Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.

Roekiah[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring this to FAC and would like feedback regarding accessibility (obscure enough topic) and grammar.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead uses "recognised"; early life: "recognized" -> be consistent. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto[edit]

  • " to a Mohammad Ali and Ningsih" -- Why the singular?
  • "Though she learned acting mainly from her parents," -- Mother or daughter?
  • "The trio went from group to group, constantly travelling" -- Do we need both when one will do? Group to group sounds repetitive IMO.
  • "Though the family did not want Roekiah to enter acting, Roekiah insisted." -- Why do we repeat her name?
  • "Roekiah refused to eat, and ultimately her parents relented." -- In protest right? Also, I think you could get away with a pronoun here.
  • (traditional music with Portuguese influences.[8]) -- Should cite be on the outside of the closing parenthesis?
  • "but also for her voice and on-stage talents." -- Singing was her on-stage talent wasn't it? Or was there more?
  • "...troupe; they married when she was seventeen. After their marriage, the couple took a month hiatus then joined the Faroka troupe in Singapore, ultimately leaving the troupe in 1936." -- Overburdened with the word "troupe" here.
Film career
  • "In 1937 Roekiah made her first film appearance as the leading lady in Albert Balink's Terang Boelan (Full Moon), starring alongside Rd Mochtar as two lovers who elope after one is almost forced to marry an opium smuggler..." -- Phew, that's one big sentence. I think this could benefit from a split after the film is given. I suspect this would also cure the awkward noun plus-ing we currently have with "starring". Also, It would be good to have an introduction to the film in terms of its genre; was it a comedy? drama? romance? etc. Based on the brief synopsis we have, I would hazard a guess at romance. Suggest: In 1937 Roekiah made her first film appearance as the leading lady in Albert Balink's Terang Boelan (Full Moon). She and her co-star Rd Mochtar played two lovers who elope after one is almost forced to marry an opium smuggler. Or something like that?
  • "...echoed by the Indonesian film historian Misbach Yusa Biran credits Roekiah as the "dynamite" which led to this success." -- echoed by the Indonesian film historian Misbach Yusa Biran who credits Roekiah as the "dynamite" which led to this success?
  • I am always cautious of starting a new paragraph with "however", and see this as more of a "brace yourself for a twist in the story" conjunction than anything else.
  • "kept silent, constantly musing as if she were mentally disturbed." -- this is in quotes, who said this?
  • W. Imong, author of the piece, though likely based on an interview with Kartolo. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which traveled to Singapore to popular acclaim" -- The trip recieved popular acclaim? Why would someone receive acclaim as a result of a journey?
  • "After the tour was completed, much of the cast to switch to Tan's Film" -- will need looking at. I'm guessing at: "After the tour was completed, much of the cast switched to Tan's Film"?
  • "With Tan's, the Terang Boelan cast were utilised for the 1938 hit Fatima, starring Roekiah and Rd Mochtar. The film, in which Roekiah portrayed a young woman named Fatima..." Repetetive of "Fatima", suggest: " The film, in which Roekiah played the title role..."
  • When we give the critics responses, we use "wrote that" twice in quick succession. Could you think of an alternative for the second one?
  • "Following the film's success..." We have just spoken of this, can we take this as a given?
  • "The success of Roekiah–Rd Mochtar was soon followed by other attempts..." -- Successful attempts? If success follows, then whatever comes after it is also a success? It may be just a case of moving "success" to before attempts.
  • "In order to keep their new star..." -- New para, new name for Roekiah (and the company strictly speaking).
  • Have given Tan's the full name, but I don't think having Roekiah would work as we have "Roekiah and Kartolo" immediately afterwards.
  • "Kartolo would often have small, comedic, roles, and Roekiah would sing songs he had written...." I'm sure this is my fault, but just confirm that "he" is Kartolo and not a typo of "she"?
  • He is Kartolo. Roekiah doesn't seem to have written any songs. Changed to her husband  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roekiah's last film with Rd Mochtar, Siti Akbari, was released later that year." -- We mention the year in the previous paragraph and I would prefer that it is also given here as it is a new para. What works for a name should work for a year as well.
  • "...but ultimately unable to return similar profits as Terang Boelan or Fatima." -- "...but was unable to return similar profits as Terang Boelan or Fatima."
Japanese occupation and death[edit]
  • Repetition of "occupation" in the opening line. Also, I'm not sure the semi-colon is justified here when "which" could be used as an alternative conjunction: "Film production in the Indies declined after the Japanese occupation began in early 1942 which forced all but one studio to close."
  • "Japanese occupation..." We have a third "occupation" here, made less obvious with the deletion of the middle one.
    • Tried to rework
  • "without his wife" -- As this is a new section entirely, I would prefer her name is given here, with pronouns etc given after it.
  • "After several years on hiatus..." -- "After a hiatus of several years..."
  • "...the Japanese insisted" -- Japanese who? Government, people, film industry?
    • Occupation government, military command... don't seem to have been many Japanese civilians in the Indies in 1942–45
  • "After several months of treatment, she died in Jakarta sometime..." -- We don't need to give "Jakarta" again so soon. City? Capital?
  • "then-Minister of Education Ki Hajar Dewantara -- "the then-Minister of Education Ki Hajar Dewantara."
    • Done
Family
  • "Of her husband..." Good for a following sentence, but I'm not sure we can get away with having this as the start of a new paragraph, let alone a new section.
  • "...stating that the marriage brought them "great fortune".[i] During their marriage..." -- Two marriages so close together are not right, (ones bad enough! ;-)
    • Tell me about it. Always nice to just annul one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Dutch..." Too informal, suggest: "After Denmark..."
Legacy
  • Should "onscreen" have a hyphen?

All done, very nice indeed. Not too detailed, yet just enough to understand the subject fully. CassiantoTalk 17:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly that's all I could get (and more detail than everything I found so far!) No biographies have been written on her, and what's online now is mostly under 600 words. Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

A few suggestions below: feel free to adopt or ignore as you see fit. I've made some additional ces while I went along: feel free to rv anything you don't like or agree with.

Lead

  • "Owing to these films" feels wrong: perhaps "Through these films"?

Early life

  • "studied the trade": is acting a trade? "Craft", maybe?
  • "furtively" Not sure this is needed (or that it's encyclopaedic)
  • Trimmed to be safe (though I intended this to prepare readers for Roekiah's father's reaction). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership with Rd Mochtar

  • "The success of Roekiah–Rd Mochtar was soon followed by other at romantic pairing from other studios.": Not sure what this is saying...

A nice read, and I love the fact that we appear to have the most complete online resource about the lady - and that includes the Indonesian Wiki too! I'll have a second read through in a day or so too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! It's very rare to find detailed information on non-political figures from that period, so I'm quite glad we got this much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more from me (and a couple of minor copy edits done)...

Family

  • "dabbled in music": is this encyclopaedic enough?

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Peale[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nominate it at FAC and would like feedback. I've put it in this category because of the discussions of machinery in the article.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

This is the first half of my review:

Lead
  • "He returned with plans for improvement, designing the first steam-powered coinage press in the United States, installed in 1836" – this wording implies that he "returned designing". In fact he returned with plans for improvements; the specific designs followed. Thus "designing" → "and designed"
Early life and career
  • "The family lived there as well, and the boy was born in the family quarters in the museum." The first seven words are unnecessary.
  • I would re-site "in Febraury 1796" between "and" and "brought", i.e. "and in February 1796 brought..."
  • The "young" description is unnecessary (you say he's eight in the same sentence)
  • Brandywine River can be linked
  • "But, within a year, one of the Hodgson brothers, who ran a nearby machine shop, described Peale as more capable with tools than they were". It's not clear who the "they" are. Also, I don't think the leading "But..." is required.
  • "He then moved to nearby Philadelphia, working ..." Same comment as for the lead: he didn't "move ... working"
  • "When Charles Willson Peale died in 1827, Franklin became the manager of the museum." I would imagine that he also inherited some stock?
  • The section's final paragraph is a little overburdened with trivia - it isn't essential to give that much detail about his teaching at the institute.
Hiring and Europe tour
  • The structure of the second paragraphs falls down a bit. Basically, we don't need the sentence beginning "According to James L. Whitehead...", which is out of sequence and is covered by the later "According to Paterson..." sentence.
  • "all else" seems a little archaic. I'd say "everything he could"
Done to this point. No comments, just implemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 1835 introduced it to the Philadelphia Mint..." – chronologically, this information belongs in the next section, not in the middle of the account of his European journey
  • I have slightly rephrased this sentence: "Peale returned to France where, because all the Paris refiners wanted money to teach him parting, he learned the French method by observing the assayer at the branch mint in Rouen" – but I'm still not altogether happy with it. An alternative might be: "...wanted payment for teaching him the French method of parting, he learned it by observing..." etc
Return and results
  • "He warned that...": the word "that" is misplaced, given the wording that follows ("...in the organization of Mints in both France and England that..."
  • The cryptic parenthetical note isn't very clear: "(at the American mint done by the Engraver, later Chief Engraver)". I take this to mean that in the American mint, the Engraver was responsible for coin designs. The last part, "later Chief Engraver", seems an unnecessary additional detail.
  • Perhaps describe Patterson as "Mint director" rather than "director"
  • "So as to be able to take advantage" is convoluted. "To take advantage..." would be a lot simpler
  • "The first press then began..." In what way "first"?
  • We have "According to numismatist X..." twice in close proximity
  • "Robert Patterson III, son of the Mint Director under whom Peale would long serve, wrote that..." Inappropriate subjunctive; perhaps "under whom Peale served for many years".

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– and here it is:

Melter and Refiner
  • "The nomination was referred to the Committee on Finance, which reported back favorably" – probably unnecessary detail.
  • The information on the debased two-cent pieces, given immediately after Peale's confirmation, seems oddly placed, given that the next paragraph begins: "On taking office..."
  • "Peale arrived, with his daughter Anna, in the early fall of 1837" Necessary detail?
I think it's worth including. Peale's family life gets too little attention. He apparently raised his daughter without much help from the mother, though he certainly had enough family to help out.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but to advise generally in seeing to it that the new mint was ready to begin production." A bit verbose; maybe just "to help ensure that the new mint..." etc
  • "Having been delayed in leaving Charlotte, Peale did not arrive in Dahlonega until November 20, 1837" Again I'm not convinced that this level of detail is required, nor that it is necessary to give his arrival date, his departure date and the information that he was there a week.
  • "This was credited to the account of the Melter and Refiner..." Does this mean it became his personal property?
Mint officers entrusted with gold were expected to turn a like amount over to the officer who superintended the next part of the coining process, minus an allowance for loss. If they exceeded that allowance, it came out of their pockets, and they also posted a bond. I've tweaked the language but am open to suggestions here. Remember, the mint was essentially a factory for turning metal into coins, and the gold and silver the public deposited could come in many forms, from nuggets to foreign gold coins to tableware.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chief Coiner and medallist
  • Why is "medallist" uncapitalised (unlike Melter, Refiner, Chief Coiner?)
Melter and Refiner is a single title. Maybe I should just delete the medallist, which is to describe what he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have two accounts of Peale's appointment by VB in the first paragraph
No, he was given a recess appointment, good until the end of the current Congress (March 3, 1841). So that Peale could remain in office longer than that, he had to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate. This was back in the good old days, when the Senate went home from March to December.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peale's enterprise was very profitable, as Peale took the gold and silver for these medals from stores at the mint, and replaced the bullion later." So he "borrowed" the gold and silver, but it's not immediately clear from this why the enterprise was "very profitable", since he replaced what he'd borrowed.
Saved him the opportunity cost of tying up capital. But I'll play with it. It was profitable because he had no labor costs, no money tied up in equipment, etc. Basically, unless he he advertised (and I've found no evidence that he did), his only cost was the cost of the gold.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peale also engraved those medals for John Tyler and James Polk..." It is not clear what "those medals" refers to. It would also be helpful to mention that Tyler and Polk were former US presidents.
Downfall
  • Did the noisy sofa have a useful function, or was it just a glorified whoopee cushion?
That's as far as the source goes, alas. I assume people could sit on it normally.
  • Second paragraph, "These activities..." – not clear which activities
  • "...to allow the Mint to decline to give credit for small amounts of silver in gold deposits." I'm not sure I understand this, but in any case, what is the practical effect of this provision?
It goes back to parting, and that gold ore comes with silver. The Mint was basically keeping the silver and only paying for the gold.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxay is first mentioned in the previous section, and should have his description there.
  • Slightly muddled chronology? Between fourth & fifth para we switch back from 1852 to 1851
I know. It seemed logical, but I'm open to suggestions. It makes more sense to mention Eckfeldt's death there. I'll throw in a "had" before the verb.
  • "Taxay recorded that the new policy "seem[s] to have been ill-received in certain quarters of the Mint" but that as not all records are extant, the specifics are uncertain." The "but that" in mid-sentence creates uncertainty. Is what follows, i.e. "but that as not all records are extant..." etc, part of Taxay's observation? If so, this could be clarified by inserting "observed" after the "but"
That's a paraphrase of what he said. "What exactly occurred we must leave to the reader's imagination, for the pertinent correspondence is now missing." That fits between the two quotes from Taxay that I give.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an unclosed square bracket in the Taxay quote
  • Strangely, since this is the climax of his downfall, you don't seem to record when Peale was fired or by whom; the final paragraph begins "The reason for Peale's firing...", but we need a brief mention of the event itself.
It's in the quotation. He was fired by Pierce. That's the only account of the dismissal I've been able to find. The older sources tend to avoid the issue. He was certainly dismissed, as I checked the Senate journal for the nomination of his successor, and the nomination says "in place of Franklin Peale, removed".
Later years and other activities
  • "Civic organizations he was president of included..." This is not technically wrong, but it is inelegant. In this case the preposition could be moved forward – "of which he was president" – or you could rephrase along the lines of "He was president of several civic organisations, including..." Either of these would, I think, read more smoothly than what's there at present.
  • "He was elected a manager of the latter organization in 1839..." Should be "had been", not "was"
  • "Peale was among those surveyed in 1870 by Treasury Secretary George Boutwell..." I think the meaning is that his opinion was sought; as phrased, it makes him sound like a building rather than a person.
  • You mention that his daughter survived him, but not what happened to either of his wives. (Later: I see that Caroline is referred to as his "widow", but there's no hint of what happened to Eliza.
I don't know what happened to her. I can probably come up with a death date for Caroline Peale. She had family money. He married well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding to the infobox that Caroline died in 1875. According to this, Eliza was still alive in 1832.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that footnote (c) is referenced in a different manner from the rest, and I'm not sure that the refs cover the entire note.

Most interesting: I can't really decide whether Peale was a bad man who did a lot of good, or a good man who did a little bad. A bit like Nixon, really. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the latter. It was probably considered one of the perks of the job to use the equipment when not in use. However, even by the standards of the day, he went too far in having public employees work on his house or adjust targets at the archery club. Thank you for the review, I'll run through these over the next day or so. I've been suffering from a sinus infection which has made it difficult for me to concentrate. Just about gone now, I'm happy to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished my responses. Thank you for a thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peale liked music, but I don't think he was into black metal. Now if it was post-hardcore, I might leave it in. Thanks. Delinked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall F.C.[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Kept this article in good shape since it was made GA, I'd like a peer review before I nominate it for featured article. Thanks! BillyBatty (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pather Panchali[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we wish to take it to featured article candidacy. Any input will be highly appreciated.

Thanks, Dwaipayan (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash[edit]

I do not have much to say, except for these: -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead section can be expanded to three paragraphs, or just two big paragraphs.
  • Lead has been expanded now.
  • The title card can be replaced with a poster. These ones could do: [1], [2] and [3]
  • Thanks for the links. Now, the title card has been replaced with a poster.
  • Technically I agree, although it's not a must. Do you know if this needs to be done manually for each URL?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All URLs now has archive links (unless I missed any).--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha[edit]

  • Infobox: Running time: 122 minutes (West Bengal)... What does that mean? Did the version released in WB run longer than other versions?
  • Unsure about this. Will have to do some more searching.
  • The searching ended up in an explanatory note explaining variable running time in different sources!--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on Kailash's comment of poster. But that should be done only if the original or at least a film poster of that age itself is available. I couldn't find any such. All are modern CD/DVD covers.
  • "earns a meager living as a priest"... priest as in Pujari? We have separate article of that and can be thus used.
  • Used the term Pujari, with wikilink.
  • The snake crawling into the house. I didn't understand that. (I haven't seen the film.) How is it important to mention? Were snakes hushed away many times before in the film? What does it denote?
  • Removed that bit. The snake probably denotes the idea of vastu sarpa, a snake that is believed to live in a house when it gets deserted (telling from memory, I do not know the exact significance of vastu sarpa) Anyway, it is not so significant.
  • Plot section should contain only plot of the film. The farm running scene being memorable can go in another section or moved to the caption of the image and removed from the plot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, removed that discourse on the particular scene from the plot section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RegentsPark[edit]

The 1959 "Best Foreign Film" award at the New York Film Festival is dubious. The festival began in 1963 and is non-competitive (no awards). Perhaps some other festival in New York? Also, you'll need to add references for each award (several are missing citations) if you want to take it to FA. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Thanks. I did not even look at that awards section before. Satyajit Ray Film and Study center at UC Santa Cruz says that NY award is from "Afro Arts Theater, New York". I will do some more search o the awards section, and add appropriate ref for all of them. Thanks a lot, again, regentspark. --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the MoMA exhibition mentioned, since it seems to be an important point, you need to specify which exhibition. According to this, the film was shown in conjunction with an exhibition titled Textiles and Ornamental Arts of India. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Bosley Crowther's review is misrepresented in the article. Though he did use "listless" and the Hollywood reference, he's using that to tell the reader that the film is not an ordinary one. In the very next para, he continues But, oddly enough, as it continues—as the bits in the mosaic increase and a couple of basically human and dramatic incidents are dropped in, such as the pitiful death of the old woman and the sickness and death of the little girl—the poignant theme emerges and the whole thing-takes a slim poetic form. By the time it comes to its sad end, it has the substance of a tender threnody[4]. More like high praise rather than scathing! --regentspark (comment) 19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot RP for detailed reading of the source. Yes, definitely the review is not "scathing". I made some changes in the sentence, although I am not sure if the particular sentence is good. Please have a look. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

  • Is www.satyajitray.org reliable and objective enough according to WP policies to be used as a source for this article (currently 8 citations)? See their aboutus page.
  • No, it is not a reliable source for this article. I'll replace the use of this website with other sources. Thanks for bringing our attention to this.
  • Production-Title section: I see a non-uniform mix of italics and quotation marks, a red link, and a dead link.
  • Made correct use of italics. The redlink stays redlink, there was an article on Panchali before, which got AfD-ed. Will replace dead URLs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Classicfilms[edit]

The article shows a lot of potential. The language needs to be tightened a bit in a few places, something I don't have time to do right now but I'll try to take a look at another time.

There is a bit of an imbalence in the sections re: length and for this point I would refer you back to: Mother India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_India

Beginning from the bottom:

  • External links could be cleaned up a bit - only the bare minimum should be there (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc.) - the rest should be integrated into the article.
  • Removed three ELs.
  • The References section is a little long - It is an important film but references really should be just a selection of some of the best works of scholarshp or articles on the film out there.
  • The reference section lists books that have been used in the article for citation. The citation superscripts link to the footnotes in "Notes" section, which, in turn, links to respective books listed in Reference section. There is no additional books listed in Reference section other than those actually used for citation superscripts. So, there is no way really to decrease the number of references, unless we can overall use less books for citation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer 3 columns for footnotes but I know there is not a set rule on that point.
  • See Also can be tweaked to just contain the most relevant Wikilinks
  • Actually removed the whole see also section for now. None of the items listed seemed essential, to me.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Awards section (didn't that subhead change to Accolades?) is a problem. I would either convert it to text such as in Mother India or make a brand new page such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lage_Raho_Munna_Bhai#Accolades

  • Hmmm, I have no particular preference for table versus text. The wikiproject film MoS suggests "On the other hand, if the film is critically acclaimed and has many accolades, they can be listed in a wikitable. Column names for the table are typically Award, Category, Name (of persons), and Outcome. If a table overwhelms the rest of the film article, it can be split into a list article focusing on the accolades (e.g., List of accolades received by Up in the Air). The "Accolades" section can also mix prose and list." Do you think the list of awards, as it is now, overwhelmes the article? In that case, prose will be preferable. A list, however, has the advantage of easy readability and search-ability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reception section needs to be trimmed and reorganized - I would look again to Mother India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_India#Reception

  • Soundtrack - same, I'd look to Mother India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_India#Music

  • The soundtrack section is different from many other Indian films as it did not have any song, and I am not aware of any release separately (although it is possible). Not much objective information is available.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reconfigure the "Production" section to mirror the MOS for Wikiproject Film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film)#Production

  • That's a nice way of presentation of the production. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I see such structure, however, is not always followed in film articles. even in FA articles. That being said, I liked the suggested structure. I'd definitely give a try to re-structure this article accordingly. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for now. Good choice, I'd like to see all three films of the Apu Trilogy become FAs. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of your responses seem fair - these were just suggestions - follow your instincts with regard to pushing to FA. -Classicfilms (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stfg[edit]

  • Prose: is already pretty good, and certainly up to GA standards, but not quite there for FA, I think. A few examples:
    • "The sitar-maestro Ravi Shankar": shouldn't hyphenate that, and maestro is really only used for conductors, not instrumentalists; virtuoso would be good.
    • "The tale of Apu's life is continued on the two subsequent installments ..." in, not on.
    • "her elderly aunt-in-law": I'm not sure whether we talk about aunts-in-law, but even if we do, "her" must be referring all the way back to Sarbajaya, since Durga doesn't have in-laws yet. "Harihar's elderly aunt" would be fine.
      • "cousin sister" isn't possible. Female cousin? --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that this is an Indian term, but I agree it's too vague to use. Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be ... You live and learn. Yes, several good online dictionaries acknowledge it, including Cambridge Online, Oxford Advanced Learners (which, however, counts it as informal) and Collins (which calls it a "new word suggestion", but with the previous evidence, one wonders). Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, really we learn every day. I actually used just cousin, then probably ugog changed it to cousin sister, which was ok for me. Then I got to learn from stfg here that cousin sister is unusual. However, I've heard that a lot of times in India. I also think its a typical use of Indian English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added it there for the sake of flow (In my first read, I came to know, only after the first para, that Indir was a lady). All this while I thought the word was maybe colloquial but normal. Let's keep it as it is unless someone later objects; we can always add the most accurate (also a bit dull here) sounding "female cousin". -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "overly". Colloquial.
and so it goes. If you wanted to request a copy edit at WP:GOCE/REQ, I'd quite like to do this one if someone doesn't beat me to it, but it won't be before Christmas and probably not till the 2nd week of January. Someone else might step up quicker.
  • "The title of the film in English is Song of the Little Road.[3]" I'm not sure if that's true -- it could be just a translation of the title, rather than an official English title as that sentence implies. This film is often shown on British television, and I've always seen it billed as Pather Panchali, never with a translated title.

More to come, possibly. --Stfg (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • All examples of prose deficiencies are addressed. That aunt-in-law was a massive error, and I overlooked it. We'll put the article in GoCE in a few weeks. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to wait and let you copy edit this yourself, since you are familiar with this discussion here and the specific areas where the prose needs to be improved. Dwaipayanc, what do you think? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwaipayanc:, @Kailash29792:, @Dharmadhyaksha:, @RegentsPark:, @Bollyjeff:, @Classicfilms:, @Ugog Nizdast:: I've just done a complete copy edit. Please would you review for error and infelicities. Happy New Year! --Stfg (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ugog Nizdast[edit]

I've done a few minor fixes and some changes for better flow, check it in case I've changed something drastic. A few suggestions :-

  • Plot
    • Perhaps you could use simpler words for derelict, propensity to steal, embittered, filial., I don't know about everyone else but I had to use a dictionary...
      • I am all ears for better simpler words. I will try myself. Any suggestions will be valuable. I think some of these words got inspired from the synopsis of the plot in different books.
        • Derelict is common, surely, and seems the right word here. Tendency instead of propensity was good. For embittered, just bitter? Instead of "Durga feels filial affinity towards her", would simply "Durga is fond of her" do? Except that "her" is ambiugous -- is it Indir or Sarbajaya? --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are all good solutions. Derelict...if anyone comes up with a better and simpler word, do replace it otherwise we can leave it, doesn't seem that bad now. How about just broken down? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Broken down is said more of machines than of buildings. Derelict has a flavour that it's so bad that it's beyond repair, so I'm no longer sure it's such a good choice if Harihar intends to try to rebuild it. What would be your view of would ramshackle? or dilapidated? --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC) (refactored --Stfg (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
              • Yes, dilapidated. That's the word. I think that word has a flavour of neglect. I personally have difficulty exactly understanding the word ramshackle, and not sure about its flavour. Dilapidated is the best.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even ramshackle sounds fine by me. I think it's a more simpler word (since I have, again, not seen "dilapidated" much) but anything will do. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • " dreams of a better career as an author of scholarly plays and poems. ", sentence could be redone...rather than being an author of poems, just say 'poet'.
      • Done. Used "poet and playwright"
    • You could move the statement, "necklace that Durga had earlier denied having stolen;" to the first para itself. Better to clarify in the start itself that she denied it for better flow.
      • Added "Durga denies the accusation" at the end of the first paragraph. Is the flow/connection beter now?
    • Elaborate more on what's a jatra, reader may be forced to click on the link.
      • Slightly elaborated.
  • Cast: The need to add "Apu and Durga's father" seems unnecessary, presenting just their character seems more than enough, since it's just after the plot. Also you can write the rest as "Apurba 'Apu' Roy" and "Durga Roy (Teenage girl)"
    • Removed mother and father info.
  • Production
    • Again, forced to click on the link for "bildungroman".
      • Added the meaning.
    • Does the "Title" sub-section really deserve to be separate? Seems a bit stubby to me...
      • Completely agree that the subsection is stubby. Will have to think about how to incorporate this to somewhere else. ANy suggestion?
        • Not sure, best append it to the following sections (which is most apt) and name it "Title and ...". -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor wording and not sure myself: Is it founding member or founder member? and does "in location" require a hyphen?
      • Changed to founder member. Not sure about the hyphen in on location. Probably not in this instance.
    • "For the role of Apu, Ray advertised in newspapers looking for boys of five to seven years age.[33] Several boys turned up in response, but none of them met the expectation of the director. Finally, Ray's wife spotted a boy in their neighbourhood as a possible candidate. This boy, Subir Banerjee, was eventually cast as Apu (the surname of three main actors was Banerjee, although they were not related to each other).", these sentences can be be shortened and merged...especially the "several boys turned up" part since it sounds a bit silly. I think this can be even made into a single concise statement.
      • Yes, it's a bit silly/gossipy/anecdotal. Will try to reword. And I totally like your suggestion to shorten, but was unable to do so right now (have developed kind of a block towards the prose, fresh eyes needed).
        • Yup, hate that "block". Happens whenever I write my own prose from scratch and spend too much time on it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Filming" sub-section: "Ray had never directed anything and cinematographer Subrata Mitra had never operated a movie camera. Art director Bansi Chandragupta had professional experience, having worked with Jean Renoir on The River. In later years, both Mitra and Chandragupta went on to establish themselves as respected professionals in their craft."...Again can be shortened a bit I've highlighted the fragments which can be replaced with shorter wording.
      • Removed anything and in their craft. Could not figure out how to re-word the never operated a movie camera bit. Any suggestion?
      • Hope "Flopped" isn't a bit colloquial?
        • May be, not sure. Have not changed it, for now.
      • In Ray's quote about Indir Thakrun not dying, I'm not quite sure I understood what is meant by this...The character or the actress? Since that's a quotation it cannot be edited directly and maybe you have some additional explaining to do...
        • Hmmm, this one is tough. Ray is using the character names, but actually meaning the real-world actors. May be we should name the actors in square brackets within the quotation. What do you think?
          • Exactly, use the square brackets; that should do fine. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Indeed, the money was loaned on record for 'roads improvement', " Similar to the words to watch out for in MOS:OPED, I think it needs to be changed and again, I didn't get what that para was trying to say. Did the government fund it because they got fooled by the film's title?
        • Indeed. Removed. I am not sure if the government got fooled by the name, or, they intentionally sanctioned the loan in "road improvement". I will try to read the sources once again.
    • "Soundtrack": "described as at once plaintive and exhilarating", shouldn't that be in double quotation marks and maybe a mention of who said it (in this case, the reference which is provided)
      • Yes, done. Well, mentioned the magazine, not the author though.
      • "When Ray met him, Shankar hummed a tune which had both a classical...", sounds a bit odd...maybe needs to be elaborated/reworded better.
        • Hmmm, the source (Robinson's book) uses the verb hum. I changed it now to croon. Not sure which one is better. Also, changed the sentence and made it more like what the source says.
          • Croon really isn't suitable. If someone hums, then hum really is the right word. What's wrong with that sentence? --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes it isn't. On second thought, I think I'm fine with the original sentence. Maybe it caught my eye because of the wording since its anecdotal. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shouldn't "raga Desh and Todi" be in italics or inverted commas?
        • Italics. Done.
          • Are the performance times from the Somanatha source? I ask because in The Raga Guide Desh is not connected to rain and Todi is not an evening raga and I have not seen those time claims in any other source I remember. Hekerui (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for pointing this out. I had my doubts about this. Now, I removed the time info for Raga Todi, and removed the book source (ragas of Somanatha) that was supposedly for supporting the Todi time; I checked the mentioned pages of the book, the book does not mentiion anything on the time of Todi. The time of Desh Raga is based on Robinson's book.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release: The first two paras seems a bit jumbled up. Perhaps split them into actual date of release and then international/domestic reception? First it says that it didn't do well locally but then said it did. And a maybe better wording in "Ray and his team worked day and night"...
    • I agree, I also felt that it may appear jumbled to a reader. For now, wanted to keep the flow chronological. In your suggested approach, the approach won't be chronological (which is not a problem) but may be easier to grasp. Will give it some thought. The appraoch in the source book has been chronological. That being said, the book has the luxury of space, which an encyclopedia article does not.
  • Themes: The last sentence here maybe has a quotation by Biswas which needs to be in double inverted commas.
    • I will have to look at the source to verify if this was a verbatim quote or an acceptable close paraphrasing.
  • Accolades: It has been discussed above about whether to use prose or lists—but personally, the first para is hard to read through comfortably because of it being in prose and with all its distracting blue links.
    • No particular preference, table versus prose. Let's keep it as it is. If more readers suggest using table instead, will do so.
  • Legacy: "The central theme in Aparajito is the poignant relation between a doting mother and her young ambitious boy (of him right?). Apur Sansar tells the story of the brief family ('later' life would be better here) life of Apu, his reaction at the premature death of his wife, and finally bonding with his son whom he left as an infant." ...Just to make it more easier of the reader to understand.
    • "The central theme in Aparajito is the poignant relation between a doting mother and her young ambitious boy" that means the relationship between Sarbajaya and Apu (who become teenage). Is the sentence not clear?
      • I know it's obvious but it just didn't flow well according to me (The possibility of that referring to someone else). I've just placed "it" over there and now I think this maybe isn't a problem. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found two instances of typographic commas, just make sure there aren't any more to replace with the typewriter form per WP:', also I'm not sure whether "Apu trilogy" should be in italics.
    • I was not aware of this style manual. Not sure how to find those, unless just happen to catch incidentally.

