I'll give it more thought. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• "He acknowledges numerous departures from the original, including the introduction of a comic character, "Numanus", to match that of the popular "Iro" in Ulisse: "I knew the dispositions of many theatregoers"." Disjointed - I diddn't see the connection between the quote and the first part until I reread the sentence - suggest rewording.

• Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, the article just ... ends. Nothing to tie all this together and stuff?

• I'm working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

It's very good. As you know, I find the concept of the lost work quite fascinating—even more tantalizing is the possibility that these scores will emerge from some dank library archive in the future. Thanks for the great read.

General:

• Spotted some comma inconsistency in sentences that begin with "In [date]" or "On [date]" phrases.

• I use a comma after a year or date only if a subclause follows. Thus: "In 1644, the year following Monteverdi's death,..." etc, as against "On 20 June Monteverdi informed..." etc. I believe I've been consistent in following this principle, but please point out any instance where I haven't.

Background:

• "Monteverdi's long creative life is largely contained in two phases" Same comment as Tim riley, really. Maybe "Monteverdi's long creative life comprises largely two phases"? Not sure...

• This phrasing has subsequently been replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Before then, and even after, in Italy operatic works were typically termed favola in musica" The "and even after" lost me here—you've just written that the term opera was not used before 1634, implying that it was used after. Do you mean that after 1634, Italian operatic works were sometimes called opera and sometimes called favola in musica, etc?

• Again, this wording has been superseded. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "A significant aspect of their loss is that they may contain musical links between the composer's early Mantuan court operas and the public operas he wrote in Venice towards the end of his life." I think you need more clarity here. I'm assuming what you're stating is that the opportunity to study the potential links has been lost.

• I have strengthened the comment by adding a quotation from Carter which I think covers your point. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For Mantua:

• "The libretto for L'Arianna was by Rinuccini, whose literary skills had earlier impressed Duke Vincenzo I of Mantua after a performance of Euridice." Wouldn't Rinuccini's literary skills have impressed the duke during the performance?

• Not sure about this - maybe he was concentrating on the music and/or spectatcle during the performance? Probably best left. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For Venice:

• Ninth Book of Madrigals—what is it? Stylize as appropriate. A brief explanation would be nice.

• Explanation and footnote added. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for these comments which were most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

• I just read this in one sitting - very nicely done. I have a few quibbles, but think it is ready for FAC already (ping me).
• In For Mantua, even though I have read the article on L'Orfeo, I somehow expected a bit more on it here than a passing mention in the second sentence of the L'Arianna section and one mention by name in the Background.
• When I read this, I just assumed there would be some sort of follow-up sentence (when it was next performed, or even that no trace of it remains) In 1644, the year following Monteverdi's death, Proserpina rapita was added to the repertory of Venice's Teatro San Moisè.[92]
  • Redlich, the source, give no performance details, and no other source I've seen even mentions this fact. Carter refers to a second edition of the libretto being published in Venice in 1644 which is indicative of some relevant action there. I have extended the sentence to incoporate these facts.
    • Much better now -thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• General comment - I know that it says in the lead which were the four operas that were actually written and performed, but perhaps it could be made clearer in the beginning of each section if this is the case. So for example the first sentence of L'Arianna begins with L'arianna was composed for the Mantua court as part of the festivities for the wedding of the heir to the duchy, Francesco Gonzaga, to Margherita of Savoy, in May 1608. which makes it clear it was actually composed and performed. His last two Mantuan projects are under the header "Two abortive projects (1627–28)", so it is clear from the start that they came to nought. However the sections on Le nozze di Tetide and Andromeda both begin ambiguously, and to be honest, I was a little unclear at first if Andromeda had been performed or not (I went back and re-read the sentence The libretto's frontispiece confirms that the work was performed during Mantua's Carnival, 1–3 March 1620.[50] - perhaps if "Andromeda" was used instead of "the work"?).
• I am not sure if it would help to have a sentence or two at the start of the For Mantua and For Venice sections giving an overview of each? So "For Mantua" could have a sentence that said Monteverdi worked on six operas for Mantua, only the first of which, L'Orfeo survives with music. Perhaps give a sentence or two on L'Orfeo next, then it could go on to say that of the remaining six, only the second (L'Arianna) and fourth (Andromeda) were actually completed and performed.
• The "For Venice" section could start with something similar, though these were clearer to me (both lost Venetian works were composed and performed). So perhaps something like Monteverdi composed four operas for performances in Venice, half of which survive with their music. His first Venetian work ... It is your call, but this may be clearer for the average reader.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these excellent suggestions, to which I shall apply myself. I wonder if I could ask you, as a further favour, to check whether you see any problems in relation to image licencing, or with the soundfile? The soundfile was on the L'Arianna article on which I am working independently, but I haven't really checked it out (Jappalang used to do these things) Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The painting images are all old enough to be out of copyright and thus photos of them are free. The photo of the palace is free too. The sound file is free as far as I can tell - I added the web page of the uploader (who is no longer active here). He recorded and sang it himself, so that seems fine. The only possible question is which version of the song did he record - assuming it is the one from the Madrigals book, all should be fine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the brief introductions at the start of each section are fine and all of my concerns above have been addressed. While re-reading the start of the article, I noticed a stray quotations mark in ...but of their music, only the famous lament",... that needs to be paired up or removed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Folantin comments

Nice work. "Paolo Sacrati" should be Francesco Sacrati, a popular opera composer of the era who may have had a hand in M.'s Incoronazione di Poppea. I created a stubby bio of him years ago, which could be expanded one day. --Folantin (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thnks for spotting my error. I had Sacrati correctly named in L'incoronazione, don't know why I called him Paolo here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "None of Monteverdi's music for Andromeda has survived." I'm pretty positive "Andromeda" needs italicising here, because presumably you mean the whole opera, not just the music for the heroine.--Folantin (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well spotted - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt comments (with only little time at the moment)

• Lead: I would like to know all seven titles in the lead, rather soon, to know what we talking about, for example at the end of the first par.
• Still there: I bet there is a better link to the court of Mantua than the present day city (compare Selva morale e spirituale) like Gonzaga mentioned later.
• Arianna, Armida: It is clear only afterwards where the plot ends.
• Another enjoyable interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• "fully preserved" - can we really say so about Ulisse and Poppea, looking at the debates about what in the copies is by Monteverdi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, for these helpful comments. I have adopted your suggestions, except for the first. Having tried this at an earlier stage in the drafting, I found that the proliferation of names led to confusion as to what was lost and what wasn't, what was finished and what wasn't, etc. So I'm leaving the first paragraph as it is, though all seven titles are now listed in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt comments (first part as yet)

Lede

• Are you sure on the bolding? Please consult WP:BOLDTITLE is you have not yet done so.
• The first two sentences contain an excessive number of commas, which is not helping to draw the reader in.
• "only three of which—" This is a very odd place to break off for the dash.
• "There is irrefutable evidence " Can you not bind this paragraph together by relating the papers mentioned in the previous sentence to this?

Background

• The sentences about what occurred during Monteverdi's musical career can probably be made to carry more impact if you are so inclined, but it may be best to pull your punches at this early stage.
• "for which both Peri and Giulio Caccini provided musically settings independently." The reader may be confused by this statement. Would it be wise to say that the work was performed to these settings, and in I assume 1600?
• I would reserve any mention of Monteverdi and L'Orfeo until the start of the following paragraphs from the one it presently appears in. This way, you move from the general to the specific with no need to move back.
• If you are going to italicise intermezzo, I would give consideration to doing the same to entr'acte. Just so the reader reads with an easy mind.
• "alongside the development of opera" perhaps "during Monteverdi's musical career; he often ..." or similar?
• " to confusion as to the correct classification of some works." perhaps, "to debate about how to categorise some works".
• Perhaps a few well-chosen words on Monteverdi's 1624 work which show how it resembled and yet was different from modern opera would be wise.

For Mantua

• "In all, " omit.
• " the service of the Gonzagas and was ensconced " Perhaps a reminder of the date he left the service of the Gonzagas.
• "nearly 20 years later, in a letter to the duke's secretary" could you find a graceful way of conveying to the reader that the duke was then dead?
• "After a Prologue" On balance, I think prologue should be lower case.
• Lamento caption: I would state when the piece was recorded.
• "Rinuccini's libretto was extended during the rehearsals, after complaints to the duke " If it is known who made the complaints, I would say so. Is it possible to turn the first phrase to the active voice, or is the extender not necessarily Rinuccini?
• "Andreini's renowned acting and vocal abilities." Perhaps the "renowned" can be moved to the first mention of Andreini? I think it would convey to the reader that they didn't just grab the first lady who could sing who came along in all likelihood.
• "employed" Perhaps it is overcute, but would you consider "deployed"?
• "the Mantuan court's official reporter for the occasion" I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps a rephrase is worth considering?
• If the Venice performance was the last, you should say so. If it is not known if it was the last, you should say so instead.
• "was familiar to the Mantuan court" If what follows is the evidence of this, it really isn't enough; it might only be familiar to whoever screened the candidates assuming he had a good memory and was still alive. Life seemed rather chancy then. Far safer to be at the Mint!
• "intermedi" a link to its singular form would be good, I think.
• "the duke had a sudden change of heart " I would omit "sudden". It does not matter if the duke agonized over it or did it on a whim, the point is he withdrew the commission.
• "still with 400 lines" There's a definite feeling that an "only" is intended before the 400. You may as well say it, then.
• "discovery" "rediscovery"?
• "current employers" then-employers?
• "In reply, Monteverdi offered three options: " Perhaps this can be split?
• "Mindful of Mantua's" I think you will need a "Tomlinson believes that ..." or "He believes that ..." or similar.
• "There are obvious structural similarities" I think this is too abrupt a start to the analysis.

• Obviously an epic work, and very well done. More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for such painstaking reviewing. I have dealt with your points in the letter or spirit of your suggestions, except for:

• Lead bolding: the link in the bolded characters was obviously wrong, but I think simple bolding of the name is permissible; I can't see where in WP:BOLDTITLE it is forbidden
• "A few well chosen words" where you suggest them would I think veer off-topic, but such words do appear, in a better context, in the Armida section
• There is no information available about performances of L'Arianna after the 1640 Venice revival
• "still with 400" was my intended sense, i.e. he still had much music to write when he suggested the project be given up
• "then-employers" is not BritEng idiom. I've made it "Venetian employers".

I'll be ready for the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 January 2012, 21:33 UTC)

---

Poppy Meadow

I've listed this article for peer review because…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Rae Wilson

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

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

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

---

Canadian comics

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

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

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Angie Bolen

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to fix any problems it has and potentially get it to GA status.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1: This looks fairly solid and should not have too many problems achieving GA. I have reviewed more with FA in mind and it should pass GA easily if these issues are cleared up. However, I am no expert in TV series/character articles and may have missed some things. And I have never watched the series. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure the first two refs are needed in the lead, and maybe the quote which uses ref 3 may be better used in the main body.
• "are the center of the series' yearly mystery": Never having watched this, it may be worth a sentence explaining what this means (presumably some issue which lasts for the length of a season, but what form does the mystery take?). And is "mystery" the official term used by the producers/writers?
• "Although critics initially embraced…" I can imagine fans embracing a character, but not critics. Welcomed? But embraced is not really encyclopaedic in this sense.
• "Many critics compared Angie to Betty Applewhite (Alfre Woodard), a character whose lagging storyline was the focus of the series' second season mystery.": A little similar to the start of the previous sentence. Maybe combine them "… and compared the character to Betty Applewhite whose lagging storyline [was the focus of the series' second season mystery: too much redundancy here?] featured in the second season."
• What is a "lagging storyline"? A little vague. I imagine it means a character with similar slow development, but this should be spelt out to avoid ambiguity.
• "Marc Cherry and his writing staff strove": A little too much like a publicity piece. Maybe "aimed to" rather than "strove".
• "was immediately offered the role following its conception": Redundancy?
• "She explained, "Now that I am old and don't really care, and remember how much fun I had playing that character."": Something missing from the quote here as it does not quite make sense as presented.
• For this section, could be have some dates for the character development and for de Matteo's casting? Otherwise, the "In November 2009…" paragraph lacks context.
• "In November 2009, rumors that de Matteo was being released from her contract due to budgetary concerns were shot down by Cherry, who insisted that the actor would appear in 20 of the season's 23 episodes." I'm not sure the first part of the sentence works here; also, "Shot down" is not encyclopaedic. And did she appear in 20 episodes? I think it should be kept factual rather than relying on the quote. Maybe something like: "Although it was rumored in November 2009 that de Matteo was to be released from her contract due to budgetary concerns, the actress appeared in 20 of the season's 23 episodes and Cherry denied that there was a problem. However…"
• "She has also been described as "icy."" By who?
• The personality and characteristics section feels light. Rather than pre-series publicity, what about some comments from critics about her personality? And maybe a few more descriptions from the series.
• "Patrick asked her to build a bomb…" Probably should be "Logan" rather than "Patrick" throughout this section.
• And it may be better to use the characters' surnames throughout, although I am not sure of the convention in articles on TV series.
• Presumably her background was only revealed at the end of the season? Perhaps this should be made clear, as the plot synopsis suggests this was known at the start.
• Why do we need a "Season Six" section if this was her only season?
• "Danny is the primary suspect of the crime…: Why not "Danny is the main/prime suspect"? No need for "of the crime".
• "befriends Angie while experiencing a nervous breakdown as a result of Mike Delfino (James Denton) marrying Susan rather than her.": Do we need to know the cause of her breakdown in an article on another character? I would end the sentence after "breakdown".
• "but is killed by a small plane that takes an emergency landing on Wisteria Lane soon after" Perhaps "makes an emergency landing".
• When was Patrick introduced into the series? Maybe this could be made clear, as he is only introduced in the overview section.
• "However, his interest in the storyline was renewed when John Barrowman joined the appeared as Patrick Logan": "joined the appeared" needs fixing
• "Cooper also enjoyed the conclusion of Angie's storyline, scoring her plot in the season finale with a 'B.'" Punctuation off here: should be "B" with the period outside. Also, what does "B" mean in this context? Finally, "and scored her plot "B"" may work better.
• "stating that the audience ad other characters were not invested enough": Typo.
• I have not reviewed sourcing or performed spot checks for accurate representation of sources or close paraphrasing/copyvio.
• I'm not sure two non-free images of the character are justified and would probably remove the second.

I do not watch PRs, so if there are any comments or questions, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 January 2012, 07:36 UTC)

---

Days Gone Bye

Previous peer review

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

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

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

---

Rajinikanth

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

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

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

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

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

---

Rihanna's Secret Body Spray Tour

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to promote Music of the Sun to Good Topic, but I doubt this article will be able to become GA. So according to the criteria, I am listing this for a Peer Review to solve any issues because nominating for Good Topic.

Thanks, Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1

• This is very short, but there are several issues which need clearing up.
• "The 9-day tour": Should this be "nine-day", per MOSNUM?
• "6-song": Ditto, should this be "six-song"?
• "Rihanna would play..." Better to use past tense: "Rihanna played ... and signed ..."
• "posters and CD's": No apostrophe in CDs.
• "Secret Body Spray Deodorant began selling their new collection of Body Spray": Is this the name of the company? Could some info be added on who they are and how they came to be involved with Rihanna? How did the tour help sales?
• "signed Barbadian Rihanna": Is her nationality necessary here?
• "9 tour": should be nine.
• "to the 9 tour dates going around promoting Body Spray and Music of the Sun, Rihanna's debut album": No need for "going around".
• "The campaign began in Cincinnati on 26, October": No need for comma.
• "on 7, December 2005": Again, no comma.
• "then Rihanna would come on stage and perform": "came on stage and performed".
• "After that she would answer fan questions then she would autograph posters, CDs or other scraps of paper for fans before leaving.": Again, should be past tense.
• Is there really nothing else to say? Promotion, reception, attendances, reports? It just seems sparse.
• There is a clean-up tag for bare urls which should be sorted, and should really be done before PR.

I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 January 2012, 00:28 UTC)

---

Bachata Rosa

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

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

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

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

---

Rihanna 2006 Tour

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to promote Music of the Sun to Good Topic, but I doubt this article will be able to become GA. So according to the criteria, I am listing this for a Peer Review to solve any issues because nominating for Good Topic.

Thanks, Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 January 2012, 22:38 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)

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

---

One for the Road (Cheers)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The Quatermass Xperiment

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it as a Featured Article. Since I've never gone through the FA process, I'd appreciate some feedback here first. I first started working on this article at the end of 2008 and it easily breezed through the GA process. Since then a lot more books and other works have appeared related to Hammer Films and this film, which is significant in the history of Hammer Films and the development of horror films generally, and I have expanded further, mainly using the Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) article as my guide for what makes a FA standard article.

Thanks, Joe King (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

This is an extremely well researched and enjoyable article. As far as I can tell as a non-expert, it seems comprehensive and the sourcing looks good. I've quite a list of nit-picks, but most of them are minor.

Lead

• "However, it becomes very clear that something infected Carroon during the flight": Maybe cut back to "However, something infected [or has infected. I'm never sure about tenses in plot description!] Caroon during the flight"
• "he rapidly begins mutating into an alien organism": Either "he begins mutating" or "he rapidly mutates".
• "upset Nigel Kneale who frequently criticised the film": I'm not sure this comes across in the main body.
• "In his approach to making the fantastic nature of the film's plot convincing to audiences, Val Guest aimed to employ a high degree of realism…" A little too wordy: what about "To make the film's plot convincing to audiences, Val Guest employed a high degree of realism…"
• "the first of many scores he would compose for Hammer": No need for "would compose", "composed" would be better.
• "The film enjoyed a highly successful release in the United Kingdom": I never like "enjoyed" used like this, and not sure about "highly successful". What about "Upon its release in the United Kingdom, the film was [highly/very - but this implies editorial judgement] successful…"
• "Its success led to Hammer producing…" What about "Its success influenced Hammer to produce…"
• "leading to them becoming synonymous with the genre": Maybe "making them synonymous with the genre"?
• Possibly the lead devotes too much to the one plot change at the end of the film and to the realism. I'm not sure the rest of the article is sufficiently covered in the lead: for example, the casting , make-up or critical response.

Plot

• "…and its three occupants - Carroon, Reichenheim and Green - is lost.": I think these should be emdashes, according to MoS.

• Done - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Quatermass and Briscoe track the creature to Westminster Abbey. Examination of tissue samples taken from Carroon has led Quatermass to conclude that the alien creature that has taken him over will eventually cause him to spore, endangering all of humanity as the organisms spread": Maybe "From his examination of tissue samples, Quatermass concludes that [an or the: this is the first mention of an alien creature in this section. It depends if the film has established an alien as involved by this stage or if it is just implied] alien creature has taken over Caroon and will eventually spore, endangering all of humanity." [Not sure about "as the organisms spread": is this referring to the spores, or the creatures that they grow into? Maybe better to leave it out anyway]

• Done - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Development

• "it was an enormous success": Another judgement; maybe just leave as "success" unless it can be evidenced or quantified.

• Evidenced by the quote that follows from Robert Simpson, surely? - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "who was immediately keen on buying the rights to make a film version.": Maybe "…keen to buy the rights for a film version."

• Done - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "with one executive expressing reservations that The Quatermass Experiment was not suitable material for the company" Reads like the executive felt it was unsuitable for the BBC; also, why did he consider it unsuitable for the company, which I imagine was largely unknown?

• It's possible the executive also felt it was unsuitable for the BBC given the disdain most senior management would have had at the time for television and science fiction! Hammer would have been well known to the BBC since several of their radio series had been adapted by them. I think the article should probably make some reference to that but I need to have a bit more of think about how to go about it. - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing

• "Further stylistic changes were sought by the BBC": Such as?

• Done - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I can understand why Briscoe would return to being British after an American was cast as the lead, but why should Q be re-promoted? (And why was he demoted in the first place in the script?)

• Not known. I suspect that Landau assumed Quatermass would be played by a Brit so probably demoting him made Briscoe's relationship with Quatermass less subservient (Briscoe, being a Flight Surgeon would also be a doctor). But that falls under original research - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Casting

• Two of the actors have a sentence describing their later life and death. The others don't: could this be made consistent?

• Done - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• ""he-men roles - rough, tough and realistic"": Should this be an emdash?

• Done - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Filming

• "Hired to direct the film was Val Guest": Why this slightly odd construction rather than "VAl Guest was hired to direct the film"?

• Done - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "and only began reading them after being teased for being "ethereal" by his wife, Yolande Donlan." I'm not too sure what this means.

• Hopefully have made this clearer now - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Incidentally on Guest, were there any comments from critics specifically on his direction?

