Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2009

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.

Baby Jesus theft[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 GA reviewed it a while ago and passed it after some improvements. There have been almost no edits to it since then. I'm wondering now about its Featured Article prospects, if an article on this topic could realistically be FA.

Thanks, PSWG1920 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Enjoyable read, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to a possible run at FAC - I think this needs a lot of work before it would anywhere near ready for FAC.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and per WP:LEAD should be at least two paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Look carefully at the Featured Article criteria - in my opinion the two hardest for this article to achieve will be professional English (difficult for most articles) and Comprehensiveness.
  • As for language, it is decent, but sentences like Washington DC journalist Daniel Nasaw of the online presence of Britain's The Guardian notes that dozens of communities across America have suffered thefts of Baby Jesus figurines, and, in some instances, entire nativity scenes. need to be pruned, so perhaps something like Journalist Daniel Nasaw of the Britain's The Guardian notes that dozens of communities across America have had thefts of Baby Jesus figurines, and, in some instances, entire nativity scenes. What does it add to the reader's understanding that he is based in Washington DC? Suffered seems pretty POV too.
  • Comprehensiveness is also a concern - the article cites only examples from the USA that I recall, but Christmas Natitivy scenes appear in other ocuntries as well - is this a problem in other lands? Plus the article is limited in time too - except for the TV show, all the incidents seem to be from the past year, what sort of history is there? Even the lead says plastic or ceramic figures, but what about wood or fiberglass or plaster? Also what about other religious statue vandalism - I saw a thing on TV recently that statues are beheaded with some frequency, often religious.
  • There are several places where the article could do more to provide context to the reader. A few sentences or paragraphs even on the history of Christmas Nativity scenes would probably help. Or what sort of legal penalties are possible for such thefts?
  • There is a scene in the movie Diner (film) involving such a theft
  • Just googling the title of this article Google News there are 729 hits between 2001 and 2008 here, so I think there are lots more such stories out there. To become featured I think it would really help to find scholarly work on the phenomenon, there are about 600 hits on Google Books (many do not seem to be directly related though).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of Germany[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 undergone a major rewrite to accommodate discussion history. In particular, I'd like to know points where it needs clarification or expansion, and other material that should be included. Ideally, I'd like it to be an "A" of some kind.

Thanks, --20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Auntieruth55 (talk)

Some comments from casliber[edit]

ok, I know very little about the subject, but I will jot some ideas here: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*there remained in the German states an overarching and commonly experienced linguistic, cultural and legal tradition further enhanced by the experience of German speaking Europe in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. - badly worded - took me three goes at reading it to figure out what it was saying..and should be simple (?)

simplified --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Avoid bullets in lead. Just make a para
done.

* Before 1806, the German lands... "German-speaking?"

reworded the whole sentence so that "German-speaking" doesn't appear twice. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their governance also differed in type --> should be a smoother alternative but none readily springs to mind.
how about: Their governance varied: they included free imperial cities such as Nuremberg, ecclesiastical territories such as the Abbey of Reichenau, and dynastic states like the Württemberg.  ?? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*A common language may serve as the basis of a nation, but it takes more than language to unify several hundred polities. - sounds speculative, like an essay.

not sure what to do here. This sentence is the essence of what Fichte said (in the quote above it). I've created a compound sentence with the one following (experience of German-speaking people during the years of French hegemony...)(see below), to create a less essay-like topic sentence. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The experience of German-speaking Central Europe during the years of French hegemony contributed to a sense of common cause. - expand and explain here, people seeing themselves as German rather than Prussian or belonging to a city-state etc.
That isn't what I meant at all. I've reworded the sentence, would you see if it makes sense now? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Despite the nomenclature of "Diet" and "Assembly," this institution should in no way be construed as a broadly, or popularly, elected group of representatives. --> "Despite the nomenclature of "Diet" and "Assembly," this institution in no way resembled a broadly, or popularly, elected group of representatives." fact, not speculation. Might want to elaborate here too.