You have done a very good job with this and I hope my suggestions prove useful. And now I look forward to following this article's FAR when it happens so that I can get a first-hand experience...I've so far seen only two. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow! That was a tremendous review. Thanks a lot. Please continue to follow this, and provide more suggestions. Also, you cango ahead and fix things in the article. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, I don't know whether I may be able to find any more but I'll try after a few days. Also instead of requesting at the GOCE, how about what waiting for Stfg like I said in the above section. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of you, Ugog Nizdast. There's no need to request at GOCE, as I've become interested. I will try to get to it very early. --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that would be great. Thanks, both of you. And I am feeling glad that stfg has grown interest for this article. That's the goal, making people interested! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juldarigi[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm giving some thought to putting this in for Good Article assessment, and would appreciate opinions on whether it meets the GA criteria. It's a tad on the short side, so if you have suggestions on extra information that might interest the reader, that would be very useful too.

Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife of Peru[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like to be able to get this to be able to be nominated as a WP:GAC.

Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

This article needs alot of work....and alot more material. The best is to find some book or article sources, possibly some checklists. Google Books is a good place to start (I can see some sources there). Then highlight some rare/endangered species or ecological communities. References need to be properly formatted. Once there is alot more information, then work on the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Hold Us Down[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the article to FA-class.

Thanks, Simon (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has the potential to become a GA, if not an FA, but we need to know exactly what needs improving for the article to get to those levels.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Walpole[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Hugh Walpole may possibly be the English author of the 20th century whose reputation with critics and the public has fallen from the highest to the lowest point. Immensely popular in the 1920s and 30s, his appeal seemingly died with him in 1941. In truth though I have enjoyed, and been impressed by, some of his works when reading up for this article, some of his stuff doesn't leap off the page. But the man himself seems to me uncommonly interesting and well worth a Featured Article, whither I hope to get him. All comments on prose, pictures, balance, comprehensiveness or anything else will be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I have not added an info-box, as I think it would be otiose, but comments pro or con would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments[edit]

I'll make a start but in bits and pieces I'm afraid, lede comes last, oh, and no to the infobox as it's use will add nothing that the lede can't convey.

Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching

  • "As an undergraduate he met, and fell under the spell of, A C Benson, formerly a greatly-loved master at Eton, and by now a don at Magdalene College. Walpole was distressed at finding his religious beliefs slipping away..." "Walpole was distressed at finding his religious beliefs slipping away", who? Walpole or Benson?
  • "...Cambridge in 1906 he took a post in 1906" -- Year given twice.
  • "...and on his mother's Richard Harris Barham, author of The Ingoldsby Legends. It was as an author that he felt..." -- Walpole presumably?
  • "He moved to London and found work writing book reviews for The Standard, writing fiction in his spare time..." -- Is there a way of using "writing" only the once?

Early literary career

  • "The novelist and biographer Michael Sadleir writes that though some others of the six novels..." -- Could we do without "others" here?

First World War

  • "As war approached, Walpole realised that his poor eyesight disqualified him from serving in the armed forces." -- Why does "As war approached, Walpole realised that his poor eyesight would disqualify him from serving in the armed forces" feel more natural to say?
    • Your version is much better, and I have adopted it. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • We call Kenneth Clark a Sir, but according to the quote this would have been 1941. Clark's WP article states he was knighted in the 1950s, so his title here maybe a little premature.
    • I haven't looked at the WP article but Clark was definitely given the KCB in 1938, and was "Sir Kenneth" from then till he was made a life peer much later. (I'll check his WP article later to make sure it's accurate.) Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC) (Later: checked the Clark article, which has a not very helpful list of titles, but correctly has his KCB as 1938. No remedial action needed. Tim riley (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Reputation

  • ""We see Mr. Walpole grappling with the truth of things spiritual and material with his characteristic earnestness, and we can discern the characteristics of this acute and sympathetic explorer of human nature." -- Firstly, was this quote taken from an American source, as suggested by the full stop between "Mr" and "Walpole"? Secondly, we seem to be missing closing quote marks.
    • Added closing quotes. The full stop was the usual BrEng style until the mid to late 1960s when we started to get rid of them in titles and initials. I have left them in place for all quotations that contained them in the original, as in the block quote from A C Benson at "Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching".

Notes

  • Note 2 – Missing a closing full stop and citation.
  • Note 5 – Missing a closing full stop.
  • Note 10 – Missing a closing quote mark.
  • Note 14 – Missing a closing full stop.
    • All punct amended. I don't think Note 2 needs a citation, as the work one would cite is mentioned in the text of the note, but I can certainly add one if wanted. To speak truth, I lifted this note from the Benjamin Britten article where it survived FAC without challenge for lack of citation, so I think I may be all right. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • 35 – replace hyphen for endash.
  • 108 – We use a semi colon and "and"
  • 116 – Keep closing full stops consistent.
    • You have eagle eyes, and I'm most grateful. Duly amended.

Wonderful stuff as always Tim, ping me when you arrive at FAC. -- CassiantoTalk 03:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for those points. I'd never have spotted some of them if I'd reread my text a hundred times. Many thanks, Cassianto. I'll certainly let you know when I go to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

I've made a few minor tweaks here and there: feel free to revert anything you don't like. A few suggestions for you below—accept or ignore as you wish:

Early literary career

  • "Walpole's biographer Rupert Hart-Davis": we already know this, with the same wording used in the "Early years" section.

First World War

  • "He volunteered for the British army, but, as expected, failed": expected by who? Jampton or others?
    • Everyone, really. I think I'll leave this unless others also boggle. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

  • "Walpole gained credit for being one of the few literary figures": who gave such credit?
    • Very good point indeed. I must research or redraw. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: checked against the source and lightly redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defence of The Well of Loneliness": perhaps a footnote to stop readers going off to visit the page and interrupt their reading of this page?

Riveting reading, as always. I'll give it another read in day or two, just to see if there if anything I've missed. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points. I shall go and rummage in the sources in re your googly. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton[edit]

Excellent and informative work. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • Perhaps the one thing missing in an otherwise excellent summary is the fact that, for all is lifetime success, HW is now almost totally forgotten (I believe that my parents' generation were probably the last to rate him as an author). His slide into obscurity is hinted at in the "Reputation" section, but a line would be appropriate here.
    • I think the last line of the lead probably makes this point clear. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • "two years after the birth of the couple's daughter" – perhaps name Dorothy here rather than later?
  • I wonder how much of the following is actually necessary: "The family returned to England, where Mildred Walpole and the children remained throughout the winter while Walpole senior took up his post in America. In 1890 his wife and children joined him". Nothing lost, in my view, by moving the narrative straight from Auckland to New York.
  • The last sentence of the second para is more naturally an introduction to the third para, after a little rephrasing.
  • "In 1896 Somerset Walpole discovered the truth about the Marlow school..." You might modify this slightly presumptive wording, as the school still exists and might dispute quid est veritas
Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching
  • Perhaps a few words as to why/how HW was such a failure in Liverpool?
First World War
  • It's uber-nitpicking, but four successive sentences in the final paragraph begin "He..." – some variation should be possible.
    • Not at all uber - just what's needed. Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war and 1920s
  • You don't give a date for HW's meeting with Hitler, but if it was post 1924, Hitler was far from "unknown" then, following the failed Beer Hall putsch and his imprisonment for almost all of 1924. Also, was he really a "protegé" of Winifred Wagner? Hitler first met the Wagners in October 1923, just before the putsch, when he was already leader of the NSDAP. Also she was nearly 10 years younger than Hitler. It seems more likely that the Wagners fell for the charm and charisma of a young leader who was clearly "going places", and had no need of their patronage.
    • Redrawn, but with a different angle from the above. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brackenburn", as a house name, should be in quotes
  • Was the relationship with Cheevers chaste?
    • Pass. If you see through my cunning smokescreen of innumerable one-hit citations you will detect that the whole article is based on Hart-Davis's 1952 book, which is exquisite in its discretion, but leaves one at a loss about the nature of Walpole's relations with the (then) unmarried Melchior, and at least two others before Harold. Not that important, perhaps. They were devoted to one another, so...
1930–41
  • It would be interesting to know how HW became a bit-part Hollywood actor; I'm surprised that the studio would award a role to an untrained non-actor when there must have been hundreds of real actors desperate to break into films. Is there some story behind this?
    • The whole of Hollywood seems to have operated on the whims of a few moguls. Harold Cheevers was given a bit part in a different film while they were there. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Advancing age"? The bloke was mid-fifties, for God's sake! Where does that put the likes of me (and you)?
    • Pipe and slippers, and quite right too. Such undignified shenanigans should be left to the young. But redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to see old Driberg getting a mention. His own account of the "sexual encounter" is rather more lurid than yours, I must say.
    • Quite so. I sent my draft of this article for comment to a non-Wiki literary friend, who blue-pencilled my line, "He was frustrated at his failure to enter the military", saying it would have been quite the other way about if Driberg is to be believed. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to the "Herries" novels in the last paragraph is the first mention in the article of this series. Bearing in mind that they are among HW's more notable works, perhaps an earlier mention of when the series began would be appropriate.
    • Definitely. What can I have been thinking of? Now done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Influences
  • There is no citation for Priestley's view in the first paragraph concerning the influences of Trollope and Dostoyevsky.
  • The implication that there were no historical novels after Scott until Walpole revived the genre seems a little far-fetched
    • Redrawn
Reputation
  • "Wodehouse was not a great admirer" – need to specify of whom.
    • Done.
  • The reference to The Well of Loneliness needs a little further explanation.
    • Done.
Biographies
  • Dedication to "Dorothy, Robin and Harold", Walpole's sister, brother, and long-term companion – earlier you name the brother as "Robert".
    • Clarified at first mention - Dorothea/Dorothy and Robert/Robin - family names.
List of works
  • Just a thought: the list is extensive enough to form a subarticle, which would provide the opportunity to include publisher information. Maybe worth thinking about?
    • Very well worth. An excellent idea, which I'll put into practice before going to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This already has the hallmark of a future FA, and I see few hindrances to its elevation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I mentioned at some earlier stage that Cardus had Walpole as a member of Sir John Squire's "Author's Cricket XI". Cardus's account of a particular match is hilarious – I dare say you have it, but in case not: Squire informs Cardus "Old Hugh Walpole is in my team, and although his latest novel is hardly up to form still he's done some good stuff in his particular school, though personally I think his books are too long". The match itself proceeds chaotically, and eventually "even Hugh Walpole was asked to bowl, and after trying his right arm discovered he could do better with his left". I think Cardus probably made it all up, and I'm not suggesting any of this should be in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Walpole on HC in 1932: "Only one human being in my time has won public renown by writing about Cricket. Mr Nevil (sic) Candus (sic), and even his mellifluous phrases are by now a little monotonous perhaps." (A privately-published book that plainly suffered from the lack of Macmillan's eagle-eyed Walpole editor.) Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your many suggestions, above, all of much benefit to the article. I am in your debt. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Loeba[edit]

Right, I think you wanted a thorough review?! Most of these are matter of personal taste, the article is very good as it is, and it's entirely up to you whether you adopt them or not.

Lead
  • Personally I think the first two sentences of the final paragraph would be useful in the first paragraph (introducing readers to the sort of writer he was), and then maybe the current first sentences could be moved down to the second para...it's entirely up to you though. I know some people prefer the lead to follow the article's structure. I always like a clear introductory paragraph, but it comes down to a personal choice.
  • "Russian-Austrian front" > link Eastern Front (World War I)?
    • Yes, I think so. I'll read the article first, but it looks relevant. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1920s and 1930s Walpole was much in demand" > "in high demand"?
    • A matter of personal style, I suppose. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be worth clarifying what he lectured in (I'm guessing literature?)
    • Mostly literature, yes. Will mention. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having as a young man eagerly sought the patronage of established authors such as James, he was in his later years a generous sponsor of many younger authors" > A bit of a mouthful, is some rewording possible?
    • I want to make the contrast clear, but am open to alternative suggested wording. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Patron" and "patronage" come rather close together.
  • Should probably spell out Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
    • Not persuaded, but don't object and will do. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • Para 2 currently ends without a citation.
    • So it does. I moved a sentence pursuant to an earlier suggestion. Will attend to. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1896 Somerset Walpole discovered what his son felt about the Marlow school" - Maybe "...Walpole learned of his son's hatred for the Marlow School"?
    • Shall redraw. "Horror of", I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He drew on aspects of them for his cathedral city of Polchester in Glebeshire, the setting of many of his later books" - Would be clearer to mention that this was a setting before hand, or maybe just inserting "his fictional cathedral city".
    • "Fictional" will do. I dithered about this when drafting, and am happy to add it. Tim riley (talk);Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching
  • "and by now a don at Magdalene College" - Personally I'm really not keen on jumping to the present tense like this.
    • "then" would read rather oddly, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "by then a don" would read far better IMO, everything else is in the past tense after all. But it's up to you. --Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walpole was undergoing a crisis of faith; his religious beliefs, hitherto an unquestioned part of his life, were fading. Benson helped him through that personal crisis." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of "crisis"?
  • The first quotation from Benson is perhaps longer than necessary? I wonder if the final sentence could be trimmed, especially since we are told immediately after, "Benson gently forbade Walpole's advances."
    • Yes. I have been thinking rather the same myself. Shall prune. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was as an author that Walpole felt impelled to make his career." I found this wording a bit awkward.
    • Turning it about would shift the emphasis too much, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm, something like "Authorship was Walpole's career aspiration"? I don't know, just a suggestion! --Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to whom he was intimately attached for a while from 1910 onwards." - "for a while" feels a bit casual.
    • True, but the snag is that HW usually remained good friends with his exes and we don't know when he and Anderson ceased to be an item. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early literary career
  • If you'll allow me to get really nitpicky, we have two consecutive sentences that start similarly: "A correspondence ensued..." "A close friendship developed..."
  • "resembling a father and son relationship in some respects, though not all" - A bit tautologous - I think the fact that it was in "some aspects" already tells us that it wasn't in all aspects.
    • I tried it without when writing this para, and concluded that without the extra words here the later statement about HJ's expressions of ardent devotion would come as a bit of a facer. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are of interest as examples of the author's developing style" - Suggest "are interesting as examples of"
    • Not sure one is better than the other. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well just to tighten the wording... --Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could one of the reviews for Mr Perrin afford to be cut?
    • I think each tells a different story: pro, con and overseas. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would just state outright that the book was based on Epsom school, rather than introducing this fact through the Guardian review.
    • I originally did, but this way round flowed better, I found. Otherwise one has to mention the school twice. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was suggesting that the Guardian reference doesn't need to be made, but no worries if you like it. --Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it was an early illustration of his capacity, noted by Benson, for unthinkingly giving offence though being hypersensitive to criticism aimed in his direction" - Would benefit from being simplified, I think.
  • "It was a huge article, so long that it had to be spread across two issues of the Supplement in March and April 1914.[n 7] James said that agreeing to write it had been "an insensate step"" - I wonder if this is necessary? Perhaps this could all be condensed to "In early 1914 James wrote an article for The Times Literary Supplement surveying the younger generation of British novelists and comparing them with their eminent elder contemporaries. The four new authors on whom he focused were Walpole, Gilbert Cannan, Compton Mackenzie and D H Lawrence. The article was of great benefit to Walpole: one of the greatest living authors had publicly ranked him among Britain's finest young novelists."
    • It isn't strictly necessary, but this was a key point in HW's career and I think it is helpful to give plenty of background. Someone who kindly read the draft offline actually suggested I move the Priestley footnote into the main text. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First World War
  • It would be useful to give a brief description of Konstantin in the image caption (like all the other images have) so that "scanners" can glean his connection to Walpole.
    • Good idea. It will have to be circumspect, though, as once again we can guess but don't know the nature of their relationship. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Cross of Saint George?
  • On account of all the information here, I wonder if he should be introduced in the lead as "an author and civil servant", or something similar? Seems like a major part of his life.
    • I think that would be giving the reader an unbalanced picture of HW's career. He was only a wartime civil servant, and for just over three years in total. Tim riley (talk)
      • Yes you're right, that's fine. It's just as I was reading the section that it all felt very important, but it's true that 3 years in the role isn't much in the long run. --Loeba (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war and 1920s
  • Again, we aren't told what he was lecturing in.
    • The first mention will cover this. Shall do. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot summary for The Cathedral is a bit long, I think we could lose "while at the same time the downtrodden Mrs Brandon rejects him and takes a lover" (I know you're trying to convey the gloominess of the novel, but I think the first part of the sentence is enough?)
    • You're right, I think. I'll redraw to tighten this up. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it would hurt to give Wagner's full name. Hitler gets his full name, after all.
    • "Richard Wagner" would look odd here, I think. Not sure why; probably because he was dead and Hitler wasn't (unfortunately). – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption could be nicely extended to mention the scenery's influence on Walpole's writing.
  • "The critic James Agate commented that one might think from some of Walpole's stories that their author had created the English Lakes, but that he was probably only consulted about them." - I find this comment a bit odd? The meaning of the last part is lost on me...
  • Do we know if Cheevers was a sexual partner? This is implied but not said outright. Maybe no-one knows for sure, given how secretive they needed to be, but if they were definitely lovers I think this should be said explicitly.
    • Alas, we have no idea. They were certainly devoted to one another, but the only contemporary biographer, Hart-Davis, was totally discreet about HW's private life. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now, back soon... --Loeba (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Some really excellent points there. I look forward to the rest of your comments in due season. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1930-41
  • Again, we give the acronym "MGM" without giving the full name first, which goes against MOS:ACRO. (As a sidenote, I've been meaning to watch that David Copperfield for a while, and now feel that I definitely need to check it out!)
    • MGM expanded. I haven't seen the film for years, and certainly don't recall HW's cameo. I remember having an occasional desire to clip Freddie Bartholomew round the ear, and (hush!) I think the great W C Fields was miscast as Micawber, lacking the faded gentility of Dickens's character. But it's about the best Dickens film I know, for all that. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Afterthought: No it isn't. Lean's Great Expectations is, but David C is a runner-up. Tim riley (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen Freddie Bartholomew in Captains Couragoues and he certainly is annoying! But I've always been intrigued to see Fields in a Dickensian role...the Walpole cameo sounds amusing. I vote for Lean's Oliver Twist by the way. --Loeba (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • Could be nice to name a few of the most prominent writers that received Walpole's help?
Influences
  • "in much of the later writer's fiction" - Is this meant to be "latter"?
    • No, "later" is what I meant. Trying to point up the apostolic succession, you know. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation
  • "write works the equal of those of Trollope" - Again for the sake of tightening, suggest "write works equal to those of"

I admit that I'd never heard of this Walpole, but he was a very interesting man and I really enjoyed the article. Great work Tim! --Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for your time and hard work on this review. You realise, I hope, that the more you do such top-notch reviews the more people will be banging on your door asking you to do yet another? I know I shall. Bless you! Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's nice to know that what I worry is "being picky" is construed as "top notch"! Let me know when the article is at FAC. --Loeba (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing peer review, with grateful thanks to the contributors, above. Tim riley (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobus Arminius[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to try and eventually get it nominated as Good Article or a Featured Article. It was recently listed as a "level-4 vital article" with a B-Class rating. I would like some concrete directions from a reviewer on what should and could be done to improve the article. Arminius was the founding voice of a whole class of Protestant Christianity, and is a key figure in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. Thus he is just as important to Protestant theology as John Calvin, which was once a "Featured Article"; I want to do the same for ol' Arminius.

Thanks, TuckerResearch (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JFHutson[edit]

Here are my thoughts. Caveat emptor: this is my first peer review.

Sourcing
  • There are a number of references to Hugo Grotius: Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas without page numbers. Please add page numbers or find a different source (see next point).
  • The above source is the most widely used source in the article, but it is not even primarily about Arminius. The standard biography is Bangs's Arminius. Also important are Muller's God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Arminius, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace and Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe. These works should probably be the backbone of the article, but they are hardly used.
  • Schaff-Herzog is WP:TERTIARY, old, and unreliable in my opinion.
  • Surely there's a better source for his grave than Find a Grave.
  • There are a number of statements with no source.
  • Other sources look OK, though I would prefer works on Arminius himself and the history immediately surrounding him (see above) rather than general histories of Christianity.
  • There are a number of sources in the bibliography which are not referenced in the article. These should probably be moved to a "Further reading" section for now and some should be consulted and referenced in the article. A number of these sources are on Arminianism rather than Arminius, so will only be peripherally relevant.
  • Pick a citation format. I suggest you use {{sfn}}.
Length
  • Too short. This is a very important figure. Using the sources mentioned above, as well as others you may discover in the bibliographies, the article can be expanded significantly.
  • Add a background section. Most readers will not know enough to understand the theological and political conflicts.
  • See John Calvin, Martin Bucer, John Knox, Thomas Cranmer, and Ulrich Zwingli for examples of featured articles on sixteenth century Reformed theologians. I would think not as much has been written on Arminius as these figures, but if you poke around in WP:FA#Religion, mysticism and mythology biographies you might find some other figures of similar historical importance.
Prose
  • There is a lot of unnecessary quotation wherever the Ordinum Hallandiae source is used. Use quotations sparingly; where someone has stated something in a distinctive way that makes it worth using the quotation rather than summarizing the idea in your own words. For example, there is no reason to quote that Gomarus was "a rather mediocre scholar".
  • Don't italicize titles of short works like the Heidelberg Catechism (that's at least my experience in reading reliable sources, and I don't know of anything contrary in the MOS).
  • There is more that could be said about the writing, but since I think it needs to be significantly expanded with more sources, and so may change dramatically, I'll leave it at that.

--JFH (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace is on Questia. You can sign up for a free Questia account at WP:QUESTIA. --JFH (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All very helpful. I have most of the works in the bib. I'll get to work when I get a chance. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shraddha Kapoor[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i suspect there are many errors since i am new to Wiki

Thanks, Smauritius diR mWa!! 09:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Neonchameleon[edit]

  • Being picky (my first attempt at Peer Review), the lede appears entirely without references (despite needing them - especially for the award, and you probably want to use the award she actually won) - and "several brands or products" - which ones?
    • Just as a drive by comment, the lead does not need references as long as the information is backed up elsewhere in the article, which the award is. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox uses three references to establish her date of birth.
  • Paragraph two (about her parents) appears disjoint and to not flow; you could jumble up the sentences and it would look neither better nor worse.
  • The career - what does "failed" mean with respect to the box office? Did poorly would be better. And you need references for awards (or the same award again).
  • "Major box office triumph" - again feels like wp:Peacock - more balanced would be better - or figures.
  • Your second reference here ([23]) appears broken?
  • Hope some of that helped?

The Extreme Sport Challenges Association[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the no one seems to be reviewing it, so hopefully someone out there could review my article. It would be much appreciated, thank you so much.

Thanks, The Extreme Sport Challenges (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Neonchameleon[edit]

  • First things first, your reference titles are preventing me from finding information. When I mouseover I want to see what I'm getting - give me the article title rather than just the website name please?
  • At least one of your links (YOPEY) is broken.
  • You've clearly put a lot of work in to that page and there's a lot of useful information on there - but it's not very wikified, and some of it is outside the scope of the page itself - for example Cancer Research UK has its own page and a discussion of what they do that's more than a sentence belongs there.

History of KFC[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prep it for FA status.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question re article history

This article has been at FAC numerous times – 4 in 2013 and at least once, I believe, before that. It has also undergone several peer reviews. When you "recreated" the article in September 2013 you removed the article history from the talkpage, so that these previous reviews became inaccessible. Can you please reinstate those links, as I believe it's important that current reviewers are aware of the factors that have prevented the article's FA promotion in the past. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are from the KFC page, and are still accessible there? Farrtj (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake – this is a new subarticle, I now realise. Ignore the above (and better luck with this one). Brianboulton (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxedo Park School[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have requested a peer review primarily to act as a guide since I am still new to wikipedia (I have only just returned after 2 years of relative inactivity), and I thought some general points on referencing and formatting would be helpful. I was also unsure about whether a school would be appropriately listed under geography, but I suppose that label can change.

Thanks, Schuy B. (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Rules (2012)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, I've listed this professional wrestling PPV article for peer review because I would like to like to nominate for FA status, having brought the article to GA status a year ago and improved the article since then. Would appreciate anyone's kind help with this.

Thanks, Starship.paint (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health issues in American football[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because me and ChrisPond have completely overhauled this article over the past few months - it's a tricky subject, but we've collaborated to cover the topic comprehensively by noting common injuries in the sport and what types of injuries can be very serious (like concussions and cervical spine injuries), as well as noting the post-career impacts injuries can have and the modern historical methods that have been used to prevent injuries. We're looking to get the article checked over thoroughly before advancing to a further process like good article candidacy. Toa Nidhiki05 19:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a lot of work into if for years now, and I'd like to see it become a good article.

Thanks, Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 07:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from PrairieKid[edit]

First off- VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY happy you're doing this! Very important article and one that deserves the recognition and the quality. I'll just compare this to the GA Criteria to get a good idea. It might take me a little while. PrairieKid (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll add that I did fix one or two basic grammar/prose problems. PrairieKid (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

1) Well written: ? Beyond a few grammar issues that I dealt with, all you have to do is fix one problem and it will be fine here.

A) Prose: I fixed a few minor errors in the article but, beyond them, it is clear and concise and follows the proper summary style while including important details. It is NPOV.
B) Follows MoS: One problem I had here was in the 5th paragraph of the General Election (Campaign) section. I am not entirely sure that Warren's ancestry is relevant and, even then, the article doesn't show the relation to the topic very well. The fact that her claim was scrutinized needs to be included. Besides that, it is fine.