• The review in the Guardian quoted below is the best there is and specifically picks up on his cinema verité style - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "low even by the standards of Hammer at the time": Any comparison with other Hammer films, or other films in general?

• Beyond the fact that the quoted source says so, no. And there is also the quote that follows from Les Bowie - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lights out shot: It may be interesting to explain how this appeared on the film. Did it include just the Abbey or did the catch a shot of a wider area?

• The shot is of Battersea power station not the Abbey. Need to think about how to rework this to make it clearer - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Makeup and special effects

• Any comments on the effectiveness of the monster?

• If you mean comments from critics, not much - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cinema release

• "It has been alleged that an audience member, a nine-year old boy who suffered a ruptured artery, died of fright during a showing of this double bill in Oak Park, Illinois.": Alleged by who? I think this story needs a better provenance than just "alleged".

• Improved this by reference to story in Variety - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

• How could Neale refuse permission to use the Quatermass character in 1956 if the BBC owned the rights? And how could Hammer produce the two sequels by the same token?

• Good question. After the sale of The Quatermass Experiment to Hammer Kneale demanded and secured greater control over his work, including Quatermass, from the BBC. The sequels were made with Kneale's consent and he also worked on the screenplays. Have amended both the Development and the Legacy sections to reflect this. - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

General

• I have not looked at the sourcing and I have not completed any spot checks.
• I do not usually watch PR, so if you have any questions or comments, let me know on my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful comments! Some of the points that I haven't yet answered I either want to think about how to reflect in the article or I need to do a bit more research. The lead needs a complete rewrite. Will come back on some more of these soon! - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 January 2012, 19:22 UTC)

---

Couldn't Stand the Weather Tour

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

Many thanks, Alanbarrybush

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

---

Chrisye

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

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

or the standard

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

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

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

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

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

---

Star Trek: The Original Series

I have quick-checked the whole article as a sole reader. I have not substantially contributed this article either at all or very much if my name is in the history log. Nevertheless, this article should have a chance to be reviewed for a reputation that this article well deserves. Please give some credit to a bunch of substantial and significant contributors of this article; they deserve all the work they have done. --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead needs to be expanded to three to four paragraphs.
• When doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
• Headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
• Watch out for redundancies as well (i.e. "in order to", "all of").

Hope these comments help. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: There have been changes after your review, Sjones: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=471619105&oldid=471446586. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Another UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=471723258&oldid=471619105 --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Want another review; Another UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=472934280&oldid=472895461 --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's some more ideas on improving the article:

• Shrink down the table of contents by merging subsections or a proper system of daughter pages per WP:WIAFA.
• Avoid contractions (i.e. wasn't, doesn't) outside of quotations.
• The article may need to go summary style, where appropriate series of subpages are used.
• As mentioned in my above review, we need to use standard abbreviations when we are doing conversions per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers).

I think these ideas would help further in improving the article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=473108898&oldid=473052932. Found the abbreviations you may have mentioned; are there any other I missed? --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Need more review; another UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=473561805&oldid=473108898. Is the addition of another parody necessary? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 January 2012, 08:06 UTC)

---

Storm in a Teacup (film)

This article was close to become deleted by PROD, but someone contested it. Therefore, one editor added some reviews into this article; I have to do the rest, such as confirming the date of release and adding more reviews. Well, I did "original research" of "Copyright status", but that was removed. I haven't watched the movie yet, but this is all I can. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1

I'm not too sure what is being requested here, and I'm not sure the nominator knows either if they have not seen the film! This is a long, long way from GA or FA status. It is barely more than a stub and it is not really appropriate for PR at the moment. Here are some suggestions to take the article forward.

• The article should not really be submitted for review with an under construction banner. Or at such an early stage of development.
• Generally, films have a "Plot" section which summarises the plot of the film. There are also usually sections on Casting, Writing, Filming, Reception, etc. This article lacks any of this information except some details of its reception.
• The article should include background about how the film came to be written, it's source, and how the cast and crew were assembled.
• Details about the studio and distributer should also be included, with more information obviously helpful if available.
• A greater range of sources is required. Possible places to look are biographies/autobiographies of the actors (one is listed in the bibliography) or production crew, sources about the studios involved, newspaper reviews, and ideally, books and sources which are directly about the film.
• I recommend looking at some film GAs and FAs to give further ideas about how the article could be developed. Some film FAs are listed here.
• If this is a British film, it should really use British English.
• "Over the years, a number of favorable reviews grew": Reviews can't grow. Better to say "the number of favourable reviews grew".
• There is not much else that can be said about the article as it stands.

I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 January 2012, 06:28 UTC)

---

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because after two recently failed FA nominations. I and several others have put forth intensive work in improving it further but before I try a FA nom again, I would like to kindly ask other editors to look the article over for any improvements which they see it could use before it goes to FAC again. Thank you for your time and input. DrNegative (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to (also) list it with the film peer review people, BTW. Allens (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 January 2012, 06:17 UTC)

---

Roxette

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is close to being a GA, though I'm sure it can be improved further, any comments welcome.

Thanks, Mattg82 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18

45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images and videos: 4 copyrighted audio samples can be used in the article per WP:FAIRUSE. The files fail "Minimal usage" and "Contextual significance" of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

I have removed one sample because I can see that it didn't add anything significant, possibly "Real Sugar" also. But I'm more confused about the others. Does "contextual significance" mean unless the article talks about the actual sounds and composition of the song, then the sample shouldn't be included in the article?

IMO "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" of "contextual significance" is not fulfilled. 1 sample of a popular number to illustrate their style is OK. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK:In "1988–1990: Look Sharp!" - "Listen to Your Heart", "Dressed for Success" are linked more than once. Also, MTV, EMI, UK are linked more than once.

Y Done Mattg82 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please go through the whole article and check other instances. Eg. "Neverending Love" linked twice in 3 consecutive sentences. Joyride, "It Must Have Been Love", Billboard, Gyllene Tider , Tourism, Canada etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• All statistics must be cited for a GA. Add references for (and the similar instances):
  • "in 1996, Marie Fredriksson released another solo"

Releasing an album is a statistic that needs to be cited? Mattg82 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The year of the release needs a reference. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• • "The album Tourism also charted well outside of the USA, reaching No. 1 in Germany and Sweden, No. 2 in the UK as well as peaking at No. 5 in Australia." etc.
• WP:UNDUE ?? :
  • "Four months later, Swedish newspaper Expressen reported Fredriksson had been diagnosed with a second tumor. This turned out to be false,[73] and Fredriksson later sued the newspaper for 500,000 kronor" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done I've made the sentence more neutral. It was a long protracted legal argument, I don't think a couple of sentences adds too much undue weight. Mattg82 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Roxette is about the duo, but IMO throughout, the article digresses to reveal UNDUE details of solo albums of both of them.
• Inconsistency (choose 1 spelling): United Kingdom/UK; United States/US/USA
• Don't start a section with "It was around this time that...". Mention year

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed most of your comments now. I've toned down their solo album details. As solo artists they have been very successful in Sweden so I'm not sure if I should remove solo albums completely. I fixed one of the "It was around this time that..." paragraphs but I still need to find the timeline for the "It Must of Been Love" paragraph. Mattg82 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 January 2012, 03:41 UTC)

---

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Moscow)

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my very first article about a building, and I need advice and suggestions from you how it could pass GAN and later FAC.

Thanks, ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looks interesting, I'll review this, I'll try to find time in the next couple days. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, I took a quick read through and have some comments. Hopefully they're not redundant to the peer review. I don't know anything about Architecture or Russia-related articles, so you might want to get more input from someone who is familiar with the subject. Off the top of my head, Giano has worked on some Russian Architecture articles, I think. But the article seems to be in very good shape, I found it pretty impressive.
• Comments: (These are just what came to mind, feel free to disregard if you don't think they're improvements.)
• There are some WP:REPEATLINKs in the last few sections.
• Check to make sure you're following WP:MOSCAPTIONs, I think there should only be periods after complete sentences in the captions.
  • Done I think
• There's a bare url in the references.
  • Unfortunately I can't put the full url, as it is only available for people with registration
• Better check the copyright issue with the videos you link to (see WP:YOUTUBE for the guideline).
  • Removed
• Be consistent translating the titles of references.
  • Now consistent
• When giving equivalents of money, try to say what year the comparison was true of (i.e. "corresponding roughly to US$6,800,000 as of 2010" instead of "corresponding roughly to US$6,800,000 at current rates")
  • Done
• "during a Mass" should Mass be capitalized? (I don't know)
  • mass now
• Is Orgelbau Kuhn worth a redlink?
  • Linked
• In the infobox, maybe put a date with "Reconstructed by the Soviets for civil purposes"
  • Added
• "fall of communism" maybe a wikilink?
  • Linked
• Might want to add conversion templates to measurements.
  • Done
• "Virgo Maria Immaculata Concepta" maybe that should be in italics?
  • Italicized
• "also provided funds towards the end of the work" maybe say "conclusion of the work" so it is less ambiguous
  • Reworded
• "Prayers in the temporarily adapted..." maybe "Congregants praying..."?
  • Reworded
• "An important policy..." I'm not sure you need to say this, the context indicates the importance, I think.
  • Removed
• "Sources vary on when the pinnacles were built: According to some sources..." Should "According" be capitalized here?
  • De-italicized
• "Latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, the left side reserved for women, the right for men" Maybe find a word other than "today" to use here.
• There are some copyediting improvements that could be made, but I don't think the prose is that bad, just a bit choppy in parts.
• That's all for now, let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "with building commencing in 1901" This is the Noun plus -ing construction, it should be avoided. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not able to reword the sentence... :/--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• "During World War II, it was threatened with demolition," Maybe note who threatened it here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Today's heavily downsized and tower block-surrounded church is located in the..." Try to use a specific date rather than "today" or "now".
  • Reworded and replaced those words
• I don't think you're supposed to put wikilinks inside quotations.
• "Under communism, the furnishings remained until the 1930s," What's the significance of the "Under communism" part? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree it is redundant. Removed.
• "It was constructed entirely from red brick, and was not rendered outside." What does it mean that it was "not rendered outside", could you clarify? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought "render" is a term used in architecture. I replaced it with "plaster"--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 January 2012, 13:38 UTC)

---

We Found Love (video)

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

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

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

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

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Don't italicize quotes

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

  Y Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

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

WP Comments

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

Lead

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

  Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

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

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

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

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

• Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

  Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

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

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

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

Development

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

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

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

  Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

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

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

• Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

  No. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

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

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

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

Synopsis

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

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

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

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

References to popular culture

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

  Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

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

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

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

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

Release and reception

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

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

Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My love is love comments

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

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

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 29 December 2011, 03:51 UTC)

---

What Lies Ahead

Previous peer review

This article was previously nominated for FA, but failed. I would love to see this article become a featured article, but prose is usually my greatest weakness. Several of the reviewers brought up issues with the prose, as well as inconsistencies with referencing. I would like a thorough review in preparation for a future FA nomination.

Thanks in advanced! —DAP388 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Preliminary comment: Given that one of the first concerns raised in the FAC was plagiarism, I think it would be best to ensure that that issue has been addressed before we beginning detailing prose issues and the like. What steps have you taken to ensure that this aspect of the article is no longer problematic, and do you feel the article is now appropriately paraphrased? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the plagiarized bits of the plot section (where all of the plagiarism was). The parts that were not plagiarized were either lightly edited or were left alone. I think I have completely solved the issue. —DAP388 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2011‎ (UTC)

• A few things (not a full review):
  • I sympathize, with prose not being my strong point either in many respects - perhaps a review by the Guild of Copy-Editors? They have a new "potential FA reviewing" page.
  • The alt text checker found some images lacking real alt text.
  • I did a bit of copy-editing on the lead.
  • One sentence in the lead caught my attention: "Worldwide, the episode averaged a 2.0 rating in most television markets." It is also found in the "Ratings" section. What does this mean? In other words, what is a 2.0 rating? If this means it was ranked second that night out of all shows at that time, which is what I am guessing, then please state that; otherwise, I have no idea what it means. Clarification of a "4.8HH rating" for those of us who don't follow TV ratings (or, actually, TV at all in my case...) would also be nice; 4.8 million households, perhaps?
  • In the plot section, I tried to clarify things a bit - I understand a desire not to repeat the word "Rick", but the reader is not likely to remember his last name (or at least I didn't, without some searching among the characters for which one had the last name "Grimes"). I notice one or two other uses; perhaps this can all be best treated by deliberately alternating between "Rick" and "Grimes" wherever neither his wife nor his son are being discussed?
  • The quote in the middle of the filming section is not at all clear as being a quote, partially because it was done as a blockquote but (at some screen widths) is right next to the photograph, obscuring the different formatting. Putting right after it something about it being "Rodney Ho" who is speaking would perhaps help.
• Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 December 2011, 22:29 UTC)

---

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Previous peer review

It's been one or two months since the article was at peer review, and I was hoping if you could help me find newly emerged problems in the article that would prevent it from getting to FA. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two dead external links here

Recommend including this critique in critical reception section. Selery (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• To meet the FA requirements the article has to use only reliable sources - what makes this a WP:RS? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The site publishes established journalists subject to editorial supervision and has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Please ask on WP:RSN if you have further questions. Selery (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good, but I think the language is still a little too rough to have an easy time of it at FAC. I will try to point out as many examples of places where the prose could be polished or other issues as I can.

• Where possible, avoid passive voice and flip it to active voice. SOme passive is OK, but active is almost always more concise and usually more interesting. In the lead The series is produced by Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions). could be something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series. Or it could even be combined with the previous sentence (It is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.) to give something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series, which is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.
• Four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Faust" or "Lauren Faust" - again switching the first sentence to active voice "Hasbro selected Lauren Faust..." would help here too.
• Seems a bit too certain as to the reasons why Reasons for this unintended appreciation include Faust's creative contribution to the writing and characterization... Perhaps something like "Reasons cited for this unintended appreciation..."?
• Could the first sentence of Origins give the year MLP started? [Since YEAR], Hasbro, Inc. has produced several generations of toys and entertainment related to the My Little Pony franchise...
• Avoid needless repetition The animated cartoon series My Little Pony Tales, produced in 1992, was the toy line's most recent television series before Friendship Is Magic, and it featured the pony designs of the first generation.[3][4] Does the sentence need both animated and cartoon (wouldn't either one suffice)? Does the sentence need the word series twice? Perhaps something like My Little Pony Tales (2002) was the toy line's most recent animated television series before Friendship Is Magic; it featured first-generation pony designs.
• MOS says that images should draw the reader's eyes into the article - the photo of Lauren Faust is looking the wrong way (out of the article)
• Tweak / tighten this to something like Senior Vice President Linda Steiner stated that they "intended to have the show appeal to a larger" demographic, with a central theme of the Hub's programming being parents "co-viewing" with their children.[8]
• First sentence of Production does not need to say "(formerly Studio B)" as this was expalined in the previous paragraph
• Move last phrase earlier Though Studio B performed this animation work initially, [in the later part of Season 1 and beyond] the final steps of creating the animation were passed to Top Draw Animation in the Philippines, an animation studio that Studio B had worked well with in the past, in the later part of Season 1 and beyond.[14]
• MOSIMAGE also says not to sandwich text between two images - in Production the photo of Thiessen could be moved lower to avoid this.
• Any more details on why Faust left?
• This sounds contradictory Near the end of the first season, Faust announced that she had left the show, and for season two she stepped down as Executive Producer, to become Consulting Producer. The phrase "left the show" makes it sound as if she was completely gone, but then it says she was still Executive Producer, and is still Consulting Producer.
• OK, I will just poiint out MOS issues - see if WP:GOCE or someone listed at WP:PR/V under copyedits can help.
• Who is the sister? Celestia reappears, reunites with her sister,... See WP:WAF and WP:PCR
• Cutie Mark Crusaders info in Charatcers is a bit repetitious (already in Premise)
• Article refers to "as of September 2011" a few times but it is now 4 months later - can this be updated?
• Episodes section needs a ref too
• Needs some sort of date / year for context Shannon Chan-Kent, the singing voice performer for the character Pinkie Pie, has begun recording for an upcoming third season.[1]
• I would be explicit that TV-Y is ages 2 and up. The series is rated TV-Y (designed for a very young audience).
• Really awkward The series is or will be available in the following languages, sorted in chronological order of debut. The series is or will be automatically available in countries wherever the following television channels are broadcast.
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as much as possible - Toys and merchandise is one sentence - could it be combined with something else?\
• Watch tenses in Critical reception - some critics' views are present tense (Todd VanDerWerff of the A.V. Club favorably notes ...) others are past tense (Kathleen Richter of Ms. believed that...)
• OK, will stop for now

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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 December 2011, 00:25 UTC)

---

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 12)

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

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

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

---

If I Were a Boy

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to nominate it for FA soon. I want someone who is familiar with the requirements of an FA to review this article. Help me fix maximum errors and improve the prose. Be as harsh as you want with the comments you will leave for all I want is to make this an FA.

Thanks, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: First, why has this been classified as a list? It looks like an artixle to me. Secondly, it should not be brought to peer review while it still has an Underconstruction banner in place. If the construction has finished, the banner should be removed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I have always been doing. I see no music category for PR. And that banner will be removed soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It goes in Arts Jivesh. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Am I supposed to change it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are supposed to move it manually at WP:PR and then change the category of this PR page to Category:Arts peer reviews. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot do it right now. I have to go. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the "topic" to "=arts", the bot will do the rest. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment there's a banner saying this is being overhauled by The Guild, suggest this peer review is removed until the copyedit is complete. People could be reviewing material that is being changed while we speak. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you comment of the PR if I tell to copy-editor to stop the copy-edit? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, it appears that the template has been removed, I assume the article is now stable? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. :)) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel bad that this has gone so long without a review, and so am doing a light copyedit - I have worked on the Writing and production and Controversy sections already. I will make comments on things I do not understand or have trouble with in the copyedit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 December 2011, 02:14 UTC)

---

Language and literature

Canadian comics

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

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

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Everyday life

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players

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

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

---

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

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

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

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

---

Geoffrey Boycott

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Great Britain Olympic football team

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

National Football League Players Association

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

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

Brief comments by Lemonade51

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt

Sorry to be so slow to review.

Lede

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

Early history

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

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

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

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

Formation

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

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

---

Doc Adams

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this fairly new page on an 1800s baseball figure to become a GA. Any pre-GAN comments should make the process a little easier for me, which is important since I've only done this a couple of times. I'm looking in particular for prose comments (always good for me) and issues that impair the reader's understanding (there's plenty of discussion of baseball rules that Adams had a hand in making, which hopefully isn't too technical). All comments will be acted upon and are very much appreciated.

Thanks, Giants2008 (Talk) 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I no little about baseball, and absolutely nothing about its history and development, so this was an interesting experience. Well done in working up the article. You have made it reasonably clear to ignoramuses such as myself; I have indicated where I think more explanation is required.

General issue

• Have you investigated whether there is a copyright-free image of Adams avaialble for use? This image appears on some online sites; can we establish if/when it was first published?
• Retrieval dates to Google book pages are pointless. It is the book itself, not the google publicity preview, which is your source.

Prose issues

Lead

• "first recorded game" is slightly ambiguous; it could mean the first-ever game, or it could mean the first game for which records of the play have survived. I think it's the latter, but maybe clarify?
• "...and was a bank president and representative in Connecticut after his baseball career." Needs stating more clearly, especially for your non-American readers. Perhaps: "...and was a bank president and member of the Connecticut legislature after his baseball career".

Early life

• "The pair worked in the younger Adams' birth town of Mont Vernon, before he relocated twice, to Boston and New York City." The subject of this sentence is "The pair", which means the sentence becomes grammatically awkward with "he relocated twice". I don't think it's necessary to repeat that Mont Vernon is Adams' birth town, so the sentence could be: "The pair worked in Mont Vernon, before the younger Adams relocated, first to Boston and then to New York City".