2) Citations:

A) Has reflist... Yep.
B)/C) Inline cites that are all good with no WP:OR: Cites 34 and 50 could be better written to include more but are acceptable for now.

3) Broad Green tickY

A)Addresses main topics: A'yup.
B)Focused: Besides the comment in 1B, I'd say so!

4) Neutral. Green tickY

5)Stable Green tickY One of the few articles that has not only successfully utilized its talk page but has, for the most part, avoided edit warring.

6)Illustrated: Looking good, looking good!

Summary: As it stands now, I find very little against it passing as a GA. I'm pretty impressed. Like I mentioned, I fixed a few grammar errors, but nearly everything else is great. Citations are all there and in order, prose is good, images are good... It is looking good. I'd fix those few mistakes and nominate it soon! Cheers. PrairieKid (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Designate[edit]

This is pretty good. One thing that's missing is the Democratic primary debate from October 2011. That should be mentioned in the primary section.

There are a few typos and grammatical hiccups:

  • "Harvard Professor and architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, defeated incumbent Scott Brown." This sentence doesn't read right to me. "Professor" shouldn't be capitalized as it's not a title. It might work better to put her name before the description.
  • "Chairman,Paul G. Kirk"
  • "in precaution if Senator and presidential nominee John Kerry became President in 2004." how about "in anticipation of" the election?
  • "16 – 18" Our house style is not to use spaces in a range of numbers like this.
  • "September, 2011" shouldn't have a comma.
  • "On April 27, 2012, the Boston Herald reported that Harvard Law School had touted Warren's Native American heritage as proof of their faculty's diversity." I would just put "April 2012" since it was an ongoing story. You should make it clear that the Herald article challenged Warren's claim as unsubstantiated; the article didn't just report on what Harvard said.
  • "not to endorse Brown's opponent; which she refused" This shouldn't be a semicolon.
  • "a Democrat [sic] polling firm" Don't link to Democrat Party (epithet) here. It's original synthesis to say he was using an "epithet" even if we have an article on the practice. Also MOS:QUOTE recommends against quoting inside links in general.

Good luck. —Designate (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative partnerships[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am a student and I am doing the final project which is a wikipedia article. I've listed this article for peer review because I need some suggestions to improve it.

Thanks, LujaynH (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Neonchameleon[edit]

  • This is largely subjective, but the topic of collaborative partnerships doesn't feel like an encyclopaedia entry to me (even if it does make a category within Wikipedia) - it feels more like a disambiguation page title. Notably I'd say it falls foul of wp:NotDir - but this is a subjective impression.
  • Assuming it passes, it seems to be full of management-speak. "The collaborative partnerships between education and businesses form to benefit innovation and educational goals. Businesses benefit from unique academic solutions to real world problems. Institutions of various learning levels benefit from funding, industry support, and resources that would normally take away from academic problems." There are no specifics there - and that's the entire article contents on that subject.

Fiasco (role-playing game)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's on the way to Good Article status - but if so it will be my first contender for a GA, so I'd like guidance from more experienced editors please. There's a general issue (I think the whole thing is in line with the Manual of Style - but as I said, I'm inexperienced), I'm not entirely sure how to handle the game mechanics (by analogy to WP:FICTION has been my best guess), and there's a paragraph on the history of the game that I believe is interesting and relevant but has only been sourced by a blog interview, a forum, and a Reddit AMA (all primary sources) - secondary sources don't appear present for this paragraph.

Edit I'm not looking for specialist knowledge (not that that's a request to not have any although given I go into some technical detail, how clear the system explanation is would be useful please). I'm pretty sure of my facts - I'm just not at all sure of my Wiki or what it would take in practice to reach either B class or (preferably) GA even if I know the theory. And I'm not sure there is enough to the subject to make FA a possibility in practice or what that would take. (Yes, I've read the documentation, but this is my first attempt to use it).

Thanks, Neonchameleon (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I want to clean this up for WP:GTC and WP:FAC nominations in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Mitford[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Nancy Mitford, doyenne of the famous Mitford girls, was a writer of sparkling wit whose postwar novels of upper class life delighted the war-weary British public. Behind the glam and the glitter, however, there was an enduring sadness from the failure of her own pursuit of love. She disguised her feelings by teasing her friends and the public – not least with her notorious "U" and "non-U" division of the English language. As a Mitford, she was at the epicentre of English high society, her family connected by marriage to just about anyone who was anyone – and there were some surprising goings-on in the well-upholstered background. Read footnote 5 to discover what Winston (yes, that Winston) might have been up to when he wasn't running the country. And if you have the time or inclination to read the rest, I'd be grateful for any comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley

I despair. I go through your articles with as Beckmesserish an eye as I can, and this time my poor gleanings (a few typos apart, which I have amended) are just these:

  • Lead
    • "she had no training in journalism before publishing her first novel" – hard to see why the former might inhibit the latter, which seems quite another matter.
  • First years
    • successive governesses – possibly helpful to give "governesses" a blue link, do you think?
  • War, Batsford Park and Asthall Manor
    • "serving at the Front" – is it usual to capitalise war fronts?
    • "in cash and income terms" – are these five words necessary?
    • "his still-growing family" – perhaps "increasing"? The little buggers would have grown with or without a new sister.
  • Debutante and socialite
  • Incipient writer
    • "her relatively meagre allowance" – one of the bees in my bonnet: relative to what?
  • Marriage, writing, politics
    • "Mitford affected a stance of moderate socialism" – is "affected" a bit harsh, perhaps, suggesting insincerity? I note the rest of the sentence, but I wonder if "adopted" might be less severe.
    • I think "affected" is the more accurate term. Hastings describes Nancy as "politically immature, her opinions too frivolous and too subjective to be taken seriously", and certainly nothing she is recorded as having said or done amounts to "adopting" a socialist stance. It was a light affectation, mainly to separate herself from the extremes of left and right represented by other family members, but I suspect she had little real idea of what socialism meant. In a 1970 letter she wrote that "my considered opinion is that the world has been wretched ever since the abolition of slavery". The trouble with Nancy is that you never knew when she was being serious or teasing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second World War
    • "(ARP) driver, then worked shifts" – "then" isn't a conjunction: it needs "and" before it, I'd say.
  • Rue Monsieur
    • "summers generally spent in Venice" – I was so surprised that someone with any money would stay in Venice in the summer, when it pongs and every mosquito stingeth like an adder, that I looked up the cited ODNB article, and lo, it doesn't mention Venice at all…
    • My mistake in omitting the ref, Hastings, p. 221: "For fifteen years after [1954] she returned to Venice every July, putting up at a hotel, once taking a flat..." etc. As to the pong factor, I have been to Venice in June when it did not stink, and in November when it did, so maybe it's a matter of luck. Ref now added, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Sunday Times newspaper" – it will probably be apparent to non-British readers what The Sunday Times is without the "newspaper"
    • "she provided the English translation of André Roussin's play La petite hutte" – I reckon she did rather more than translate it: the archives of The Times, Guardian and Observer all say "adapted"; Philip Hope-Wallace commented on the "tactful and witty adaptation by Nancy Mitford". ("The Little Hut", The Manchester Guardian, 24 August 1950, p. 3); The Times talks of "a habit of speech at once colloquial and unexpected which instantly declares itself the creation of Miss Mitford." ("Lyric Theatre", The Times, 24 August 1950, p. 6). It ran, I see, for 1,261 performances (Gaye, Freda (ed.) (1967). Who's Who in the Theatre (fourteenth ed.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. OCLC 5997224. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help), p. 1525), which must have done her coffers no harm.
    • This is great info which I will incorporate into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This time Waugh … was uncritical" – not quite comfortable with this. "Uncritical" is, I think, generally used to indicate a suspension of the critical senses – hardly something Waughlike – rather than "not critical".
  • Noblesse Oblige
    • "Mitford's article, when the article" – "it" for the second article?
  • Later career
    • "France's Ambassador to Italy" – capitalised, but poor old Duff Cooper, above, and Alfred, below are merely ambassadors
    • "President de Gaulle, who recommended it to every member of his cabinet" – in the French edition no doubt. One can't imagine de Gaulle recommending a book in English. I see from WorldCat that there are also German, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Slovenian and Dutch translations.
  • Fiction
    • "despatches which Acton describes" – the OED allows "despatches" but prefers "dispatches"
  • Biographical works
    • "Acton considered" and "Fraser considered" in close proximity
  • Journalism, letters and other works
    • Another "considered" – perhaps "regard herself as"?

That's my lot. Nothing of any moment. A crackingly good article, nicely paced and of course well proportioned, with widely sourced references. A pleasure to read. On to FAC! – Tim riley (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Where I have not commented I have followed your suggestions. Very glad to include the Little Hut stuff - your knowledge of theatrical ephemera never ceases to astound. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

I've made some minor copy edits around some small MoS points: feel free to revert, tweak or ignore how you see fit. Further thoughts and suggestions are below—again feel free to accept or ignore as you see fit:

Family background and connections

  • I'm gently humming and ha-ing about this section a little. I appreciate that it certainly places Nance in the centre of a Who's Who of English society of the time (crucial, given what follows), but I suspect it'll possibly receive comment at FAC. I don't advise you do anything in the way of trimming, but it may be worth getting your defences lined up in advance. Nice table too—kudos to Mr R on that.

War, Batsford Park and Asthall Manor

  • "Although the Redesdale estates were extensive, in cash and income terms they were uneconomical": seems a little clumsy to me. Perhaps "in cash and income terms" could be removed (how else could they be uneconomical?)

Fiction

  • "upper-class family life and mores": I suspect "mores" may trip a few people up: perhaps a link to the dictionary (coded as [[wikt:mores|''mores'']] to provide mores)?

Slim pickings in an as-always readable and interesting piece. Please drop me a note when you proceed to FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments and the minor ce. I have made the adjustments you suggest above, while leaving family background as it is for the moment. I think it is relevant, and interesting, to include this very brief potted history of the Mitfords, but am open to ant suggestion as to how it might be improved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No changes needed to it as far as I am concerned: placing La belle Mitford in a social context is key to understanding her and much of her writing. My only concern is that this section may be a focus of issue at FAC, but let's hope it doesn't arise! - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Very well done. A few quibbles:

Parentage
  • "he remained in this post " the word "post" is used in the quoted sentence immediately prior; accordingly it may be better to find an equivalent for use here. "Position"?
Childhood
  • "Before this experiment was discontinued, Nancy had become self-centred and uncontrollable" This troubles me a bit because well, if there are two characteristics of two-year-old, I think you've hit both of them. The third being jealousy of new brother/sister, again typical of toddlers. There's nothing exceptional in this, really. I'm questioning how encyclopedic this is. The relationship with younger sister seems a bit fuzzy too. The reader's being told, basically, that jealousy as toddler of newborn younger sister led inevitably to a troubled relationship into adulthood. Perhaps some inline attribution would help, or, perhaps, some judicious cuts. (do two subsections really need to be devoted to her childhood?)
  • I think that Nancy's behaviour went a little beyond the normal self-centredness of an infant; I have amended the text to include a cited comment on her "roaring, red-faced rages". As to her relationship with Pamela, sibling jealousy in young children is one thing: Nancy carried on tormenting poor Pamela well beyond childhood. Hastings: "When Nancy was around, Pam could usually be found in tears; if something could be spoiled, Nancy spoiled it for her". I believe it is important to have this aspect of Nancy's character established, whilst at the same time not sensationalising it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nancy was sent to the nearby Francis Holland School" perhaps it could be clarified if she boarded there.
  • "with their Redesdale grandparents" mildly problematic. If referring to Nancy, why the "their",?if referring to the family, the Redesdales would only be the grandparents for the children. Possibly change "their" to "the children's"
Debutante
  • "her presentation at Court—a brief formal meeting with King George V at Buckingham Palace" I am not sure if I like the term meeting. Possibly "introduction to"?
  • That would mean repetition. I have made gone for the "introduction". Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waugh's link is not upon first mention, even disregarding the quote.
  • Marriage etc.
  • I believe the footnote should precede the m-dash (or whatever the long one is called)
  • Well, MOS insists on refs after punctuation, and the mdash is, sort of, punctuation, so... Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second WW
  • "and was shipped home through neutral Switzerland." I'm not sure I like "shipped" applied to a person, except if literally by ship, and since there was a port of call in Switzerland, that doesn't look that promising.
  • " Mitford moved to the family's Rutland Gate house where she sat out the London blitz." If Rutland Gate is in London, then I would not use the term "sat out". In American English anyway, it implies an avoidance, i.e. "He sat out World War II in Switzerland".
  • That implication is not always present in British English, where to sit something out can mean waiting passively for something to end, with no pejorative implication But I've modified it anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mention of the postwar relationship with Diana Mosely, or the lack thereof, might be good, even if only used to add to the league of excellent footnotes.
Fiction
  • "intelligent women surrounded by eccentric characters determined to find life amusing" Is it the women or the characters with the determination? I assumed the characters, then re-read her quote about dying
  • It is pretty clear from the sources that she meant the characters, which is I think how it reads. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unsurprising that Mitford should first attempt to write a novel when she did" I'd toss the reader a reminder of when this was.
That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Mostly accepted without demur, see my notes for explanatory comments. I hope the high seas are not too high. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments[edit]

So sorry for the delay Brian, I will start reading now and post as I go...

Family background and connections

I personally love a section which explains lineage such as this and I think that it is pertinent to keep it as it is; couple of things...

  • We use "John de Mitford held" twice in close succession. Is there a way to alter the second?
  • There was actually only one "Sir John de", but there was overuse of the surname in the line, so I have reduced "Sir John Mitford" to "Sir John". Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Mitford was recognised as a leading classical historian..." – who recognised him as this?
  • Well, he was pretty generally known, in the manner of his contemporary Edward Gibbon, but I have elaborated slightly to indicate the reason for his recognition. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware that the second paragraph finishes with no cite, just a note? Are you using the cite within the note as back up for this too?
  • The cite within the note covers the phrase in the text. It seems a waste of space to insert the citation twice. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

  • "he fought in the Boer War of 1899–1902" – as opposed to the Boer War in any other years? I would swap "of" for "during" possibly.
  • Just clarify that "a daughter born in Victoria Road on 8 August 1914" was the same London address and not a Victoria Road in Canada.
  • "Laura Thompson, in her biography of Nancy, describes Hatherop as not so much a school, "more a chaste foretaste of debutante life".[32] Here she learned French" -- Mitford presumably and not Thompson...
  • "In 1932 her plight was overshadowed by a public scandal involving her younger sister Diana, who in 1932 deserted her husband and two young sons (she had married Bryan Guinness in 1928) to become the mistress of Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, himself married with three children." -- That is one, long sentence!

Second World War

  • Link to Curzon Street in the image caption?
  • There's a link in the text, immediately adjoining the caption, so another seems superfluous.

Journalism, letters and other works

  • Just checking, but the quote "a more sophisticated version of A Year in Provence, bringing France to the English in just the way they most like it" doesn't seem to make sense at the end, "...just the way they most like it". It looks as if it should be "just the way that most like it".
  • There was indeed a "that" inadvertently missing from the quote. The exact wording, now included, is "bringing France to the English in just the way that they most like it". Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have to offer Brian. A typically tight article on an interesting subject. CassiantoTalk 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, and I look forward to more when you have time. "No comment" means I've adopted your suggested tweaks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…This article underwent extensive revision, expansion, and increased sourcing throughout October 2013. Is it ready for an upgrade to B-Class??? Also, any other CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM will be appreciated. Thanks, User:JCHeverly 23:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, good work so far. I don't think it is quite ready for B class yet, but it probably wouldn't need to much extra work to get it there (it probably even has the legs for GA if you are keen). Anyway, these are my suggestions:

  • as the table of contents is quite long, you might consider using a TOC limiter, for example {{TOC limit}};
  • per WP:SECTIONCAPS "Movie Portrayals" should be "Movie portrayals", same same "Pre-28th Lineage" --> "Pre-28th lineage";
  • in the Pre-28th Lineage section, the first paragraph appears to be uncited. For B class within the Milhist project, we usually ask for every paragraph be cited, with a bare minimum of one inline citation at the end of the paragraph;
  • "he wisely stated their activities were" --> be careful of your wording here. "Wisely" sounds like you are making a judgement, which is against our neutral point of view policy. I'd suggest just saying "he stated their activities were..." (simply removing "wisely");
  • date format: I'd suggest just spelling them out in full. Based on what I've seen at GA and FA levels, there is no need to abbreviate. For instance, "11 Oct. 1917" --> 11 October 1917";
  • same as above for ranks: at GA and beyond I believe it is more common to spell them out in full. For instance, "Maj. Gen" --> "Major General";
  • "Camp Hancock, Ga" --> spell out in full for non US readers: "Camp Hancock, Georgia";
  • in the Pre-28th Lineage section, you have a couple of short paragraphs which I'd look to combine;
  • "gained fame as a result of its gallant stand" --> again this is possibly a point of view issue. Probably best to drop the word "gallant" here;
  • wikilink John Pershing, American Expeditionary Force, and the various campaigns in the World War I section;
  • KIA and WIA --> "2,165 killed", "11,974 wounded";
  • terminology: make sure you are consistent. For example currently you have "World War I" and "First World War", as well as "World War II" and "Second World War";
  • the link at the end of the final paragraph in the World War I section probably should be converted into a proper inline citation using the ref tags;
  • if possible, I'd suggest replacing the dot points in the Interwar period with a paragraph of prose, additionally, the information in the section should be referenced with an inline citation;
  • The prose of the World War II section seems to jump straight into the fighting on the Siegried Line without providing enough context for the reader. For instance, what year was this? I assume 1944, but the section doesn't really state it. I'd also suggest adding a paragraph before this on the division's preparations prior to entering combat. For instance, the dot points above the section mention activation at Camp Livingston, perhaps you could write a paragraph mentioning this, as well as training and then how and when it embarked for the ETO?
  • A number of the paragraphs in the Post World War II service section appear uncited;
  • the Operation Iraqi Freedom section appears to be uncited, as per above, for B class within the Milhist project we tend to ask for at least one citation at the end of each paragraph;
  • along with the above, I think the Operation Iraqi Freedom section might be too long compared to the other sections. Is there perhaps a way that this could be condensed using a more "broad brush" approach? Currently it seems a bit unbalanced in this regard;
  • the Legacy section also needs citations for B class or higher;
  • in the Campaign Participation Credit, I think Antietam should be linked;
  • if possible, I'd suggest adding ISBN or OCLC numbers for the works cited in the Bibliography. These can usually be found on worldcat.org: [5];
  • Anyway, that's all from me at the moment. Good luck with taking the article further. When you feel it is ready for a B class assessment, please list it for review at WP:MHA. If you have any questions about my suggestions, please feel free to ask for clarification. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your many suggestions. I'll study them and make them as time permits.User:JCHeverly 01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments fom Hchc2009:

  • Would be great to see this up at GA in due course.
  • Some parts could be wikilinked to add value for the reader; "Benjamin Franklin", "Henry Hoyt" etc. would be worth doing, for example
  • Worth checking it through for close paraphrasing/copyright violations. The majority of the "Pre-28th Lineage" section, for example, is taken word-for-word from the copyrighted PA National Guard website.
  • The World War II section would be better expressed in prose, rather than bullet points.
  • I'd echo AustralianRupert's comment above about sorting out the referencing. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 470 (Ohio–West Virginia)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see this pass FAC, and its been a few years since it was last critically reviewed (WP:HWYs ACR). I listed it in Eng/Tech as its a Civil Engineering project.

Thanks, AdmrBoltz 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gould (rugby union)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Arthur Gould was a prominent Welsh rugby union player from the 19th-Century. He was probably the first "superstar" of rugby, and was a prolific points scorer. He played for a number of famous clubs, including Newport and Richmond, and captained Wales to their first ever Triple Crown -- victories over England, Ireland and Scotland. I'm not the major contributor to this article (that is FruitMonkey (talk · contribs)), but we are hoping to get this article to Featured standard, so would really appreciate any and all feedback. We're looking at taking this to FAC at some point in the (hopefully) near future, so please be picky. We're hoping it's not too far off! Thanks, Shudde talk 08:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Cliftonian[edit]

Infobox and lead
  • For FA height and weight will probably need citations (also probably date the weight given, as this would surely have varied)
  • We give his nickname in the infobox code as "Monk, Monkey", but this parameter doesn't seem to be used. It doesn't show up in the actual infobox.
  • Perhaps put a citation for his full name (or, alternatively, just give his full name in the first sentence of the "early years" section
  • "is considered the first superstar of Welsh rugby." By whom? If general consensus considers him so, perhaps put "is widely considered" or "is generally considered", or similar. I personally am not sure about this use of the word "superstar", which seems to me a little jarring in terms of tone. Is the word taken from one or more of the sources? If so, I would put it in a quotation. Otherwise I would suggest rewording.
  • "when they didn't lose a match"—contractions such as "didn't" should be removed
  • Mention his third brother Wyatt in the infobox
Early life
  • So Joseph Gould moved to Newport from Oxford? Does that mean Gould senior was English, or was he a Welshman who had moved to Oxford? If we know from the sources this would be nice to put in.
  • "Harry was present in the first season 1875–76." We could word this better
General
  • Single inverted commas seem to be favoured over double; I would use the latter
  • Don't center-align image captions, don't force image sizes (use |upright=1.5 to make pictures wider)

I will be back with more, this is just to start with. Well done on the article so far, I like it a lot. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, really appreciate it! Hopefully I've addressed most of your comments.
  • I've added a ref for the height and weight. I assume it was his playing height/weight, but the source doesn't give a date
  • The nickname parameter has been removed as per the history at {{Infobox rugby biography}} -- I think it's a shame, but maybe it was overused in other biographies
  • I'll ask FruitMonkey (talk · contribs) to check the source re Gould's father
  • OK, I have discovered from the 1871 Census, Gould's mother's name and his father's birthplace, though it appears there is a typo as Cusbridge appears to not exist. Changing to the far more probable Curbridge. I have also changed the fact that he worked in the brass foundry business to actually setting up his own brass foundry business, and cited it. Richards p.73 also states that the foundry business made his dad "prosperous", but I wasn't sure how to shoe-horn that in. Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! – Shudde talk 08:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • "From a young age Gould was known to all as "Monk", taken from his childhood nickname "Monkey" because of his youthful passion for climbing trees" Try: The young Gould often climbed trees, and thus acquired the childhood nickname "Monkey", which as soon contracted by most to "Monk".
  • Hurdling is wikilinked on the second mention and not the first
  • "His other brothers were Harry,[11] Gus[12] and Wyatt,[13] and all three played rugby for Newport" Why not "His other brothers, Harry, Gus and Wyatt, all played rugby for Newport"?
  • Newport RFC isn't wikilinked in the body
  • "There was at least one of the six brothers in the Newport team for the club's first 29 seasons and Wyatt played until 1907. Wyatt also represented Great Britain in the 400m hurdles in the 1908 Summer Olympics at White City, London." Try "For the first 29 seasons of its existence, Newport RFC always had at least one of the six Gould brothers in the team. Wyatt played for the club until 1907, and also ran the 400m hurdles for Great Britain in the 1908 Summer Olympics in London."
Rugby career
  • "Newport Junior team" Who played in the Junior team? Under-16s?
  • "the Third XV, Newport Rugby Club's second reserve side" Rather confusing wording (somebody reading quickly might overlook the word "reserve", or perhaps see it and still find it confusing). Why not say "third-string side" to make it more clear
  • "an emergency full back" wikilink full back
  • Was Rodney Parade Newport's ground or Weston-Super-Mare's? Make clear
  • "Gould saw Butcher waiting outside the full back's home and approached the groundsman to discover that the player was at a funeral" If Butcher knew the player was at a funeral, why was he waiting outside the house? I presume he only found out the player was at the funeral when he already got to the house, but then why didn't he go to where the funeral was?
  • "Butcher offered Gould the position instead and he successfully persuaded the club to play him" Butcher persuaded the club?
  • "had a "fairy-tale" start" according to whom? If this is a quotation attribute it
  • " against his captain's wishes, as Charlie Newman" Try "against the wishes of the Newport captain, Charlie Newman, who"
  • "As rugby was an amateur sport" try "was then an exclusively amateur sport"
  • No need for the comma after Bob
  • should be "the Imperial Team"
  • "This was the fourth encounter with England" Should make clear we are saying it was Wales's first encounter with England

More to come. A minor comment regarding formatting; there are some very long paragraphs in this and I would advise breaking them up —Cliftonian (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Comments for the above:
  • Not sure about Junior. I have read about teams at the time being called "Junior", but that didn't mean young, rather it meant second-tier or second-class. In this case however I'm not sure. I'll see if I can find out.
  • The Junior team in relation to this quote is a 'junior', made up of younger or school boy players, but we will be hard pressed to find a quote to state what actual age-range this covered. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think third-string side will not be clear either, I'll just remove reference to "second reserve"
  • The third team is just that, the team two removed from the first team. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think saying "home fixture" makes it clear that it was Newport's home ground
  • I assume that Butcher discovered that the regular full back was at a funeral, and can't imagine he'd then travel there to ask the player to miss the funeral in order to play a football match?
  • But then why wouldn't he go somewhere else to find an alternative? Why wait outside the missing player's house if a replacement were required? I'd advise looking at the source material for this again. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just removed "waiting" to eliminate this problem. -- Shudde talk 10:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not clear on whether Butcher or Gould convinced the club to play him. Will look into this.
  • Wayne Thomas writes (again page 11) that Butcher persuaded Newport to let the young Gould to play. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. - Shudde talk 08:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Monkey" was generally shortened to "Monk", why don't we put "Monk" at the start of the article rather than "Monkey"?
    • His friends called him Monk (more chummy I suppose), but in print he is referred to as Monkey. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London Scottish F.C. had been founded 1878 to look after the interests of Scottish players working or studying in the city" Does this mean the club actually looked after the players, providing them with homes, money etc? Seems unlikely to me as rugby was then amateur. How about "London Scottish, comprising Scottish players working or studying in the city, had been founded in 1878"
  • "a club for Welsh players" What we mean is "a London club for Welsh players" (there were of course clubs for Welsh players in Wales)
  • "The side's very first game" "Very" is superfluous
  • "three days later the first team took to the field at the Saracens' Palmerston Road ground in Walthamstow against London Scottish" Why not just "three days later the first team played London Scottish at the Saracens' Palmerston Road ground in Walthamstow"
  • "Martyn Jordan, Thomas Judson, Rowley Thomas, Charles Taylor and T. Williams; all of whom had or would play for Wales" perhaps change the semicolon for an emdash and put "all past or future Welsh internationals"
  • "an impressive crowd of 8,000" "impressive" is superfluous and also not clear. I presume "impressive" refers to the number of people but it could mean that the people themselves were somehow impressive (particularly as we mention the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VII, was there)
  • Change the Edward VII link, we don't need "of the United Kingdom"
  • "During that season the club didn't lose a match, now known as the team's "invincible" season" Try "Newport went that whole season unbeaten, leading to its being dubbed the team's "invincible" season.
  • "in both the 1893–94 season, where the team lost only three games, and again in the 1894–95 season" You say "both", so you don't need to put "again" as well. You can also cut out the second instance of "in the" without losing any meaning. Put a comma after "1894–95 season"
  • try to find a source where it says "citation needed"
  • Date the picture of him in his Newport jersey (I'd put "c. 1890" or similar)
  • I would myself put the Newport jersey at the top of that section and on the right, with the table of his goalscoring record justified to the left
  • "was a mainstay of the side during their "invincible" season of 1887–88" you don't need "of the side"
  • "The match was hosted by the Earl of Sheffield,[a] and was an invitation only event" Try "The match, hosted by the Earl of Sheffield, was an invitation only event"