Player

• First sentence: Should the words "around that time" be inserted after "indicates that..."? Otherwise it's not clear when Adams began playing with bats and balls.
• "...who have been identified in several baseball history books as responsible for beginning the spread of what became the modern version of baseball." Unnecessarily longwinded. Perhaps: "who are credited in several baseball histories as pioneering the modern version of baseball." (14 words instead of 23)
• Similarly, "The type of baseball was an early variety of the game" → "Adams played an early form of the game"
• "At the first baseball game with existing records, Adams participated" Suggest "surviving" rather than "existing". Also, turn the sentence: "Adams participated it the first baseball game with surviving records;" And maybe "lost 23–1" rather than putting the score at the end of the sentence.
• "he said that his batted balls occasionally went into a river by the Elysian Fields, the Hoboken, New Jersey field where the Knickerbockers practiced and played". The commas make this extraordinarily awkward to interpret. You could perhaps salvage this with something like "he said that his batted balls occasionally went into a river by the Elysian Fields, the ground in Hoboken, New Jersey where the Knickerbockers practiced and played".
• If the Knickerbockers were the only organised team, against whom did they play? Did the two squads just play each other?
• What does it mean, "which Adams is said to have led"?
• "In later years, Adams obtained the material for the insides of baseballs, which was rubber from old galoshes." This rather tends to suggest that the insides of baseballs are still made from old galoshes. Tweak to something like: In later years Adams used rubber from old galoshes for the insides of baseballs".
• "which he started playing at" → "at which he started playing"
• "sometime from 1849 to 1850" → "in about 1849 or 1850"
• "pitcher was the only position he never played at." Odd use of the negative form to make this point. I would say "he played in every position except pitcher."

Knickerbockers and NABBP executive

• "serving for three years" → "serving for three further years"
• I'm afraid the distances in the third paragraph completely lost me. Particularly confusing are "89 feet apart, counting a pace as three feet" (89 is not divisble by 3), and the mention of "74¼ feet", which I can't relate to anything. It may be that you are overdetailing here and that some of these particulars could be simply omitted.
• Fourth paragraph: you say Adams called his preferred rule "the fly-game". How did this differ from the rule he was campaigning against?
• I think you should explain the Nestor reference. The link is of no help to the general reader.

Later life

• "Now living in Ridgefield," → "Then living..." etc
• Say a little more about his membership of the legislature. Did he only serve "during 1870"? In what circumstances? What you have at the moment is no more than you have said in the lead.
• The words "with the bank" are redundant
• He "served as a treasurer". A treasurer of what?
• "still was" → "was still"

Legacy

• I am a bit puzzled by "Before those rules were enacted, he had traveled to California, abandoning his position with the Knickerbockers." What has this information to do with this legacy? Also this is the first mention that he went to Californis. And did he "abandon" his position with the Knickerbockers?
• The second paragraph has too much detail about the Doubleday claim to have invented baseball. I would eliminate almost all of this; the focus should be on Adams. I would add the text you have in the display box to the text of the final paragraph, which would end the article in a highly positive way.

I hope that you find these points helpful. As I am not able to watch my individual peer reviews, please call my talk page if you have any issues arising from this view that you would like more help on. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started to work on the comments and have finished the routine copy-edits and added a photo with Adams in it from a 1911 book (thanks to Brian's efforts). A half-dozen of the comments (most content-based) remain, and I will peck away at these over the next several days as time permits (well, that and shutdowns of Wikipedia :-)) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just finished addressing the rest of the comments. I'll explain what changes I made to the six that still needed work:

• How Adams led the team isn't specified in that source, but based on the weight of other sources I think it referred to his efforts to get his teammates to go to practice games. I added a couple of sentences on this, and removed the leadership bit since it wasn't really backed up elsewhere.
• I agree that the sentences on baseline distances you mentioned were confusing, and I shortened them into an easier-to-understand form. I did want to leave some explanation, since this is one of the more significant things Adams is remembered for.
• Added a sentence on what the fly game entailed.
• Added a brief explanation of the Nestor reference.
• Unfortunately, I was unable to find much more on his time in the Connecticut House. The only things I found were that he represented Ridgefield, and that one source says he served multiple terms (the conflict with other sources is noted).
• Regarding the Cartwright part, I confused the meaning with my wording; he moved to California and left the team, not Adams. The reason I had this was that he's received more credit than Adams for things Adams had much involvement in. I modified the sentence with these two factors in mind. It relates more strongly to Adams now.

Thank you very much for the review, and for your help in uploading a good image with Adams. I really appreciate it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 January 2012, 16:10 UTC)

---

The Secret of Monkey Island

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

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

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Jabari Parker

I've listed this article for peer review because the fact that this is getting passed over during the WP:GAN backlog elimination drive probably means it is a hard article for people to review. Maybe it needs some cleanup.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

I actually found this article to be hard work to read. It is very choppy and facts seem to be spread through it a little randomly. It makes it hard to follow and the prose does not flow. I only read as far as the end of "Sophomore year" but these are a few comments on what I read. As it stands, in my opinion it is still some way short of GA standard.

• "Parker is considered the top player in the recruiting class of 2013 by ESPN[1] and Scout.com[2] as well as numerous experts. Rivals.com lists him second.": Suggest: "Many experts consider Parker the top player in the recruiting class of 2012, including ESPN and Scout.com, and Rivals.com lists him second."
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• On a related note, I think the lead overdoes this idea of him being highly regarded. I think the sentence above would do the job, and the lead is not the place for a long list like this. The idea is established without needing to emphasise it.
  • I disagree a bit. Based on his current notability, the lead discusses his points of distinction. I have written a ton of sports GAs and generally, you summarize the greatest accolades in the WP:LEAD. The accolades are a bit different at the high school level than they are at the pro and collegiate level, but they are the yardstick by which an athlete at his level is measured. I don't think a one- or two-sentence lead is advisable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "which is Derrick Rose' high school alma mater": Why is this significant for the lead? If there is a reason, it should be made clear for the non-specialist.
  • I am summarizing the WP:RS. Half of the articles you read about him talk about him playing in Derrick Rose' shadow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• The lead in general is a little choppy and list; could it be made to flow a little better? It seems to be a list of "he is great because he won x award and y rated him great".
  • I see you are actually a cricket guy. Can you tell me if you understand the difference between these two sentences: "Many experts consider Parker the top player in the recruiting class of 2013, including ESPN and Scout.com,[1][2] and Rivals.com lists him second..[3] Prior to his junior season, Dime Magazine declared him the best high school basketball player in the country,[4] while a ten-member panel at ESPN HS rated him second.[5][6]"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Sonny has directed a youth foundation serving hundreds of kids in and around Chicago since 1990." This is a very odd way to begin the main body. It should state in full who "Sonny" was and why is this the first sentence when the article is about Jabari?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• I did only a couple of spot checks but found this close paraphrasing.:
  • Article" "Sonny has directed a youth foundation serving hundreds of kids in and around Chicago since 1990. Jabari discovered basketball in one of his father's leagues, although his father has never coached one of his teams"
  • Source: "Since 1990, Sonny has directed a youth foundation that provides mentoring and life skills for hundreds of kids in and around Chicago. Jabari discovered his love for the game through his dad's basketball leagues."
    • Instance fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "He actually made the eighth-grade team as a fourth-grader": For which team?
  • The earliest school I have documented for him was his eighth grade school. I don't know where he attended 4th grade.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "and made headlines": Tabloidy.
• "he made his high school choice the same as Rose, Nick Anderson, Ben Wilson, Bobby Simmons, and Deon Thomas before him": I think these lists of names make it hard work to read the article. Why are these names significant (for the non-specialist) and why not give Rose's name in full as this is his first mention in the main body. Also, why was this a big deal and what was the school? It should be explained here on its first mention.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Simeon waived its freshman varsity team ban for Parker ": The school's name should be given in full here. What is the ban that it usualy has? Again, it should be explained.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Parker was the first freshman to start on the Simeon varsity team in school history, but he has been playing with kids older than him since the third or fourth grade." Why the sudden switching into present tense and "kids" is very unencyclopedic. And it should be made clear that he is only the first because of the previous rule, something the source makes clear.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "He was part of an incoming class of freshman that was considered to have the best trio in state history (Whitney M. Young Magnet High School's Tommy Hamilton Jr., De La Salle Institute's Alex Foster and Parker)" Best trio of what? This is very unclear.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "With Hamilton and Parker in the fold, Simeon and Young renewed their dormant annual rivalry": What annual rivalry? What is Young? Although the school is named in the previous sentence, it is not clear that this is what you mean. It looks more like a surname when given like this.
  • Is it clearer now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "The game became highly anticipated when Simeon moved into second behind Young in the City rankings." This does not read easily. Maybe: "When Simeon moved behind Young in the City rankings, the game became highly anticipated." But I'm not too keen on "anticipated" here. And why so much focus on the school, rather than the player?
  • Swapped in suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• "While a freshman on the varsity, he volunteered as waterboy for the junior varsity games.": I'm afraid I just don't understand this. To when are these events referring? After his debut? Did he not play in this match of which the background has been explained?
• "He missed the final three quarters of the championship game against renewed rival Whitney Young due to a foot injury." Why focus on one game so much; should it be three-quarters, and I don't think the rivalry needs mentioning again.
  • It is a state championship game. Usually a defining game. Removed rivalry though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• "As a sophomore, his team spent much of the season ranked nationally in the top five, according to the USA Today." Reads like the team was the sophomore.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• "One game was aired on ESPN." Why is this significant for Parker?
• "Despite having been ESPN HS National Freshman of the year, Parker dipped to number six in the ESPNU Terrific 25 sophomores in December 2010." I don't think "despite" works here as I don't see any reason why his prior ranking would affect his ranking for another season.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• "However, the team's 23-game winning streak was snapped": Snapped is not encyclopaedic.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Parker measured 6 feet 8 inches (2.03 m) 225 pounds (102.1 kg).": Why is this inserted in the middle of his second year performances?
  • I should go back and add some of his heights from earlier years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I added his 5th and 8th grade heights.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• "That season, he scored 15.3 points and 5.9 rebounds/game": Presumably these are averages? It should say so rather than "scored".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• The last five sentences of "Sophomore Year" seem to be on five completely unrelated facts, or at least they read that way. This makes it hard to get any sense of narrative, and the lists of names and awards make it even harder to get a grip on what is happening. I think this happens throughout the article.
  • Not sure how to make them flow better. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions please ask me on my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments: Most of the changes look pretty good; where we may disagree in a few places, it would not be enough to stop it passing GA if I were the reviewer, and based on what I have read (only the first few sections) this looks like a pretty solid pass at GA now. It may benefit from a quick copy-edit though: I did notice one typo further down the article ("That January, Simeon faced top nationoal competition..."). Also, I have not read the remainder of the article as my time is slightly limited over the next few days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 31 December 2011, 07:15 UTC)

---

Philosophy and religion

Egyptian mythology

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

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

Comments of Redtigerxyz

I am not a specialist in Eqyptian mythology,

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

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

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

---

Ahalya

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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

• Comments:

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

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

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

---

Pope John Paul II

Previous peer review

Previous peer review 1

Previous peer review 2

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be an FA. I am prepared to put in the work to achieve this, but any help would be most welcome :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I now see that there are a few more issues with this article than I anticipated. User:History2007 raises some good points and I think that they are probably correct.The article does come across a bit soul-less, so fair comment. Looking at the references I would guess that there are probably quite a number which are not WP:RS. I am happy to go through them to check, but it might take a while.:) --Marek.69 ^talk 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• The overall tone may be critized as a bit too friendly, and "in universe". Lots of people said nice things about him, but what will be his lasting significance really?

• Well it is in British English, after all. We must cater for a wide readership. I'm not sure of his lasting significance(?)--Marek.69 ^talk 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the references seem a bit dubious - it's a pity to start with "about.com"! There are an awful lot of piled up refs - 7 in one place. Is it possible to bundle these with your citation method? Why does it take 4 refs to say he was at Vatican II, but only 1 to say what he did there? One of the Stourton refs is malformed & stranded in the text.
• Several tags - citation & clarification needed.
• I'm not a great one for spotting inconsistency in refs, but I noticed some here - I'd drop the street addresses some publishers have but others don't in the bibliography.

• I've removed the postal addresses from the location= tag -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Should he be called "Karol" before the papacy?

• I have changed to Wojtyla -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wojtyla or Wojtyła? I'm happy to do "find and replace all" for you if you're in favor of the dark l :) Accedie^{talk to me} 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think to use Wojtyła would be correct, so I agree with search/replace. --Marek.69 ^talk 22:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Accedie. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1970, according to a contemporary witness, Cardinal Wojtyła was against the distribution of a letter around Krakow, stating that the Polish Episcopate was preparing for the 50th anniversary of the Polish-Soviet War.[39]" Why? What's this about?

• I have no idea either, it appears to be sourced to a Polish newspaper (Roman Graczyk, Cena przetrwania? SB wobec Tygodnika Powszechnego, Warszawa 2011 p. 204 ISBN 978-83-7700-015-1) which I don't seem to be able to access, so I've removed it for now. If someone can explain then please feel free to re-add. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Roman Graczyk is referenced on the Polish Wikipedia here. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Health - understates the weakness of his final years?
• rather too many short sections for my taste - Jubilee 2000 campaign is one line.

• I've moved the line to the 'Social and political stances' section which ties in with his campaign for debt forgiveness. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• could do with a summing up with some extended quotes on his significance, analysis rather than tributes.

  The book I mention in my comments by John Cornwell offers some critical analysis of the Pope's significance. Development of the sections regarding his theological views and teachings would also stave off this criticism somewhat. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Beatification section may be a bit too long?
• Criticism section probably too short.

• I've expanded it, but still needs a lot of work. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Rather too many external links
• There's nothing, or no section anyway, on his organizational impact on the church, which was surely considerable.
• Couldn't see his Polish camp followers mentioned - esp. Card. Paul Marcinkus (ok Lithuanian-American) head of the Vatican Bank during the Banco Ambrosiano scandal - not I think mentioned in the "criticism" article either, which it should be.

• I think there should be something about this in the main body of the article. Marek.69 ^talk 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• I've started a new section on this subject, however there may be a problem finding reliable sources if we wish to expand on this.

Does anyone have a book on the Banco Ambrosiano scandal? -- Marek.69 ^talk 08:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

More later Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Marek.69 ^talk 23:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by WereSpielChequers

Comment I've done a run through and made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki. I spotted a certain amount of overlinking and linking to generic words and events rather than specific articles - see constantinople. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, WereSpielChequers. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Tom Morris

• I haven't really participated in peer review or FAC, so forgive me if I stray from expectations on these things.
• I found the Teachings section rather underwhelming. It starts with the sentence, "As pope, one of John Paul II's most important roles was to teach Christianity." which is perhaps stating the obvious rather too much. It'd be like an article on Wayne Rooney containing a sentence of the sort "As a Manchester United striker, Rooney's most important role is to kick the football into the goal." Well, duh. The paragraph really needs a bit of rewrite.
• The teachings section needs to be longer: there are plenty of sources on the topic. The point about John Paul II, according to my rather shaky and layman's understanding, is that his theology combines classical Thomism with the insights of phenomenology. There is some discussion of this at Personalism#Roman Catholic personalism and some more details at the expanded article, Teachings of Pope John Paul II. This latter article, while not complete, does give enough of a flavour, but isn't adequately summarised in the main article.
• The subsection on Evolution is currently in the 'Social and political stances' section. Although obviously the Catholic Church's position (and change in position) on evolution has social and political effects, this probably ought to be in 'Teachings'.

• I've moved the 'Evolution' subsection to be a subsection of 'Teachings'. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Have you considered making use of John Cornwell's excellent book The Pontiff in Winter—Triumph and Conflict in the Reign of John Paul II?

• Sounds good, do you still have it Tom? -- Marek.69 ^talk 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The criticism section makes no mention of the child sex abuse scandals. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• It does now -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have expanded the section on the role of Wojtyla and the Polish delegation in the drafting of Gaudium et Spes. There's plenty more to write about on Wojtyla's role in Vatican II. There's extensive discussion of this in "Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition" (Lamb and Levering ed.) ISBN 9780195332674. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Tom -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by James F. (talk)

• It's quite long - 52 kB (8694 words) of "readable prose size", which feels like it could do with being tighter, with some of the text moved more into subsidiary articles. For example the "Pastoral trips" section does not need the list of all 104 of them, even if in a collapsible box. Similarly, the "Death and funeral" section is quite long for what it's saying (viz.: "He died. People came to his funeral."), probably because it's pretty much the only part of his life that happened post-Wikipedia, so it's current-events-style. James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• The section "Life's work" feels oddly-named to me, though our normal alternative ("Career") also feels wrong. Sorry, not a very helpful comment. :-) James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the section title -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Prose style is rather, ahem, laudatory - the use of indented highlight-quotes to start sections, lines like "John Paul II had a special relationship with Catholic youth and is known by some as The Pope for Youth" (CN/SAYSWHO/OLEAGINOUS/etc.) or "He constantly attempted to find common ground, both doctrinal and dogmatic" (followed by only one example, and with no cites on the general claim - OR?)... James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed both of these lines James -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• In general, it seems quite good though. Good luck! James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you James -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sp33dyphil

• "often playing football in goal" --> "often playing as goalkeeper in football"

• I think "often playing football as goalkeeper" -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Can the motto Totus tuus be translated to English?

• Totus Tuus means "totally yours". I have put this into infobox. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Election to the Papacy" Why's the last word capitalised?

• I've changed to " Election to the papacy" -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think there are too many issues in this large article; I suggest starting the article afresh in your userpage, where you can copy and paste the best parts of this article and work on anything that needs to be improved, before asking for another PR.

• Thank you Sp33dyphil. I have pasted the whole article to User:Marek69/Pope John Paul II -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

Comments by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03

05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead should be expanded, at least doubled in size.

• Would you like to take this on Piotrus? You do have a lot of experience in this -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Too many quotes; in at least one place one quote follows another, breaking text flow.

• I've started reducing the number of quotes. Is it OK now, or shall I continue? -- Marek.69 ^talk 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Gay rights activists is a stubsection; please expand.

• I've started to expand it -- Marek.69 ^talk 06:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also should be incorporated into text.
• There are reference errors; somebody didn't do an error check after running some automated tool recently, most likely.

• The ref errors have been fixed by User:Rich Farmbrough. Thanks -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Prokonsul Piotrus -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Rich Farmbrough

Comments by Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

• No need for three coats of arms (Infobox, illus, styles).

• I have removed two. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• The ref errors were surplus refs left by the trimming, I have fixed. Fixed

• Thank you -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• We avoid abbreviations such as TX, NY. Fixed

• Thank you -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• A better pic of the Dali Lama or none. This one has the reader searching for the pope in it.

• I've removed it -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rich. -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Moonriddengirl

I'm afraid that I don't really have time to do an in-depth peer reviews at the moment. I'm trying to keep too much of a backlog from developing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and there are a couple of days worth of listing I'm already behind. I do notice one issue at a glance: the article uses {{cquote}}. This is not supported for the body of articles by the Manual of Style. It's too flashy. To quote from WP:MOSQUOTE:

Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags; or use {{quote}}.

The quotes shouldn't be formatted in italics, either, unless the originals were. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl. -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed both the {{cquote}}s and the italicised quotes -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by History2007

First, my apologies for what there is to follow. But I do not like this article. Not at all.

Good News: This article does get the basic facts about his birth date, papacy period, etc. right.

Bad News: The article seems mostly unaware of what the man did, and what his goals were. That shortcoming is epitomized by the lack of any serious content in the teachings section. That section is specially uninformed. Again, my apologies for using the term uninformed, but there is no other term that would apply here. There is a link to his "Social and political stances" but that is not really the center of his teachings which can only be traced through the encyclical and apostolic exhortations he issued. As a clue, consider the fact that the word "encyclical" only appears once in the article, referring to Humanae Vitae which he did not issue himself. The only apostolic letter mentioned seems to be Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which is more political than theological. Items such as Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Redemptoris Mater, etc. were key elements of his plan to "reposition the Catholic Church". That plan was in effect for over two decades and mostly succeeded. I could go on and on and on about what is missing... But I think it is clear that only a very small fraction of his teachings or goals or influences are mentioned anywhere. And sorry, I will not have time to work on that any time soon.

• I have started to address these issues. -- Marek.69 ^talk 12:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Image: The article does not mention his high level of popularity among masses around the world. He was far more popular than the previous popes, or the current pontif. In places such as Mexico he was deeply loved for declaring Juan Diego a saint. The same was true in the Philippines, etc.

Photographs: The selection of photographs is quite unusual and non-representative. For instance, there are 3 photographs in which our previous commander in chief appears. His attitude would have been better represented by this photograph. There are probably public domain versions of that, without the caption, if you want to find one and add it... would be fun to see the reactions.

Overall, a very long and almost unreadable article that gets the dates right, then gets lost in the political issues, relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, etc. and misses the key goal of his papacy which was to transform and reposition the Church. A goal that mostly succeeded. History2007 (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the lede on this subject. Do you think we need to go into more detail? -- Marek.69 ^talk 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A whole sentence? I am sorry, but I think you know what I mean. I will also type more below. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 ^talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments (requested move?)

I am half joking, but after thinking about it a little more, based on John's comment above (what will be his lasting significance really?), I think a move request may be in order. I would suggest a move to "Prime Minister John Paul II" instead of "Pope John Paul II", for this article is written about a politician, not a pope. The first focus of a pope is "his flock" not relations with Islam, Eastern Orthodox etc. Look at how much space is given to those, vs how much space is given to his relationship with his own crowd and their "spiritual direction". This article seems to view him as "Prime Minister John Paul II of the Republic of Earth".

And again, the selection of images reflects that mindset. A photo with ex-KGB Mr Putin, and as I said 3 photos of Einstein give the wrong impression. The icing on the cake was that the photo of his beatification featured Benedict! I touched up the two photos to show that he was beatified on the very feast for which he worked very hard for from 1965 to 1978. And John, one of his lasting impacts is that said feast/devotion (which was previously banned) now has over 100 million followers. That is called impact. To that end, I also added an image of how the Mexicans donated the keys for his statue. Those items focus on a "pope", not on a prime minister. But the article seems to be mostly unaware of the papal side of his life and just a restatement of news reports.

I am sorry Marek, but I do not see how a band-aid or two could fix this article. The heart of it is based on a perception as a political figure - hence the move request suggestion. As I read the article I do not see an awareness of his role as a "spiritual leader", but I see a collage of newspaper clippings which mostly cover prime ministers and other dignitaries in three piece suits. He was not wearing a suit and a tie, in case that was not noticed. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, History2007. I do take your comments on board. I agree that his primary role was Pope of the Catholic Church, but I also think he was more than that. Why was he so loved, especially so in his mother country? I would say primarily for his character and the way he interacted with common people. He also met with and was respected by a large number of political as well as church leaders, so much so that he had great political influence in his time. All these factors contribute to the man and the figure that he was. Marek.69 ^talk 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

His own country was a given issue, maybe national pride. But the rest of the world was a bigger test. History2007 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I do not know if the article uses this or not, but it gives a glimpse. He put in "a lot of work" to reach out to specific groups, including obscure groups of seminarians, orders with a small number of nuns, etc. as well as well known cases such as his rapid move on Mother Teresa. An item that does not even appear on the page now. A large number of other elements that shed light on the issues that shaped his life also need inclusion, e.g. that he was trained by Lagrange, etc., etc. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does reference vatican.va. I will try to look a few of these up. Thank you. -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I suggested that link because the trips/visits/addresses were a key element of his strategy, and reason for popularity. Compared to other popes, he was much more "in touch" and reached out. That point needs to be made in the article somehow. It reminds me of what Gerstner said when he first got to IBM: "A desk is a dangerous place to observe the world from", then went on the road for ever, talked to the company and turned it around. What John Paul II realized was that "the window in St Peter's Square is a dangerous place to see the world from" and unlike others, went out to the masses and turned the Church around. History2007 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of the comment below, let me say a little more on the "Teaching secion", and then move on. The Teaching section has 35 lines on the Eastern Orthodox trips, his visit to Athens etc. Is that a teaching? Most of that section is a list of trips. Those are not teachings. Most of that section is about photo-ops which any pope has to take part in. I guess that is a Cosmo interpretation of teaching in some sense - photo-ops. But I will pass on further discussion on that.

Yet in that context let just ask ourselves exactly what power did he wield anywhere? Was he going to send the Swiss guard to invade Denmark and claim it as new Papal Territory? No, his only power was mobilizing the billion followers he had and claim them as new territory. There is no mention of that and no section in this article called "impact on his Church". Is there? Not that I can see. Should there be there? Should does not apply here, it depends on who will be editing the article. And that may change somewhat at random. But I think the article would do well to mention his focus on "spiritual values". That was a key element of the character of the man.

Anyway, that is why I do not edit these types of articles. I just commented here because there was a request for comment. I will not be looking at this page again, or looking at that article for a while. I will look at the article maybe in 3-4 months and perhaps comment again, but who knows.

In any case, I think you know what I see as the material that is needed for the article to look more "informed". Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Accedie

Marek, I think you've done a commendable job of tackling a huge, meaty article with all kinds of competing agendas and turning it into something coherent and readable. I have just a few minor questions/suggestions:

• What is the miracle for which he was beatified? There's mention of a little boy suffering from kidney cancer, but there's also a reference to "the miracle involving Sister Marie Simon-Pierre"... (with no wikilink) -- seems notable enough to warrant a redlink at the very least. That was the one thing not clear to me.

• Sorry, my fault, I cut too much out, but I have put these paragraphs back in. Marek.69 ^talk 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did a good bit of copyediting and found myself removing some POVish phraseology from a few sections. I think I got all the glaring examples, but it wouldn't hurt to take a second pass and make sure to tone down anything excessively adulatory or biased. JP II may be a saint, but this is still an encyclopedia :)

• I'm still looking :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also have to say that I strongly disagree with the above critique of the article's nature and scope. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Catholicism, so I wouldn't expect to find detailed exploration of his teachings and other doctrinal nuance here – though I would expect good references to set me off in that direction of research if I so desired, of course :) Wikipedia is also meant to serve a global audience of readers, and I think the most cosmopolitan interpretation of the life of John Paul II is the one found here: a man who was at the forefront of many important political events, who put himself in the global spotlight by both his faith and his actions, and whose legacy far exceeds ecclesiastical bounds.

Accedie, maybe we should add this last line into the lead. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for all your hard work, Marek, and good luck with the rest of the peer review process! Accedie^{talk to me} 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There you go. History2007 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Added that in to the article. Accedie^{talk to me} 05:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Accedie :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

Sorry, I got completely distracted reading list of popes...I'll come up with something soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Minor formatting - make sure all references conform - titles in Title Case or sentence case (I generally find former easier and I think most of yours are former already) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Casliber, I think I have tackled most of the Title Case titles in the References-Notes section. (There maybe a couple I missed.) I think there may still be some issues in the References with mixed styles. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Casliber. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by HJ

I'm only going to comment on the references for now, because I think that's the most immediate issue. From a cursory look through the references, I found over thirty "sources" that I wouldn't let anywhere near an article I was planning to take to FAC.

• Catholicplanet.com
• About.com
• Ewtn.com
• Klee.us
• Popejohnpaul.com
• Dialog.org
• Docstoc.com
• Catholicity.com
• Giga Catholic Information
• Wikipedia
• Writespirit.net
• Catholicireand.net
• Popejohnpaulii.org
• The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt
• The Catholic Community Forum and Liturgical Publications of St. Louis, Inc.
• Scribd.com
• Blogspot
• Contactmusic.com

Is Contactmusic.com not WP:RS? -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• 123muslim.com
• Coldlakeislamicsociety.ca
• Blessinexhibit.org
• Adl.org
• Polisculture-nyc.org
• Lutheranworld.org
• Religion-cults.com
• Helpfellowship.org
• Reformation.org
• Blogspot again
• Redicecreations.com
• Metrowestdailynews.com
• Javno.com
• Huliq.com
• Vlex.co.uk
• Gcatholic.com
• Rense.com
• About.com again

Thank you, Harry, for taking the time to go through the references and flagging these up. I think I've removed them all now.

-- Marek.69 ^talk 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Add to that the article cites a great many sources that were written by the subject himself or by the Vatican, that many more references are lacking basic bibliographic information, and that others still are not of the quality I would expect for what's cited to them. This article has got a long way to go before it's even worth putting significant effort into the body. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ Mitchell. -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry, are quotations of what the Pope said, which are referenced from his own books, and events in the Pope's life, which are referenced from The Vatican website OK? -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from his books & speeches certainly, & simple events also; anything approaching commentary should be clearly labelled as from the Vatican, or sourced elsewhere. My take. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by John of Reading

"Baziak died in June 1962 and on 16 July he was selected..." - presumably this means that Wojtyła was selected. The two sources given at the end of this sentence do not seem to mention it. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does refer to Wojtyła. I have changed it to say that. I will check the references to make sure this is clear. -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Today, for the first time in history, a Bishop of Rome sets foot on English soil" - this paragraph looks out of place. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John for your comments, and for your copy-edits :-)

This is a quotation from Pope John Paul II from the time of his visit to the UK in 1982, which is briefly mentioned (one line) in the Pastoral trips section above. It is significant because it was the first time a Pope had ever [officially] visited the UK. Unfortunately it does not stand out as a quotation as we are now using the <blockquote>...</blockquote> format. Maybe it should be within quotation marks? The section previously looked like this, before the recent changes of style. -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 January 2012, 22:00 UTC)

---

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

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

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

Comments by Sarastro

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

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

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

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

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

---

George Went Hensley

This article has been copyedited and has passed a Good Article review, and I'm now tempted to try to get it up to Featured Article quality. I would like attention to the prose and clarity, any grammar errors? does it all flow well? As well as comprehensiveness, are there any obvious questions you have after reading it.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• A few things:
  • Try the alt text checker - one of the two images on the page (the other being the "good article" symbol) has no alt text, it looks like.
  • I have done some further copyediting. Some of the sentences are unnecessarily long and/or use longer words when shorter, more common ones will do.
  • The material under "Theology" does some explaining of his reactions when someone died from snakebite, but it is not completely clear earlier - are there any records of things that he said at such a point? That he conducted a service for someone who died of snakebite (and wasn't lynched) seems to suggest that he didn't claim at the time that dying was due to not being "saved".
  • What in the world was his problem with baseball?
• Allens (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments and copyediting! I'll go over the prose again and dig into the sources for some more details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, Astynax and I have gone over the wording some and I have added in a few details. A snake handling minister friend of Hensley once witnessed a gunfight at a Baseball game, but I think it would be synthesis for me to speculate that that is the reason for his disdain. Are there any other specific improvements that you could suggest? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• You've pretty much answered the questions I've had, at least insofar as they can be answered. I can't think of anything specific at the moment - I very much like the improvements! Allens (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, glad to hear it! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 January 2012, 23:35 UTC)

---

Mother Teresa

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Social sciences and society

Death panel

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

NBC logos

I've listed this article for peer review because it's in need of some work and I believe a peer review is a good place to start.

Thanks, Son (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Very quickly, an article about logos needs one at the top right. Copy the most visually interesting to the top. It's okay to duplicate it later on because the article is about images. Then, add perhaps four more sentences to the introduction describing how many logos, how they have changed, who the major designers were, a summary of any critiques you can find in reliable sources (not jokes about turkeys, but when someone serious says something), and a sentence about NBC's business, size, founding date, and maybe a link to the CEO's article if there is one, as they usually get final say on logo decisions in the corporate world. Selery (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comment

YouTube isn't considered a reliable source, you need to remove them as citations. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They can't be primary sources for existence proofs in this case? Selery (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOYT, explained here. You can use YouTube but it isn't advised, you need permission from the primary/secondary source and even if in this case it is compliant, there are probably better sources out there to depict the NBC peacock idents. Look at books for instance with information about branding exercises. Advertising agencies too. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading of NOYT suggests that screenshots would be appropriate for this article. Perhaps ask on WP:RSN? Selery (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article is in an early stage with much work to be done to meet WP:V. I would work on this aspect of the article before getting involved deeply in other concerns.

• Many of the claims in the article lack inline citations to reliable sources, as explained by WP:RS. For example, "Second peacock logo/"Laramie Peacock" (1962–1975" makes many claims but gives no sources. Where does this information come from? It is not possible to verify the claims in the article unless the sources are completely identified. To make the claims verifiable, provide a source for any statistics, any unusual claims, any direct quotes, and every paragraph. If all of the claims in a paragraph are supported by a single source, put the inline citation at the end of the paragraph.

• Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. Although you don't have to use templates, the "cite" family of templates may help you organize the citation data in a consistent way. See {{cite web}} and its cousins like {{cite book}} for details.

• To improve the layout, consider merging very short subsections to make larger sections. This will make room for images, which should not overlap section or subsection boundaries or displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons.

• Please review WP:IUP and WP:NFCC for information about Wikipedia's image-use policies. Without going into detail about any particular image, just on the face of it I'd say it would be difficult to justify using this many non-free images. One of guidelines in WP:NFCC says: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I doubt that changing the colors on the peacock feathers, for example, conveys anything significant that cannot be conveyed in words alone.

• 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) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• • They [the images] generally lack alt text according to the checker, BTW. Allens (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 January 2012, 19:11 UTC)

---

Motivation crowding theory

I've listed this article for peer review because it's too short and I can't figure out how to expand it.

Thanks, Selery (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts:
  • The supply curve could be moved higher (I almost missed it on first glance - it's more useful than the firefighters picture, which also more goes with the material on managers adapting to psychology) and most of the caption moved into the text. An explanation of it - that people may get up to the minimum level of income they want and then start valuing free time more than they value additional income - would be nice. An alternative form of this probably appeared in the former Soviet Union when they tried monetary rewards, in that there were so few higher-quality or usefully-greater-quantity consumer goods available to spend the money on, people weren't interested (a citation would be necessary for this, however!).
  • You might try soliciting for input via the talk page of the two main articles linked to as examples, and/or on the WikiProject Economics talk page (or other appropriate pages).
• Allens (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I swapped the image positions and will work on your other suggestions soon. Selery (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Paragraph about the curve added, and asked for further review on both parent topic articles and both wikiproject talk pages. Selery (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 January 2012, 15:08 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)
  

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

---

Joseph Berrios

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend eventual GA.

Thanks, Hugh (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You should check the output of the "disambig links" and "external links" checkers, BTW. Allens (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments-

• Lead needs expanding; it should be more than a brief introductory statement. Per WP:LEAD it should summarise the article. One newspaper's summary of Berrios should not be the substance of the lead.
  • done Hugh (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Is his date of birth, as distinct from the year, not on record somewhere?
  • done Hugh (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Structure: Rather too many short sections/subsections. Some, e.g. "Business and political use of government facility" appear to contain fairly incidental information which doesn't warrant a separate section
  • done Hugh (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Inappropriate section titles: some are way to complex, e.g. "County Board of Ethics investigation into excessive political contributions from property tax appeal attorneys". Just the first five words would be adequate. The general rule is to keep all such title succinct, and there are others that could be trimmed
  • done Hugh (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Some inappropiate capitalisation in section titles. e.g. "Early Political Career" should be "Early political career". Check for other instances
  • done Hugh (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Tendency to over-cite, evident in the use of citation strings for referencing what seem like fairly routine facts. Examples: "Days after taking office, Berrios hired his son, sister and Jaconetty to work for him, bringing them over from the property tax appeals board."[39][40][41; "One day later, Pikarski resigned."[51][52][53]; "Berrios is President of an insurance agency, J B Insurance - Consulting Inc. with an office in downtown Chicago."[70][71][72]. There are plenty of others
  • yeah, but they are needed to demonstrate proportion to coverage in RS, i'd like to leave this for now, this is BLP for an active pol, we anticipate a barage of deletes including refs
• Some attention is required to reference formatting, in particular with regard to retrieval dates for online non-print sources. In some cases dates are indicated, but it is not clear if these are retrieval dates. Also, non-print sources should not be italicised (see, for example, Ref 19).
  • done Hugh (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 72 returns a dead link message.
  • fixed Hugh (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Some of the content seems decidely off-topic. For example, this: "Thomas G. Lyons was a veteran 45th Ward committeeman who served as a lawmaker, lawyer and lobbyist and headed the Democratic Party of Cook County for nearly 17 years.[10] Lyons announced his retirement on January 9, 2007. Democrats scheduled a February 1 meeting in Chicago to fill the vacancy.[11] Lyons died Friday, January 12, 2007, at age 75 in an Evanston nursing home of complications from paralysis, the result of an inflammation of the spinal cord." That could be condensed to a single line; we don't need Lyons's clinical details.
  • fixed Hugh (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• I have not carried out a detailed prose check, but I suggest you look at this, or get in an uninvolved editor, with a view to eliminating repetitions such as "Berrios ran unopposed, and at the age of 30 Berrios became the first Hispanic American to serve in the Illinois General Assembly."
  • fixed Hugh (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note also the number of times Berrios's name occurs in the short "Early life and education" section.
  • fixed Hugh (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, maybe reconsider some informal phrasing: Berrios "landed" a job; "mushrooming", etc. Not a major issue, though.
  • done Hugh (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not able to watch peer reviews individually, please feel free to contact me if you wish to raise anything arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 January 2012, 03:47 UTC)

---

History

Iraq War in Anbar Province

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

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

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

---

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to work on it and nominate it for Good Article. It is far from the nominating stage at this point, and needs major revisions that I'm willing to make. First, however, I'd like to see what others view as the strong and weak points of the article and what can be done to fix them.

Thanks for your assistance, DCItalk 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 29 January 2012, 22:04 UTC)

---

John de Gray

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

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

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

---

Jimmy Carter

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

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

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

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

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

---

American Airlines Flight 191

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

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

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

---

Foley Square trial

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on submitting it for Featured article status. I'd appreciate it if the reviewer was someone familiar with the FA criteria, and willing to treat the PR as an FAC review, applying the strict FA standards. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guy

• See my comments at WP:WIAGA for issues related to fair use images and rationales. Geometry guy 01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the image info: I've addressed all the issues raised. --Noleander (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to all. But I'm postponing this Peer Review. I'll resubmit it at another time. --Noleander (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 January 2012, 00:25 UTC)

---

Ottoman Empire

Previous peer review

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

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

Comments by A. Parrot

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

Overall

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

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

References

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

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

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

Images and templates

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

History section

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

Fall of the Ottoman Empire

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

Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire

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

Economy

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

State

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

Society

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

Culture

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

Demographics

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

Law

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

Military

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

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

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

---

Bal des Ardents

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like feedback and an extra set of eyes. It's a topic I read about and found interesting. At some point I may submit to FAC

Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

This is an excellent article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I had never heard of this before, but French history of this period is not really my strong point. The prose is excellent and probably beyond my ability to improve! However, here are a few comments, questions and nit-picks.

• "…during which Charles VI of France was almost killed": Possibly a little strong. Maybe it's just me, but I imagined this involved injury in the fire, rather than his life being endangered but no actual harm coming to him.
• "The fire led to a loss of confidence in Charles' capacity to rule.": I'm not sure this is reflected in the main body.
• "all ambitious men": Could the opinion be attributed or rephrased slightly as it currently looks like editorial opinion?
• "the first Duke of Burgundy and "one of the most powerful princes in Europe"" This quote requires in-text attribution.
• "After an attempted assassination of Olivier de Clisson, Constable of France and leader of the Marmousets carried out by Pierre de Craon but orchestrated by John V, Duke of Brittany Charles became overly enraged and believed the attempt on Clisson's life represented an act of violence against both himself and the monarchy." This is a very long sentence; I would be inclined to split it into two: a sentence about the attempted assassination and a second on Charles' reaction.
• "Charles charged at his knights including his brother": Just to clarify, this was not fighting the forces of Brittany? He was attacking his own men?
• "Enguerand de Coucy brought the king to Notre Dame de Liesse…" Who is Enguerand and how did he become involved?
• "Jean Froissart writes that he was so sick that "far out the way no medicine could help him"" Just checking that this quote is not a typo: I'm not too sure what "far out the way" means here.
• "He appeared unable to recognize his wife Queen Isabeau, demanding her removal when she entered his chamber, though after his recovery, Charles made arrangements for her to retain guardianship of their children": Perhaps the chronology could be made clearer here. Was this recovery after his treatment by Harsigny, or later? And, to clarify, he did not recognise his wife after he recovered from the coma?
• "who left Paris despite fervent pleas to stay": Fervent seems a little dramatic here.
• "Women's fashions became excessive as Isabeau and her sister-in-law Valentina Visconti, Duchess of Orléans indulged in extravagant clothing": The phrasing seems a little odd here; as the previous sentence ends by saying the court turned to amusements for the king's health, the opening of the sentence jars a little as unconnected, although it obviously is once the rest of the sentence is read. Could this be tweaked?
• "Charles' uncles were content to allow the frivolities for "so long as the Queen and the Duc d'Orléans danced, they were not dangerous or even annoying."[14]": In text attribution?
• There are a few other examples of quotes that are not attributed in the text.
• "arrived at the event late and drunk and entered the hall carrying lit torches": I'm not sure about "and…and" here; I like the "late and drunk" though, so maybe replace "and entered" with "entering the hall carrying lit torches"?
• "Other accounts accused Louis, who was known to have practiced sorcery, of intentionally causing the fire": Whose accounts?
• "and chastened by the Maillotin revolt of the previous decade": Perhaps briefly explain what this was?
• "the court did penance at Notre Dame": Who would have decided this? Charles?
• This is probably not known, but what effect did this have on Charles? Who did he blame?
• Although Charles was not considered at fault, how did it affect his reputation?
• Duchesse de Berry or Duchess of Berry? She is called both in the article.
• The first paragraph of "Folkloric and Christian representations of wild men" seems disjointed. It discusses masquerades and then about where the Duchess of Berry was standing and he king's movements. Maybe there is a connection, but I'm missing it.
• I'm struggling a little with that section: it's interesting but I'm not too sure of the relevance to the article. Particularly the parts about ritual burning: the burning at the event was hardly ritual or deliberate in the sense given here. But that is just my opinion and I'm often wrong!
• I have not checked sources or performed spot checks.