More to come —Cliftonian (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My anecdotal view is that "monkey" is pretty common as well, so don't think changing to "Monk" is necessary
  • Yes that cn tag has been annoying me. It will be sorted eventually (one way or another!)
Those suggestions were all great -- thanks a lot! - Shudde talk 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
International career
  • "Gould was first capped for Wales for the opening game" Is this the right wording? Shouldn't it be "capped for Wales in the opening game?" Also, I presume this was the opening game of the whole tournament—if it was only Wales's opening game, make clear, but otherwise leave it
  • "Newport team-mate Charlie Newman" Didn't we mention above that Newman was also captain of Newport? ("Newport captain Newman"—he was clearly predestined for the role)
  • "Gould was brought in at full back, at the time his preferred club position" Was this Newman's decision? The wording could imply that it was.
  • "Jordan, and some accounts" replace ", and" with a semicolon
  • Maybe reword "London Welsh wing Jordan" to "Martyn Jordan, the London Welsh wing"
  • "at back and forwards positions" why not just "at back and forward"
  • The bit about the two pairs of brothers is not sourced
  • Why not mention that Bob Gould was also playing in Arthur's debut game? Was it also Bob's debut, or had he already played for Wales?
  • "Newport was" not "Newport were"?
  • Move the link to Cardiff RFC up to the first mention. Also don't wikilink the possessive 's in the wikilink (should be "Cardiff's"). Same re: Hancock (move link to first mention)
  • Expand the "1886 Championship" link to make clear this is still the Home Nations Championship we are talking about (obvious to rugby bods yes, but not all readers will know; I had to check the link to be sure)
  • "The match resulted in a Welsh loss to England, but in Wales' next game, against Scotland, Wales became the first country to trial the four threequarter system" Why "but in Wales' next game? The two things are not in conflict. Perhaps just put a full stop and a new sentence: "to England. In Wales' next game ..."
  • "was a sporting disaster" "sporting" doesn't really say much—of course it was a sporting disaster, they were playing rugby. Perhaps "a tactical disaster"
  • "reacted by regrouping" → "duly regrouped"
  • "and readopting" → "and readopted"
  • In note b, replace the first comma with a semicolon, as it is it is grammatically wrong

Down to 1890–93. More to come —Cliftonian (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I've overlooked these comments. Will sort them ASAP. Thanks. -- Shudde talk 11:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A few comments/questions:
  • Yes it's the same Newman - hopefully this is clear
  • Unclear whether placing Gould at full back was the captain's decision. Was probably the selector's choice, but have reworded to avoid any possible confusion.
  • From what I've found Bob Gould did play in that first match. I'll add some details soon.
Thanks for that. Hopefully most addressed now. – Shudde talk 09:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1890–93
  • "played all three matches of the 1890 Home Nations Championship" I think you mean he "appeared for Wales in all three of its matches in the 1890 Home Nations Championship"
  • "at centre for the three games" you've just mentioned he played in all three games so "for the three games" is not needed
  • "; though Gould did score his first international try" This semicolon should be a comma
  • "The game is also notable for being the first appearance of Welsh sporting legend Billy Bancroft" not "being", should be "featuring"; the match itself was not Bancroft's first appearance, rather he first appeared in that game
  • I'm not sure "sporting legend" is NPOV; I'd take this out, leave just as "first appearance of Billy Bancroft"
  • "the Swansea all-round sportsman would take over the captaincy from Gould on his retirement" word missing here—put "who" after "sportsman"
  • I'd put a full stop at the end of this fragment and start a new sentence: "Bancroft was Gould's full back for his next 18 international games"
  • In the above fragment, are we meaning Bancroft's next 18 internationals, or Gould's? (or both?)
  • "as he and his brother Bob, had gone to the West Indies" remove this comma
  • "On Gould's return he regained his international place and the captaincy for the 1892 Championship and was rejoined at centre by Garrett" Try "Gould regained his international place and captaincy on his return, and was rejoined at centre by Garrett for the 1892 Championship"
  • "a dire campaign" try "a dire tournament", Wales only played three games
  • "losing all three matches for the first time in the country's history" try "which lost all three of its matches for the first time ever"
  • "Garret against England" spelling
  • "his younger brother Bert" make clear this is Bert Gould, present wording could imply this was Rees's brother (try "Gould's younger brother Bert")
  • "Wales versus Scotland encounter" try "Wales–Scotland encounter"
  • "in Swansea at St. Helen's" Why is Swansea linked here and not higher up? Link only on the first mention
  • "Wales had lost the game 7–2, and upset at some of his decisions, members of the crowd attacked the match referee Jack Hodgson at the end of the game" Try "After Wales lost 7–2, members of the crowd, angered by Jack Hodgson's refereeing of the game, attacked him."
  • "The 1893 Home Nations Championship was ..." This paragraph is very long, I would split it following "by a strong wind", and after " this time the conversion missed." (be sure to put an inline citation after this when you split the paragraph up)
  • briefly explain that the triple crown means they beat all three rival Home Nations
  • "freezing-over" don't need this hyphen
  • wikilink braziers
  • "The English team" why not just "The English" ?
  • "7–9 to England" shouldn't this be "9–7 to England"?
  • what position did Percy Phillips play for Wales in this game?
  • "anther" typo—another
  • " victorious 12–11" put a comma before the score
  • " cheered all the way by supporters" you don't need "by supporters" (Clear from context)
  • "It was a defining moment for the Welsh style of play and the next season England adopted the four threequarter system" I'd split this ("It was a defining moment for the Welsh style of play. England adopted the four threequarter system the following year.")
  • give McCutcheon's full name
  • "; all resulting after presicion handling from the backs" try ", all the result of precision handling by the Welsh backs"
  • Link Llanelli RFC at its first mention (right now it is linked at the section mention)

Down to 1894–97 now, will come back to finish. Hope this helps —Cliftonian (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely helps. Hopefully addressed most those comments.
  • Not sure what position Percy Phillips was playing. Will look this up.
Thanks again! -- Shudde talk 22:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rejectwater[edit]

  • I think the image alts are perfect. Bravo.
  • http://www.welshsportshalloffame.co.uk/news.html is a dead link.
  • Tables have to comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.
  • This guy was known as "Monkey"? That's one of my nicknames. He's my new favorite rugby player.
  • Is there a wikilink for "swerve", or is my vocabulary simply deficient in this case? Is swerve a condition?
  • I'm not sure about how the citations work. After "Gould could side-step and kick with either foot" there is a cite. I hover over it and get a tooltip pop up with a link to "Wanganui Chronicle". I click on that link and am taken to the bottom of the page where there is a link to an online article. I don't get this. I can understand if you have printed sources such as books, newspaper articles, etc, those would not have external links obviously, and if they are cited repeatedly the base source would be listed once in a separate section from the citations. I can be convinced of the correctness of this format, but right now it seems like a mish-mash that makes it unneccessarily difficult to determine what the source is for any given bit of information. Rejectwater (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey. Thanks for your comments. Think I've addressed them all. I provided a link to the wiktionary entry for "swerve". The citations are similar to how I have set them out in other articles I've contributed to. I'll give your comments some thought, and try and see if there is a better way to format/present the references. - Shudde talk 09:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing row scopes in the "Gould's scoring record at Newport 1891–97" table. Rejectwater (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Resolute[edit]

I'll try not to duplicate any comments Clifftonian has already left. Also, being Canadian, I find that British English is pretty much a foreign language (smirk), so I won't be concerning myself too much with language and prose.

Lead
Club and country history
  • On the 18 November 1882 Newport had a home fixture against Weston-super-Mare at Rodney Parade. - Misplaced 'the'
  • The end of the first paragraph is confusing to me. Within two sentences, you've moved from Gould's first senior game to a career overview to his fourth season.
  • What is a "three-quarter"?
  • Citation for the scoring table?
  • In June 1890 Gould left Britain... - run-on sentence. Probably best to break this into two.
  • ...but from 1887–98 Gould scored 136 tries and dropped 42 - I would probably word this as "but from 1887 until 1898" or "between 1887 and 1898" rather than use a date range. Also, the CN tag will have to be resolved.
International
  • Gould was re-selected for the second game of the tournament, a draw away to Scotland, which saw both teams play brothers at back and forwards positions; George and Richard Maitland for Scotland and Gould and Bob for Wales - Needs citation. Also, I don't like mixing last and first names like this. "And Gould and Bob" sounds quite awkward.
  • The paragraph about the 1886 Scotland vs. Wales match is disjointed to me. It is mentioned that the match was historic, then switches to short history of the "four threequarter system", then it reads as if Wales floundered around the field for a while. Perhaps reorganize the paragraph to start with how the system was expanding, and then mention how the matchup was historic as the first time it had been employed internationally?
  • a game which Wales lost to Scotland 5–1; though Gould scored the only Welsh points of the match with his first international try. - This may make sense to someone conversant with historical scoring formats, but that reads to me as a literal score of 5–1, yet noting that Gould scored a try suggests that this means five tries to one?
  • Citation needed for Bancroft's first game, and that he took the captaincy from Gould.

That's all for a first pass. Resolute 22:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Really appreciate the comments; prose is definitely not a strong point of mine.
  • linked three-quarter
  • Hopefully we'll have a source for that ref tag soon.
  • I've reworded the first paragraph of the Club and country history section. Hope this works.
Will address the others soon. Thanks again! -- Shudde talk 10:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to fix up the 1886 article on the adoption of the four threequarters system. Let me know what you think. – Shudde talk 10:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Resolute (talk · contribs), pretty sure I've addressed all these points. Please let me know if they're adequate or if you have any more comments. -- Shudde talk 10:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yw. I'll try to take another look at some point soon. Cheers! Resolute 14:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro[edit]

I've just looked at the lead so far, more to follow.

  • ”and is generally considered the first superstar of Welsh rugby.[3][4][5]”: This is referenced in the main body, so these references aren’t needed here. But I think something more like “most critics [contemporary critics? Modern critics? Who thinks this? And I’d prefer it without “most” unless the sources explicitly make this very point] consider him…”
  • ”A superb all round player and even-time sprinter with swerve”: Superb is POV. What is an even-time sprinter, and what is swerve in this context? The link really does not help.
  • ”and was widely regarded as the outstanding player of his time.” This is a little too similar to the superstar point, and I wonder if these could be combined somehow? But again, who was regarding him? We need some attribution within the sentence, but we don’t need a reference as long as this is cited in the main body.
  • ”at age eighteen”: Slightly odd phrasing. What about “at the age of eighteen” or “aged eighteen”. And why do we write out eighteen here while we have “18 as captain” earlier.
  • ”As well as playing for Newport during their "invincible" season of 1891–92, when they did not lose a match, he also scored 37 tries in Newport's 24-game 1893–94 season, a club record that still stands.”: I don’t see a connection between the two parts of this sentence, so “as well as” may not be the best way to start. Also, why do we need the “invincible part”? This could just be written as “during the 1891-92 season”.
  • ”he defined himself as a great player and captain in that tournament's match against England”: This is rather oddly phrased. Defined himself? Maybe “his performance against England etc etc established him as a great player”?
  • ”The game was played in front of 17,000 supporters at Rodney Parade, and was the 18th time Gould had captained his country – a record eventually broken by Ieuan Evans in 1994.”: Clarify the record, it may not be obvious to everyone that it refers to the captaincy appearances. It could be taken to refer to the attendance.
  • ”after agreeing to abide by all by-laws from then on.”: The repetition of by makes this like a tongue-twister! Perhaps rephrase?
  • There are a couple of other instances where numbers are given as words or figures in the lead, and I wonder if a consistent rule is being applied. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments:
  • I have removed the references. I'm not sure about "critics" (one could also call them historians, or even scholars), but have gone with it. See what you think.
  • An even-time sprinter is someone who can do 100 yards in 10 seconds (well, less than 11 seconds). It's not a common expression, but is supported by sources. Unsure how I'll reword this.
  • I don't think the lead needs such detail. Why not just something like "fast sprinter"?
  • superb -> talented?
  • Unbeaten seasons were often called "invincible" seasons, I think leaving it is worthwhile, as it can be referred to as solely their "invincible" season (rather than their "invincible season of 1891-92").
  • I'm not sure the record could be taken to mean attendance. I see what you're saying, however it's that Ieuan Evans broke the record that should make this clear (how Evans could break an attendance record I'm not sure).
  • OK, but be aware that someone will probably point this out later, either at FAC or if it is ever TFAR! Pedants are everywhere! Sarastro1 (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually completely changed the by-laws bit. There were a couple of things that allowed the WFU to rejoin the IRFB (and let everyone save face). One was that Gould not play for Wales again - which was easy because he had retired.
  • Will have a close read of the MoS regarding whether and when to use figures or words.
Nearly addressed all your comments. Mostly there. Thanks for your feedback. Really appreciated it. - Shudde talk 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NUMERAL -- Ages are typically stated in figures, unless it is a large, approximate quantity -- I've gone with figures for any ages. -- Shudde talk 07:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • I did some light copy-editing of this section, mainly to tweak a surplus of commas. Feel free to change or revert anything, but the commas became a little confusing in places.
  • Do we need four references for the first sentence? Also, I notice that one of them references the census: that is always a big no-no at FAC. However, the same information is available here at the ODNB, and a little more. Most (all?) UK libraries have free access to this, and most library cards will allow access from any computer. I would suggest checking it out if you haven't done so, and it certainly covers that first sentence much better than using four refs.
    • That ref was great! Thanks for that, have removed the census ref. -- Shudde talk 11:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and made money during his years as a rugby player by entering track and field meets": Perhaps I'm wrong, but would he not have competed as an amateur? I think all events were basically amateur then, so how would he have made money?
    • I'll have to get FruitMonkey (talk · contribs) to look into this, as I don't have access to the reference. -- Shudde talk 11:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The oxfordnb.com reference answers this, apparently he made £1000 through his athletics! -- Shudde talk 11:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby career

  • "a few games for the Third XV": Can we link or give a note to explain both "third" and "XV". I imagine most rugby readers and the majority of UK readers will understand this terminology, but your readership is likely to be wider than that and this may baffle them.
    • I've added an unreferenced (as per WP:BLUE) note.
  • "as an emergency full back": Presumably this means a last minute choice, but some readers may think that this refers to a specific role.
    • Just removed emergency, that he was drafted into the team late is explained anyway.
  • "Gould, who was returning from a youth match, saw Butcher outside the missing full back's home and approached the groundsman to discover that the player was at a funeral. ": This is slightly confusing. Why would Gould approach the full back's house (and it might be good to name this full back)? Why would he want to know where he was? How did Butcher know the player was at a funeral, and if he did, why was he still there?
    • I'm not sure any of those questions are particularly important. I don't think him seeing the groundsman is very hard to believe, and he'd probably know him if he played for the Third XV. As Gould's family was closely associated with the club, and Bob was playing for them at the time, him asking about the fullback, and knowing the groundsman doesn't seem that strange to me. -- Shudde talk 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Butcher offered Gould the position instead, and then the groundsman successfully persuaded the club to play him": And presumably they had returned to the team by this point? And how was a groundsman able to persuade a club to play him? And who did he persuade? The captain?
    • Not sure if it was the captain, but again not surprised it was hard to convince whomever. They were down a man, and in those times drafting players into sides late wouldn't have been unusual. -- Shudde talk 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was the captain, and probably someone on the club selection committee. -- Shudde talk 02:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gould had a "fairy-tale" start for his club": Why do we need quotation marks here? Fairy-tale is hardly encyclopaedic, so something better may be needed.
  • "running in two tries, against the wishes of the Newport captain, Charlie Newman, who kept shouting for Gould to "Kick, kick!"": This makes Newman look like a bit of an idiot, but am I correct in thinking that goals counted for more than any number of tries at this stage in the game's history? Certainly, the points were not the same as they are now and tries less "valued". If that is the case, he looks less stupid, so something may need adding to the text, even if it is just a note.
    • Him calling to kick doesn't mean he wanted Gould to kick for goal. Kicking could also have been positional (territorial), and most likely would have been a more conservative tactic than to run. I'm not sure if it makes Newman look stupid, but may make him look conservative, or risk averse. Because of this a note may not be appropriate -- these are my reading of his instructions, so without a more detailed source, I can't be sure of Newmans thinking, and would instead be speculating. -- Shudde talk 02:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scoring 10 tries and 5 dropped goals": Would these be better spelt out as words?
  • "6–8, in an away game": Do we need this detail?
  • "During the 1893–94 season Gould scored 37 tries in 24 games, a club record that still stands": This needs to be a bit more precise, per WP:DATED. For example, "still a club record as of [date]."

More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to say I've seen your comments (greatly appreciated), and will address them in the next couple of days. Thanks! – Shudde talk 11:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have addressed those other comments. -- Shudde talk 02:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1885-89:

  • "with the eight Welsh forwards being poorly chosen to cope with the nine Scottish forwards": Needs attribution (according to...) or it looks like POV. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Break[edit]

1890-93

  • ”This was a dire tournament for the Welsh team”: dire is a bit harsh, and reads like editorial voice.
  • ”The 1892 Championship is often best remembered”: Not sure this works for a general audience. Only real specialists would “remember” the game, and maybe something like “was famous for” would work better.
  • ”with Marshall scoring a second try”: The construction “with noun plus verb-ing” is generally frowned upon at FAC, and a more elegant phrasing may be better.
  • ”took a swift heeled ball”: Took a what? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've addressed all those. I reworded to "swiftly heeled ball" -- hopefully this makes sense and isn't too jargony. – Shudde talk 04:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is because it is jargony that I have a bit of a problem with it. I'm none too sure what it means. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go at rewording it. – Shudde talk 05:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1894-97

  • There are a few occasions in which we use "saw" meaning "it happened then". Personally, I really dislike that construction, and I notice one in this section. In my ideal world, we'd replace all of these, but I'm not going to insist. It just strikes me as slightly inelegant journalese.
    • I agree with you. I'll reword. -- Shudde talk 05:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to give the backs quick ball": I think "quick ball" is a little jargony.
  • "In the next match Gould was partnered by Dai Fitzgerald in a win over Scotland, but was unavailable for the encounter with Ireland and was replaced by Jack Elliott from Cardiff RFC.": This is the last sentence in the paragraph and has no reference. I assume it is covered in the next paragraph, but the end of a paragraph like this really should be referenced. There is the same problem in the second paragraph and, particularly noticeably in the last one, where there seems to be a long chunk with no reference.
  • Is it worth a note to explain that replacements were not allowed after injuries, as they are in modern times?
  • In passing, I notice the concerns over the testimonial. This was never an issue in cricket, where the "amateurs" lined their pockets all the time and few people batted an eyelid until a scandal in 1896 which partially involved Stoddart! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah before 1895 – when the Northern Rugby Union (later the Rugby Football League) split away – rugby was a bit more of a wild west regarding amateurism. A lot of the rules regarding professionalism were drafted here and there, often in response to what was happening in association football. After the "split" however the RFU cracked down completely, and there was less and less middle ground. Cricket handled the amateur/professional issue a lot better than rugby. -- Shudde talk 05:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gould affair

  • "This drew the Welsh Football Union (WFU) into a confrontation with the IRFB, as rule 2 on professionalism stated that no player is allowed to receive money from his club, or any member of his club, for services rendered to football": As the rule no longer exists (and we say "stated") should it be "no player was allowed"?
  • "The fund could be seen as a professional fee to Gould, henceforth making him ineligible to play for his country.": I think the tenses are a bit off here. As written, it looks like no-one made this suggestion. Maybe "could have been seen" or just "Some believed that the fund represented a professional fee..."
  • "There was also a belief from other national unions that the monies may be given to Gould after he had retired from rugby.": Why is this directly after the Welsh reaction? It is a little out of place and perhaps needs making less of an abrupt shift. And I think "Other national unions believed..." would be more elegant.
  • "His funeral was reported as the biggest ever seen in Wales, until almost 30 years later when former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George died": As written, this says that when Lloyd George died, his funeral was no longer reported. A slight rephrase needed.
  • "Gould is regarded as the first superstar of Welsh rugby": Regarded by who?

And I think that is everything for the moment. Ping me if there are any other issues, and let me know when this goes to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of your comments and will go through and clean up any remaining concerns. Thanks a lot for your review, it's been very valuable. Think the article is nearly ready for FAC, and I will let you know when we nominate it. -- Shudde talk 05:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thanks to everyone that contributed to this peer review. There have been a lot of comments and they're all appreciated! There are a few remaining comments, but I'm pretty sure we'll be able to address those on the article's talk page. So I'm going to close the PR -- thanks again to all of you. -- Shudde talk 08:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Chopin[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a level 3 vital article which deserves to be developed to at least GA status. However as can be seen from the talk page there is a lot of debate as to how much detail should be gone into over various aspects, and also concern that there is need for much better coverage of the music. Also there are problems about quality of some of the citations (Polish, out of date, etc.). I'm proposing a peer review at this stage to try to get some consensus from experienced editors as to what should be concentrated on, what could (or should) be ditched, and so on, so that we can prioritise what aspects of the article should be developed, and in what ways they should be developed. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random thoughts[edit]

I have no Chopin expertise at all, but for what it's worth:

  • I think the lead is too long; it mistakenly tries to be a whole article on its own. Better just to give the basics and tantalize the reader into reading onward.
  • For the up-front image, I'd rather put a detail of one of the two oil portraits -- they aptly capture Chopin as an artist. The photo from 1849 (the year he died) doesn't do him justice -- it renders him as a suffering patient, not a genius.
  • Three nice chapters about Chopin in Charles Rosen's The Romantic Generation, useful for (further) mining about the music.

Opus33 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

As with the above, these comments are necessarily brief. I have worked on a number of composer articles to get them to featured standard, so I tend to have a somewhat FA-oriented approach. However, you say you want to get the article at least to GA standard, so perhaps my thoughts will be of some use:

  • Not being a Chopin expert I can't really comment on the choice of sources except in a general way. I think that in a general encyclopedia article (rather than an analysis for a music magazine) it is preferable to draw, in the main, from the numerous high-quality sources on the composer. Polish and other foreign languages shoud be used where it is particularly appropriate, but they should be the exception rather than the rule.
  • Another issue affecting sources is that there are about half a dozen "citation needed" tags dotted through the articles which need to be attended to. That's the tip of the iceberg; there are many other uncited statements, often at the ends of paragraphs.
  • On the lead, I don't think it is necessarily too long, nor that it should be cut as a means of tantalizing readers into reading more. In fact we are specifically told in WP:LEAD not to do this: "the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows". The lead should be a brief broad-brush overview of the article in its entirety. Whether it fulfils this requirement at present I don't know; it is often advisable to finalise the lead when the main text is complete.
  • I would also say, with due respect to Opus, above, that I very much favour retention of the 1849 photograph. When I first saw this a good few years ago, I found it very affecting; here was a real man, a suffering person rather than an idealised portrait. Please keep it; if it is not thought suitable for the lead (I personally think it is), then use it lower down.
  • On the specific matter that you raise concerning the "Music" section, a key point to remember is that this article is aimed at the general rather than the specialist reader. The approach in the music section needs to be broad, explaining the kinds of music Chopin wrote, how his style developed, who influenced him, how he is generally categorised and how he influenced his successors. These sections can be very hard to write; it's best, I find, to keep the language descriptive rather than analytical, we don't require the sort of treatment one would find in a specialist music magazine.
  • There are a number of prose issues to be sorted out, (e.g. the overuse of very short, single-sentence paragraphs) but these and similar minor matters can await a final copyedit some way down the line. I've only read small excerpts of the article, but I don't think that the general standard of prose is a problem.

I'm interested enough to keep an eye on this article and see how it develops. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far[edit]

I am very grateful for these two sets of comments. Where Brian disagrees with Opus, I incline to Brian. But I await further editors' comments (hopefully) before reverting to the article itself. In particular I would be glad to have views on the 'bits and pieces' which maybe regarded (e.g. by me) as clutter - lists of things named after Chopin, or the biblical inscription on a plaque erected over his urn thirty years after his death, etc. (see article talk page).--Smerus (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few housekeeping comments:
  • Please do not use level 2 or level 3 subheadings to subdivide comments on this review page – they mess up the WP:PR page. Level 4 headings are fine.
  • Oddly, there is no link to this review on the Chopin talk page, so the review must have been opened by some short-cut process, I know not how. This is somewhat inconvenient; people will be unaware of the peer review. Unfortunately I don't know how to create the talkpage link.
  • Discussion of the article is being fragmented between this review and ongoing threads on the talkpage. It would be better if all the discussion was in one place, and I would have thought the peer review was the most appropriate forum. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review header link on talk page[edit]

I have seen to this and added a section to invite editors to contribute here.--Smerus (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts and epitaphs[edit]

If Wikipedia's "Percy Bysshe Shelley" article very appropriately mentions the Latin epitaph on Shelley's Rome grave — "Cor Cordium" ("Heart of Hearts") — then why not, in the "Chopin" article, mention the equally apposite, originally likewise Latin, epitaph (borrowed from Matthew VI:21 [6]) on the Warsaw last resting place of Chopin's heart: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"? Nihil novi (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to GA[edit]

I've taken into account (I hope responsibly) all the comments here. I beleive the article is now at or close to GA standard so have nominated it for GA. Thanks to all.--Smerus (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Čech[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it checked for compliance with summary style in advance of a Good Article nomination. In particular, that sub-sections by season are compliant.

Thanks, C679 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done some extensive copyediting, in small discrete edits with transparent (if slightly broad) edit summaries. Feel free to revert any changes as you see fit. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrbaraz[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to get it to Good article status.

Thanks, HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I am starting a peer review of this article. Madalibi (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments by Madalibi[edit]

Hello! This is an excellent and well-written article, and it should pass the GA review easily once you take care of a few problems:

  • References. They are well formatted, but they point to no list of books. Could you add a bibliography that will make the footnotes work? Also, the format should be consistent throughout. I suggest you adopt the simple Harvard format for all the books you cite, including Pourshariati's.
  • Links. The article appears heavily overlinked. As the relevant section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking has it: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." In other words it's not necessary to link on every instance of a name: only once after the lede — or at the very most once per section — should be sufficient.
  • Miscellaneous:
    • He was married to Mirhran, the sister of the Sasanian king Khosrau II, whom Shahrbaraz had two boys with. This makes it sounds as though he had two boys with king Koshrau II! Could you rephrase?
    • During Shahrbaraz's later life, he joined the Sasanian army where he became spahbed of Nēmrōz. In a section called "early life," the phrase "During Shahrbaraz's later life" appears a bit odd. Do we know around what year (or by what year) he became spahbed?
    • {Tq|Disappointed by Shahrbaraz's failure, Khosrau II sent a messager bearing a letter to Kardarigan.}} It would help the uninitiated reader if you could tell us briefly who Kardarigan is.
    • In 628, the feudal families of Persia secretly mutinied against Khosrau and joined Shahrbaraz. Here the transition is abrupt and therefore difficult to follow. Last time we heard of Shahrbaraz, he was stationed in northern Syria with his troops after helping Heraclius. You should probably explain how, in 628, he was in a position to be "joined" by the feudal families of Persia.
    • Kavadh was then released by the feudal families of the Sasanian Empire... This is the first time we hear of Kavadh. Once again we need context, mostly who he was, why he had been imprisoned, and how the feudal families had the power to release him.
    • This divided the resources of the country which resulted in a devastating plague in the western provinces of Persia, killing half of the population... I don't understand how a division of resources could cause a plague.
    • Shahrbaraz then changed the contents of the letter, making it state that Khosrau II wanted 400 officers killed, ensuring that Kardarigan and the rest of the army remaining loyal to him. The sentence seems to be missing something...
    • What was the "Parsig faction"?