I don't usually watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - very helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 16 January 2012, 01:38 UTC)

---

Military history of Canada

Previous peer review

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

Comments by AustralianRupert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Nikkimaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• See here for dead external links and here for dablinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• FN 137: don't use Ibid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have add maps - this help?Moxy (talk)

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

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

• The coverage of the Spanish Civil War seems overly detailed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additions and trimming

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

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

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

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

• Added "Igor Gouzenko"
• Added "PROFUNC"

Size after trim and additions

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

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

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

---

Warsaw airlift

I've listed this article for peer review because (a.) I have just created it, (b.) created because there was no Wikipedia reference to these series of flights by British, American, South African and Russian aircraft in support of the Polish Home Army besieged in Warsaw in 1944.

Thanks, Farawayman (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments/suggestions: G'day very interesting article. Good work so far. I've done some minor copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my edits and adjust where you see fit. Other comments that I have are:
  • the map in the infobox: due to the size it is almost impossible to differeniate the lines on it without clicking on it to make it bigger. At FAC someone might ask you to just crop and enlarge the relevant part of the map, cutting out the peripherial areas; Map has been enlarged and moved into text section of article. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • slightly inconsistent presentation: "Vistula river" v. "Vistula River". It should be consistent. I think "Vistula River" is more correct, given that it seems to be a proper noun; Corrected to Vistula River Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • this sentence probably needs a citation: "This action caused the Soviets to pause in order to re-group and bought Army Group Centre the time needed to deal with the resistance encountered within Warsaw itself." Found the text and added citation. Farawayman (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that there is a missing close bracket here: "containers (a load of 1,800 kg (3,968.3 lb) and..." Well spotted - corrected. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "north east from the allied bases in Apulia and Brindisi in Italy..." Should this be "Allied"? Correct, fixed. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Major General Durrant of 205 Group RAF..." Should this link to Jimmy Durrant?; Yes - link added. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent capitalisation: "Operation Frantic" and "FRANTIC"; Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Citations there is a minor stylistic issue: for example compare "Davies (2004), pp248" v "Orpen (1984), pp.159"; Standardised to pp. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Citations, is there a page number for note 8? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Replaced with a better citation. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - all valid and appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Good luck with the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Here are my comments:
  • The article should note that the RAF squadrons included many personnel from other countries. Several members of the Royal Australian Air Force took part in this operation, for instance. Added note with citation referring to RAAF aircrew in 148 and 178 Sqn's RAF Farawayman (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • London Poles shouldn't be in italics Fixed Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The plight of the Poles captured the imagination of the world" - this is a bit of an overstatement. It obviously didn't capture the imagination of the Germans, for instance. Agree - Changed "world" to "Western Allies" Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • RAF units have a 'No.' as part of their names (eg, '205 Group RAF' should be 'No. 205 Group RAF') Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The various RAF units should also be linked Done Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • While the military uses all-caps for operations names, this isn't normally used by historians, so 'OPERATION FRANTIC' should be 'Operation Frantic' Changed to Sentence Case Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Where did the USAAF aircraft which flew to Warsaw land to refuel? Direct line flight distance from UK airfields to Warsaw is +-900mi (1,400km) - actual range was longer, because they didn't fly the shortest route. B17 max range was approx 2,000 mi (3,200km). They could reach Warsaw from the UK, but did not have sufficient range (including min reserve fuel) to return from Warsaw back to UK. This is why they were compelled to land in Soviet occupied territory - which caused all of the political problems related to getting prior clearance for re-fueling from the Soviets! Farawayman (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Russians would have mastered the Polish Resistance in much the same way as the British and Americans had eliminated the resistance in Italy and would have done in France if de Gaulle had pressed his independence too far." - what resistance in Italy did the Allies 'eliminate'? That assessment about de Gaulle also seems way off the mark - he did press his independence too far, but the UK and US put up with him as he was by 1944 the closest thing to a credible French government which was available. I note that this is cited to AJP Taylor, who's now regarded as being outdated and somewhat unreliable at times.Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Excessive speculative text from AJP Taylor removed. Farawayman (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Commment: I think the last section could be enlarged to answer questions like: was it successful? was there blame for not doing more? what did commentators in Britain, the US, and the USSR think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 January 2012, 18:50 UTC)

---

Somerset Coalfield

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for five years! would appreciate comments before nomination an GAN. I am aware that quite a few page numbers are still needed but otherwise I think it is getting close to GA quality. In particular the structure of dividing the detail into the collections of collieries and the collapsible drop down list of detail for each group would be appreciated. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 09:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks an impressive gathering of information, of considerable interest to social and economic historians. There is a huge backlog in the peer review system that needs shifting, and for this reason I am unable to provide a detail prose review, but I have highlighted some significant points for your attention, and have done a little copyediting in the lead:-

• Weak opening: to say that "The Somerset Coalfield included pits in the North Somerset, England, area..." is imprecise. Do you mean "comprised"?
• The single-sentence opening paragraph looks isolated and should be combined with the next.
• Lead, second paragraph, second sentence: "It stretched..." Does this "it" refer to the wider coalfield or to the Somerset coalfield?
• The "Early surveys of William Smith" subsection has one citation near the beginning, but is otherwise unreferenced. First paragraph of the "Stratigraphy" subsection is likewise uncited. Reading on, it seems this is a general problem; there are uncitated statments (including direct quotations) throughout the article. Likewise, the information in the various tables is only sporadically cited.
• The "Coal seams" subsection might be clearer if the information was presented as a table or list
• So far as I am concerned the collapsible lists are a good way of presenting this information. But why are the latitudes and longitudes of each pit considered necessary? I don't imagine one would need a compass to find these locations?
• A few format problems with the refs. There are "page needed" tags in place; hyphens are used in page ranges rather than ndashes; italicisation of non-print sources (43 is an example but there are possibly more), etc
• In the bibliography, the Coombes publication year is misplaced. Also, for consistency, publisher location information should be given for this book. ISBN formats should be standardised. What are the physical forms of the Gould, Hanley and Williams sources (book, leaflet, report, etc)?

I hope you will find these points useful. I am sorry not to have provided more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on those areas. I've done some peer reviews so know how much work is involved and am really grateful for any comments.— Rod ^talk 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 January 2012, 09:13 UTC)

---

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle

I think this may be a possible candidate for submission as a Featured List. However, this is the first time I have tried for a Featured List so I am a bit in the dark and need all the help I can get.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 02:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and unusual list. I became interested in chronometers thanks to Dava Sobel and her book Longitude. The list has FL potential, I feel certain, but I think it will need further work before it can be considered ready. Here are my thoughts, general ones first:

• The article has a choppy look because of the many individual tables and, in some cases, short intervening bits of text. I think this article would have a better shot at FL if you figured out ways to combine several small tables into larger tables. I don't think you need to try to put everything into a single table, but Adventure's 12 tables, for example, could be combined to make one table, perhaps with an additional column for the name or designation (A, B, C,...dash for no name). The intervening bits of text could then be merged into one set of paragraphs above the new, larger tables or, where necessary to keep the prose flow smooth, relegated to notes. Ditto for the other sections with multiple small tables.

• It's good to keep red links to a minimum in articles heading to FLC. I'd think about creating an article for Molyneux, for example.

• There are no dabs, but there's a dead URL in one citation. See here.

• I would delete "Beagle" from three section heads since "Beagle" is part of the article title; i.e., "First voyage" instead of "Beagle's first voyage", etc.

Lead

• "From 1825, this became standard and ships would be issued a second chronometer if the captain personally provided a third." - Tighten to straight past, "were", instead of "would be"?

• "It was also necessary to take chronometers ashore or up rivers and inlets which were inaccessible to the ship in order to reach the points designated by the Admiralty for longitude measurements to be recorded." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "To reach all points designated by the Admiralty for longitude measurements, it was sometimes necessary to take chronometers ashore or across inlets and up rivers too shallow for the ship." Or something like that.

• "This was another reason for survey ships to carry a large number, the majority of them could be kept permanently in a safe, well cushioned place on board the ship." - Add a semicolon and tighten a bit? Suggestion: "This was another reason for survey ships to carry a large number; the majority could be kept permanently in a safe, well-cushioned place on the main vessel."

• The caption beneath the lead image reads "Chronometer X from Beagle's second voyage by Thomas Earnshaw" - More clear might be "Chronometer X, made by Thomas Earnshaw, from Beagle's second voyage".

Beagle's first voyage

• "On its first voyage... " - It would be helpful to insert the dates here. Most of the lead covers general historical background that may not need to appear elsewhere, but I'd incline toward embedding any Beagle-specific data in the appropriate subsections of the article to avoid forcing readers to backtrack to the lead.

• I think it would be helpful to briefly explain "number", "type", and "winding" in the text. Otherwise readers have to guess at the meanings when they encounter these terms in the first table. I don't think you would need to repeat the explanations elsewhere, just on first use.

• I wondered who Parkinson and Frodsham were as well as the other makers listed later in the article. Would it be useful to add notes on first use with a few details? Were these individuals, large companies, or something else? If they are individual clockmakers, I would include their first names on first use.

• "King describes them as "excellent"." - To avoid making readers think that King might mean a contemporary author, perhaps "described" rather than "describes"?

Chronometer by Murray

• "A welcome addition given King's concern over the French chronometer's newness." - This needs a verb to become a complete sentence. Maybe "This was a welcome... "?

Beagle's second voyage

• "The Admiralty had not been so precise in specifying his itinerary across the Pacific since they could not be sure how far north he would be able to survey in the time available, and hence precisely where he would be leaving from, but they did specify he should stop at Tahiti, a point of previously well-determined longitude, and as the journey across the Atlantic, it should be done in small stages to frequently rate the chronometers." - Too complex. This should be recast as two or three separate sentences.

• Since you link Australia, New Zealand, and so on, you should probably link Chile, Peru, and South America on first use. I might have missed some others.

• "The total discrepancy was only 33 s but Fitz-Roy... " - I'd spell this out as "33 seconds".

• "Others were loaned by chronometer makers who were all too keen to gain the prestige... " - Delete "all too" to avoid casting judgment that may violate WP:NPOV.

Notes

• "Although this was the usual Royal Navy source of chronometers at the time... " - This needs a reliable source, I think.

Bibliography

• For books too old to have ISBNs, you might want to add OCLCs. These are usually available via WorldCat.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again my friend Finetooth. Thank you for reviewing! SpinningSpark 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not very good at getting possessives right, but are you sure about this? The French chronometers being referred to are chronometers A to H, so the possessive should be plural should it not? SpinningSpark 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I misunderstood the possessive to refer to "This chronometer... " instead of the whole group. I recast slightly just now to avoid the problem altogether. I think it's OK now. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe everything above is now addressed. For the benefit of other reviewers, Finetooth's additional comments below are in response to a talk page request. SpinningSpark 13:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments, part 2:

• Yes, I think the revised tables look much better, and the overall layout looks very good. I made a few proofing changes, and here is a short list of minor things:

Chronometer makers

• "16 chronometers used to determine the accurate longitude of Madeira in 1822" - Link Madeira on first use and perhaps not again further down?
  • Done

• "Charles Frodsham & Co. Ltd. is still in existence today but no longer at The Strand." - Delete "today" or substitute "2012". Also, if not at The Strand, then where?
  • Changed to "...still in existence, but have moved from the Strand to another London address." I have not given the exact address, partly because the cited source does not give it, and partly because the street does not have an article and is not notable (they have moved off the Monopoly board!).

• "reaching the furthest point south achieved by any ship (or chronometer) up to that time" - Can the time (year) be added?
  • Done

Attrition

• "Alexander Burns Usborne, who had been put in charge of a small boat, Constitucion," - Since this is the Spanish spelling, more-or-less, should it actually be Constitución?
  • I guess you are right, the boat was purchased locally, so I have changed it. It is however, a little dubious: all the contemporary English-language sources (and even some Spanish) have Constitucion. There are modern sources that can be cited if necessary with Constitución but it is possible this is a back-formation.

Third voyage

• "with frequent stops to check the rates throughout the voyage" - Is "rates" the right word?
  • Yes, "rate" is used as both a verb and a noun wrt chronometers and "check the rate" is a stock phrase.

• "It was lost in HMS Erebus when she was abandoned ice-bound in the Arctic during Franklin's lost expedition attempting to find the Northwest Passage." - This and the claim about Irresistable need inline citations to sources, I think. Some of the other embedded asides might also. I'd suggest looking them over and adding sources for any with precise numbers or dates or claims that are otherwise not common knowledge or obvious from context.
  • I will add sources for these, they are both well-documented events so won't be hard to find. The loss of the chronometer when the ships went down is already cited to the Greenwich archives. SpinningSpark 13:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Best of luck at FLC. Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 January 2012, 02:02 UTC)

---

Pain fitzJohn

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

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

Brief but srs comments from Nikkimaria

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

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

---

Geography and places

Wilson, Arkansas

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

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

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

---

Montana

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

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

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

---

Dorset

Previous peer review

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

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

Comments from Spinningspark

• The external links tool shows a number of dead and suspicious links. These need to be fixed, or alternative references found.
• I recommend archiving web pages at a site such as WebCite to protect against link rot.
• Images should have WP:ALT text for FA. - Done, I think, this wasn't something I was familiar with previously.
• A citation to the Flag Institute should be provided for the flag. - Done but not sure if in the correct place.
• "The flag is often unofficially named St Wite's Cross". This is not verified by the source which merely says that their own website used to call it this. Also, why is this site considered a RS? - The Flag Institute note its other name so I will use that as a reference if that's okay.
• In principle, facts in the infobox do not need citing if they are also in the body of the article, although many articles do. Before nominating for FA, you should at least thoroughly check that all facts are consistent with the article body and have a citation in place there.

lede

• ceremonial county, Dorset County Council, non-metropolitan county, Unitary authorities of England, and Poole should be linked on first use. - Done
• Poole and Weymouth are linked multiple times (there may be others, please check). It is acceptable to repeat a link in the lede and body, but not usually otherwise without good reason.
• "...delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for up to 150 years" (two places). Slightly odd phrasing, would "delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for nearly 150 years" be just as accurate?

History

• "The first human visitors to Dorset were Mesolithic". An expert archeological source is needed for this, it is unlikely to be true.
• 600BC space needed. If desired, spaces can be prevented from breaking between lines with a non-breaking space (html code  ) or the template {{nowrap}}.
• oak forest. Contiguous links are deprecated, and forest is probably WP:OVERLINK in any case.
• In the 12th-century civil war" the link is piped to a list. This should be disambiguated with a link to the intended target.
• "The flagship San Salvador..." It does not appear to be true that she was a flagship, see here for instance.
• The above is the second important error cited to Cullingford found so far. I would recommend finding alternative sources, or at least minimising use of this source to things he seems to have some expertise in.
• Studland repeated link
• "slighting". This word is obsolete, according to the OED, except in professional historian's jargon. Replace with razing or demolition.
• "In 1645 some 5,000 angry civilians..." Can we have the location of this gathering please.
• "74 were executed; 29 were hanged, drawn and quartered" is that 74 were executed including... or as well as.
• "...was for many years the largest man-made harbour in the world". When did it cease to be so and why?
• "Portland, Weymouth and Poole harbours were the main embarkation points on D-Day" Another possible Cullingford exaggeration, please check other sources, this map seems to indicate that Dorset was the embarkation point for the Omaha Beach landings, but this was only one of five on D-Day.
• Bournmouth is multiply linked

Settlements

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

Physical geography

• "...an enormous variety of landscapes determined by the underlying geology." Landscape is not just determined by underlying geology, there are many other factors: glaciation, weathering, river and sea erosion etc. For the same reason, geology of Dorset might be better described as a see also rather than main article.
• "Almost every type of rock from early Jurassic to the mid-Tertiary..." Jurassic and Tertiary are geological periods, not types of rock.
• More repeated links: limestone
• "non-resistant" should be explained
• Formatting of conversions needs to be consistent. So far I have seen (277 metres / 909 feet), 8 km/5 mi, and 900 mm (35 in). All different.
• "The county has one of the highest proportion of conservation areas..." Agreement problem

Climate

• 1541–1885 hours. Inconsistent use of commas as number delimiters.
• Consider adding a climate chart such as in Essex

Demography

• In the table, consistent use of periods in abbreviations: C.C., but UA. Also, the abbreviations should be defined somewhere, either as a bracket after first use of the term in running text, a wikilink to the appropriate article, or a footnote. Same problem in Economy section.
• South East Dorset conurbation. Repeated wikilink
• "...a decline in its population caused by continuing negative rates of natural increase..." A difficult clause to parse and almost a truism.
• per 1000. Inconsistent use of commas. This is per 1000 per year and should be explained somewhere, perhaps in a footnote, or perhaps on first use.

Politics

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

Economy and industry

• "...increase in permanent grass and land set aside." If set-aside is meant, it should be linked. Does "grass" mean grass set-aside and what is the difference to land set-aside?
• "...up to £74M GVA for the area." Inconsistent representation of millions.
• "Dorset has little manufacturing industry, at 10.3% of employment in 2008. This was slightly above the average for Great Britain..." This seems somewhat contradictory - "little manufacturing", but "above average". The Birmingham article puts manufacturing at 10% of employment and this is the city that used to be called the workshop of the world. I wonder if this figure is merely a reflection of the general trend in the country as a whole in recent decades rather than something specific to Dorset. What is more the sources cited are government statistics which merely give the figures without any commentary. Further, the figure given is not supported by the source FN.122 which has 11.9%, seemingly indicating just the opposite.
• The above is just one statistic I checked at random because the claim seemed a little strange. In view of that result, it would be a good idea before FA to do a more thorough trawl of the accuracy of numerical data in the article. FAC is very hot on verifying against sources nowadays, especially where the nominator has not previously had succesful FAs. You are likely to have a hard time at FA if failed verifications of that sort are noticed, even if you put them right promptly. Once the error has been highlighted on the FAC page the damage has been done and people will be leaning to oppose more than they would have otherwise.

Culture

• "Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra which was founded in 1893.[149]" Fails verification
• "The Dorset County Museum in Dorchester was founded in 1846" Fails verification
• "Dorset contains 190 Conservation Areas, more than 1,500 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, over 30 registered parks and gardens and 12,850 listed buildings, many of which—over 6,000—are in the west of the county.[157][158]" Fails verification. FN.157 is dead and FN.158 does not seem to contain any relevant information.
• "Of the 229 that are Grade I listed, 174 are churches or places of worship,[159]" It takes some WP:SYNTH of FN.159 to extract this fact. Also FN.159 appears to be the work of a single individual, and has no official status so its qualfication as WP:RS is questionable.
• I am stopping the review of the culture section here. Nearly every fact I have tried to verify from the cited sources has proved to be problematic. The whole section needs rewriting from scratch from reliable sources so further review is pointless.

Transport and Education sections

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

References

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

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

---

Madagascar

I'd like to get this article about Madagascar up to FA status (most likely passing through GA first) and have been working at it off and on for about a year. It was a mess earlier, with plenty of plagiarized and unsubstantiated content and a free-for-all in terms of respecting the MOS. I've made significant edits, changes to organization and structure, and revisions to references. I'm still polishing refs and adding a few details here and there but feel it's ready for a peer review, with particular attention to the depth and breadth of subject coverage for an FA-level country article. I've never done a country article before so would appreciate some experienced eyes looking this over. I'm also interested in maintaining objectivity in regards to Madagascar's political situation so some rewording may be necessary. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

From Automated tools

Peer reviewer

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 432 km, use 432 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 432&nbsp;km.^[?]

I switched to the convert code, so this is automatic. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed then. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 432 km.

However, the convert code keeps measurements abbreviated. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed then with first. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]

In this case there's no avoiding it, since it's part of a proper name. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine.

• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]

I'll have a look at ways to shrink this. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary style should be used, especially as the size (124,938) is over 100 kb. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, summary style is being used as far as I understand it - if you see something that doesn't fit summary style please help me understand it better - but I think I'll leave the TOC for now since it's really on par with GA and FA level TOCs for other country articles. These bots don't always get it right. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]

Will go through it looking for these. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), leukemia (A) (British: leukaemia), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), cosy (B) (American: cozy), program (A) (British: programme).

Will do in the morning. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?

Didn't see an instance of this problem. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not see either. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dablinks

• Rio Tinto

Fixed Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Manual

• Google books should never be added, having only the title, and ISBN is good. URL must be reliable, google is not.