Just make sure that you briefly explain the people, institutions, and events that you mention (a few words are usually sufficient), then the GA review should be a breeze. Ok, that's all I can do for now. I hope this helps! Madalibi (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review :), and unfortunately, we don't know what year he became spahbed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Your recent edits have clearly improved the article. I will give the page a closer second reading sometime this week to see what other issues I can find. Incidentally, I just noticed that the French version of the page, though shorter, is also interesting and well referenced. It even cites some very old secondary sources, including one by the Armenian historian Sebeos that I think you might find interesting. It writes our man's name as "Schahr-Barâz or Shahrvarāz" and claims (also by citing Pourshariati) that he died in 630, not 629. Could you clarify that? Anyway the French version contains a few interesting details that you could perhaps include in the article, even if your version is already more detailed. Do let me know if you need help with the translation.
Meanwhile, I also recommend that you install a script that automatically detects duplicate links: go to Wikipedia:Highlight duplicate links and follow the instructions on that page. After you install the script, the item "Highlight duplicate links" will appear near the bottom of the "Tools" menu on the left. When you click on it, it will tell you that there are still 45 duplicate links in the article! :)
Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shahrvaraz" is another version of the name, while "Schahr-Barâz" is the French version of "Shahrbaraz." The Cambridge History of Iran (page 178) says that Shahrbaraz died in 629. The Pourshariati source says that the Muslim conquest of Persia began in 628, and not in 633, so if were to write 630 as Shahrbaraz's death date then we would need to mention about the Muslim conquest of Persia may have been in 628 on many articles, meaning that many of them would need to be completely rewrited. Since the theory of Pourshariati is not really accepted among scholars (yet?), then i think it is better to list his death date in 629. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Donen[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what may need to be done for it to qualify as a Featured Article.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Loeba comments

I'll try and review this one for you. I won't start immediately, but hopefully in the coming days. A lot of good work has clearly been done here, but my first impression is that it does look a bit on the long side - for instance we get almost 700 words on Singin' in the Rain alone. I find it hard to believe the "Relationship with Gene Kelly" section needs to be so long as well. Perhaps you could look at where the detail could be trimmed/condensed? I'm also not keen on the referencing style, and far prefer the method used when the article passed GA...the way it is currently gave me a minor freakout - it looked like there were dozens of references made to entire books, without page numbers! Perhaps this is just a matter of personal taste, but it's not a referencing style I've seen much on WP, and I'm sure that's because it's quite awkward (having the page numbers embedded within the text makes it harder to read). Something to think about. Anyway yes, I will begin reading through the article soon. --Loeba (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I'm just noticed that the nominator hasn't been active in 2 weeks. @Deoliveirafan:, could you please make a reply here so that I know you will respond to the review. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes I'm checking in. At some point a different editor changed all of the citations so that the one from books have the page numbers embedded into the body of the article. This occured after the article was promoted to GA status. I don't like it either. I'll read over the article again and see where it can be trimmed down and summarized more.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article history, I don't think many substantial changes have been made since the GA promotion so you could take the version before the references were changed, copy and paste the entire thing and then use a dif of the current article to add in any worthwhile changes made since (which as I said all seem pretty small)? That would probably be the quickest way to go about it (and I do think it's be worth doing). I'll begin reviewing in a few days - if you're planning on trimming back material, then it would be best if you could do it before I start? --Loeba (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Deoliveirafan: Any thoughts on my last statement? I just don't want to spend time reading through and commenting on material that may end up being cut... --Loeba (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there can be any improvement, anywhere on the page, should I expand, add more references, etc.

Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to see the song titles of the Runner-ups and not just the country. Maybe this can still be fitted in. --Jackentasche (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Neonchameleon[edit]

  • Is there much information on that page that isn't in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest page? About all I see that I can't get from the parent page is the language the runner up performed in. It needs to justify its existence somehow.
  • All the references are primary. Again not doing much to justify its existence as separate from the primary page.
  • Comparing it to the Featured Article List of Eurovision Song Contest winners doesn't show much room for improvement that way. But the difference between the two pages is that the junior list is about a dozen kids long. The adult list is more than 50 long, so can't be included in the page itself.
  • Sorry I can't be more help - but the only fundamental problem with the page is that it has no real reason.

List of people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A very interesting list, that is comprehensive. Definitely has potential to become a GA, so seeking general feedback for improvement. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nolan[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been worked on extensively in the last weeks/months, and need further guidance to reach GA/FA quality. Any advice or help is appreciated.

Thanks, Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba comments

Right, here are some comments related to the content of the "Early life" and "Career" sections. I'm still planning to go through and do a copy edit. I won't comment on the lead for now, because (as you admitted on my talk page) it needs considerable developing. I'll add some suggestions at the end.

  • We should probably be sourcing his full name and birth date in the "Early life" section.
  • If the father was British I'm not sure we need to know his Irish background..? Not a big deal though, I know that some people like knowing about heritage.
  • Any more information about his early interest in film and what drew him to the medium (maybe a quote?) would be nice.
Sammy comments; Is the one I added ok?
    • Hmm it's slightly repetitive of the previous statements...are there any others available? Specifically I was hoping for something about what drew him to making films. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After graduation, Nolan directed corporate videos and industrial films." - Some elaboration on this topic would also be good, if possible.
  • Last para of Early years would be better placed in "1990s".
  • Was Doodlebug shown publicly? Reception?
Sammy comments; Don't think so really. Can't find anything useful.
  • Considering that Following was his first feature film, it would be interesting to have some comments from critics.
  • I think we need more info on Memento, particularly on its development. Not loads and loads, but I'd expect a few more lines of text at least.
    • Add later: I definitely think we should mention that it plays out backwards here, as well.
  • I notice that we aren't told who starred in any of the films. I'd add this information.
Sammy comments; I'm a bit cautious about this since Nolan uses large ensembles. I think this might open up to a name-drop thing like in the "Recognition" section. While I see the value in noting some of the actors (not always though), I also feel the "Collaborators" bit covers the most important info. Whaddayathink?
I think a lot of his films have a clear "lead" or two...I definitely think we should mention Pearce for Memento, Pacino for Insomnia, Bale for the Batman films, Jackman & Bale for Prestige, DiCaprio for Inception...maybe even some of the co-stars; as long as you don't get into a big list of names, I don't see it as a problem. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plot outline for Batman Begins should be given.
  • The "overwhelming positive reviews" for TDK are not sourced.
  • Maybe it goes without saying, but I think it'd probably be worth stating outright that TDK continued with the dark themes of Batman Begins. And then give a plot outline.
  • "He agreed to the interview after speaking with producer Doug Blush at a piano recital featuring his son and Blush's daughter." - I don't really think this is needed.
  • The rather lengthy quote from Nolan regarding the TDKR shooting should be trimmed, maybe even cut altogether.
  • When talking about Transcendence , make clear that Wally Pfister is Nolan's regular cinematographer. And I don't think he's been mentioned before this point, so he should be wikilinked. And since this isn't a Nolan film, I think we should summarise the plot in a much briefer fashion.
  • Are the credentials of Kip Thorne needed?

Right, I will return for the final sections later today or tomorrow. As a general comment, I appreciate that the article doesn't ramble on about each film (which would be an easy temptation to fall into), but I think you could afford to add a bit more on each...it does feel a bit on the scarce side. A bit of commentary from film critics would be useful as well (again not too much, but a bit). Back soon... --Loeba (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciated, I will get to work on these points later today and in the coming days. As christmas is around the corner I might use a few extra days getting it all done.
Again, thanks a lot Loeba! Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on...

  • "Aesthetics" means visuals/appearance, which not everything in this section is referring to. I'd go with something like "Filmmaking" or "Artistry".
  • I'm not sure you can give a mise-en-scene "philosophical subtext"..? Does the source definitely say this? Mise-en-scene usually refers to the set-up within the frame...I dunno, maybe he does try and give a subtext in this sense!
Sammy comments; A clumsy sentence indeed.
I did like the sentence, just with "mise-en-scene" removed. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if there is a source we can use to say that his films have become more action-heavy (for the style section)? I definitely think of action as an aspect of his work these days.
Sammy comments; I could expand on this, but he has always used rapid editing and cross-cutting - common tropes in modern action-films. Not sure how to expand on that.
But he uses far more car chases, explosions, shoot-outs, etc than he used to. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source (which is used) notes that "twist endings" are a common feature. Not sure how acceptable the source is, but I think for GA it would be okay.
  • I don't think we need to link "take".
  • "Nolan's work explores existential and epistemological themes such as subjective experience, memory, the nature of time, and construction of personal identity." - This should be expanded, really. It's so key to Nolan's work.
Sammy comments; Will look into this.
  • "Some related themes..", "Others have drawn parallels to..." - these are WP:WEASEL words. If you can cite these ideas to a specific critic (or two), do.
  • "In The Fictional Christopher Nolan, McGowan argues.." - We don't usually need to give the titles of books.
  • I'd recommend trying to find some more material on his theme of corruption...it really stands out to me as a theme of his work, there must be sources out there?
Sammy comments; Will look into this as well.
  • Hmm I'm not sure about including the Criterion list, as he could only chose his favourites from their list of titles. Since we already have a list of his favourite films, it's not really needed. But I can see how people may want to know about all the films he admires, so this isn't a point I feel strongly about. It's fine if you'd rather keep it.
Sammy comments; I think it could stay for now. It gives some info on his more eclectic taste, rather than the "obvious choices" for fav films.
  • I think "frequent collaborator" charts are considered a bit controversial on WP...some see them as WP:OR. I won't insist on its removal, but you may find someone who does. To cover yourself, you could try and source all the content in some way?
Sammy comments; I think past GA review and consensus in Talk pages is enough to take it down.
  • I'd put the information about him meeting his wife at uni in the personal life section.
  • " The name of their production company derives from "syncope", the medical term for fainting or loss of consciousness." - Not really needed on this page.
  • Do we know the names of his children?
  • The "Recognition" section is generally a bit choppy...Unavoidable to some degree, but see if you can give it a bit more flow (and perhaps a more general "introductory" statement about his current success, rather than diving straight in with polls etc?)
Sammy comments; Will have to do something new with this section. NPOV is always in danger in these sections. Thinking about it.
  • "Having made some of the most influential and popular films of his time," - Popular, yes, but influential?! It's a bit soon to say that, I think!
Sammy comments; That's not really a stretch (In this decade you'll be hard-pressed finding other filmmakers having the same impact) and it won't be a problem finding more sources. But I will have do some work in this section anyways.
I admit that I didn't read this properly: I thought it said "of all time". Yes, "of his time" is probably reasonable. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of directors who have "commended" him is pretty long, I'd cut it down to a select few.
  • Do we have a statistic for the combined gross of his films? Must be a couple of billion...
  • Hmm the awards table is a tricky one...I know they're all his films, but a lot of those awards and nominations won't have been for him personally. I think the section should probably just deal with his awards and nominations.
  • Not keen on the "See also" section. The company is linked in the lead, which is sufficient.

Images:

  • You'll have a tough time defending the use of the Heath Ledger one. Besides, there are better images we could use to capture the style and feel of Nolan's films. You could find a really good screencap to demonstrate how atmospheric and cinematic they are (which is sourced in the text, so should be okay under fair use).
  • There seems to be some decent images of him available on the commons that aren't used (including ones with his wife, which would be good for the personal life section) - [7]

Lead:

  • This is how I recommend rewriting it:
    • Two of three introductory lines that sort of sum him up and make people interested in the article.
    • A paragraph about his history, and because he hasn't directed many films you should touch on all of them.
    • A paragraph about his film style and reputation/reception.
Sammy comments; This section is my nemesis for sure.
Leads always seem daunting, but I bet when you get started on it you'll find things flowing more easily than you expect. :) As long as you know your subject matter, it shouldn't be too tough. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked if all the information is sourced, but please make sure that it is. A few of the sources look a bit dodgy, while the books aren't really used enough (this would definitely be necessary if you ever want to go for FA). That said, I think with a bit more content added on the areas I've suggested and some copy editing (which I will do when you've finished adding stuff), this is on track for GA. Well done! I will continue to keep an eye on the article and help out as I can. --Loeba (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done:; At the end of this little session I will go over the sources. There is plenty of literature on Nolan waiting to be used.

Follow-up comment: Another thing I'd like to recommend is giving his career a sense of "story" - how it developed, how he continued to become more popular and successful. Adding in things like "The film marked Nolan's breakthrough..." "Nolan received widespread attention with.." "Nolan's fame/acclaim continued to grow..." will enhance the article. Anything like this needs to be sourced of course, but I imagine there are some articles that have reviewed his entire career and will provide good references? Let me know when you think you've addressed all my comments above and I'll work on a copyedit. Cheers! --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy. I've taken a crack at most of your suggestions, some with more grace than others. I think it's pretty strong content wise though. It was a struggle finding good sources for some of the stuff, and there is some points I haven't done yet. I'll write/find something about the themes of corruption and fear of conspiracy when I've read through some texts on his work. I've got my hands on David Bordwell's new "book", and I know of some other pieces as well. That will take some time though, I have a lot of work in the coming weeks. I will also have to take a stab at that lead and find new photos for the "Filmmaking" section, but saving that for dessert (aka postponed til the very end...) You have already helped out a great deal, but if you find the time for a copyedit that would be super. Again, appreciate your time and effort to help me out. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20
46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on getting it to GA status and need feedback to make any necessary improvements. Constructive criticism and suggestions are welcomed.

Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Hypothyroidism has numerous causes such as... autoimmune disease." The preceding sentence already mentioned Hashimoto's disease. Are there other autoimmune diseases that cause hypothyroidism? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it does have other autoimmune causes. I will look into it and have other autoimmune diseases used as examples so the article is not repetitive and harping on the Hashimoto's point. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general understanding is that there are two forms of autoimmune thyroiditis: with goitre is Hashimoto's disease, without goitre is atrophic thyroiditis. However that view is under debate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Signs and symptoms": " Numerous signs and symptoms are associated with hypothyroidism, and can relate to the underlying pathological cause of the hypothyroidism, a mass effect of a thyroid goiter, or direct effects of having insufficient thyroid hormones." However the list only includes features due to low T3/T4. Perhaps clarify that the list only includes that group? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can just find signs/symptoms caused by the mass effect of a thyroid goiter and add those on to the list to make it more comprehensive.
You could do that, but I don't think that is a good approach. Currently, the section is an amalgamation of information from nine different sources. I think that readers are better served by a table of features all sourced from one single reference such as an authoritative endocrinology textbook. This also helps to ensure appropriate weighting, discourages point-of-view pushers, and avoids inappropriate sources ("Hormonal causes of male sexual dysfunctions and their management", "Characteristics of anemia in subclinical and overt hypothyroid patients", "When to consider thyroid dysfunction in the neurology clinic", "Evaluation and management of galactorrhea", "The renal manifestations of thyroid disease"). Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like more opinions on that. I don't see how these are inappropriate sources though the table idea is a good one. If you know how to format it, have at it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about "Hypothyroidism". Its references should be generically about hypothyroidism, not focussed on specific aspects, especially in the "Signs and symptoms" section. This prevents issues of undue weighting. For example, the first source would be suitable for an article about hormonal abnormalities in erectile dysfunction, not for an article on hypothyroidism. The second source would be suitable for an article about anaemia in hypothyroidism. Wikipedia's article on "Hypothyroidism" is supposed to be a general encyclopedic article, not an exhaustive treatise on all aspects of hypothyroidism.
With endocrinology textbooks or review articles about hypothyroidism, the author/editor is an expert and has already decided on appropriate weighting for the various causes. Different sources may have discrepancies between the exact list, so it may be necessary to choose a source that you think best reflects the literature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Signs and symptoms": "Neurological:... rapid thoughts." I was surprised to see that, so I checked the reference. Indeed the reference focuses on subclinical hyperthyroidism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, that's an error made by the person who put rapid thoughts in? If so, I'll remove it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source itself is inappropriate for this article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I'll think about how to best deal with this particular issue in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Signs and symptoms": "Neurological:... deepening of the voice due to Reinke's edema." I don't think that a deep voice due to Reinke's edema is a neurological feature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Reinke's edema bit, good catch on that one, I hadn't noticed it was erroneously categorized under neurological. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I implied above, the whole section needs to be re-written. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten in what way? In prose format? You suggested a table before and I see you suggested doing it from one single authoritative source such as an endocrinology textbook (I don't own any), so if you have access to such a source, feel free to rearrange as you see fit. I think it's best to have a variety of sources since I doubt any one particular source will list off all of the numerous signs/symptoms of hypothyroidism-most review articles didn't have them all and omitted some well-known ones. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-written as a table drawn from a single authoritative source. I shall have a look at some sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to Williams Textbook of Endocrinology 12th edition. It has an excellent table of causes. However the clinical findings are described in text form. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds perfect, I'll leave it to you to rearrange that section to reflect William's. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
lol, it's certainly not perfect. I'll probably look to use a different source for a table of signs of symptoms. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (18th edition) has a suitable table of clinical features. (I should have checked that book sooner.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the 17th, so let me know when you're ready to make the table and I'll work on it with you. The 17th has a table (probably the same or similar) listing signs/symptoms in descending order of frequency. I cleaned up that section a little bit (not in a table yet) and reordered things to some extent based on Harrison's descending frequency table. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axl this sentence goes on forever; by the time I get to the end of all of those clauses, I forget what it's trying to say. Are you able to fix it? I tried, and the result was worse.

  • During pregnancy, iodine requirements are higher as there is an increased demand for thyroid hormones due to decreased levels of free thyroid hormone secondary to elevated circulating levels of thyroid binding globulin in response to increased estrogen levels.

I think it's backwards; the reader knows estrogen levels increase during pregnancy, so the sentence would be easier to get through if it started there rather than ending there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I have clarified the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it was a long sentence, but I wrote it when I was tired =( and wasn't sure how to rearrange it. I think the revised version is a definite improvement. Thanks Axl. I don't think we should assume all readers know estrogen levels go up during pregnancy (granted, most would and more importantly should, but I am often surprised by what readers do/do not know). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I hadn't noticed this page when I made some recommendations on the regular talk page. I am happy to move the advice here for completeness. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:-

Symptoms and signs of hypothyroidism
Symptoms Signs
Fatigue Dry, coarse skin
Feeling cold Cool peripheries
Poor memory and concentration Myxedema (mucopolysaccharide deposition in the skin)
Constipation Hair loss
Weight gain with poor appetite Slow pulse rate
Shortness of breath Peripheral edema
Hoarse voice Delayed relaxation of tendon reflexes
Menorrhagia (and later oligomenorrhea) Carpal tunnel syndrome
Paresthesia Serous cavity effusions (pleural effusion, ascites, pericardial effusion)
Poor hearing

Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, let's make that happen in the article. Wouldn't menorrhagia be a sign though since it can be objectively measured in terms of how many days/blood lost with defined parameters for what constitutes menorrhagia? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Menorrhagia is not measured objectively. It requires a statement by the patient: "I am having unusually heavy periods". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Causes", paragraph 4: "Hypothyroidism can result from postpartum thyroiditis up to nine months after giving birth.... This condition has an incidence of about 5% in the general population." This statement could be misleading. "Incidence" refers to the number of new cases per unit population per unit time (usually per year). However postpartum disease frequencies should be described as the number of cases divided by the number of pregnancies. Incidence is not an appropriate way of describing the frequency of cases of postpartum diseases. Similarly, "the general population" is not an appropriate population group for postpartum diseases. (Does the group include men, elderly women, etc.?)

I am aware that the reference states "The incidence of PPT is 5.4% in the general population." Also, the source describes PPT occurring during one year following pregnancy, not nine months.

This source states "The prevalence varies significantly between studies from 1.1 to 21.1% [93], with estimated pooled prevalence in the general population of approximately 8%."

Another source: "The incidence of this syndrome has been estimated at anywhere from 1.9% to 21%." The population group isn't described—presumably it is self-evident.

I accept that the literature uses this terminology, but I don't think that we should be propagating their sloppy phrasing in Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I admit I felt uncomfortable trying to force that part to work with the preexisting section on postpardium thyroiditis and had similar concerns. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses a mixture of "T3" and "T3". This should be standardized to a single style. Similarly with "T4" and "T4". Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of all of them being "T3". TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor point: the journal references have inconsistent formatting. Some journals are abbreviated without full stops [periods] (e.g. 3: Brown, 8: Gaitonde), some with full stops (e.g. 7: Vissenberg, 9: Persani), some in full with upper case (e.g. 5: Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, 6: van den Boogaard) and some with lower case (e.g. 15: Stagnaro-Green, 17: Pearce). Some journals have a long list of authors (e.g. 15: Stagnaro-Green, 23: Becker) while others use "et al." (e.g. 6: van den Boogaard, 7: Vissenberg). A consistent style is not required for GA status, but it is required for FA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old list of signs and symptoms[edit]

I have moved the old list here in case anyone wants to refer to it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gaitonde2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Erdogan M, Kosenli A, Ganidagli S, Kulaksizoglu M (2012). "Characteristics of anemia in subclinical and overt hypothyroid patients". Endocr J. 59 (3): 213–20. PMID 22200582.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mistry2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c Maggi M, Buvat J, Corona G, Guay A, Torres LO (March 2013). "Hormonal causes of male sexual dysfunctions and their management (hyperprolactinemia, thyroid disorders, GH disorders, and DHEA)". J Sex Med (Review). 10 (3): 661–77. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02735.x. PMID 22524444.
  5. ^ Huang W, Molitch ME (June 2012). "Evaluation and management of galactorrhea". Am Family Physician (Review). 85 (11): 1073–80. PMID 22962879.
  6. ^ Mariani LH, Berns JS (January 2012). "The renal manifestations of thyroid disease". J Am Soc Nephrol (Review). 23 (1): 22–6. doi:10.1681/ASN.2010070766. PMID 22021708.


Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because several months ago it failed FAC spectacularly. I've expanded it a lot and fixed many of the issues raised at the previous FAC. Before diving into FAC again, hopefully I can get some advice/help here to make sure it meets the standards.

Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so slow in reviewing this. Congrats on the GA, and for all your hard work on this article. I do think this still needs a fair amount of work before it can become a FA. Here are some suggestions, I will likely do this in stages over the next day or two.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and suggestions to follow. There are multiple FAs on streams that may be good models, like Fanno Creek, which was just on the Main Page earlier this month. I have written three FAs on tributaries of the West Branch Susquehanna River - they are older FAs but may be useful for ideas.
  • The lead is a summary of the article and as such usually is not cited at all, except for direct quotations and extraordinary facts. Alternatively the lead can be cited like any other part of the article, but the current lead is a mix of some sentences with refs and some without.
  • Current refs 2, 3, 5, and 6 are cited only once (in the lead) which seems odd, since the lead should not have anything that is not repeated in the article itself.
  • The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, a professional level of prose. This is not badly written, but it could be much better. For example, in the lead, the first three sentences all begin with "Fishing Creek" or spot the needles repetition in "Fishing Creek drains parts of five counties. These counties are Columbia County, Pennsylvania; Montour County, Pennsylvania; Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; Luzerne County, Pennsylvania; and Lycoming County, Pennsylvania." (it could just be something like Fishing Creek drains parts of five Pennsylvania counties: Columbia, Montour, Sullivan, Luzerne, and Lycoming.
  • The lead should be a summary, so my rule of thumb is that every section header and subheader should be mentioned in the lead in some way (even if with just a phrase or word). I do not see any mention of the many tributaries by name, or things like pH, metals, and nonmetals in the water.
  • There are several places where the article seems to contradict itself or rely on outdated information - in the lead what does this mean "There are three different public sites of Fishing Creek and a fourth is planned as of 2007."? It is nearly 2014, so why is there still a mention of a planned 2007 project in the lead? Also what exactly is a "public site" in this context? A park? A fishing area or boat access ramp?
  • I know the bridges better than the creek, but sadly Welle Hess Covered Bridge No. 91 and the Bittenbender Covered Bridge are no longer standing, plus the article misses Twin Bridges-West Paden Covered Bridge No. 121.

More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have seen them and am working on them.
  • I've removed citations from the lead except for two, which are used to source a quote and a potentially disputable statement.
  • I fixed the specific examples of awkward prose that you mentioned here. I'll see what I can do about the rest.
  • Added in tributary and chemical hydrology info to the lead.
  • Removed the information on the fourth project planned.
  • Added statement that the Welle Hess bridge does not exist anymore. The Twin Bridges are covered in the section on Huntington Creek.

-- --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:LEAD says the lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs. My suggestion is to wait until all the work on the rest of the article is done, then go back and check the lead to see if it is a proper summary.
    • I made the list of counties in the lead less repetitive per my suggestion above. Feel free to tweak any of my edits.
    • Bittenbender Covered Bridge is in the article as if it still stood (I wish that were true).
    • There is no mention of the West Twin Bridge in the article, the only mention and link is to the East Twin Bridge.
    • Need to think about completeness (a FA criteria) - if former bridges are included in the article, should all former bridges be mentioned? If so, there will likely be many more to add.

I will make more comments later on other parts of the article today, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhrfisch: Removed nonexistent covered bridges, added in the link to the West Twin Bridge. Also merged two paragraphs together, so now the lead is 4 paragraphs. I changed public sites to tracts of public property, which, as far as I can tell, is what they are. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Josve05a[edit]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 748 milligrams, use 748 milligrams, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 748&nbsp;milligrams.[?] (t) Josve05a (c) 01:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?] (t) Josve05a (c) 01:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up on the above comments, I wondered if you could use "milligrams (mg)" or "miiligrams per liter (mg/L)" the first time (followed by "(mg)" or "(mg/L)" to show the abbreviation), then just use "mg" or "mg/L" thereafter.
    • pH and concentration of hydrogen ions are measuring the same thing (though they express them differently - pH is a logarithmic scale based on concentration of hydrogen ions). Does the article really need both sets of readings? Also, why is pH its own subsection, since it is also a measure of a dissolved chemical?
    • The whole dissolved chemical subsection is very repetitive and it seems to me as if it could be edited to make it less repetitive and somewhat tighter. I can try this if you would like - just say the word.
  • More to come, just very busy in real life. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruhrfisch: I apologize it took me so long to get back - I was trying to take a wikibreak for a couple of days. It would be great if you could make the dissolved chemical section less repetitive. Thanks. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK< will do. I have some other comments / suggestions too, just really busy IRL. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • I like the lead image (and took it) but it is from the creek bank beneath the bridge, not from the bridge itself (as the bridge is much higher than the stream)
  • Why not wikilink West Branch Fishing Creek and East Branch Fishing Creek?
  • Looking at the official PennDOT map of Columbia County, the mouth is in both Bloomsburg and Montour Township - [8]. Rupert is in Montour Township.
  • Why is the length metric (km) first, then English (mi), but the elevations and area are given as English first, then metric? I assume English then metric is preferred as this is an American stream.
  • I have a copy of the Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II and it gives the source elevation as 920 feet. The ref is
Shaw, Lewis C. Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II (Water Resources Bulletin No. 16). Prepared in Cooperation with the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (1st ed.). Harrisburg, PA: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources. p. 131. OCLC 17150333.
  • The USGS GNIS says the mouth elevation is 456 feet [9]. The Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II gives it as 450 feet. I would consider either more reliable than Google maps.
  • I looked at three stream FAs: Fanno Creek, White Deer Hole Creek and Colorado River. All give the coordinates for the source and mouth in the box, and the discharge as well. I think they all use River - not sure if Infobox River can do all these.

Well, that's a start, much more to come. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, the box still needs some work though.