For other FA articles I was told to keep the Google book url but not to include the access date. Did the policy change? Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Accessdates should be added.

Where are they missing? Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As your comments above, ignore this. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Copyediting is needed.

Already requested. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for these tips. Will you also be reviewing the article for the points I listed above (scope of coverage and objectivity) or will that be another reviewer? Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone else. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 January 2012, 12:38 UTC)

---

Brunei

I've listed this article for peer review because I need suggestions for improving the article to FA status.

Thanks, Hallows AG 06:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Spinningspark

• Images should have alt text
• Checklinks is showing numerous deadlinks and servers down. Blogspot.com is not usually an acceptable reference.
• I would recommend archiving online references with WebCite to protect against linkrot.

Infobox

• The map could use an inset or a second map on a larger scale. The country is small and it is difficult to make out.
• The "Legend" link does not make sense. It links to an entirely different map with a different colour scheme so is not helpful in interpreting the displayed map.
• The stated official language does not agree with the main body text.
• There should be a reference for the land area, and any other facts, if they are not repeated in the main text.

Lede

• You need to review the lede for compliance with WP:LEAD. Does it truly reflect the content of the article?
• island and state are overlinking. Also dubious is constitution.
• "...and in fact it is separated into two parts by Limbang, which is part of Sarawak." The "in fact" is superfluous, suggest "...and is separated into two parts by the Sarawak district of Limbang."
• "...is around 401,890 (July 2011)." This is a rather exact number. Either remove "around" or round off the number. Suggest "...was 401,890 in July 2011."
• "thalassocracy". This is an odd place to introduce this term. It would be better in the previous sentence using a construction like "...creating a thalassocracy". Might be better still to move it out of lede into the body of the article where it can be better explained. It is not really essential to the lede. It also probably should have a reference to verify that it can be so described.
• "...was visited by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521 and fought the Castille War in 1578 against Spain". Who fought the war, Magellan or Brunei?
• "wartime occupation". This needs to explicitly state WWII occupation by the Japanese. There have been many wars since and younger readers may not make the connection so easily.
• "Developed Country" should probably not be capitalised (its article is not)

Etymology

• The second paragraph needs a reference
• FN.13 does not say "possibly" or any other kind of conditional clause. If there is doublt on this etymology, a source saying so is required.

References

• Numerous sources are not fully, or properly cited. At minimum, author, title, page(s), publisher and date are required. To achieve FA, a consistent citation style must be used throughout.
• Many footnotes are repeats of the same source. You might want to consider moving the full citation to the bibliography and use [{WP:SFN|shortened citations]] in the article body
• Numerous footnotes have ISBNs that do not appear on any of the well known databases such as WorldCat, including FNs 14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47. While this does not entirely rule them out, it leads to a suspicion that they might not be reliable (self-published, COI concerns etc). Are you sure all the ISBNs are accurate; some of them, eg FN.31, return an invalid number message.
• FN.13 describes itself as a blog. These are usually not acceptable unless written by a recognised authority in the field. The page seems to be based on a newspaper article. The Brunei Times article should be cited directly instead if possible.

Given the number of problematic references, I am going to stop the review here. Fixing the referencing is likely to substantially affect the article content so I suggest you work on the refs first then request another peer review. Good book references should not be hard to find. A gbooks search returned numerous hits. The Saunders book (second on the list for me) looks particularly promising for history.

• SpinningSpark 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC) to 20:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 20 January 2012, 06:42 UTC)

---

Hawaii hotspot

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

Take this with a grain of salt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Peer review added on Friday 20 January 2012, 01:46 UTC)

---

2011 Virginia earthquake

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the quality of the article from GA status to FA status. I would like edits that would help it attain that status. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jsayre64—

Lead

• At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "Several aftershocks, ranging up to 4.5 M_w in magnitude occurred after the main tremor." I'd suggest a comma after the word magnitude.
• In the second paragraph, it says, "…along with a magnitude-5.8 quake on the New York-Ontario border in 1944…" Make sure the dash used here is an en dash.
• Read WP:LEADCITE about how the lead should generally not cite information that's also cited in the main text. WP:LEAD lists other MOS guidelines and suggestions that are necessary for an article to achieve FA status.

note: I've removed all of the citations that I felt I could. Some of the information in the lede is not repeated elsewhere in the article... should it be? In this article, the lede is a description of the 'event' and the remainder of the article describes the causes and effects. Not sure how to procede. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:LEAD, the body of the article should contain everything discussed in the lead. Honestly, I don't see how this article is even a GA--it lacks MoS compliance throughout (particularly WP:LEAD but also other parts of WP:LAYOUT) and the prose is disorganized and rough in some areas. I suggest these things be reviewed and revised thoroughly before it heads to FAC. Auree ★ 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overall, the lead could use some expansion. The second paragraph should be more than just one sentence if it is to be its own paragraph. A more detailed summary of the damage and other effects of the quake would take care of this problem.

Geology

• At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "During the Cenozoic Era, some of these structures have been further reactivated in a reverse sense." I don't understand what the latter half of that sentence is trying to say.
• A diagram such as File:Nor rev.png would be very useful to illustrate the plate tectonics explained in this section.

Impact

• In the second paragraph, it says, "Western rock is relatively young, which means it absorbs a lot of the shaking caused by earthquakes." I'd substitute therefore or a similar word for which means.

Virginia

• When the article mentions a place and how far it away it was from the epicenter of the earthquake, it should specify which cardinal direction it was from the epicenter.
• Also in the first paragraph, it says, "Fallen chimneys and other structural damage to buildings was reported in Mineral and in Louisa, the county seat." It's redundant to say again that there was damage to buildings in Mineral.
• In the second paragraph, it says, "The two nuclear reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station, located 10 mi (16 km) from the epicenter, shut down automatically seconds before off-site power was lost because multiple reactor sensors detected a slight power reduction as a result of vibrations in the reactor or monitoring devices." Break this into two sentences for better prose flow.

note: I took a stab at rewriting that sentence but I'm not wild about it still - if someone would like to take a look at it! Wikipelli ^Talk 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

• The last sentence in the third paragraph needs a citation.
• The first sentence in the fourth paragraph is, "Staff at the National Zoo reported that the behavior of some of the animals in the park suggested that they anticipated the quake seconds or even minutes before they felt it." The animals must have felt it or somehow sensed it. They certainly can't predict earthquakes.

Though I'm not ready to say they 'certainly can't predict earthquakes' ;) Wikipelli ^Talk 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite done reviewing the article, but it's looking great (none of these is a major content issue). Jsayre64 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The information in the lead's second paragraph could be stated again in the Geology section and the information in the third paragraph of the lead is also suitable for the second paragraph of the Impact section. Then you would be able to eliminate all of the citations in the lead. As for the third issue I brought up regarding the Virginia section, it reads just fine now. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia

• At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "The 1740 Mt. Calvert mansion, historic site and museum located on the Patuxent River in Upper Marlboro, received substantial structural damage…" Why not state and link to the name of this specific landmark?
• In the second paragraph, it says, "In Dover, fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout the capital city." A more well-worded sentence might be: "Fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout Dover, the capital city." Same thing in the next sentence, which speaks of Georgetown, the seat of Sussex County.
• At the end of the third paragraph, link to Patriot Coal.

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York

• In the first paragraph, it says, "The Three Mile Island nuclear plant south of Harrisburg continued to operate during the earthquake." Since the four sentences preceding this one talk about damage and people evacuating buildings, it would be nice to include a however to differentiate from this sentence.
• The second-to-last sentence in this paragraph is, "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation conducted inspections on bridges across the state to check for possible damage." I propose slightly less wording: "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation inspected bridges across the state for damage."
• In the second paragraph, it says, "In Burlington, Temple B'nai Israel's 1801 synagogue building sustained some water damage…" Be a bit more clear about this water damage.

New England

• Link to Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency.

Midwestern states

• Link to Columbus, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan in the same style as the wikilink to New Haven, Connecticut in the previous section.
• In the second paragraph, it says, "Tremors from the earthquake were also felt in Detroit, Michigan as far north as Saginaw, and as far west as communities on Lake Michigan." Saginaw isn't that far north in Michigan, so I wouldn't stress its geographic location. Also, there needs to be a comma after "Detroit, Michigan."

Canada

• In the first paragraph, be a bit more specific about the "precautionary measures," eliminate the extra space after "Sudbury" and cite reference 88 at the end of the paragraph before citing the other two references.
• Since the second paragraph is only one sentence long, it should be combined with the first paragraph. Also, avoid beginning a sentence with a numeral.

Internet activity and social media

• I believe there is no hyphen needed in the first sentence, and I think web site is one word.
• In the second paragraph, there is no need to state the years of events that also occurred in 2011.

(Applies to whole article)

• Be sure to use the WP:NBSP when the manual of style recommends using it.
• FAC reviewers are quite particular about citation formatting, so you should use a standard method for access dates; ex. the day before the month or the month before the day. There are other minor inconsistencies, such as writing the publisher's name in italics, as well. Most of these are pointed out during the FAC and can easily be resolved then.
• In the last paragraph of the Geology section, where the United States Geological Survey is mentioned, add the acronym USGS in parentheses and refer to the agency as such in the rest of the article.
• More links could be added to the External links section, unless most relevant sources have been cited in the text.
• Use the toolbox on the right-hand side of the top of this page to hunt down and resolve other issues.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Best of luck at FAC. I hope these suggestions help bring the article closer to achieving that FA star. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 January 2012, 20:47 UTC)

---

Blackford County, Indiana

Previous peer review

I've listed this article (Blackford County, Indiana) for peer review because it has been upgraded substantially, and I would like to get it to a featured article classification.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 January 2012, 15:59 UTC)

---

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Previous peer review

I have listed this article for peer review as part of the preparation for a later submission, if the reviewer agrees, as a FAC. If the reviewer could also give consideration to reviewing the WikiProject membership, ratings and classes, that would be nice too. This peer review is part of a process I helped start with this article two months ago. I accept that the holidays are close and therefore editors, including myself, may not be able to devote as much time to this process as would normally be the case. I will however try to work with the reviewer as expediently as I can.

See also: Its first peer review, its successful GA, and the featured article criteria

In addition see

• Review of Transport#Roads within Ely, Cambridgeshire ✓ Done --Senra (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Review of Transport#Rail within

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 12:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it too late to ask for a source spot-check of this article? Many of the sources are on line and for some of those that aren't, I can provide a scan of a limited number of pages per source on request --Senra (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good, but I think it still needs some work before it would do well at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead seems to me to be a little too focused on history and a little too detailed - couldn't the lead just mention that there is a Roman Road in the city, without going into almost as much detail in the lead as there is in the body of the article.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on government or the Liberty of Ely in the lead (for one example)
• It is not clear to me what the pre-historical significance of the first paragraph of Pre-history is. What is the approximate date of the Roswell pits? Who / what used them?
• For the fossils found in the Kimmeridge Clays, I would start with the Jurassic era and the animals whose fossils are found - otherwise the first recognizable dates for most readers found in the paragraph are the 18th and 19th century (which are not pre-historic)
• We know a lot about Roman history in general, so why is it in "Pre-Istory" section? Also why no mention of the Roman Road in with the rest of the Roman material here? AT least say several Roman Roads were in Ely and surroundings, then go into detail later on them
• Problem sentence: The name Ely comes from Old English Ēl-gē meaning "eel region", from the abundant eels in the rivers, meres and marshes around; Elge 731,Elyg 1086 (Domesday Book).[13][14] First off it is not super clear what the end parts mean "Elge 731,Elyg 1086 (Domesday Book)" - I think these are early version of the name? but if so, say so. Second avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs wherever possible.

Agreed ✓ Done with help from the reference desk --Senra (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• The next sentence is before the dates in the problem sentence (673 < 731)
• Explain the Isle of Ely
• I would use the octagon is "one of the wonders of the medieval world" quote in the lead
• I would also have an image of it in the article - there is File:Elylantern.jpg here, or I just uploaded this from Flickr File:The Octagon in Ely Cathedral.jpg
• I made one convert template show the adjective form "250-foot (76 m) diameter' vs the clunkioer "250 feet (76 m) diameter"
• Make sure to provide contecxt to the reader - I owuld explain that Mary I was Catholic, or that Cromwell later became Lord Protector and executed Charles I, or expalin what caused the riots.
• Confusing In The Book of Ely published in 1990, Blakeman writes that "permission was not given" for a memorial to the martyrs to be placed on Palace Green.[30] In 2011, a plaque recording this martyrdom event was erected on the north-east corner of Palace Green by the City of Ely Perspective.[33] Who did not give permission in the 1990 book? When? Why? Who changed their mind? When? Why?
• I would have more on the plague and the reformation / dissolution of the abbey than just this The diaries of writers and journalists such as William Camden, Celia Fiennes, Daniel Defoe, John Byng and William Cobbett illustrate the decline of Ely after the 14th century plague and the 16th century reformation which led to the dissolution of the monastery in 1539.[45]
• WHy did they choose to restore the cathedral so early?
• Not much in "Victorian and twentieth-century regeneration" from the 20th century
• Liberty of ELy and Westminster are again not very clear to non Britons - a short introductory sentence or two for each would help make them much clearer. "Historically the Bishop of Ely enjoyed great political power as well as religuos authority..." or something like that.
• MOS says not to use 'single quotes' for anything but a quote within a quote - use "double quotes" instead

Agreed ✓ Done --Senra (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• MOS also says not to mix citation / footnote templates - so either use the cite famil or use harvnb, but not both - I tried to click on some of the roman numberal res and they did not work on my browser
• Avoid needless repetition - see A cannon, captured during the Crimean War at the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) and gifted to Ely by Queen Victoria in 1860, is located on Palace Green, west of the cathedral.[131] The inscription reads "Russian cannon captured during the Crimean War presented to the people of Ely by Queen Victoria in 1860 to mark the creation of the Ely Rifle Volunteers".[132] and almost all of this is repeated again in the caption for the cannon photo
• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - Roswell Pits is linked at least three times in the body 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 _><>°^° 05:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing... acting on your above useful comments --Senra (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say I am still on this. It may take a few days to get around to it all

(Peer review added on Friday 16 December 2011, 12:06 UTC)

---

Engineering and technology

SRI International

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the article before I nominate it for GA. Thanks, Disavian (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like additional input before nominating the article at FAC. The last peer review was certainly helpful, but I'd like a few more eyes. Thanks! Disavian (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Have you requested a review of it at Wikipedia: WikiProject Universities? This can admittedly take some time to get a response... I'm waiting for one myself. You may also wish to inquire at the main Georgia Tech article's Talk page, unless you've already done so. Allens (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• You should also check the report from Checklinks (external links checker, in the toolbox), and revise the couple of inaccessible-from-outside links that it found (check them out from a computer not at GT...) Allens (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, there is that one link about Gerald Rosselot. I need to just switch that to an archive.org link like I did for James E. Boyd (scientist), it's (presumably) down no matter where you're connecting from. Disavian (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the reminder. Disavian (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite welcome; that's what this process is for... Allens (talk)
• Further comments:
  • There are currently some citations from the lead - IIRC, that is generally discouraged by the University style guide; everything in the lead should be a summary of what's already in the rest of the article, which is where the citations should be.
    • I've actually had this go both ways at FAC; in 2007, they wanted the refs entirely out of the lead, and in 2010, they wanted them in the lead. It's not particularly defined policy, to be sure. Disavian (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Have there been any controversies about research that's done? On cyberwarfare and other sorts of warfare, or on "national security", for instance, particularly with regard to anything classified or otherwise limited in publication? I'm thinking of the missile R&D as a probable example of classified research. These should be discussed, if any criticism has happened. If there are any limited-publication materials, how is this handled for tenure purposes (are they counted as peer-reviewed publications or not), including for GT professors?
    • There is a story I've seen about how a GTRI group confirmed a study on cold fusion but retracted it the next day. See cold fusion#Response and fallout. I'm fairly certain that was controversial and would be a good addition to the history section. That's the only controversy I've come across in the sources I've seen, though; GTRI wasn't subject to the same protest activity that its peers (such as SRI International) experienced. Disavian (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Broad, William J. (1989-04-14). "Georgia Tech Team Reports Flaw In Critical Experiment on Fusion". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DE1130F937A25757C0A96F948260. Retrieved 2012-01-23. 
      • "Change at the Top: The Grace Years". Georgia Tech Research Institute. http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/history/our-history/change-top-grace-years. Retrieved 2012-01-23. 
  • Similarly, have there been any controversies over the patent income - is some of it supposed to go back to whatever professor/department/whatever generated the revenue, or is there/has there been a push to have this take place?
    • To my knowledge, patent income has not been a significant contributor to their finances. I haven't found any stories about controversies. Disavian (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Are faculty at GTRI tenured? Could a graduate student do dissertation/thesis research at GTRI, ideally with a GTRI faculty member as advisor?
    • I had actually not considered that. I looked it up and found an answer here: "Tenure is not awarded to persons whose home unit is in GTRI or a Center." That fact could probably go into the article somewhere. Disavian (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Allens (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 January 2012, 19:58 UTC)

---

Natural sciences and mathematics

Cyclone Rewa

I've listed this article for peer review because… i want Rewa to become a Featured article but have been advised to go down the route of peer review first Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This has a lot of information about the storm, but the prose needs considerable work to reach FA standards. In addition, the article might need an "Aftermath" section to be considered comprehensive. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• Should the article include an "Aftermath" section? I see that many FA storm articles include follow-up information that might be needed to meet the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive. A complete list of FA storm articles is at WP:FA#Meteorology. See Cyclone Waka, for example.
  • I dont think that there is anything around for an aftermath section, one of the problems is that Queensland was affected by a much more significant flood about 10 days after.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to add another couple of images? Any images of storm damage?
  • It might be possible to add a few images of the storm itself, but i doubt there will be any images of the damage available under a suitable license.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the paragraphs, such as the last paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section and the entire "Australia" subsection, are much too long for readability. Try breaking them into somewhat smaller paragraphs. You want to give the readers a place to rest their eyes now and again and not get lost in a sea of type. It shouldn't be hard to find logical break points.

Lead

• "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean." - I would modify this by adding the years; i.e., "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean in 1993–94."

• Double-check the links in the lead to eliminate overlinking. For example, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia are linked twice. My rule of thumb is to link something no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text.

• Link the first use of a special term rather than a later use. For example, Papua New Guinea should be linked on first use in the second paragraph rather than on second use in the third paragraph. Ditto for New Zealand. There might be others.

• Link Mackay, Queensland?

Meteorological history

• "Early on 26 December... " - I would add the year here too even though it's in the inbox.

• "Later that day the JTWC reported that the depression had intensified into tropical storm 05P before TCWC Nadi reported that the system had developed into a Category 1 tropical cyclone, and named it Rewa, while it was located about 500 km (310 mi) to the south-east of Honiara on the Solomon Island of Guadalcanal." - This might be slightly too complicated for one sentence. Who named it Rewa, the JTWC or TCWC Nadi?

• "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, with the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre taking responsibility for the system." - The "with plus -ing" construction is usually weaker than various alternatives. Suggestion: "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, where the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre took responsibility for tracking the system."

• "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified further before it started to rapidly deepen further early on 2 January, as it continued to move towards the south-south-east." - Unnecessarily wordy. Suggestion: "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified before rapidly deepening early on 2 January as the storm continued south-south-east."

• "Both agencies then reported later that day... " - I had a writing teacher who used to pounce on the word "then" when used in this way. "When else"? he would ask. His point was that "then" is often redundant in a chronological narrative. You can often delete it with no ill effect. There's a similar "then" two sentences before this one in the phrase "TCWC Brisbane then reported early... " I suggest deleting these and tracking down any similar ones and deleting them.

• "Both agencies then reported later that day at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached its peak intensity, with the JTWC reporting that Rewa had peaked with 1-minute windspeeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." - Here's another "with plus -ing". A better variant would be this: "Both agencies reported at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached peak intensity. The JTWC said that Rewa had achieved one-minute wind speeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." To improve the prose in this article, it would be good to hunt down all the "with plus -ing" sentences and recast them.

• "However during a subsequent reanalysis of the data... " - Delete "subsequent"?
  • Deleted.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New Guinea

• "Cyclone Rewa affected Papua New Guinea, on two separate occasions while it was active, with the cyclone first affecting the country between 28 December and 1 January, before grazing the archipelago between 12 and 14 January.[16][5] Ahead of Rewa affecting the archipelago, TCWC Port Moresby issued cyclone alerts for various parts including Sudest, Rossel and Samarai islands, while authorities urged people not to go to beaches.[10][17] As it affected the archipelago, Rewa brought heavy rainfall, high seas, and wind gusts of up to 100 km/h (60 mph) to parts of the archipelago... " - Here and in other places in the article, the language is too repetitive.