  • The tributaries in the box are messed up (West and East Branches are both listed twice).
  • The 3 example FAs list all counties (or states for Colorado) in the watershed, so why only Columbia County?
  • Why is the Susquehanna River listed twice - example FAs only list the destination body of water at mouth
  • Sample FAs have citations after the entries, not at the bottom
  • Why not use the ref I gave (above)?
  • Where is the watershed area from? The Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II lists it as 385 square miles. So does this more recent Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams
  • Why list the elevation of the source but not the mouth?
  • Why not give coordinates for source and mouth (like the example FAs do)?
  • The watershed map is missing Ganoga Lake which drains into the Ganoga Branch of Kitchen Creek.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Fixed
  2.  Fixed
  3.  Fixed
  4. That apparently causes a script error in the infobox.
    Not if you use the correct parameter - I fixed this for the gnis ref Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I do use it.
    Sorry, but where in the references or anywhere in the article is it cited? I searched and did not see it. Per WP:CITE it should be in the article so interested readers know where to look for the data. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It was cited to http://fcwa.net/creek/, but since the Gazetteer seems a little more reliable I'll change it once it loads (which is taking several years).
  7.  Fixed now
  8. They were there, but didn't show up. I've moved them to the source_location and mouth_location parameters.
    I fixed them Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I would have to ask the uploader to fix that.
Responded. --Jakob (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in on the lake question. Does Ganoga Lake have some special significance for Fishing Creek? I can add it to the map, but it's a smaller lake than I'd normally include at that scale and would just show up as a dot. Currently the article doesn't even mention the lake. Kmusser (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the beautiful map. I was looking at the watershed web page and its map is about the same scale (on my computer) as yours full-scale and the watershed map shows both Ganoga Lake and Lake Jean in Ricketts Glen State Park as recognizable outlines - see here, at the bottom of the page. That said, I am not neutral here, as I am the main author of the Ganoga Lake article - I just noticed it was not on the map. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Course
  • I would split this into two paragraphs. According to the Gazetterr II, the creek flows mostly south for about 14 miles, then mostly southwest for about 17 miles, so perhaps the Course section could be in a paragraph for each (turn at Forks, where Huntington Creek enters)
  • I would put the township and elevation of the source in (like Fanno and White Deer Hole Creeks do)
  • I would also make references to highways where applicable, so the source is just south of PA 118, which will mean something to local readers. Or the Oxbox Lake is south of I-80, or PA 487 follows the creek for much of its course.
  • The online Gazetteer has river miles and watershed areas for each tributary. I would give river miles for each trib in the course (distance to the mouth). I can look these up for you if you want (I saved a PDF version on my computer a while ago).
  • When I wrote course descriptions, I would try to mention every prominent feature mentioned later as the stream passed it. This is done for some things, but I would mention the Oxbox lake, Kocher Park, etc.
  • I would also put the mouth elevation in, and tell the change in elevation
  • Only Colorado River of the model articles has a tributaries section and it is one section for all the tribs. I think a lot of FAC reviewers are against short subsections - most of the trib subsections are only two sentences, and the longest is only four lines on my computer.
  • What is the rationale for the order of the tribs in their section? I would put them in stream order (what a drop of water would flow past)

More to come Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhrfisch:

  • 1) Done, split at the Fishing Creek Township/Orange Township border.
  • 2) Done
  • 3)It would be good if you could look those up. Thanks.
  • 4) Done for the two examples you gave.
  • 5) Done
  • 6) Fixed, tributaries now occupy only two sections (main tributaries and minor ones)
  • 7) Fixed

--Jakob (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry this review has taken so long, but I do not think this is ready for FAC yet. Here are as many general comments and a few specifics ones (not an exhaustive list)

  • Wikilinking is odd and inconsistent - just in the lead, why is Rupert linked, but not Montour Township or Bloomsburg? OR Sugraloaf Township is not linked in the Course section.
  • Why is the West Branch not even mentioned in the lead, when it appears to be about as big or bigger than the East Branch?
  • Course section description of the path seems a bit too detailed - it is not clear what scale all of the different directional changes are
  • How can Coles Creek be the first named trib? Aren't the East and West Branches the first two named tribs?
  • Typos - In soIn the southern part of this township, ...
  • In Course, I would mention only places that are mentioned again elsewhere in the article. So I might mention Zaners Bridge instead of Zaners (which is called "Zaner" later - which is it?) Also why mention Pealertown when it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and does not even have its own article on Wikipedia.
  • The article is not internally consistent in places. So the Tributaries section intro says "The major tributaries include Little Fishing Creek, Green Creek, and Huntington Creek." Then the section has no paragraphs on Green Creek, and does have paragraphs on the East Branch (but not the West Branch), Kitchen and Hemlock Creeks (which are not mentioned as "major tribs"). What is the definition of major vs minor tribs? Also, I think a sub-trib is a trib of a trib (so Kitchen Creek is a sub-trib, but East Branch is not).
  • Raven Creek and Montour Run are on the map, so they should be in the Course section.
  • I am not sure what the purpose of the "Other tributaries" section is. The only information given for each is the name and the township (presumably fo the mouth?). This could be given in the Course section, and there the article is not consistent - it says Coles Creek enters Fishing Creek in Sugraloaf Twp, but the Other tributaries section says Benton Twp. Which is it?
  • The first sentence of Watershed is not consistent with the map - Fishing Creek drains all of Columbia County north of the Susquehanna River except for a small area in the eastern part of the county, which is drained by Briar Creek. but a strip in the west along the border with Montour County is not part of the Fishing Creek watershed.
  • Much of the material in the Watershed section is based on this ref, but that is only for Fishing Creek upstream of where West Creek joins it, not the whole watershed.
  • Seems odd to me that the Oxbow Lake section is bigger than the Watershed section (see WP:WEIGHT)
  • I already mentioned this, but pH and hydrogen ion concentrations are two measures of the same thing and should not be in different sections
  • Needs a copyedit. I can point out more, but need to go to bed. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhrfisch: Replying point by point,

2. Fixed
4. Fixed
5. Specific example fixed. Will look for more.
6. I disagree. At least one FA course section includes features that are only mentioned there.
7. Fixed.
8. Raven Creek was already mentioned. Now Montour Run is as well.
9. The section has been merged into the tributaries section. Coles Creek issue fixed.
10. Fixed.
11. I disagree. Only one sentence in the watershed section is cited to that ref.
12. I know, but there's no good place to put it. The oxbow isn't notable on its own, but it would be a shame to remove referenced and encyclopedic information.
13. Hydrogen ion paragraph removed.

--Jakob (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of short stories by Alice Munro[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because maybe you have any idea why some columns sort all right while others do not. Perhaps this is just due to my bowser and with yours this table would do fine. See sortable table. Any other recommendations for improvement are also welcome.

Thanks, Jackentasche (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackentasche, that's an interesting project you've started. I'm running into similar kinds of problems with large (and complex) bibliographies.
The only problem I see with the table sorting except that you've replicated the column headers throughout the document. I don't think that's a good solution given the limitations of the platform we have to work with.
Just brainstorming here: you might have better luck with these columns: title, publication, date. A work gets a unique row each time it's published. Someone wanting to find out the works in a particular collection can sort on the publication column, and someone wanting to know everyone a particular short story was published can sort on the story name. That makes the information in the table a lot more intuitive, which should get rid of the need for repeating column headers. And it makes the table a lot easier to work with.
Anyway, just my 0.02€. Good luck with the article!
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thank you, Lesser Cartographies, let me mull this over. And in case you have any further ideas, particularly on why some columns sort all right and others don't, let me know. Thank you also for mentioning your own projects. Happy editing, --Jackentasche (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually finding this one quite a difficult table to follow, as some columns are unused while others are unlabelled. Any difficulties you find with sorting may be down to the lack of uniformity in the rows being used. I'd suggest taking information that can be provided for all, or almost all, of the entries, and using those as your columns. Title, year of publication (you can give months and days where possible but I would avoid things like "Spring" as it won't sort properly—Spring would sort after Autumn, for example), and any relevant notes (say, repeat publication or anything out of the ordinary). I've made a brief example of how it would look using a few of the entries in your table here if you want to borrow that formatting; it's based on prior FL work I've done on other lists. I've included a use of the {{Sort}} template, which is used to keep titles beginning with words like "the" and "a", etc, sorted correctly. Hope that can be of some use to you. GRAPPLE X 01:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T'ai chi ch'uan[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is very close to GA nomination. The GA nomination failed twice (2006, 2007) but the article has come a long way since then. I do want to make sure that it has a good chance of making it this time. Thanks, Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 504[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to get this article to GA status.

Thanks, Bloonstdfan360 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-prose review from CycloneIsaac

This article's still got a long way to go from GA. I'm checking everything non-prose.

  • 14 dead links need to be fixed.
  • Quite a few [citation needed]s
  • I don't see how the lava dome picture is relevant to the highway.
  • We usually don't add insignificant auto trails in Junction lists.
  • Spur routes are usually not major intersections.
  • I recommend that you replace {{commonscat}} with {{Commons category-inline}}, so there would be less white spaces.

—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something mentioned above, spur routes should be listed in the junction list table, but I wouldn't normally list them in the infobox unless here aren't many junctions to include. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Denver[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten major sections of this article and would like some feedback. Any suggestion on what information to include in the intro would be appreciated.

Thanks, Killian441 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I am starting this peer review, but I will not have time to be thorough. Other editors are welcome to help! Madalibi (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've had a busy start to the new year, but I will start to work on updating the article. Thank you again for taking the time to look this over. -Killian441 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments by Madalibi[edit]

Hi Killian441! This is an interesting, well-written, and well-structured article. Unfortunately I don't have time to read it thoroughly, so here are just a few comments.

  • References:
    • There are a lot of footnotes that don't point to a bibliographic entry, and many bibliographic entries with no footnotes to go with them. Sometimes it's just a formatting problem, as when note 13 cites "Leonard 1990", a work that is formatted as "Leonard & Noel 1990" in the bibliography. I won't go through the list if citation errors one by one. You can use the very convenient script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to check for them yourself. Once the script is installed, you will just see them automatically. All the books that are not cited in the article should go in a section titled "Further reading" or something.
    • If you're planning to apply for good article status eventually, you will need page numbers for the books you cite. Browse through your footnotes to see which entries are missing page numbers.
  • Section titles should not be fully capitalized: check MOS:SECTIONCAPS.
  • Lead section. Here you should just summarize the history of Denver as it's recounted in the article. You should start by stating clearly where Denver is, and what the scope of "Denver" is (I see you already do that), then say when it was founded and by whom. You can tell the story chronologically in as few words as possible, but trying to be complete at the same time. You could then use the last (probably 3rd or 4th) paragraph of the lede to explain the significance of the history of Denver, or important themes in the history of the city. I'd be glad to comment on further versions once they're ready. For more ideas, you can also read WP:LEAD.
  • Images: when I use an image, I like to point to something intriguing that will make the reader feel like reading the text that goes with it. Some captions are excellent, like the portrait of James Denver with his namesake city or the picture of the Zephyr and its record-breaking trip. This is just the kind of tidbit that will attract a reader's attention. But the "Painting of Denver in 1859" with its wagon carts and tipis is just crying for a more interesting caption! In the caption for the "Front exterior of Union Station", you could explain the significance of that station in the history of Denver. Same for the Tabor Grand Opera House, the State Capitol, Jefferson Territory, etc. For more ideas, see WP:CAPTION.

Ok, that's all I have time for right now, but that should at least get you started! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freida Pinto[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to FAC and want feedback about coverage and prose. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at it 2 weeks ago actually but all honesty I'm not sure how you can really improve it further for such an actress with a very short career without it starting to look trivial/cruft-like. I'd pass on going for FAC and go for somebody who has had rather a more illustrious career personally. It's very good as it is, but it;s not the sort of article I would consider taking to FAC at least at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Kabri[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's come along very well and want to see what else can be done to improve it. It would be great if this could get to GA, A, and eventually FA status. It's in Social Sciences because it's more a prehistoric archaeological site than a historical one.

Thanks, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Tevet 5774 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Given the length of the article, the lead could stand to be quite a bit longer
  • The ToC, on the other hand, is quite long, with lots of small sections - consider some consolidation
  • Any chance of a couple more images?
  • Take a look at the HarvErrors script; you have a number of disconnected references
  • File:AcreNE1799.jpg: per the licensing tag, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States"
  • "located on the grounds of the kibbutz" - should specify which one, as this isn't explained until Archaeology section
  • Spell out units like "km" in prose, and provide conversions using {{convert}}
  • Explain in the article what is meant by "EBA collapse".
  • Keep in mind that many readers will be non-specialists, and we should aim to make the text fairly accessible. The Archaeology section is particularly dense
  • "an MBA I palace—was identified beneath the MBA II palace. The remains of the earlier MBA I palace, beneath the MBA II palace" - repetitive
  • " since 1957 when Late Neolithic vessels were discovered there in 1956" ?
  • What do the asterisks in citations mean?
  • Check work name for Burrows
  • Don't include large categories like Category:Archaeology of Israel when subcategories like Category:Archaeological sites in Israel are already there. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

Thank you very much for the thorough go-over! I have some questions as well as answers. Some of Brian's comments made some things a bit clearer, but I've maintained what I originally wrote just in case my understanding is off.

  • Any thoughts on how the intro could be expanded and the ToC condensed? It'd be great if there was a way to keep the subsections, but not have every subsection listed in the ToC (like individual years) because it does look bulky.
  • It's possible to use a template like {{TOC limit}} to change how the ToC appears, or you can replace the header code with other formatting. Really, though, I agree with Brian that the current structure is suboptimal. As to the lead, perhaps add a sentence or two further summarizing each of the Etymology, Geography, and History sections? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images could be tricky. I never really take many photos myself and I don't want to bother Cline about it.
  • Does it matter that I added the Acre image while in the UK? Does the requirement pertain to the editor who added the image or is it something else? (if it's the latter, I don't get why it's US-specific) Also, how do I add that to the page?
  • No, the requirement is because Wikipedia follows US law first and foremost (and Commons requires that images be free/PD in both the US and the country of origin of the image). You can add to that page by clicking here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first mention of the kibbutz of Kabri and its relation to the site is in the Etymology section.
  • The EBA Collapse is something I'll briefly explain there - a collapse of societies in the Eastern Mediterranæan at the end of the EBA- but it's also something that deserves its own article hence the lack of a hyperlink. The Bronze Age Collapse is named improperly as it deals with just the Late Bronze Age Collapse. However, That's something I'll tackle there.
  • What do you think could be done to make the text more accessible? I'm around this kind of stuff enough that I might not be able to readily spot terminology that would throw people for a loop.
  • Is it at all possible for you to have someone else read through the article with you in-person? I find that grabbing a random friend or colleague often helps me quickly identify what might be too dense in my own articles. If not, try to make sure that all concepts are explained well enough that you don't really have to remember anything beyond the article as you read. Also think about using vocabulary that an intelligent high-schooler might be expected to understand. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The asterisks are used in the field reports because they are in Hebrew and English. The English begins from the left cover and the Hebrew from the right cover. So you have Page 1 at one end and Page 1* at the other in a different language. It's just how they laid it out.
  • What do you mean by "Burrows?"
  • "Burrows, Leah (22 November 2013)" - I really don't think the publication is about brandies, but Brandeis. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other issues I shall do my best to fix.

Thank you very much again! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Shevat 5774 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Brianboulton

Most of the points which I noted during my first runthrough have been mentioned by Nikki, above, but I'd like to reemphasise some of them;

  • Structure: although apparently crammed with information, the article gives the impression of being in the form of preliminary notes rather than in final prose form. There are far too many very short subsections, some of which are barely informative, e.g. "1991: Work was carried out in Areas B, C, and D, during the 1991 season". That is the entire subsection. You need to create a proper prose flow, and should abandon all these unwarranted subheadings. Thus "Early work" should be a single undivided section, as should "1986–1993" and "2005-ongoing".
  • The final sections, under "Site reports", have no text at all, being lists of reports or links to online copies of reports. I am uncertain as to why these are listed here. If they are cited sources, they are presumably listed under "References"
  • Under "Notes", you should separate citations from what are merely observations or directions. Some of these, incidentally, require citations, e.g. 22, 43, 86, 101 etc
  • I endorse the view that much of the information will be difficult for non-specialists to understand. Unless I missed something, there is no date information that enables the non-specialist to identify the "EBA" and "MBA" periods. Other statements, such as "inhabited since the Pottery Neolithic" are likewise incomprehensible.

In short, while the subject-matter is potentially very interesting, the article needs considerably more work to bring it into the shape and format of a proper Wikipedia article. I will be happy to look again, when you have addressed some of these points. There are a couple of archaeological FAs that you might wish to look at: Maiden Castle, Dorset and Acra (fortress). Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply
  • I suppose I could try doing that, though I'd like to have all the info gathered from the sources before I can make a good clean prose. The sub-sections were all because I was worried about big ugly blocks of text and it was all one undivided section way-back when. That specific 1991 was, regrettably, because of the fact that I didn't have the 1991 report at the time. I've since gotten that report, but I don't think I'll ever be able to find copies of the 1986 or 1987 reports without going into TAUs library this summer.
  • They were listed there for easy accessibility (finding out what some projects' site reports are called and where they are can be a pain sometimes). Do you think they should be removed or kept and have their purpose being there briefly explained?
  • What is the way to do that? Like make one section for Notes and one section for Citations?
  • Ah, I thought that some things were supposed to rely on the information contained in the wikilinked articles. Should there be brief explanations either in-text or in Notes where they won't interrupt the flow of things?

Thank you very much! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Shevat 5774 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Health and Science University[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I wish to have this article reviewed because it has some 'issues' that need to be resolved, such as that it appears to be written like an advertisement; that a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject; that the article relies on references to primary sources; that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations; and that the article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please review this article and suggest how its contents may be revised and improved to resolve the problems described in the 'issues' box.

Thanks, MandarinLibrarian (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proteus (video game)[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as I would like to know the areas which need changing or improving in order to reach Featured Article status. I think the main issue will be the writing but I wouldn't be surprised if I had missed other things as I don't know the Manual of Style that well.

Thanks, Samwalton9 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow trout[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article recently achieved GA status. Would like peer review in advance of attempting FA status. Am working on a quartet of trout articles to get them to GA status: Rainbow trout, Cutthroat trout, Brown trout and Brook trout

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review is closed. Thanks to all who contributed.

I will do at least a quick run-through and offer some thoughts. Do with them as you will.

1. The first thing I noticed is that the lead is not FA quality. For one thing,it contains all sorts of random, scattered references to the steelhead, with no explanation or context. People unfamiliar with trout species will be confused by this. I'd like to see a little stronger and longer lede in general, though I would not recommend rewriting it until you have the rest of the article tuned up and ready for FAC, the lede is generally the last thing to clean up, as it should closely track the article content and structure, save where it is completely illogical to do so.

2. Per your comments elsewhere (an editor's talk) it appears that you had a lot to do to deal with the steelhead issue in general. Probably need to just make a small paragraph summarizing all about it in the lede and then probably a separate, clear subsection in the article

checkYThe "steelhead" issue is problematic for a variety of reasons. Of course it is a common name, but is not the "typical" name of of the species. Whenever it is used, context is important as it has multiple meanings. The traditional name "steelhead" didn't come into existence until the 1890's when the eastern sporting press started referring to them as different from the Pacific salmons. Prior to the 1890s, steelhead were being caught by sport and subsistence anglers, but were generally just lumped in with Pacific salmon. Steelhead is generally believed to refer to the "steel blue" color of the head of mature steelhead. There are three contexts in which the term "steelhead" is used.
  • The anadromous forms of O. m. irideus (Coastal rainbow) and O. m. gairdneri {Redband rainbow) have traditionally been called "steelhead". Problematically though, while in freshwater, they are known to breed with stream resident forms of the same subspecies--they are the same fish.
  • When the rainbow trout was introduced into the Great Lakes, they were of a large strain. As rainbow trout are obligate stream spawners, these large rainbow trout migrate up freshwater tributaries to spawn. Thus they are called "steelhead", but in fact they behave like all rainbows behave in laucustine environments.
  • The "steelhead" of Costco from marine aquafarms in Chile and Australia are merely hatchery raised rainbow trout fed and raised in sea pens. They not anadromous forms of rainbow trout, merely raised and labeled to look like them.
The challenge in the article, will remain a proper balance between the biology, the sporting angle, the environmental angle and the commerical/acquaculture aspects when using the multiple meaning--"steelhead".--Mike Cline (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about balance. That said, I think that it does matter to "teach the controversy" about steelheads because of the commonality, even it does mean separating "steelhead" out as a separate article for some of the minutae. I can see how it could be viewed as a content fork, but I can also see it as something of a glorified, annotated dab page in a way. ('Steelhead may mean...O. m. irideus, O. m. gairdneri, the Great Lakes transplants, and the crap you buy at Costco...) A comparable example I am still wrestling with in horse land is chestnut (coat), about a common horse color, and sorrel (horse), which is genetically the exact same color, but a regional word that some people have great passion about using - and particularly popular in Quarter Horse land. Over at WPEQ we are of mixed feelings whether sorrel is a content fork that should be merged or a necessary separation, given that those use the word are rather militant about it. Perhaps looking at a topic that is totally unrelated from trout can offer some insight. I guess I used to think steelhead were a separate subspecies, and just one separate subspecies. Much has changed just in the last 20-30 years. I'm just offering thoughts, particularly as there appear to be some steelhead partisans out there, can't ignore them and hope they'll go away. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. The Taxonomy section is a bit jargon-heavy and ponderous, I had to read it about three times to make sense of the evolution of the naming changes; those of us old enough to have grown up thinking the rainbow was salmo trutta would particularly benefit from a clearer narrative. Consider a more user-friendly rewrite. The "subspecies" list section is also not real clear, (might benefit from annotations) and again, our friend the steelhead is not easy to find in the list. Given the commonality of the steelhead name, it will be important to have something as blatently obvious as "The trout commonly called the "steelhead" is actually the same fish as subspecies (whatever), but has an ocean-going life cycle..." (Side note: Lots of casual fisher-persons think Steelhead must be some subspecies completely different from the landlocked rainbow, so best to just hit it up front...)

4. Kill all one and two-sentence paragraphs, poor form; blend them with something else.

checkY 5. It is rarely acceptable to say "trouts" - yet it's there. Even if there are some exceptions to the singular plural rule, it still looks horribly weird.

Fixed all instances in text for consistency. Interesting though that several of the sources actually use "trouts" in their title. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True that, though a lot of people who should know better also say incorrect things like "free reign" instead of "free rein" as well (my personal pet peeve, if you want to drive me to insanity...) Montanabw(talk) 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. checkY The Advocacy section will get hit at FAC for being a raw "listy" section. I'd kill it entirely, but you also could make it a narrative form and annotate a bit on why each group listed matters (and if others are left off, be ready to justify why...). Also there will be questions raised about all the redlinks, the significance/notability of each group, and (though annoying) someone might even ask if the list is too POV, i.e. are there organizations that oppose these groups, yada, yada, yada... I'd personally chop the section, and instead work the different groups into the text of the article in various places related to habitat, etc...

Removed section and added a few in Conservation section. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7. checkY The Conservation section may need to be rejiggered; again seems to put steelhead front and center; I think that the habitat loss, invasive species and whirling disease issues are of greater concern to rainbow trout generally and should go first; the status of the steelhead is important for steelhead, but I'd maybe put it last and consider making it a separate section that can actually be expanded a bit if it's in its own section. Saw this source, FWIW: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm

8. checkY I think you could pop in one or two more suitable images without cluttering the article, though the ones there may also need a bit of reformatting once you finish the text cleanup. I'd also see if commons has any more "rainbow-y" photos that show the rainbow stripe ore clearly than the current lead image (if it's as good as it gets, I understand, but...) And gee, I recognize that guy with the fish and the shit-eating grin! I would also point you to File:SteelheadRainbowTrout.jpg, a person with a steelhead (maybe add just to be fair). For that matter, if you want images of hatchery trout, including some whoppers (if, admittedly, at a hatchery with pinched fins, and some of them kind of freaky, but maybe that's illustrative too), I will note some other user who added them to (grinning) Giant Springs and some lovely scenery shots (heh).

Will be working on the images. It is interesting to note that the image you link above: File:SteelheadRainbowTrout.jpg is labeled as a steelheadrainbow, not rainbow. The original source is here: [10]. It was taken in 1995 on the Kenai River in Alaska (specific date unknown). Although steelhead are found in the Kenai, they aren't common. [11], [12] and most runs occur in the Fall. The location (Kenai river canyon above Skilak lake) and color of vegetation suggest this photo was taken in the summer and that the fish in all probability is just a resident Kenai rainbow. Oh the challenge of rainbow v. steelhead. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. Personally, I kind of wonder if the steelhead article should be re-created as a dab or something, seems like "steelhead' actually means "freaking big rainbow!" LOL. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. checkY You will need to wikilink some of the common fishing words, as to non-fisherpersons they may be viewed as jargon: spawn, game fish, hybridizing, etc.

There was a lot of overlinking in the pre-GA version. May have delinked a bit too many. Will continuing review to insure terms are linked at least once. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth found some good stuff to link, and I agree we don't have to link words in common use, but I also like to link to the most interesting topics, hybrid, for example. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10. checkY I'd do a bit more on where the rainbow is native and where it is introduced. Cutthroat fans consider rainbows an invasive species, may want to add a bit on that to the hybridization section; rainbows are viewed as the villains more than the victims on that one.

Here again, balance (honesty) is important. There's no doubt that introduced rainbows have severely disrupted indigenous species around the world. However, within the native ranges of the various cutthroat subspecies, the introduction of the Yellowstone cutthroat outside its native range has contributed more to the loss of genetic purity of other cutthroat subspecies than the rainbow. The rainbow certainly gets a lot of blame, but introduction of the Yellowstone cutthroat in non-native waters has caused, and continues to cause a lot of damage. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More reason to "teach the controversy" though. I agree that a wee bit more here is wise; also because rainbows are so widely stocked from hatcheries and for that reason also viewed as a problem by the purists. That said, as far as the Yellowstone/Westslope cutthroat issue, that's for a different article, not here. You touch upon the hybridization issue, maybe just toss in one more recent study outlining the degree and scope of the problem as applied to rainbows. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit about hybridization and the Westslope --Mike Cline (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
checkYWorks for me. Montanabw(talk) 01:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11. checkY Be sure to update the research on whirling disease; your newest source is 10 years old and the rest are older. The Myxobolus cerebralis article has a similar problem. But a search of Google scholar shows many articles have been published in the last 10 years

Am thinning this out, removing some POV language and updating sources. Some were dead links and some inaccessible. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12. checkY Make a table? I was realizing that the species list MIGHT benefit from being made into a table. That way, you can add more photos of specific fish without them spilling into succeeding sections. For examples of what I mean, in terms of format and syntax, see: Montana#State_symbols, Leopard complex#Patterns, List_of_Eagle_Scouts (fewer pictures, placed outside the box) or National Register of Historic Places listings in Gallatin County, Montana. I would be willing to help with this, or find the tabulation gurus who can. Some of the parameters of rowspan or colspan would allow a single fish photo to cross multiple rows, such as one "steelhead" photo covering multiple subspecies rows... I was just dinking around with that on my user page, if you want to see what I did with the section right under my table of contents. Montanabw(talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I have more thoughts or comments, I'll add them to the above list. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly what I had in mind! To tighten things up, I think that where you have one photo but multiple rows (like the redband ones), you could make the image span multiple rows and caption the one image with the subspecies name, so as to avoid a lot of empty squares. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it, I made one tweak, putting captions by images, if you like that, you can add to others. I think it helpful, though perhaps there is a better way to format it... Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

Hi Mike. I last went fishing at a plains lake west of Laramie in the early 1970s, and nobody would mistake me for a fisher-person. Likewise, I have no formal training in biology. On the other hand, I like streams a lot, and I have often written about them for Wikipedia. I would guess that I have added more than 100 links to rainbow trout over the years without knowing how good or un-good that article might be. I'm reading it carefully now, and here are some things I've noticed that you might find useful. I'll add comments about images first and then add more later.

Images

checkY In general, all the images and their licenses will be closely checked at FAC, and all the licenses have to be complete and correct. This can be quite a tiresome chore since various editors have uploaded the images and, even if they have given an URL for the original source, the dead URL problem may have appeared in the meantime. I often delay making a final selection of images until the article is pretty nearly done. It's best to make whatever images you choose fit entirely within the text sections and not overlap section boundaries in the way that the typical juvenile rainbow trout, File:Oncorhynchus mykiss 02 by-dpc.jpg now does. This can be fixed sometimes by deleting an image or images, sometimes by adding text or by merging short text sections to make a bigger section. Here are observations about the first three images; you can extrapolate from there.
  • checkY The lead image, File:Oncorhynchus mykiss.jpg, has problems with its license. The publication date is given as 1 May 1111, and the source link doesn't work. In addition, I don't know what is meant by the acronyms TERSH and OTRES. The correct link to the original appears in the green Fish and Wildlife Service tag further down, but the stuff in the main part of the license should be corrected.
  • The image of the redband trout, File:Redbandfish.jpg, is no longer at the URL listed on its license page at the Commons. However, it seems to be here, the third image down on this Forest Service page.
  • The third image,File:Oncorhynchus mykiss mid res 150dpi.jpg has a source link that goes to a general page rather than to the source page. I also note that the uploader says that the uploaded file is mid-sized and that a higher-res version is available at the source. The preferred method is to upload the highest-res image to the Commons to give a higher number of choices to end-users. I haven't found the one I was looking for, but here's one that might work.
  • If you wish for an image that you can't find online or take with your own camera, another possibility is to find an illustrated pre-1923 book at the library and scan, upload, and license images.

Finetooth (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am pretty comfortable with image licensing on the commons, so I'll start working on these or find others. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New images from my friends being added. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and other things

  • checkY I try in general to render lists as straight prose, but sometimes that doesn't make them easier to read. Another possibility is to create a table. I think that's worth trying with the "Subspecies" list. Something like the one in American black bear might work. I agree with User:Montanabw that the list of advocacy groups will never survive the FAC gauntlet in its present form but might survive as a more selective prose paragraph or paragraphs. Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've been watching with interest as you assemble the table. I think it is much better than the original list. Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the table is done, I'm wondering if the "Description" section should now be first, rather than the taxonomy section. I don't know if there is a WP:FISH rule on this, and I don't want to go against it, but by the old "tell the casual reader what they want to know first", describing the fish would be the logical first thing, and then the taxonomy section for the more dedicated scientific sorts. Your call, but I think it would be better that way. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiproject Fishes article format recommendation puts taxonomy immediately after the lead. BW, lets not try and change the world in on fell swoop. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that. Maybe have that link cocked and loaded at FAC, though, it might be needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some low-level proofing changes this morning, trying not to encroach too much.
  • Someone at FAC will check every citation for completeness and formatting. I added missing data to citation 9, but I see others that will need more data or other changes. To be safe and consistent, I would change all the article titles in the citations to Wikipedia house style even if the original source uses a different style. The citation 9 example is "50 years later, golden rainbows still 'a treat' for Mountain State fishermen" which I changed to "50 Years Later, Golden Rainbows Still 'A Treat' for Mountain State Fishermen".
checkY I think I've caught most of these little nit-picking things, but experience has taught me that I generally miss a couple no matter what. I have a question about citations 49 and 50. It seems unlikely that both the Nehring and Vincent articles in the 322-page whirling disease book would occupy only the same single page, 159. Could you take a look at that? Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't have access to the book, I verified the citations through other references. The Vincent page# is correct-159, the Nehring page number was incorrect. I've now changed to pp. 126-144. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Would it be useful to add some explanation of the other Latin words appearing in the fish names here? Pallid sturgeon, a featured article, adds this info to its "Taxonomy and etymology" section. Oncoryhnchus comes from the Latin onkos (hook) and rynchos (nose), it appears. You have explained iridia, but what about gairdneri? Does mykizha translate to anything in English?
Mykizha doesn't translate as far as I can tell into anything other than "rainbow trout" indirectly as it was just the term the Kamchatkan's used for the fish and it just got latinized to "mykiss".--Mike Cline (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I often learn by imitation; that's why I tracked down Pallid sturgeon to see how somebody else succeeded with a fish. Ocean sunfish is also FA, and there may be others.
  • checkY A few words or phrases that I would consider linking or briefly explaining include type specimen where it first appears in the "Taxonomy" section; "parr mark" where it first appears in the "Description" section; "fin clip", in the "Description" section, and fry, in the "Life cycle" section. "Fin clip" may seem obvious, but non-fishers might want to know why on Earth you would clip a fin.
  • checkY In the "Freshwater life cycle" section, the phrase "in other river types such as bedrock (limestone)" suggests that bedrock is always limestone, but it ain't. Delete the mention of limestone and add a link to bedrock?
  • checkYIn the "Whirling Disease" subsection, the $300 million Montana claim needs a time frame. Is that the loss per year?
  • Got more specific numbers and a current source. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY The direct external link to the Whirling Disease Initiative should be replaced by a citation to a reliable source. This link appears in the M. cerebralis map caption.
  • I removed the map graphic as it was inaccurate and out of date with current information. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY I find the list in the first paragraph of the "Mud snail" subsection confusing because of the punctuation. For example, Japan and the river in Iraq are nested together, but I'm not sure why. Could this sentence be recast to make the connections more clear?
That's all I have for the moment, but I might have further comments later. Use any (or none) as you see fit. Please ping me if my comments don't make sense. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hey Mike, I will try to put some comments in here once you've gotten through the existing ones. Have a great New Year. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jsayre64

Here goes, Round 1:

Lead

  • checkY In the second paragraph, "pounds" is first spelled out and then abbreviated. Be consistent everywhere in the article.
  • checkY The second sentence in the same paragraph is not complete. I would suggest moving the comma after "lateral line" to after "tail".
  • checkY Third paragraph: The list of regions in the second sentence shouldn't have an "and" between Australia and South America. That sentence also has some comma problems in the list and would benefit from being shortened/broken up.
  • checkY The last sentence of that paragraph would read better ending as: "such as the Great Lakes and Wyoming's Firehole River."
  • checkY What are "distinct population segments"? Just a particular group of fish? I've never heard that term before; it confused me.
  • Don’t get me started on the Distinct population segment thing. Although the term Distinct Population Segment is linked in the steelhead declines section, it is not a well-known concept among laymen. I first encountered it when starting to work on this and other Oncorhynchus related articles and I had to enlighten myself to its real meaning. I literally had to create Steelhead and salmon distinct population segments to sort out the truth about O. mykiss DPSs. The DPS, which as far as I can tell, didn’t exist as a scientific or taxonomic concept prior to the passage of the ESA (1965) is a contrivance by scientists, politicians, bureaucrats and environmental clergy to circumvent the traditional definition of “species” when needed in their quest to list species as threatened. DPS and Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) are essentially synonyms, but ESU is used primarily with Pacific salmon. I am unsure whether or not the DPS and ESU articles are NPOV or even accurate, but I do know that both concepts are not without controversy which isn’t mentioned in the articles. However, in the context of the rainbow trout article, using DPS is the only way to neutrally refer to steelhead or trout subspecies as either threatened or endangered. Blanket statements that "salmon and steelhead are endangered" (I’ve removed an number of these implications) are not neutral, nor factual, thus the need to refer to DPS and ESU. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now. I didn't notice that there was a whole article on that topic. Consider that addressed. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY As Montanabw recommended, avoid super-short paragraphs. At FAC, someone will likely whine about the end of the lead. The first one-sentence paragraph could go in the previous paragraph, perhaps starting as "Some species of rainbow trout itself are threatened or endangered…", and the second could be placed in the very first paragraph, somewhere down in the body, or nowhere.

Taxonomy

  • checkY As you did for Sir John Richardson, it would help to briefly describe who Walbaum was (say he was a taxonomist) and where Kamchatka is (avoid the redirect to "Kamchatka Peninsula" and say that that's in Siberia).
  • checkY If "Geology and Mineralogy" is a journal or the like, italicize it.
  • checkY Don't just put commas between each description of the Michigan scientists. Say "the Curator of Fishes", "a doctoral candidate", "at the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan".
  • checkYNot a big deal, but what about the rainbow's nose caused rynchos to be a part of the genus name?
I think this is covered in the taxonomy section. All Oncorhynchus adult males typically develop a hooked jaw (nose) during breeding. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Does the Lake Erie steelhead have a different scientific name that could be added to the caption of the second photo, or is it just a nickname for the rainbow trout of Lake Erie?
* misplaced adjective - its just a steelhead from Lake Erie --Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Jsayre64 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • These aren't specifically in the FA criteria, but important nonetheless: Checking the tools linked to at the top of this page, checkY Dablinks says that there's one redirect pointing back, checkY Checklinks indicates a handful of link issues, checkY and Altview detects very little alt text. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Steelhead redirect has to be the hatnote redirect, as it can't be found in the content. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jsayre64, thanks. Will address as required.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here know when to choose between fresh water and freshwater? My best guess is that fresh water is a noun expression and freshwater is an adjective. If so, those need to be fixed in the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think whoever wrote this sentence in freshwater fish got it right: "Freshwater fish are fish that spend some or all of their lives in fresh water...". Finetooth (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and it looks like Mike addressed this issue. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2:

Steelhead life cycle checkY

  • So the "summer-run" return to rivers in the summer and spawn the next spring? And the "winter-run" return to rivers in the winter and spawn there? The sentences on this confuse me, mainly those about the summer-run.
  • If most Columbia watershed steelhead are summer-run, in what area do the winter-run generally live?
  • For the last sentence, what does it mean that steelhead "spawn just like resident freshwater rainbows"? Is this sentence necessary?
Good questions. The answers complicated by two facts: 1) All rainbow trout (including steelhead) spawn in the spring (February - June) depending on location (There is some anomalous spawning in the fall in a few introduced populations). 2) Throughout its native range, Behnke estimates that steelhead are entering spawning streams somewhere in the range every month of the year. The terms "Summer run and Winter run" are the most prevalent, but "Fall and Spring run" are also used for some specific runs. The big difference is really the state of sexual maturity at the time the steelhead returns to freshwater. "Spring, Summer and Fall runs" are not sexually mature when they return, they mature while in fresh water. "Winter-run" are sexually mature when they enter fresh water. Regardless, they all spawn in the spring. Winter-run fish are generally found in shorter, coastal drainages (short swim to spawning ground) such as those on the Olympic Peninsula, whereas summer-run fish are generally found in longer, inland drainages such as the Columbia (long swim to spawning ground). This is also complicated by the fact that some summer-run fish in the southern ranges time their entry into fresh water associated with spring flooding. I'll see if I can clarify some in the text. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what does it mean that steelhead "spawn just like resident freshwater rainbows"?. Whether needed or not, this statement reinforces the fact that steelhead, once they enter fresh water, behave exactly like the rainbow trout they are.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had comments to post here until this section of the article. Things are looking good. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously impressed with what's been happening here, you folks have had a great collaboration, it's why we all like to edit wikipedia! This is going to be a great article when it goes up for FAC! Montanabw(talk) 06:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, just found some stuff on fish farming and added it to the Food section (which was short and needed some expansion anyway. Just have at what I wrote, hope it helped! Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Mike, I noticed that the last paragraph in the Range section and the third paragraph in Artificial propagation are basically the same content. I wanted to fix this myself but I'm letting you decide how it should look. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the duplicate paragraph. Not needed in propagation section. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
checkY While reading the Conservation section, I abbreviated the genus Oncorhynchus a few times, but I don't know if that was a smart move. It would be best for the article to be consistent somehow; I thought it was bit disruptive to the prose to spell it out each time. Maybe the genus could be spelled out at the first mention of each species and abbreviated each time further down? Jsayre64 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I abbreviated more instances of Oncorhynchus mykiss as O. m. for consistency. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe skim a few taxonomy FAs, but i think abbreviating after first use is pretty standard. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks ready for FAC if you want my humble opinion.--MONGO 15:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was thinking too. Finetooth (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the inputs and content work. I will close and archive the peer review this evening and nominate for FA if no one objects. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Full support here! Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished copyediting, but don't worry about that. On to FAC. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1804 Snow hurricane[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I spent a lot of time researching this article during my first few days back, and I'm proud to say that it's pretty much as comprehensive as it could ever be. Now that it's passed GA (and is classified as A-class), I'm hoping to bring it to FAC soon.

Thanks, Cloudchased (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13:

  • "The 1804 Snow hurricane (also known as the Storm of October 1804) was the first tropical cyclone worldwide in recorded history known to produce snowfall." - is the "worldwide" here necessary?
  • Meh.
  • "An unusual late-season storm in 1804, it yielded vast amounts of snow, rain, and powerful winds in the northeastern United States." - "in" → "across"?
  • Ding.
  • "and later transited near Georgetown, South Carolina." - this could be confusing. By definitions, transited means to pass through or across. It through/across near Georgetown, South Carolina?
  • Er, fixed.
  • "Soon thereafter, its abundant moisture clashed with an influx of cold Canadian air, leading to the deepening of the resulting pressure gradient and provoking inland intensification." - Whose abundant moisture? The trough or the hurricane? I think it's the former, but it's kind of hard to tell.
  • The storm's, actually, since Ludlum didn't mention the former in the latter source.
  • "While situated over Massachusetts, the gale attained its peak intensity of 110 mph (175 km/h), undergoing an extratropical transition as it drifted towards the Canadian maritimes, consequently gradually weakening." - gale...wuzzat? (wikilink it) This is a pretty long sentence and it doesn't flow well to me. Maybe combine the "consequently gradually weakening" and the final sentence of the first paragraph into 1 different sentence.
  • "Gale" implies the same meaning as "hurricane": keep in mind that the latter word wasn't in the English language at that time. :/
  • "Still, precipitation persisted for another two days before the snowstorm finally subsided on 11 October." - I thought it was a rainstorm too?
  • By the time it arrived in northern New England, it was producing all snow, and that is what's implied by that sentence.
  • "Due to its unusual nature, both heavy snowfall and strong winds caused a swath of devastation stretching from the Mid-Atlantic states to northern New England." - New England has a wikilink; those outside of the Northeast may not know what specific region this encompasses.
  • It was already wikilinked in the previous paragraph.
  • "In the Middle-Atlantic region, moderate damage was observed at sea but little occurred inland." - You mean, like, damage to boats?
  • Clarified.
  • "Thousands of trees were knocked over, obstructing roads and fiscally damaging the timber industry throughout New England." - You already note that you're talking about New England, so "timber industry throughout New England" → "timber industry throughout the region"?
  • Meh, I'm terrible with organization :p – fixed.
  • "Significant farm and livestock losses were also inflicted due to low temperatures, wet snow and high winds, which brought down branches in fruit orchards, froze potatocrops, flattened dozens of barns, and killed over a hundred cattle." - I'd suggest a reword, whether you take my suggestion or not... "As a result of cold temperatures, wet snow, and high winds, numerous branches in fruit orchards were downed, potato crops were frozen, dozens of barns were flattened, and over a hundred cattle were killed."
  • Reworded, but in a slightly different way; check the diff when I'm done.
  • "while structural damage was widespread but generally inconsequential." - I'm not sure if this is entirely necessary since you note how inconsequential it was earlier in the paragraph.
  • This bit sort of summarizes a bit of the impact.
  • "Dozens of watercraft were destroyed and multiple ships were swept ashore or capsized as an effect of the storm's high winds." - ships capsize because of water, not wind.
  • Blah.
  • "Several wharves were destroyed, subsequently harming local shipping businesses as a consequence." - what the hell is a wharve?
  • "Areas of Massachusetts received up to 7 inches (18 cm) of rain, in contrast to snow totals upward of 48 inches (120 cm) measured in Vermont." - I may be mistaken, but I believe you're supposed to abbreviate both units.
  • ...don't know how to do this with the convert template, too lazy to read docs, I'll see if I can fix these later
  • "The origins of the "snow hurricane" prior to its approach near New England are mostly unknown." - why use quotation marks here if you don't in the lead?
  • Meow.
  • "He also speculated that the storm could have formed from the southern Appalachian Mountains before arriving on the Atlantic coast, but given meteorological circumstances, characteristics, and timing, it was evaluated that the storm was of tropical origin." - The mountains are breeding storms now? O_O
  • Yes, and that it could have been an intense extratropical system; tweaked.
  • "The earliest evidence of a disturbance near the United States was noted on 8 October, when rainfall was recorded in upstate New York, precipitated by the storm's western periphery in advance of an emerging trough." - A nitpick, but "emerging" → "approaching"?
  • Fixed.
  • "The following morning, the though's motion near the Virginia Capes area was accompanied by intensifying winds and a change in their direction; initially southwesterly force 3, the incoming gale's winds rapidly turned towards the west-northwest, escalating to force 6 by the afternoon." - the what's motion? Is "area" after "Virginia Capes" necessary, since the Virginia Capes themselves are an area?
  • It's deliberate to note that it's not a town – most people outside of VA don't know about the Capes.
  • "Historical records chronicled the remainder of storm's track along the East Coast of the United States." - missing a "the"? (after "of")
  • Oi has wunnerful grammers, ho urr.
  • "A "dreadful squall" occurred near Cape Henry at noon, and historical documents confirm it quickly reached Chesapeake Bay later that morning, maintaining west-to-north winds." - what does that last part (west-to-north) mean?
  • Um, west → north? If you really want me to diagram it I will, but...
  • "The swiftly eastward-moving northern segment of the trough steered the course of the storm northeasterly due to a strong westerly circulation, leading it over New England." - I don't understand the part after "due"...
  • Reworded... ?
  • "As the hurricane weakened throughout the night, it underwent an extratropical transition, evidenced by a passageway of weak winds off of the trough's center." - wha?
  • Something about elongation... I don't get it. :/ I'll send you the text from Ludlum over on IRC later.
  • "The snow hurricane brought strong gusts, blankets of snow, and heavy rain throughout New England and across the Mid-Atlantic region." - not fond of the use of "blankets", it's not really encyclopedic. =P
  • ...yeah.
  • "Even farther north, entire swaths of forest were leveled, and heavy snow blocked roads, paths, and turnpikes." - how far north? Santa's workshop north or Canada north?
  • Hey, I've inched up from the Mid-Atlantic to Can... oh.
  • "A negative storm tide at Baltimore grounded multiple boats, and farther north at Philadelphia, an arriving ferry was inundated by a sudden gale." - what is a negative storm tide?
  • "The snow hurricane's impact in New York state was largely insignificant, though rain totals reached 2.27 inches (5.8 cm) in New York City,[7] while to the west in the Catskill Mountains, up to 18 inches (46 cm) of snow accumulated, despite reports of fast-melting snow at Rochester." - this is a big sentence with a good deal of commas. Let's incorporate a semicolon or two or just split it into two sentences.
  • Spli t.
  • "Shipping was slightly disrupted throughout the state of New York, with high winds forcing ships to travel with lowered sails, and also prevented vessels from docking at New York Harbor on 10 October." - for parallelism, "prevented" needs to become "preventing" to match "forcing".
  • Fixed and removed the preceding "and".
  • "In Boston, strong winds, described as "unprecedented in the annals" of the city, were documented during the afternoon of 9 October, blowing off the steeple of the Old North Church, which was eventually repaired and restored several times, was blown down by once more in 1954 by Hurricane Carol and mended yet again." - another big sentence.
  • Split ag ain.
  • "Churches and meetinghouses in Salem, Beverly, Charlestown, and Danvers were also seriously harmed." - "harmed" seems weird given the context.
  • Yeah. >:c
  • "A residence in Boston caved in, killing one person and injuring three others, and consequently was to be taken down." - it had to be taken down? But it caved in, meaning it did that itself..?
  • Like, dismantled.
  • "At the town of Lynn, the storm was reportedly the most severe since the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, with roofs torn off structures, fences and chimneys toppled, and orchards bearing the brunt of formidable destruction." - "At the town" → "In the town"?
  • Fixed.
  • "Despite being heavily occupied, the port at New Bedford fortunately experienced no losses of ships or boats." - fortunately adds a humanistic aspect to this article, which is a no-go.
  • I'm writing like this too much, now I'll have to copyedit Havana :( – er, wait, I was already planning to do that. :b
  • "Due to its unusual nature, the hurricane of 1804 set several major precedents which have only rarely occurred since then. " - do not deprive the storm of its awesome title. "the SNOW hurricane of 1804". :)
  • DUN DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUN.
  • "Other than that, there has been only one other confirmed snowfall event as a result of a tropical cyclone while still considered to be tropical, which was caused by Hurricane Ginny in 1963, generating accumulations of 13 inches (33 cm) in Maine." - "Other than that" → "Since that time"?

I believe that is all. Very nice job on the article, and good luck on your endeavor to get this to FA status! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thanks for the really thorough and comprehensive review! I'll send over the excerpt from Ludlum when you get on IRC today, and I'll also look into the {{convert}} templates as well. Cloudchased (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards 2013[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this for peer review because I feel this bellwether award deserves the best possible work I can provide. I based the formatting on the featured 61st Academy Awards with some guidance from the featured 2010 New Zealand Music Awards. My hope is to improve this list to make a bid for featured list status and to use any guidance or constructive criticism to improve the other film award articles I've been creating.

Thanks, Dravecky (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Speed 2[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review due to its importance in the realm of UK rail projects and the fact that the article has now grown to a fairly large size but is still graded at C. Additionally a number of contributors appear to be working on the page. Advice on improving the article and pushing it towards a higher grade would be appreciated.

Thanks, SheffGruff (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble (Natalia Kills album)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed its GAN and I've been advised to ask for any possible improvements to make it FA-class.

Thanks in advance, prism △ 18:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football in the Philippines[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a peer review because, association football has been a developing sport in the Philippines and has a rich history about it, dating back in the 1900s. I also want to promote this article at least to a good article.

Thanks in advance!, FairyTailRocks (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I started reading the article but I can't help editing some unclear and awkward sentence constructions in the lead section. --seav (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • You wanna make the paragraphs bigger and more solid like they are in the Early years section. Some of the later sections look a bit choppy as they are in small bits. – expanded some of them.

*Also a hundred years ago,... - use the date as this expression will become stale. – changed it into a date

*to renovate and upgrade football in the Philippines - err, it is not a hotel, try "to popularise football in the Philippines" – changed renovate into build, added facilities in that part.

  • The Filipinos easily fell in love with the game because of its competitive and action-packed nature. - how is basketball more competitive than football (or cricket...or chess for that matter??) - I'd drop that adjective - the sentence not sure about either - needs a ref in any case. – I've made some changes. Will that work?
  • There are a few grammar errors etc. I will try and fix some and highlight some more improvements.

Kayaking[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like someone to cast an experienced eye over it and give it an assessment (B, C etc.) with suggestions for moving it to the next level

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from User:PrairieKid[edit]

Howdy- Looking at the WP:Kayak criteria (which I feel is most appropriate), I think it is about "Start Class", leaning towards "C-class". In some places, it is closer to B and in others, it is closer to Start.

Refs: Some refs needed. Most are tagged, but there are a few more I am having trouble with. Cite. 4 does not cover everything in that paragraph. It doesn't mention the wooden kayaks comment, or many of the categorical stuff. Nothing in Configurations is cited. There are "Uncited Refs." which I have never seen and don't really understand. ***Start Class.***

Prose/Coverage: It does cover part of the topic, but needs a lot more. I would like a little more on the history of kayaking and possibly more on kayaking today. (The popularity of the sport.) Configurations seems to be the same as Design. It is well-written, though, which is nice and I don't notice too many issues with grammar. I am not too fond of the list at the beginning. I'll direct you to WP:List. ***Start Class***

It is a good start but it certainly needs more citations and more content. PrairieKid (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Tan[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a blind Singaporean Mandopop singer! Wikipedia coverage of Asian culture and disability needs improvement, so please support my quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by pointing out any and all ways that this article falls short of the GA criteria. This article is short, but interesting, and I hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thank you! 谢谢! Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Park Oval[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as one of the most prominent Test cricket grounds in the West Indies, I feel it should be higher than a Stub class. The article is Top importance to both the Cricket and T&T Wikiprojects, and I hope to get it to GA class.

Thanks, S.G.(GH) ping! 14:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts are it looks good for GA status, however I do suggest there could be some work done to improve it.

  • "Considered one of the most picturesque West Indian cricket venues" Considered by whom?
  • Lord Hawke is a redirect
  • Can we get a link to the earthquake becuse it is not clear in the article which earthquake it is referring to.
  • Queens Park Savanah doesn't need to be linked after the initial linked mention. Same with every other link.
  • Same as above with Lord Hawke
  • When you mention Marylebone Cricket Club, it is a good idea to have (MCC) next to it so others understand what you mean when you use the abbreviation.
  • "The Second Test of the MCC 1929-30 tour", grammar and capitalisation needs checking
  • India cricket team is a redirect. Check the other national teams too because they have the same redirect
  • Spacing needed after source 16
  • Source for Pakistan becoming a major force in cricket at the time?
  • "The First Test of the series saw Australia routed for 90in their first innings" Spacing and capitalisation need checking
  • "Australian WSC team" Needs either clarification or WSC in brackets after mention of World Series Cricket
  • "In 1981 the Queen's Park Oval hosted England and saw a commanding West Indian innings victory," WP:PEA
  • "Third Test" capitalisation.
  • Source 10, publisher?

These are issues I can see that will be picked up if you tke it to GA, but once you sort those, you should be able to be successful in your nomination. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that, CoE. I've made the amendments you suggest. With regards to a cite for "force in world cricket" the sentence actually referred to the West Indies, not Pakistan, so I've reworded the line to make it more clear and found a citation. As for capitalisation with First Test, Third Test etc. I believe there is an MoS entry at WP:CRIC which stipulates that this is how they should be capitalised, but I shall check and make sure the article is consistent. I'll check for over-links, and find a cite for the picturesque nature of the ground. Lastly, there does not seem to be an article for the quake that is mentioned in the article. It was only 5.1 or so, so it seems not to be included in the list of 2007 earthquakes. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foramen spinosum[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for GA and would like some feedback. Perhaps from Finetooth =D? All other feedback welcome!

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments

I'll start by expanding on my last disclaimer. As we move away from the ear, my amateur knowledge decreases. Nonetheless, I'm finding these anatomy articles to be truly interesting. Examining a Gray's illustration reminds me of reading a topographic map, which I enjoy. Here are my comments and questions:

Lead  Done

  • Eventually the lead should briefly mention the main ideas in the function and clinical significance sections and perhaps other sections if they grow longer.

Structure  Done

  • Link middle cranial fossa?
  • Two sentences in this section mention "scaphoid". One mentions the "spine of scaphoid", and the other says, "Posterior is the spinous process of the scaphoid bone." – This must mean the sphenoid bone since the scaphoid bone is part of the wrist. In that case, should these two instances be changed to sphenoid and the first one linked to spine of sphenoid bone?
Sorry, occasionally the word I　type and the word I intend to type don't match =P. Have fixed. Additionally, thanks for pointing this out. Have clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variation  Done

  • Link middle meningeal artery here on first use rather than later in the "Function" section?
  • "in almost half of people" – Would "in almost half the population" be better?
I think so. Have made the change. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development

  • "The sphenomandibular ligament, derived from the first brachial arch, may be found attached to the foramen." – I think the redlinked "brachial arch" must mean "branchial arch". To avoid confusion, could the term link to first pharyngeal arch, maybe with a pipe to "first branchial arch" or "mandibular arch"?
Rectified. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another problem with the sentence above is that it's hard to see how a ligament could attach to a hole. Is there a better way to say this? Maybe "is attached to the spine of the sphenoid bone near the foramen"?
Clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In animals

  • "In other hominids the foramen spinosum is found not in the sphenoid bone, but in parts of the temporal bone such as the squamous part, found at the sphenosquamosal suture, or absent." – Would it be better to use "squama" rather than "squamous part" and link it to squama temporalis and to make a separate sentence out of the last two words, thus: ""In other hominids the foramen spinosum is found not in the sphenoid bone but in parts of the temporal bone such as the squama, found at the sphenosquamosal suture. In yet other hominids the foramen spinosum is absent."
Have linked to the squamous part. Am not in big favour of the combined or Latin terms, as I feel these are even less accessible than normal anatomical terminology. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Function  Done

Clinical significance

  • Link to hemostasis (possibly piped to retain the alternative spelling) rather than haemostasis, the dictionary definition?  Done
  • How does the foramen spinosum help in achieving homostasis during trauma surgery?
(hemostasis) It may need to be explored in order to, presumably, occlude bleeding from the vessels within it (although this wasn't actually specified in the source). --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The Gray's template should be edited to produce Gray's Anatomy in italics. I can easily do that, but I'm reluctant to edit a template used in thousands of medical articles. One possible fix would render the book title in italics and remove the italics from the rest of the sentence. Another possible fix would italicize the whole sentence. Would either of these changes be helpful?
  • Citations 1 and 3 use different forms of date formatting. Either form is OK, but the guidelines call for internal consistency.
  • Citation 6 is incomplete.
Thanks for your noticing this. Citations 1 and 3 are both using the automatic wiki style, so I'm going to leave those, as I'm not aiming for FA status. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • The link to eMedicine Dictionary produces only a "No Exact Match Found" message.
Have removed this and one other link I don't think was that useful. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have at the moment. Again, Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FInetooth thanks again, I'm very grateful for your prompt and well thought-out reviews. There are two more articles I want to promote that may need reviews, but not yet :P. Thanks again! --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Lanes[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Kona Lanes has been created and built to reflect the best an encyclopedia can offer, and I need opinions other than my own to either confirm my belief or improve the article—or both.

Thanks, —ATinySliver|ATalkPage 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks pretty darn good. The lead section might need to be reformatted to reduce it to one or two paragraphs per WP:LEAD, and some of the one-line paragraphs in the main body are a bit awkward. Other than those small issues with style, it's a great submission. Good cites, good tone. Nice work! (Comments added by  —Josh3580talk/hist 14:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for the input. I'll check it out. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. My thanks again. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice! It's enjoyable to read, compared to the majority of wikipedia articles, although I suppose this may be because the tone feels a little more journalistic than encyclopedic at times. I think it suits the subject perfectly, though. The picture of the sign is the most strikingly iconic, maybe it should be in the lead section? Junkyardsparkle (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great comments, thank you—and, given that I was a journalist quite a few years back, that's a blessing and a curse when telling a story. As for the sign, I thought of that, but it seemed to make more sense paired up with the new image in its own section. I might try a couple of things, though. xD —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also, thanks to User:Candleabracadabra for his edits to the lead; it's smoother and more concise now. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 02:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a pretty well done and interesting article. There are some minor style points I would change, but generally it looks good. You might consider noting something about its architecture in the opening sentence. Don't bury the lead. I think the building design and signage is why this former building is worth noting? Take care and be well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good edit, and thank you. You too. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATinySliver (talk • contribs)
The sign picture in the lead gives an immediate sense of why a bowling alley might be notable subject for an article. I feel like the new picture of the sign in the museum could stand on it's own in the section about its preservation, just my opinion. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may? I tried that, and it didn't seem to have the same impact. Together, they serve as a stark reminder that this place no longer exists. IMHO. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't bother me either way, but being a wiki and all... be prepared for somebody coming along and "helpfully" applying the same logic. ;) Junkyardsparkle (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*snerk* but of course xD —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 06:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at it again and I think you're right. Change made. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dota 2[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I personally believe it is finally ready for Featured Article status after over four years of editing. I believe it fits the criteria of being well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, featuring attributes that abide by the style guidelines, features media and is of a proper length. This peer review is to ensure that all of Dota 2's ducks are indeed in a row, so please approach this in the same way you would approach a Featured Article nomination.