Other

• The article has one dab found by the dab tool at the top of this page. It is here.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 January 2012, 07:33 UTC)

---

Bambusa vulgaris

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take this to the status of a good article at least, if not a featured article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of great info and well referenced, so great job!

• If you're working towards GA, then you might start at with the bones of the article, the basic structure, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. You'll want to rearrange/rename some of your sections to match that. It will also point out a few areas that the article may be weak in, like the physical description, natural ecology, & taxonomy. Generally the article needs, IMO, to lean back some towards the natural species, natual ecology, nat. description, etc. All that great culture info should be in balance (in qty.) with info about the natural species.
• Also see the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Foreign language common names I agree with them that these lists of foreign common names are not desirable.
• Some of your refs can be moved to the end of sentences or paragraphs to improve readability. You might also possibly be able to use Bundling if the refs are getting too thick.
• In your list of varieties, I wonder if Commons would have pics of some of these you could link the names to. Might be nice to see examples with Commons links on some of them. Keep up the good work! --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Is it the type species for the genus? Allens (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Answer: I don't think so. Bambusa tulda is very important too. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Type species of Bambusa is Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss (Syn: Bambusa arundinacea (Retz.) Willd.), the thorny bamboo of India. --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Update. I hope I have managed to adress Tom Hulse's issues to some degree. Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Toxicity" section says that the plant "harms the soil", but provides no details about how this is supposed to occur. It is also an entire section for a single, short sentence. I would expect there to be at least some information about a toxin, based on the section title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanding. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Description" section needs to be considerably expanded with a botanical description (but not too technical!). The entry in the Flora of China seems to be a good starting point: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242307754. Wikipedia doesn't need all the detail, but as a very rough guide, I would myself expect to include about half the information properly paraphrased and expanded into complete English sentences. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's one concern. I have posted it to the article talk page (here). A solution there would help tremendously in expanding the description section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Varieties" don't seem to be botanical varieties but largely cultivars. I would move most if not all of this material to under "Uses" in cultivation. Only true botanical varieties should be dealt with in the "botanical" sections of the article. Are there any recognized botanical varieties? The Flora of China seems to treat them as cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Dieter Ohrnberger (Bamboos of the world) these are all botanical varieties, not just cultivars. Moving the "use" parts to "uses" section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction. This source clarifies them as cultivars. I am putting them in the right place. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Review that first paragraph in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Taxonomy again. Right now you have mostly "Description" material in beginning of the "Taxonomy" section. You also still need more focus on the wild species. Terms like "ornamental", "boiled in water", "cultivated", "used for", etc. go only in the "Uses" and "Cultivation" section. Also, all variety names that are not natural growers in the wild (e.g. a variegated cultivar only occuring in nurseries) need to be separated away from the natural taxa; perhaps in a paragraph about cultivars. For a good example of what they want for a Taxonomy section, see Peter's Schlumbergera#Taxonomy.--Tom Hulse (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving "use" parts to "uses" section. Is there any example of how I can deal with cultivars? Also, I have been looking for an article that gives me good example of how to deal with the taxonomy of a species. Taxonomy of a genus deals with much historical information, and list of specieses within the genus. Any suggestion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in "Category:FA-Class plant articles" would be a good place to look? Allens (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link Allens mentioned: Wikipedia:Featured articles. Look under the Biology section and start clicking on plant names such as Adenanthos cuneatus. You might be able to approach GA status with a simpler taxonomy section such as Commelina communis or Schlumbergera opuntioides. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I was mentioning (and finally managed to get the link working for) is FA-class WikiProject Plant(s) articles; thanks, though! Allens (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've done a slight bit of grammatical cleanup (check to make sure the commas-before-and is consistent throughout the article, one way or another; it was inconsistent in the paragraphs I was looking at), and noted something needing clarification: Are the bitter shoots older ones, or what? They're apparently not used for food, unlike the young shoots? Allens (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of grammatical cleanup, I'm spotting quite a few lacunae in articles ("the", "an", "a") and a few other grammatical errors; I'm trying to correct these, but asking the Guild of Copy-Editors to take a look may be a good idea. In addition, I'm putting a number of unit conversions in using the "Convert" template. Allens (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another area that can use some work (I'm trying, but I'm not a botanist!) is linking in, explaining, or replacing various botanical terms; for instance, what are "pseudospikelets"? Allens (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm continuing to work on grammar/style, but I am noting quite a few places needing clarification. I'm guessing that, in the "Food" section, 0.0 grams of carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of dietary fiber mean 0.0 grams of digestible carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of insoluble fiber? That's how I've modified it to read. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• In regard to "cultivation", the mention of problems with meiosis should really be right after the "no seeds" statement, if that's why there aren't any seeds. "When a stem dies, the clump usually survives" - this refers to the stem dying after (uselessly) flowering? Some comment that this sort of thing is common among bamboo may be a good idea. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Under "toxicity", exactly what sort of dosage is needed in order to have toxic effects? Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, the picture needs alt text; some more pictures (of, say, the young shoots at the edible stage) might be nice. Allens (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for attempting to explain "pseudospikelets", but the explanation is close to non-comprehensible to a non-botanist like myself (and I am a biologist, with my dissertation research being partially in phylogenetics, so I have some experience with plant terms insofar as they show relatedness between organisms). Also, exactly what is meant by "In Bangladesh, is carrier for deadly bamboo blight for the common bamboo"? What is the carrier for deadly bamboo blight for this bamboo (which is said to be "common bamboo" in the first paragraph)? Allens (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote the explanation of pseudospikelets, check if it works. The Bangladesh pathogen is named (that was a silly mistake). Still trying to determine the color of the shoot, and consistent information on its bitterness. I have worked on most of your concerns, though "cultivation" and "toxicity" would require more work. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better on pseudospikelets, thanks! Understand on cultivation and toxicity, etc. Allens (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Worked on cultivation and toxicity. Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Update. Worked on most of the issues raised, and working on the few left. The biggest concern now is the "taxonomy" part. Apparently I can't get across to the kind of information that's supposed to be there. Can someone actually lend a hand? Even a couple of online sources would do, as I'll be able to extract information from those sources. Also, it needs to name appropriate synonyms, not the mistake that was there earlier. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• Made some tweaks - comments to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd place the information in footnote 2 into the text proper. In most of the Featured Articles I write, I give a summary of the history, so Banksia marginata and Noisy Miner (currently at FAC) are two examples.

Any extra information on cultivars so it doesn't look so listy

splitting the prose into many small subsections can make the whole article look a bit choppy. I'd combine some subsections - particularly in the uses section which has information split up a bit. I'd take out the section subheaders and place all the like information together there.

Comment. I kept those small sections so that it remains easier to expand. I believe a lot more expansion needs to go into each of those sections. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good point. I'll see how it looks later. The other thing to consider is that the article needs a lead, so any summary-type sentences are good for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting to the issues. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 January 2012, 13:15 UTC)

---

Mauna Loa

Previous peer review

This is an aging FA dated from 2006, and it's showing. I'm listing the article for peer review to get an assessment of how much needs to be done/redone to meet current standards, and plan to do so sometime in the near future, and then run it by FAR. Oh, and don't nom it at FAR just yet, I need to get to it...thanks, ResMar 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of things from a brief check:
  • I fixed one thing the automated check spotted (unattributed "it has been") and filled in one reference using Reflinks.
  • The alt text checker has spotted a number of images without alt text.
• Allens (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• A few more things:
  • "No recent eruptions of the volcano have caused fatalities, but eruptions in 1926 and 1950 destroyed villages, and the city of Hilo is partly built on lava flows from the late 19th century" from the lead - this is not clear; did the eruptions in 1926 and 1950 cause fatalities? Did those causing the lava flows that Hilo is built on?
  • How are volcanoes (e.g., Mauna Loa and Kīlauea) defined as being separate? How far down do the lava flows need to be apart in order to be considered separate volcanoes? To the hotspot, or what?
  • "Mauna Loa is shaped like a shield, because its lava is extremely fluid (it has low viscosity), and its slopes are not steep." That it is a shield volcano means that its slopes are not steep, as far as I know. Why aren't they steep? Please explain the relationship between viscosity and shape. I would suspect that the eruptions not being explosive also contributes to the shape (no jagged edges from explosions).
  • "city of Hilo is the wettest in the United States" - IIRC, it's right next to what is considered a tropical rain forest, which should be mentioned.
  • "skies are very often clear" - this is one reason astronomical observatories are on the Big Island, IIRC. Perhaps they should be mentioned here, with a reference to the more complete section below?
  • Not much is mentioned about what types of igneous rocks are produced, other than one reference to "rough rock" - which would be rather an understatement if it was obsidian! Or is it entirely "tholeiitic basalt"?
  • "Dr. Judd traveled between the summit and the Recruiting Station to tend the many who suffered from altitude sickness or had worn out their shoes on the rough rock" - how well was he able to do treatment for altitude sickness in 1840? The latter portion of this sentence is also problematic; shouldn't it be something like "or had cut their feet, having worn out their shoes on the rough rock"?
  • How about emissions of gasses, as well as lava and the (stated to be rare) flying rocks? CO2 is mentioned briefly under Observatories; what level of outgassing (and from where) is present? Any other outgassing?
  • Any usage of heat for geothermal power or similar?
  • I also fixed a few minor things (degassing to outgassing, for instance).
  • Doing... Not really finished yet (have to take care of other things) - and someone with more editorial experience than I have should probably also take a look.
• Allens (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• OK, a few more:
  • The second paragraph under "Archibald Menzies" does not have adequate referencing toward the end.
  • The "Others" and "Wilkes expedition" sections are also lacking referencing in some places (or at least appear to be so - I would make sure each paragraph has a citation at its end, even if it's the same as the previous paragraph's - ideally, one locates more than one...).
  • Given the longest quiet period in recorded history, is there a worry that an eruption may happen soon due to pressure building up? This is only partially answered under "Current activity" - is that there hasn't been an eruption another factor in the likelihood of one rising?
  • I see now the material regarding the separate volcanoes given differing chemistry - but "separate shallow magma chambers"? Are there deep magma chambers that they may share?
  • The first "Flank collapse" paragraph may not have sufficient citations; ditto for the first three paragraphs under "Monitoring".
  • Citations need to be copied from the appropriate article for "Since October 2006, the Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy (AMIBA) has been exploring the origin of the universe" under Observatories.
  • ✓ Done, at least for me.
• Allens (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I will work on this sometime in the near future—I'm getting all three remaining tasks running at different states of completion—but I'll keep this open for now, in the hopes of a second editorial review. The more I do now, the better, no? ResMar 03:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 January 2012, 23:42 UTC)

---

Hurricane Lenny

I plan on taking this to FAC in the future, and I'd like some feedback on the article before I did so. Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - This article is in need of a basic copy-edit. Check for proper usage of hyphenated compounds, commas after date clauses (e.g. "and on November 14 the National Hurricane Center (NHC) upgraded it" needs a comma after "November 14"), unnecessarily wordy constructions ("as well as" when "and" would suffice; double-clause sentences with multiple subjects referring to the same thing), missing words and typos (I've seen several), and style inconsistencies (such as whether the serial comma is implemented or not). There is also some overlinking. Auree ★ 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• You might take a look at listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests. Allens (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, I requested a copyedit. As for hyphenated compounds, I see a few usages of "record-breaking" (which I thought appropriate) and "island-wide" (which again seems fine). I think they're fine. I fixed the date clause thingy, removed "as well as"ses. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I meant that there are instances where a hyphen is lacking when it's needed. Auree ★ 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Oops :/ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is good, although small glitches mar the effect in places, as others note above. I did quite a bit of proofing, and I have other suggestions as listed below. Please revert any of my edits that you think are wooden-headed. I tried to use a light touch.

Thanks Finetooth - the prose has been much improved after your c/e. I also had a go at tweaking the MH a bit, so some of your suggestions below might have been fixed in my run. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "On the island, the hurricane destroyed over 200 properties, and there were three deaths." - Stick with active voice? Suggestion: "On the island, the hurricane destroyed more than 200 properties and killed three people."

Meteorological history

• "The origins of Hurricane Lenny were from a low pressure area that was first observed in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on November 8." - Active voice? Suggestion: "Hurricane Lenny formed in a low-pressure area that was first observed in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on November 8."

• "It developed an area of convective that day, although for the next few days the system remained poorly defined." - I think you mean "convection" rather than "convective".

This was fixed in my copy-edit. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Upon first becoming a tropical cyclone, the depression's convection was fairly disorganized, and the National Hurricane Center did not anticipate any strengthening for three days." - I don't think you can say that the convection became a tropical cyclone since "convection" is a name for a kind of air movement. The cyclone and its movements are different things. Suggestion: "When Lenny first became a tropical cyclone, its convection was fairly disorganized, and the National Hurricane Center did not anticipate any strengthening for three days."

Removed redundant ""Upon first becoming a tropical cyclone" in the copy-edit. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The path resulted from its movement along the southern end of a trough over the western Atlantic Ocean that extended from the lower to the upper levels of the atmosphere." - Would it be helpful to specifically state the general orientation of the trough, which I assume was also west–east? Also, move "the Western Atlantic Ocean" to the end of the sentence for clarity?

• "the group also reported a minimum pressure of 933 mbar, which was a drop of 34 mbar in 24 hours" - Should these have conversions to inches of mercury, such as: 933 millibars (27.6 inHg)?

• "Around the time it peaked in intensity, Lenny slowed its motion due to moving between two ridges." - Does this mean its forward motion? Suggestion: "Around the time of its peak intensity, Lenny's forward motion slowed as the storm passed between two atmospheric ridges." Or something like that.

I had tweaked this to something slightly different -- how does that read? Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your version is good. Finetooth (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Despite favorable conditions, the hurricane began weakening as it turned to an eastward drift, possibly due to upwelling of cooler waters." - Slightly contradictory. Maybe "despite apparently favorable conditions for strengthening"? If the conditions had really been favorable for strengthening, the hurricane would have strengthened.

• "Late on November 19, Lenny weakened to tropical storm intensity, after the center became exposed from the convection due to increased wind shear." - Would it be more clear just to say "Late on November 19, Lenny weakened to tropical storm intensity as increased wind shear disrupted the center"?

Preparations

• "southern coast of the Dominican Republic, and only a hurricane watch was issued for the southern coast of Haiti" - Link Dominican Republic and Haiti? I think these are the first mention of these places in the article.

• "A hurricane watch was issued for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands late on November 15, which was upgraded... " - Since it was not the date that was upgraded, I'd suggest moving things around a bit, like this: "Late on November 15, a hurricane watch, upgraded to a hurricane warning six hours later, was issued for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands."

• "After Lenny made its closest approach to the island, the hurricane warning was downgraded to a tropical storm warning on November 17, which was discontinued the following day along with the advisories in the Virgin Islands." - Same problem here. Suggestion: "After Lenny made its closest approach to the island, the hurricane warning was downgraded on November 17 to a tropical storm warning, which was discontinued the next day along with the advisories in the Virgin Islands."

Impact

• Since the death toll box displaces an edit button, I'd consider moving it down. Alternatively, you might merge the opening paragraph with the "Central Caribbean" subsection.

• "on the storm's fringe killed a man after striking him with a beam." - Could you add what kind of beam? Wooden? Torn loose from a house?

Lesser Antilles

• "On Saba, there was an unofficial wind gust of 167 mph (268 km/h) before the instrument blew away." - Rather than "instrument", it would be good to say what kind of instrument. Anemometer, maybe?

• "The sustained wind report at the airport was the highest land observation from Lenny." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "The sustained wind report at the airport was the highest recorded for Lenny over any land mass." Or something like that.

• "Due to the hurricane's unusual track from the west, it produced unparalleled waves of 10–16 (3–5 m) along the western coast of St. Martin,[31] which damaged or destroyed many boats." - Suggestion: "The hurricane's unusual west–east track produced unparalleled waves of 10 to 16 ft (3.0 to 4.9 m) along the west coast of St. Martin."

• "power utilities" - Maybe just "utilities" since these seemed to have included telephone lines, which are not the same as power lines.

• "High damage to tourist areas caused a decrease in cruise lines. - Maybe this should say "in cruise-line business" rather than the lines themselves. Or did some companies go out of business altogether?

References

• Who is the publisher of the material in citation 44? Is this a reliable source?

• Citation 46 needs publisher data.

• Is Island Sun in citation 21 a newspaper? If so, it should appear in italics.

• Is the cruise line named in citation 50 a reliable source?

• In citation 49, instead of naming the Wayback Machine, shouldn't you use the same kind of formatting found in citation 57?

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 January 2012, 18:25 UTC)

---

Alkali metal

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because now that it is a GA, I'd like further feedback on what more could be done to improve it even further past GA. I have addressed most of the comments in the previous peer review. There are still some "citation needed" tags.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Throwing alkali metals in water should probably be covered in more detail. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Links: [2] (sodium and potassium only) and [3] (all the alkali metals except francium). Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Brainiac faked explosions might be included. Double sharp (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this important article. I think it needs a fair amount of work to get to FA (A class and FA are the only two levels above GA), so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Noble gas is a FA and seems like it would be a good model for this. It is also an older FA and standards have gotten tighter since it was promoted. Caesium and Francium are alkali metals and FAs and so would be good models too.
• There is one dab link that will need to be fixed (see toolbox on this PR page) and here
• I do not think the first sentence of the lead follows WP:LEAD well enough - The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is - I would use the word group in the first sentence (as that has a specific meaning in the periodic table) and would also mention that these are all very reactive metals that readily form +1 cations (ions / cations are not even mentioned in the current lead that I can see)
• There are a bunch of MOS issues that would be a problem at FAC - I will try to point them out before discussing other aspects of the article
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Hydrogen is linked twice in just the lead
• Headers need to follow WP:HEAD and not repeat the name of the of the article if at all possible - so "Concept of alkali metals" could be just "Concept", and "Discovery of the alkali metals" could just be "Discovery" (the reader already knows this is about the alkali metals)
• Two headers with "This section is empty. You can help by adding to it." below - these need to be made into proper sections or else eliminated.
• Lots of citation needed tags and even a [when?] tag that I saw - all of these would have to be cleaned up before it stood a chance at FAC
• There are also some places that need citations (but are not marked). For example the first paragraph of Hydrogen has no refs and needs at least one. Or The alkali metals have the lowest first ionization energies in their respective periods of the periodic table because of their low effective nuclear charge and the ability to attain noble gas configuration by losing just one electron. The second ionization energy of all of the alkali metals is very high; thus, they almost always lose a single electron, forming cations. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If one or more sentences follow a ref, but there is not a ref at the end of these, then they need a ref.
• Captions should better explain the image's relevance to the article - for example Mendeleev's Periodic Table shows Tl as an alkali metal (could some sort of highlight color or box be added to the image to make this clearer?)
• Or something like this "Petalite, the lithium mineral from which the element Li was first isolated"
• Be consistent on spelling - Wikipedia uses "Caesium", but Cesium is also used 13 times here (its use in ref titles is OK)
• Be consistent on how refs are formatted too - for example Mark WInters' Web Elements is cited in a t least three different ways Winter, Mark. "Geological information". Francium. The University of Sheffield. Retrieved 26 March 2007. versus Winter, Mark (2011). "WebElements Periodic Table of the Elements | Lithium | historical information". Retrieved 27 November 2011. versus Winter, Mark. "WebElements Periodic Table of the Elements | Potassium | Key Information". Webelements. Retrieved 27 November 2011.
• There are any number of good books on the periodic table, but searching "periodic table" in the references I did not see any of them cited here. I would make sure the references used are from the best sources possible (and make sure to include print sources too)
• The lead either needs no refs (since it is a summary of the article, which has the refs)(please note that direct quotes and extraordinary claims in the lead still need refs), or it is cited like the rest of the article.
• Avoid needless repetition - the lead repeats the whole "H - Group 1, but not an alkali metal" spiel in two consecutive paragraphs, for example
• Or the electrolysis of NaOH is explained in the same level of detail twice (under Discovery of Na and of K - K can be much briefer)
• Or the fact that UUe has not yet been made does not really belong in Production since it was explained in some detail in the section on Uue just above it.
• Bold font for Uue does not follow WP:ITALIC
• OK, on to specifics on the chemistry / organization
• There is a general tendency in the article to confuce the element with its compounds. Two examples:
  • Sodium is not the same as sodium chloride / sodium salts: Sodium has been known since ancient times; salt has been an important commodity in human activities, as testified by the English word salary, referring to salarium, the wafers of salt sometimes given to Roman soldiers along with their other wages.
  • Potassium is not used as a fertilizer - its salts are Potassium is often used as a fertilizer,[85] as it is an important element for plant nutrition. I note that the ref (in German) title refers to salts of potassium (Kalisalze). Also the ref is from 1868 - surely there is a more recent ref for the importance of K salts as fertilizers?
• There is only one mention of the name Natrium (and no explanation) and no mention of the name Kalium, yet they give the symbols to Na and K
• It seems very odd to say twice in the lead that Hydrogen is NOT an alkali metal (which I agree with) and then start the article with a section on ... Hydrogen. I would combine this with the section on "Substances sometimes considered alkali metals" and put it after the Characteristics section
• If you mention "the notable exception that potassium is less dense than sodium" in the lead, the article should point this out in the body (and offer an explanation too)
• I was surprised to see there is no mention of the overall formula of alklali metal halide salts (MX), and shocked that the alkali metal oxides are not mentioned at all - since they do not all follow the expected M₂O formula, and instead there are oxides, peroxides, and superoxides, I would definitely include that in this article. Such systematic chemistry is useful to mention in this article, and makes more sense here than in the articles on the individual elements.
• Since Occurrence describes ores and sources mentioned in Production, would it make sense to have Occurrence before Production?
• For each element, I would discuss uses of the pure element (metal) first, then discuss the compounds (salts)
• There was a bad case in Brazil several years ago where a radioactive Cs salt was sent to a dump and poor people who salvaged items from the dump found it and used it as a glowing body powder / decoration - lots of radioactive poisoning.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 January 2012, 16:01 UTC)

---

Batoka Formation

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback from the community on how to improve it, after having put in much of the scientific literature

Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm glad to see articles about Africa. This is a very short one in its early stages. Here are a few suggestions:

• Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's important to make each article as accessible as possible to a wide audience, most of whom are not scientists. Technical jargon in this article that is neither linked nor explained include the following words: tholeiitic, intercalacted, aeolian, amygdaloidal, porphyritic, plagioclase, augite, magnetite, ilmenite, amygdales, quartz, chalcedony, calcite, zeolite, stilbite, mesolite, laumontite, and so on. Although your reliable scientific sources probably assume a readership of geologists and others who do not need to have this vocabulary explained, the Wikipedia audience is quite another matter. It's your job as a writer to try to translate the scientific jargon or to link to articles that explain it. This is not always easy to do, and in some cases it may be impossible. Still, I would recommend moving in the direction of clarity even if not everything can be made clear to everyone.

• "The Batoka Formation is a geological formation in the Zambezi valley." - I would add the country or countries and continent. Not every reader will know anything about the Zambezi.

• Vulcanodon should be linked on first use, in the lead. I would also suggest expanding on the vulcanodon in the "Vertebrate fauna" section. Say what they are and why they are important. Also, what other fossils have been found in the formation? Why single out the vulcanodon?

• "The Batoka Formation is the uppermost formation in the Upper Karoo Group of the Karoo Supergroup, lying above the Forest Sandstone Formation and below the Batoka Formation."- This sentence seems to say that the Batoka Formation is below the Batoka Formation. Not possible.

• The image in the article is licensed by you as "own work", but it appears to be a scan rather than a photo that you took yourself. If it's a scan, you need to identify the source document. Copying an image by scanning might or might not violate copyright laws, depending on the nature of the source.

• It's often helpful to look at articles that have achieved GA or FA status to see how other editors have handled similar topics. I don't see many similar listed articles at WP:GA, but Marcellus Formation is one you might find useful as a model.

• 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) 20:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 January 2012, 07:06 UTC)

---

Angwa Sandstone Formation

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback from the community on how to improve it, after having put in much of the scientific literature.

Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Rather than doing a completely separate review of this stub or start-stage article, I'll refer you to the comments I made earlier today on the Batoka Formation. Most of those apply to this article as well. Here are a few additional thoughts:

• Be sure to tell readers in the first paragraph of the lead where in the world this formation is found.

• Instead of double-bolding words in the table headings of the "Flora" section, expand the section to include paragraphs of text about the flora, and add links to the text.

• Limit red links. Mbire District, for example, should only be red-linked once in the entire article, not four times.

• The image is out-of-focus and appears to be a photo of a rock in a glass case. Your image license gives a date of 1996, but the date of generation is given as 12 January 2012. I'm guessing that you took the photo on that more recent date in a geology museum, but I'm not sure what the 1996 date refers to. I'd suggest that you add more detail to the license. Where is the rock you photographed, exactly? What does 1996 mean?

• 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) 22:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 January 2012, 07:20 UTC)

---

Quoll

Previous peer review

We've listed this article for peer review because we are trying to get new suggestions to get back into the flow of wikipedia. We are hoping to have an FA by June, so critical reviewing is welcome.

Thanks, Marissa927 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) and user:Savetheoceans

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. However, it will need further improvement to have a chance at promotion to FA. I'm not a biologist, and I can't give much advice about content or comprehensiveness. Nonetheless, I have quite a few suggestions related to prose, layout, and Manual of Style issues.

Lead

• "deposits in Queensland" - Link Queensland and mention that it is an Australian state?

• "indicates that the quoll evolved around 15 million years ago in the Miocene" - Link Miocene?

• "which occurs during the winter season" - Tighten by one word by deleting "season"?

• "A female gives birth to up to 18 pups, of which only 6 survive to suckle on her teats." - This has a slightly comical unintended meaning. Do the other 12 survive for other reasons? I think I would stop with a terminal period after "survive".

• "All species have drastically declined in numbers since Australasia was colonised by Europeans, with one species—the Eastern quoll—becoming extinct on the Australian mainland and is now found only in Tasmania." - This is not a grammatically correct sentence. Suggestion: "All species have drastically declined in numbers since Australasia was colonised by Europeans. One species, the Eastern quoll, became extinct on the Australian mainland and is found only in Tasmania."

Taxonomy

• "The name Dasyurus means "hairy-tail", and was coined by Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in 1796." - I would expand on this a bit and make it into at least a two-sentence paragraph instead of a one-sentence orphan. Who was Saint-Hilaire, and what was his specialty? Did he have a particular interest in marsupials?

• "There is no evidence the local indigenous people used the word in the Sydney area." - Link Sydney and explain where it is (not in north Queensland). You can't assume that foreign readers will know that it is on the east coast of Australia.

• Link "polecat" and "marten"?

• The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose paragraphs rather than bulleted or numbered lists, if feasible. It would be easy to turn the list in this section into prose paragraphs, and that's what I recommend. While doing that, you should remove the double bolding from the six names; double-bolding is another Manual of Style no-no. The links by themselves are sufficient, and you shouldn't use even those for the three of the six that have already been linked on first use earlier in this section.

• "Rising sea levels due to an increase in global temperature caused a land bridge that once connected Australia and New guinea to be covered up with water." - It might be useful to say when this happened. Also, use a big G on Guinea.

• Link University of New South Wales.

Description

• The sections toward the end are short enough that the article begins to look choppy, and the images do not fit into the appropriate sections in every case. Ideally, images do not overlap section boundaries or displace edit buttons. I would consider merging sets of two short sections to make fewer but slightly longer sections. For example, "Description, distribution, and habitat" could be a section, and "Behaviour and diet" could be another. When combining, it would be good to eliminate repetition such as "The quoll is a mostly solitary creature... " , which partly echoes "Quolls are largely solitary, nocturnal animals." Another repetitious sentence begins "The quoll is mostly carnivorous... ", which echoes the earlier "The quoll is a carnivorous marsupial." My advice is to merge and tighten these sections and to rearrange the images to avoid section overlap.

Diet

• Link bandicoot.

Threats

• "The meat is supposed to be buried at least 8 centimetres (3 in) underground, but has been found under minimal dirt that a quoll can dig around to get to it." - This is not a sentence. Suggestion: "The meat is supposed to be buried at least 8 centimetres (3 in) underground, but it has been found under minimal dirt that a quoll can remove."

Conservation efforts

• "a University of Sydney project revealed in 2010 is teaching them to avoid eating the invasive amphibians" - More detail would be helpful here. How do you teach a quoll not to eat a cane toad?

• "The reason for the young parents was the fact that older male quolls can become violent and kill the female if they do not want to mate." - Do you mean that the park managers selectively bred young quolls with other young quolls, or do the quolls themselves make this choice?

References

• Citation 3 is incomplete. Citation 16 is incomplete. Citation 26 lacks the date of most recent access.

• A single p. is the abbreviation for a single page. Citation 7 should therefore be "p." rather than "pp."

Images

• The images look good. The distribution map File:Quoll range map.jpg is good; however, if you can find out what the source of the data was, it would be good to add that to the image license page. In other words, how did the mapmaker know where to put the shaded areas on the base map?

• 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) 04:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• A few comments, mainly on the biology:
  • I find the reproductive behavior of older male quolls (mentioned in the conservation section) rather weird. Normally, it's the females of a species, who have to bear much more of a burden usually, who are "choosy". Any ideas in the literature as to why this happens?
  • Also in the conservation section: Why should the female be inexperienced? The male needing to be inexperienced due to the weird behavior mentioned above, I can see, but what was the logic for the female being inexperienced?
  • I did one slight bit of cleanup in the initial paragraph.
  • You might want to mention the connection with the likewise-endangered Tasmanian Devil a bit earlier, as in part of the lead - people are likely to find it interesting.
  • Is there any phylogenetic research not using the mitochondria (rRNA being the most likely)?
  • I note that the "Extant Dasyuromorphia species" banner (at the bottom) doesn't classify by tribes, resulting it not showing the relationship with the Tasmanian Devil, etc. Perhaps this could be improved?
• That's about all I can see at the moment. Allens (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 January 2012, 04:42 UTC)

---

General

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan

I've listed this article for peer review because… another editor and I are attempting to get this article up to Good Article status. We both have looked at this article for a long time and believe that the article would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. In particular, I hope that someone would help suggesting ways to generally improve the content. Is there too much information? Too little? Does the layout/structure make sense? Is is grammatically correct? Are there any sudden leaps in logic? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, RDavi404 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

The article has been significantly expanded, but there are questions as to whether it should be expanded further - see its talk page, under "Expansions?". It also needs rerating (by anyone who's a member of the two WikiProjects involved, other than those heavily involved in its editing such as myself). Any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated, as well.

Thanks very much, Allens (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get this to GA status, BTW. Allens (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: You have obviously spent time on this article. However, my first thought is that it has come to peer review too early, and needs rather a lot of work before it is ready for a detailed review. I have looked at a few college articles recently promoted to GA, and this does not yet approach their general standard.

Specific areas for further attention:-

• The tone seems less like that of a neutral encyclopedia article and more like that of the outline of a brochure. This might reflect your closeness to the institution; often this kind of article is better written from a distance.

• • The proportion of adjuncts should be compared to that of other, similar colleges, for instance - I'm pretty sure it's higher than average. Is editing on tone something the GOCE does? (And that's odd; I would not have thought I'd have been that much affected by only one semester of teaching plus two days there.)
    • I am not a fan of the GOCE. It's more a case, I think, of using judgement to ensure the account is neutrally presented. A stronger history section can help to take the balance away from the appearance of a profile of the college.Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• General article structure: There are far too many very short sections and subsections, some only a single sentence in length. A single piece of information, e.g. that relating to KotoriCon, does not warrant a subsection to itself. Either expand the information or combine some of the short sections

• • OK. I can easily take some info from the KotoriCon article, for instance.

• The lead is short, and does not summarise the whole article

• • Oh? I had tried to make sure I inserted something from each section, which seemed to be what the University style guide was suggesting. I'll see about expanding it.
    • I think it will be easier to expand the lead when you have dealt with other points from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• The History section is especially weak and uninformative, with no information whatever relating to the period between 1970 and 2011

• • I'll see if I can get access to some newspaper archives for the intervening time period (which may also help with the "third-party sources" problem in some cases). The college did recently have a 40th anniversary occasion, with a booklet to accompany it, but I was trying to avoid using something that's inevitably pretty promotional.

• In general, information needs to be presented much more clearly. For example, the detail in "Enrollments" is muddled and disorganised.

• • I'll check with the GOCE for some assistance. To me it seems crystal-clear, of course!

• Overlinking: common terms such as "co-educational", "nursing", "high school" etc do not require links.

• • OK. (I do disagree on Nursing - it wasn't actually until I was at GCC that I discovered that an RN is an associate's-level degree, not a bachelor's... and I grew up around nurses - my father's a physician!)

• Check the appropriateness of some links. For example, that on "President" links to "University President"

• • Well, otherwise it would be linking to country presidents as the primary meaning...
    • Why link it at all? People know what the office of college president is, especially in an article about a college. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overcitation, for example in the "Organization and administration" section, where a string of six citations supports routine factual information. Similar occurrences throughout the article

• • I'll take a look for other instances. That one is a special case - nobody that I've contacted seems quite sure exactly how the trustee appointment process works, with contradictory info from different places! I will try to make sure there isn't duplication of referencing, however. I was told by the person who changed it from Stub to Start-class that it needed more references, and I may have overreacted.

• Numerous "third-party source" tags need attention

• • I'm actually the one who put those in; I agree; also see above.

• The inclusion of geographical coordinates is unnecessary. People aren't going to use a compass to find this college!

• • Actually, the infobox for universities/colleges specifies geographic coordinates should be included. I find it weird myself...

• • • The infobox includes a coordinates field, but you don't have to fill it. An obsession with geographic coordinates swept Wikipedia a few years ago and I suspect this field is a result of that. If you think it's weird (as I do), don't include them and defend your action on commonsense grounds. The infobox does not make the rules. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this reads rather depressingly, but I hope it helps you in deciding how best to work on the article in the future.

• • I was wanting feedback, and suspected I needed it, so you gave what I was looking for, don't worry. (Any comments on what's on the Talk page, BTW? Looks from the above like you'd say to work on those comments first, except where the Talk page material can be used to expand needed sections.)

Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks! After giving you a chance to reply to any of the above that you wish to (no obligation, of course), I'll archive the review. Allens (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 January 2012, 16:17 UTC)

---

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

Previous peer review

In May 1999, Manchester United Football Club won an unprecedented treble of trophies and arguably completed the most successful season in their history and perhaps English football. The season will live long in the memory of United fans because of the climax in the Champions League final but also to football fans in all walks of life, notably as they recorded the biggest away defeat in Premier League history and perhaps contributed to the best FA Cup semi-final in recent times. Off the field, it was a season of controversy – the club were on the brink of takeover by Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB, resulting in the involvement of the government. This article has recieved a peer review before which prose was identified as the biggest concern; subsequently being addressed. It holds a WP:GA standing but I am curious to see if this can be a WP:FAC. As of now, there isn't any season articles which have met the criteria. Does there need to be more depth in coverage, how can the WP:LEAD be improved? Any comments or suggestions will be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 January 2012, 20:08 UTC)

---

Valenzuela, Philippines

I know that I've been doing a lot for researching and improving the article for the past few years by adding stuff and even re-writing whole chunks of sections. I wanted to see if the article is now A, GA or FAC-qualified or I still need to emphasize few points.

I would like to mention that there is already a first peer review for this article right before it was moved from Valenzuela City > Valenzuela, Philippines in 2010. Books that are used in here either have no ISBN (don't know why) or some data are missing. I know that there are some major grammar and punctuation inconsistencies but I think I can work with that in the future.

Thanks, — JL 09 ^talk_contribs    11:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Few of the references have dead links which I have tagged last December 2011. I'm still working on replacing citations and references.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    11:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments. A lot of work has gone into this interesting article, but a lot more will need to be done to improve it to, say, GA status. What follows is not a complete review, but rather a short list of things to think about.

• Quite a few paragraphs lack inline citations to reliable sources. The first, third, and fifth paragraphs of "American era and Japanese occupation" are examples, but there are many others. It's a good idea to provide a source for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation, and also every paragraph. If one source supports all of the claims in a whole paragraph, put the citation at the very end of the paragraph.

• As a general rule, where quantities are given in metric and imperial units, the primary units should be spelled out and the secondary units abbreviated. In the first sentence, for example, the distance would be 14 kilometres (8.7 mi). I like to use the {{convert}} template, which automatically spells out and abbreviates in a way that conforms to the Manual of Style.

• Virtually all of the quantities, including temperatures and areas, need to be rendered in both kinds of units. I see quite a few that still need conversions.

• There's a good deal of overlinking in the article. My rule of thumb is to link special terms on first use in the lead and perhaps again on first use in the main text. For example, Spain, Bulacan, Metro Manila, Pío Valenzuela, and many others are linked multiple times. Common words like "physician" and "murder" should not be linked at all. Occasionally there are reasons to link something more than once or twice in an entire article, perhaps in the infobox and in a caption as well as in the lead and the main text, but those are exceptions to the general guideline.

• The color-coding in the "Feasts and holidays" table may not make sense to color-blind readers. I would consider removing the colors and flagging the city-wide holidays with a text symbol or drawing notice to them in some other way.

• In places, this long article seems to me to include unnecessary detail. Will many readers find a complete list of the city's ZIP codes useful, for example? Is the table of traffic counts really necessary?

• The article has too many lists. Generally, the Manual of Style recommends using straight prose paragraphs rather than lists, where feasible. For example, "Landmarks and attractions", could be rendered in prose paragraphs without bullets or bolded subheads.

• The link checker finds 20 or dead or problematic urls in the citations, here.

• I would set the image size to "thumb" for most of the images rather than bumping them up. Exceptions to this general guideline would be the lead image in the infobox, which is usually set to 300px, and maps, which often need to be bigger than "thumb" for readability.

• It's best not to displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons with images.

• Images should be placed within the sections they illustrate and should not overlap section boundaries.

• When all other changes have been made, you might ask someone from WP:GOCE to copyedit the whole article. Small grammar errors occur here and there that look to me like second-language mistakes, though the prose is otherwise generally OK. An example from the "Ecology" section is "Thomas Hodge-Smith noted in 1939 that Valenzuela is rich of black tektites occurring in spheroidal and cylindrical shapes and are free of bubbles." The phrase "in black tektites" would be correct, and the sentence would be better if it ended with "that occur in spheroidal and cylindrical shapes and are free of pebbles". Here's an example from "Feasts and holidays": "Listed below are the most notable feasts in Valenzuela that gained media as well as international attractions." I think "attention" is the word you mean, rather than "attractions", and I would rewrite to avoid the redundancy in "most notable" plus "gained attention".

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 January 2012, 11:25 UTC)

---

Lists

List of municipalities in Florida

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it is one of the best lists of all City lists in the U.S. I'd like feedback to see if there are improvements that could be made or problems that need to be resolved.

Thanks, Mgrē@sŏn 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 January 2012, 13:35 UTC)

---

Selena videography

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take the article to FLC

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Selena singles discography

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take the article to FLC very soon. Also it has been c/e by a GOCE member.

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This reads well - glad it got a copyedit already. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• One dab link here - circular redirect I think here
• I looked at the most recent discography FL (which is 50 Cent discography) and the lead here seems way more detailed than that article's lead. It might help to trim the lead here a bit.
• One thing I noticed that seems strange is that there is a lot of material on Mexican chart performance in the lead, but the only charts shown in the body of the article are the US charts - no Mexican charts are listed / shown. I think the lead should be consistent with the article - either the Mexican charts should be in the lists or they should be removed from the lead.
• Needs a ref It peaked within the top 10 on the Hot Latin Tracks and Latin Regional Mexican Airplay charts.
• This needs to be qualified "Amor prohibido" and "No me queda más" became the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995.[19][20] - most successful in the world? in the US? in Mexico? in certain markets? what?
• Also needs a ref "No me queda más" peaked at number one on the Hot Latin Tracks and on the Latin Regional Mexican Airplay charts, giving Selena a second number one single from Amor prohibido (1994).
• New Zealand chart also in the lead, but not in the article body - again should be consistent (both or none)
• Also true for the French and Spanish charts (in lead only)
• Tense is wrong here - should be "had" not "has" As of 2005, "Dreaming of You" has sold over 254,000 digital copies. " This also seems like it needs its own ref
• A lot of the awards seem like the do not belong here (but in the awards article / list) - 50 Cent discography does not list awards in its lead.
• Canadian and UK charts in lead, not in list.
• I did not check any refs, but I do see that there are no dead external links.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed chart positions coming from off-line sources, everything else is fixed. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 January 2012, 04:49 UTC)

---

WikiProject peer-reviews

• WikiProject Military history: Military history of Canada • Warsaw airlift

Archives

• 2012:
  • February (current)
  • January

• 2011:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2010:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2009:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2008:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2007:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2004 and older:
  • December 2004
  • Archive 3, Archive 2, Archive 1