Thanks, DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs
  • Threaten me with a wrench or otherwise get my attention if I don't get something here by the end of this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, hafta' read what I wrote the last time. Anyhow, thoughts:
    • It might be good to give more of a high-level overview of the gameplay right at the beginning, since it's mentioned in the lead but not in the actual article that its a MOBA. I'd bring the peer vs. peer aspects up a bit earlier before diving into the scenario/map setting.
    • I think the development section could crib a few sources from the DotA article and explain the origins of the gametype, IceFrog's role in development, and its explosion in the eSports scene. As it is once again the article doesn't really draw up the WCIII relevance until later, in an order somewhat inconsistent with the lead.
    • To accommodate Dota 2, Valve worked to upgrade the Source engine to include new features, such as high-end cloth modeling, improved global lighting, as well as improvements to Steamworks, which includes a wider expansion of utilities, such as player guides and the coaching system - the coaching system isn't referenced before now, so it shouldn't be referred to with "the".
    • The article's overall layout looks much better since last I looked at it.
    • I think the prose could still use work, but I think that's much better accomplished by me actually digging in as opposed to nagging you and filling this page with stuff. Just expect it to take a while.
    • I'll take a look at references and possible sourcing issues if any on another pass sometime this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

École nationale supérieure de l'énergie, l'eau et l'environnement[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • I want a translator to proofread it.
  • To make suggestions for making the translation better.
  • The original french article, I believe, was followed faithfully. I believe WP Manual of Style must have been satisfied, although I am a noob on that.
  • I intend improving on the article, adding more content for verifiability and then attempt to increase its grading.

Thanks, Emekadavid (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Pope John Paul I[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article to GA or FA status at some point. I've made some improvements, but would like a new set of eye to provide direction to the article. During my first read through of it, I noticed a lot of readability issues, and I've tried to correct for some of that. I've also expanded the sections concerning his early life and tenure as Patriarch of Venice. Any direction provided would be considered helpful! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just some notes for you (sorry someone else hasn't reviewed the article).
  • The images are busy at the top of the article.
  • What's the date format? It's mostly dd mmmm yyyy dates, but I also see August 6, 1978.
  • See WP:LAYOUT for the standard layout. I noticed Further Reading, which should go after references, but it's best to check them all.
  • I noticed in the Moral theology there is a statement that starts "It is certain that John Paul I would not...". As not a lot of things are certain, I imagine this is someone's opinion and that needs to be attributed.
  • There are several paragraphs that are unreferenced: take a look at Humanising the papacy, Encyclical on devolution and Personality for example.
  • How big an issue are the Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories? Do they deserve a section? (Just asking)

Sorry this is short, hope it helps. Edgepedia (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Horne[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Kenneth Horne is one of the (slightly) unsung comedy greats of British radio comedy, who was at the centre of three of the BBC's most popular radio shows of the 1940s, 50s and 60s—Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh (1944–51), Beyond Our Ken (1958–64) and Round the Horne (1965–68). If that wasn't enough, he was a good businessman (including rising to chairman and MD of Chad Valley toys), a good sportsman (who played tennis with Bunny Austin and was on the same university relay team as the inestimable Lord Burghley) and a much loved and respected figure by all who knew him (except, possibly, wives and ex-wives). A trip to FAC is hoped for, unless the PR ratings are truly awful. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

  • Is Horne the playwright notable?
  • Not in the greater scheme of things, I think, but "our" Horne was mistaken for him more than once (it led to him getting married at one point)! - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, wouldn't working this into the prose be more reasonable? Especially since WP:Hatnotes defines hatnotes as linking to articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a bit more digging and found reference to him in a literary encyclopaedia and an obituary in The Times, so I've started a stub on him and tweaked the redirect accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack-Ack, Beer-Beer - notable?
  • Probably not (I think...) but happy for others to contradict. - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Mom notable? What kind of politician was she? Or was Dad being both a politician and evangelist the basis of the note in the lede?
  • Dad was both a preacher and MP. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case I think the lede needs to be clearer. "Born to a preacher and politician" sounds as if they are two separate people. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horne became a governor at the school. - Kenneth?
  • Yes. I've gone with identifying all other Horne's by first name and Kenneth by his surname. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • was sent down - Britishism? Does it mean "expelled"?
  • Even more local than that - it's an Oxbridge thing (and one other I think too). I seem to remember that there is more to it than just the wording, as one isn't technically expelled from the institution. Very vague, I know! - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, it was Durham university that was the other "sender down". I've linked for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austin Pilkington was aggrieved at Horne's failure to make the most of the opportunity he had provided, and he decided against offering him a post in the family firm. - Usage of he/him here may be confusing
  • Re-worked a little, which should now be clearer - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lady Mary Pelham-Clinton-Hope - Is she notable? Also, did Horne just say "yeah, we never consummated" or?
  • That was the wording on the divorce petition, which he did not contest or diagree wth. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a baby boy was born; he was stillborn. - repetition of the form "born"
  • In the initial months of the war, the Phoney War, - way to avoid war - war?
  • compere - worth a link?
  • Is Merry-Go-Round notable?
  • Same as Ack-Ack, Beer-Beer, probably not but happy for others to contradict. - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Desert Island Discs - italics, right?
  • In the same year, Much Binding came to the end of its run. - didn't you have a footnote about this earlier?
  • Indeed - and only a few lines before! The second reference now removed - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the first series Moody was succeeded by Bill Pertwee; Took left after the second series, leaving Merriman to write the remaining programmes on his own. - shouldn't we mention that the programme was extended first?
  • his own series of Trader Horne, - is this correct in BrE?
  • Bolivian Sex Goddess - caps in original?
  • Too many sentences starting with time references in #Legacy
  • Slight tweak, so that only two of the paras start with it now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a master of the scandalous double-meaning delivered with shining innocence" - Any examples?
  • Loads on the primary sources! I'll dig out some secondary ones. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a goodie, which I've now added. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • link man - quoi?
  • On the first day of recording the new show, Williams wrote in his diary of Horne that "I miss him dreadfully. I could weep for all that goodness gone from our atmosphere at the show". - sounds like the diary was about nothing but Horne
  • Quite the reverse : Williams's diaries tended to focus on himself so much, that good info on others is often hard to come by! - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I'd go "On the first day of recording the new show, Williams wrote in his diary that "I miss [Horne] dreadfully. I could weep for all that goodness gone from our atmosphere at the show". That would remove any ambiguity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • siring - no horses, so not encyclopedic I think
  • Many thanks, Crisco! I'll work on these later today and tomorrow. All very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All covered now, I think! Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome. Don't forget to ping me when the FAC starts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton[edit]

First instalment: possibly more a little later today, but then I'm away for a couple of days. I enjoy reading about Horne, who I remember from my schooldays.

Lead
  • "Upon his demobilisation..." jarred a bit. Recommend "After demobilisation..."
  • "sideline" should not be hyphenated
  • Recommend delete "in order" (a generally disapproved form - check for others)
  • "alongside by" → "alongside"
  • "one of the seminal comedies to come out of the BBC": this quote is included and cited in the main text. In the lead a brief (uncited) paraphrase will suffice.
  • "His death brought an end to Round the Horne, which could not continue without him, although the series has been regularly re-broadcast since". This feels lumpy and a bit redundant, and the "although" modifier is dubious. I would simplify to "Since his death the series has been regularly re-broadcast".
  • "listener's" → "listeners' "
  • All tweaked, changed and altered. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • I think it is necessary to give the subject's full name in the bolded section at the beginning of the lead. When the subject is known by a different version of the name, you can add parenthetically, in the first lead sentence: "generally known as [the popular name, in this case Kenneth Horne]".
  • I don't want to be too pernickety, but Katherine was not "The Hon" until her father became a peer in 1914. Thus she wasn't "The Hon" when Kenneth was born.
  • Much of the first three lines of the second paragraph, concerning Silvester, seems overdetailed to me, and would be better condensed into a couple of brief sentences.
  • "he was given the opportunity to go to" is somewhat verbose. "he was able to attend"?
  • "went up" is I think purely English idiom for going to Oxford or Cambridge (I don't remember "going up" to my less exalted university), and the term may not be understood by non-Brits.
  • "at rugby and in the relay team, alongside Lord Burghley": as punctuated, this reads as though Lord Burghley was a member of the rugby team, which I doubt. Reposition the comma after "rugby". Also, since Burghley was a hurdler, I'm curious to know the nature of the "relay team" – I'm sure they don't have hurdle relays.
  • (Punctuation part done). Difficult to say entirely: Hackforth tells us that Horne "shone in athletics, particularly as a hurdler", and Johnston says that Horne "became a member of the Magdalene College relay team alongside the great Lord Burghley". Our own article on Burghley shows him winning Olympic (and Empire) medals for both hurdles and relay). - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This site indicates that Burghley was a member of the 1928 4 x 400m Olympic team, so I imagine this was the team that Horne participated in at Magadlene, but the point is not really worth further research. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Among his athletic exploits, he had neglected..." Not sure about this wording; I'd be inclined to rephrase.
  • (Aside) re first marriage: I wonder in what respect it was "at first happy", in view of Horne's failure to live up to his name?
  • To paraphrase Horne, if I see another double entendre, I'll whip it out! - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All aspects covered as suggested. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Service in the RAF
  • Slight chronology problem in the first para. The details of his promotion should be given after the sentence beginning "In the initial months of the conflict..."
  • We have "flight lieutenant" and "Flight lieutenant"
  • One is use as a general descriptor, one in a formal title—it's one of the WP:MILTERMS things. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horne arranged for Murdoch to be promoted to squadron leader and posted to his department at the Ministry": I don't know how the source words this, but I think it probable that Horne was able to arrange the transfer, and that the promotion went with Murdoch's new post. Middle-ranking officers cannot normally "arrange" promotions.
  • Both main sources are rather vague on the point, so I've moved it into a similarly nebulous form. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inserted snatch of dialogue is not related to the text. If it is here as a general sample of the show's humour, it should be within a side "quote" box, rather than mid-text. And I'm sorry, but...is this as funny as it gets?
  • It's as funny as the reliable sources can get at the moment. I'm still digging around to find something more suitable (and amusing!) - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done up to here - many thanks for taking the time to go through this! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
Postwar, a double career
  • "return to civilian life" is not worth a link
  • "he further progressed a television career": This transitive verb form doesn't read well in English prose – it sounds like management-speak. I think I would recast this entire sentence, which is choppy, full of sub-clauses, and hard to take in.
  • "By the fourth series of Much-Binding in 1950, the listener figures had declined to a concerning level for the BBC": Again, oddly awkward phrasing. Perhaps "to a level that concerned the BBC", but it might we worth trying a few further tweaks.
  • When you say the BBC chose to "terminate the programme", that suggests they cancelled it mid-series. Is that what happened? Or did they let the series end, and not recommission it?
  • I'm not sure that a joint appearance on Desert Island Discs in 1952 could be said to "cement" a comedy partnership which was at that stage pretty well set in concrete, as a result of Much-Binding etc
  • "The show was broadcast in October 1957, and Horne was joined by..." The "and" conjunction is wrong. Replace with semicolon or recast sentence ("The show, in which Horne was joined by ... was broadcast in October 1957".)
A single career
  • "He went on to tell to tell Horne..." Verbose. ("He told Horne...")
  • "all plans for Beyond Our Ken were immediately suspended" - neither the "all" nor the "immediately" are neessary.
  • "Horne eased himself back into broadcasting as chairman of Twenty Questions in April, which showed the BBC enough evidence of his recovery that Beyond Our Ken began recording in June, in preparation of the broadcast of series one between July and November". Too long, and with some slightly dodgy grammar. My suggestion: "In April 1958 Horne eased himself back into broadcasting as chairman of Twenty Questions. This evidence of his recovery was sufficient for the BBC to begin recording Beyond Our Ken in June, in preparation for the broadcast of series one between July and November".
  • What is meant by the "first edition"? Is this the first "episode"? What is a "sample audience" – do you mean a sample of listeners, or is this a special group on which the show was tried out prior to briadcasting? Is there any reason why a programme that was not initially well received should be extended from six to 21 episodes, and then recomissioned? You probably need to insert something like: "but the BBC decided to back Horne and his team, and..."
  • Try to avoid using semicolons in successive sentences (this is definitely a pot-kettle situation, I admit!)
  • The phrase "came to an end" is used twice in quick succession, referring to the demise of Beyond Our Ken. I'd begin the paragraph: "The seventh series of Beyond Our Ken finished in February 1964, with..." etc
  • I'm not sure that encyclopedic objectivity allows the use of loaded descriptions, e.g. "dreadful", "outrageous" etc
  • I've taken out "dreadful", and found an academic source that actually uses the words "outrageously 'camp'"! - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was much weakened by the attack, and was unfit to work for three months, which included not taking part in the Round the Horne Christmas special." I don't think "included" can cover things that didn't happen, e.g. "My life has included not climbing Mount Everest". Needs rewording.
  • Something has gone wrong with the prose here: "Three weeks after the fourth series of finished, Horne A'Plenty was broadcast on ITV." Also, as Horne A'Plenty was a series, not a single programme, you should say "the first episode of...".
Death and tributes
  • "but had stopped taking them" → "but had stopped taking it"
  • "just" twice in third line
  • "The televised version of the event..." I think you mean "The televised recording of the event"
  • Personal view: the "whip it out" joke is really a bit old and stale now – do we want this to be Horne's identifying line, particularly in view of the graceful tributes that follow? I think, by the way, you could paraphrase Jennings a bit; 90 words is rather too long.
  • Probably not. I've whipped it out (sorry, couldn't resist—promise it will be the last time). - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Persona and technique
  • Not sure about this heading. A "persona" is a character in a play (as in "dramatis personae") or an assumed identity. Horne was Horne – he wasn't a character in a play, nor was his identity assumed. It seems to me that his technique was to be exactly himself in every situation, however absurd it might be. Probably "Technique" would be enough as a heading
  • Duplicated words: "but very personal"
  • "Academics Frank Krutnik and Steve Neale..." Tim will pick you up on this. It's American or tabloid usage – good English usage requires a "the" before the description. I'm not sure that "academics" is the best description for this pair, given that Stephen Neale is the name of a well-known academic philospher, which might confuse. I'd describe them as "The media analysts..." or some such.
  • This pair both "see" (present) and "considered" (past). Tense consistency is necessary.
  • I think "Referring to..." rather than "Describing" his ability with voices
Legacy
  • I've got my doubts as to whether the content of this section presents a "legacy", though I can't offhand suggest a better title.
  • Give date (or at least year) for the Fantabulosa film
  • What, briefly, was the nature of Round the Horne – Unseen and Uncut?
  • Delete the "then" which starts the next sentence.
  • "unproduced" → "unbroadcast", to avoid misunderstanding? And if it had never been performed, it could not have been "revived" in 2009.
  • "The show was recorded at the Radio Theatre, Broadcasting House on 10 June 2009 and first broadcast on 1 September." Perhaps too much detail here – more than you've given for any other broadcast.
  • "Horne has since been made the subject of two biographies..." Since what, or when? Suggest delete.
  • Comma required after "BBC4 Extra".

I have not checked out the tables or the footnotes. As to the text, a little more general polishing should have everything in order. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, as per suggestions. Many, many thanks for your time and effort on this: it is, as always, very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oar stuck in by Tim riley[edit]

I shall be reviewing this, but am waiting till all, and even sundry, have had their say, as this is a topic on which I feel very strongly and shall wish to spread myself. Meanwhile I'll tether my nadgers to a grouting pole, for the old grey mare is grunging in the meadow. Well better there than here; it makes so much work for the char. Tim riley (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I shall look forward to reading your comments when all others have cleared the field, and after you've finished wurdling your glowing possets round your russet-banger. Pip pip! - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I shall be out of action until about Monday, so there's no need to ait for me to finish if you have time this weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor points by Edgepedia[edit]

This guy was just before my time, but I read through the article and have a few minor points:

  • Shouldn't there be a comma before the which in the second paragraph of the lead?
  • General strike: I get 'services' repeated above each other on subsequent lines. How about "During the general strike in 1926 volunteers..."
  • "Mary filed for divorce ... the marriage was annulled." To me the 'filed' sounds American and I would say applied. Also divorce and the annulment of a marriage are different - unless she had an incompetent solicitor Mary would have applied for an annulment.
  • All tweaked now to her applying for an annulment. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit unsure about the position of the full stops before or after the quotation marks in some of the quotes.
  • Should be OK: I've used the full stop before close where both the quote and I close the sentence, and after the quote marks where the quote hasn't included the stop. - SchroCat (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think emdashes and endashes, when used to divide sentences, shouldn't be mixed in an article (See WP:ENDASH)
  • Never heard it called that before! Thanks for the link - and for the review too. All done except one, which I want to check the sources about tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final point now checked - all done. Many thanks for your thoughts, and the copy edits too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim[edit]

First batch. More to come.

  • Lead
    • I'm leaving this till after I've read the rest.
  • Early years
    • Ampthill Square – I've just looked it up, and it's a stone's throw from Mornington Crescent. Perfect symmetry. I'd suggest you mention the general area, but I'm blest if I know what to call it. It's not quite Somers Town, not quite Camden Town. Best left alone, perhaps.
    • "Horne attended St George's School, Harpenden" – as a boarder I imagine: rather a trek from Mornington Crescent every day for a schoolboy
    • "Horne joined the LSE" – "joined" seems not quite right, as though the LSE was an open-access institution. Something like "was admitted to" or "enrolled at", maybe?
  • Service in the RAF
    • "Horne's duties were small" – "few" or "undemanding" rather than "small", possibly?
    • "the station commander of Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh"; with much in common" – much too much in the way of muches. Perhaps "a great deal in common"?
  • Postwar, a double career: 1945–58
    • "which they both wrote" – I don't think you want the "both" here
    • "Murdoch and Horne further again appeared" – I'd lose "further", I think
    • BIF para – is there nothing of interest to mention between his joining and its closure? Seems a bit bald as it is. I haven't got my copy of Hackforth to hand, but I seem to remember he got a bit of mileage out of KH's business dealings. What about his reluctance to talk show biz at work, and his "Feel free to call me Mr Horne"?
    • the compere on Variety Playhouse – a word or two on what this show was would help here.
  • A single career: 1958–69
    • Again from memory, wasn't he speechless for a while? Do I recall a merciless masseur and his joy when he wrenched KH too hard and KH shouted, "You bugger!"?
      • I'll avoid making the ribald comment this deserves... - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twenty Questions – definitely needs itals and possibly there's an article to link to.
      • It's linked in the section above, but this one now in italics. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop now, till I can get at my bookshelves this evening and write less speculatively here. Tim riley (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, bar the BIF, which I'll beef up shortly. Many thanks for your comments so far - I hope I've jogged a few humorous memories for you and Brian with this! - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch:

  • A single career (continued)
    • "broadcast of series one" – no real need for consistency in such a matter, but earlier and later you use "the first series" form rather than "series one".
    • "when he was surprised by Eamonn Andrews in central London" – is today Try to Slip a Double-entendre Past the Producer Day? Readers unfamiliar with the modus operandi of This is Your Life might very well wonder exactly what Seamus was doing to cause Horne such surprise ("Good heavens, I thought you could only get those in Tokyo".)
      • Sorry—I'm always trying to slip one in somewhere or other! - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They included…" – Not sure of your policy on full stops: you have given J. Peasemold Gruntfuttock one (be quiet, Williams!) but not Dr Chu En Ginsberg.
  • Death and tributes
    • "at The Dorchester" – I don't think the definite article should be capitalised. The WP article is in two minds about it, I see, but I'd go for lower case.
    • I don't know that I'd have linked Martian.
  • Legacy
    • Two points about Barry Took's second wife: first, were they actually divorced or was she technically his widow? Secondly, the ODNB spells her first name as Lynn, not Lyn, though I suspect the ODNB is wrong. I merely mention it.
      • As far as I can see, widow: they were separated, not divorced, and widow matches the sources. I have tweaked to show this. I think the ODNB is out of step here: the weight of other sources suggest Lyn. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Horne has been made the subject of two biographies" – I'd drop the "made", I think.
    • "and, 30 years later" – as you give the dates of both books this phrase seems unnecessary (as well as arithmetically dodgy)
  • Notes
    • a. a governor of rather than at, I'd say
    • b. It wasn't the balloons that were the target audience, so much as the crews
    • l. This touching line seems to me too good to be tucked away in the notes: might you consider moving it to the main text?

Finita la commedia! I cannot tell you what pleasure this article has given me. First rate stuff! On to FAC, please. Tim riley (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought, as brain catches up with eyes: are you quite sure it's "Chu" not "Chou" en Ginsberg? Tim riley (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done, bar one, the technicalities I'll run past you on the talk page. Many, many thanks for your comments here and the ones on my talk page and email too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR: a huge thanks to all who took part in this. I found it extremely useful, and the article is in much, much better shape than before. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of China[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prep it for GA status.... As of now, the grammar is not the best, but I'll be working on that. --TIAYN (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

  • My concern is that this article's lede is so short, particularly given the length of the rest of the article. For instance, it does not mention Mao Zedong (surely an omission) and does not go into any discussion of the ideological background to the CPP. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention the 18th National Congress, but not the date in which it took place, which should be fairly important here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • One of the main sources used here is ""History of the Communist Party of China". Xinhua. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2014", which seems to me to be the product of the Chinese state news. We can do better than that, surely ? Let's get some academic historical accounts of the CPP history in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

  • This page could probably do with more images; for instance, could we use an image of Mao, or Deng, or any of the CPC's founding members ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very long. Most of that is necessary, I appreciate, but when sections such as "Party-to-party relations" are considerably longer than that on "History", then I think that we have some problems on appropriate weight. Branch some of these sections off, creating articles devoted solely to them, and then edit this page down as a result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Midnightblueowl: First, do you really think "party-to-party relations" is notable enough to have its own article? Secondly, the article is currently missing sections on the Communist Youth League, a separate organization controlled by the CPC (according to the party constitution) and the People's Liberation Army, the armed wing of the CPC... Of course, I'm planning to create an ideology titled Ideology of the Communist Party of China, or Ideology of the party and state of China (which isn't as clear, but the PRC is officially committed to all these ideologies).. And while I know the "History" section is short, many things could be expanded; the "Economics", "Politburo", "Secretariat", "Central Commission for Discipline Inspection" etc etc.. Of course, I understand what you're getting at. --TIAYN (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that there's certainly enough material to create a fledgling "International party relations of the CPC" page. How many other people would read it is another matter, but it would certainly help clear up problems of weight on this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page could do with a thorough copy edit from someone more talented at that than I. For instance, where we say "The CPC, as an officially atheist institution, prohibits party members from holding religious beliefs", it would be shorter to state "The CPC is officially atheist, and prohibits its members from holding religious beliefs." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on that, and the article is currently listed on the Guild of Copyeditors (it was nominated in early December)... So, help will come soon. --TIAYN (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)--TIAYN (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Rivers[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am interested in taking this article all the way to Featured Article status. I know it needs work and I would like this PR to focus primarily on getting it to A level first, with extra comments on FA. Looking at the criteria, I so far think I need to work a little bit on the prose, although I'm not entirely sure where. It may be tough, but I'm willing to put in the work.

Thanks very much! PrairieKid (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to look over comments. PrairieKid (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I've tweaked the lead a little, and run auto-mated things like AWB, disambiguation link checkers, and the citation bots. No issues so far. I'll trawl through for typos and tweak prose here and there I'm sure if that's okay, and any thoughts I'll put here. I'm on night shifts for the next two days so might be a little slow replying. --S.G.(GH) ping! 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Having a copyedit with someone else's eyes is exactly what this page needed!

  • Early life and career
    • Obviously there ought to be more here as and when we find sources, it leaps from birth to 1992 in about four lines, and the part about being considered to replace Mr. Curtis - do we know why? where? by whom? What made her stand out? but I appreciate sources may be scarce.
I'll try to find more here. I changed the stuff on Mr. Curtis a little. As to the early life, I know based on having met Senator Rivers and hearing ads and the like, but am having trouble finding reliable resources. Still trying though. PrairieKid (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "she founded AMR consulting, a public relations and government affairs consulting firm" - do we know when?
Yes. In 1992 when she helped Bill Williams run for office.
    • "Rep. Richard Curtis" - probably best to avoid the abbreviation.
Done.
    • "Rivers also worked for some time as a 6th grade teacher" needs to be set into chronological order ideally if we know when. Before or after AMR Consulting? Where also?
Not sure where... Will look for more sources. I think it was both in Alaska and Washington (that would fit in with the rest of her life), but I am not sure. PrairieKid (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New information just came out about Rivers. Will update other areas of article and return. PrairieKid (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • State House of Representatives
    • "Her website listed communication as being vital as a state representative" this probably isn't particularly groundbreaking, unless she has been singled out by 3rd party sources as being particularly skilled in this area.
Fair enough. It has been removed.
    • Certainly there will be more on her career during 2010-2012, would need quite a bit more content if you're going to go for FA. A relevant Wikiproject might be able to help you with sources, as may articles on her colleagues at the time to help with chronology/finding sources online.
Added a little bit of content... Still working on it. 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • State senate
    • First line starting "In June 2012..." runs on a little. And the 'She' ought to say 'Rivers' as you're focusing back on her after a sentence on Zarelli. I know the pronouns show who it is you're referring to, but the name may sound better.
Done.
    • Also the sections on tenure might benefit from being grounded in chronology, giving dates when she voiced her concerns about the bridge, when she voiced her climate concerns, etc.
The bridges have been a focus throughout her tenure. The specific dates are in there. I moved the content about the economy to the election section.
    • Do we know what month she was selected for the Council of State Governments?
No, but I replaced it with "early" which I think helps...?
    • "The academy is training institute" is missing an "a"
Fixed.
    • "In November 2012, shortly after winning her term" hang on, which term are we talking about now. Particularly for someone not familiar with the US political set-up, it might be confusing which position we are talking about her. The sentence also doesn't need the second comma after "leadership".
Done.
    • The para beginning "Rivers introduced a bill in February..." is a good example of how to ground the prose into a chronology by linking in dates, etc. Good stuff. Good use of factual content and rebuttal from her detractors, too. Any media responses also?
Thanks! The only reactions I can find are Letters to the Editor about Rivers, if I understand what you mean.

Thank you for reviewing this for me! I am not sure I will be able to get it to FA level, but will certainly do my best and improve it! PrairieKid (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay! The only other one I can think of at the moment is that the personal life section needs expansion - if you are going to have one, that is. I'm not a fan of them myself as I think the content can go into the correct chronological positions in the rest of the article, but that is my own preference and not an FA criteria. Good article, well done! S.G.(GH) ping! 12:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: do we have her maiden name anywhere? It can go in the lead after her married name, and also in the PERSONDATA. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pelarmian

I've been invited to peer review this article. I'm unfamiliar with the topic and don't know much about US politics. The article is clearly written and set out in a logical order and is written in an encyclopedic tone. It's a good example of how a WP:BLP should be written. It reads like a CV, listing facts about the senator's career, electoral campaigns and bills supported, etc., but it doesn't give much information about her political opinions, her values or where she stands politically within the Republican Party. The views of others - colleagues, opponents and political journalists, for example - on her generally, in addition to their views about particular pieces of legislation, would also enrich the article. Pelarmian (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning Around[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been cleared for GA class and I want to nominate it for FAC further, since it's such a monumental song in Kylie's career. Before nominating it, however, I'm sure there are some issues to be resolved and some improvements to be made, which I hope someone will point out. Please don't take up the review only if you want to point out minor mistakes in some minor section, as this might mislead potential reviewers who won't take up the review thinking it's already happening. Thank you, and you have my full cooperation.

Thanks again, WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/January_2014&oldid=597620877"