"Despite the nomenclature of "Diet" and "Assembly", this institution should in no way be construed as a broadly, or popularly, elected group of representatives. Many of the states did not have constitutions, and those that did, such as the Duchy of Baden, based suffrage on strict property requirements which effectively limited suffrage to a small portion of the male population." (plus citation)--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*The Austrian statesman, Metternich... - First mention should have his first name

ummmmm, the sentence before does have the full reference, and the link to the Wikipage.... And yes you're right, the first mention should.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read till The Vormärz and the 19th century liberal movement (note to self) back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you SOOOO much!--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is heavy going for me; first bit looks much better now, but I am unfamiliar with this area (modern history, political theory, and sociology). Have read to Austro-Prussian War. More questions later. Interesting as I had no idea why Germany and Austria were separate....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix[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 get it to GA, then possibly FA status. One thing I think needs to be done is for content to be shortened a little, at the moment the page stands at a wopping 57 kb, quite higher than the other 1995 race reports! Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Brazilian Grand Prix/archive1.

Nicol David[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 am interested in listing it as an Featured Article, but was advised to get some more feedback as it does not meet the criteria for FA inclusion.

Thanks, Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ricardiana (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ricardiana

Sources

  • Footnote 2 is to Facebook and cites info already cited to footnote 1. Should be removed.
  • I see most of your citations are to web sources, mainly Squashtalk, etc. I don't know how FAC will feel about that. I don't think there are other sources, however. If you would like to take this to FAC, I suggest you a) get the opinion of someone who knows more about sources & FAC than me, and b) be prepared to justify why these are good sites.
  • The footnote to David's alternate name should explain it as well as giving the source.

Tables

  • These are very helpful and nice. However, the section on "Other titles" goes in reverse chronological order, while other tables and lists go in chronological order. This confused me for a minute, and I think they should be consistent. I also think it would be worth considering whether the "Other titles" info could also be put into a table, since many of the titles she's won multiple times. (If you put the info into a table, you could then use a single footnote at the head of a column, rather than repeating the footnote over and over.)

Recurring prose issues

There are a number of grammatical issues. I've listed them, with an example after each. I suggest printing the article out and copyediting for one problem at a time - go through once and just look for switches in tense, for example. Sometimes it helps to read backwards, paragraph by paragraph.

  • Verb tense. There a number of switches in tense; here's an example: "before eventually going down to a rare defeat in the final of the British Open to Australian Rachael Grinham in a gruelling five sets final that ends in 87 minutes." There are also a number of incorrect verbs: "Nicol then start to progress at the very last month of the year"; "Nicol were the losing finalist"; "She end up losing to Cassie Jackman".
  • Has been - "has done", etc. I know this is a verb issue, too, but it comes up so often I thought I'd mention it separately. Generally, you use "has" when you should use "was." Here's an example: "On June 7, 2008, Nicol David has been honoured with the Order of Merit". This should be "was honored." The reason is this. "Has been" is for when you are comparing different times. So you could say, "She has been honored with this and now with that." But since you are only talking about one time in the past, you only need regular past tense.
  • Comma splices. Here's an example: "Nicol starts the year on a low, she lost twice to Vanessa Atkinson in February".
  • Sentence fragments. Example: "But then bounced back to win a whopping six titles that includes the tour Platinum series tournament – the Hong Kong Open."
  • "Peacock" phrasing. I don't think that FAC will like this. Example: "Malaysian squash star Nicol David is proving that everything she touches in 2005 turns to gold." Another example: "In today's standard of professional squash, which is regarded by many as being much more competitive than what it was decades ago, having a winning streak comparable to this is an achievement not easily obtainable." Yet another: "Considering her young age, she is expected to remain the top female player in the game for a while to come." Expected by whom? You can only make glowing statements like these if you are quoting a source.

Other prose issues

  • "Nicol David is the first squash player to have won the World Junior title twice (1999 and 2000)[3] under the tutelage of Richard Glanfield." Grammatically, this means that she is the first to do so under Glanfield's tutelage, but others might also have won the tournament twice. Is that what you meant to say?
  • "Nicol has risen in name after her near total dominance of the game" - risen in fame, perhaps?
  • "Nicol David first encounter with squash began at a tender age of 5, at that time she was very small that even her racquets were bigger than her" - needs possessive (David's); comma splice; end of sentence should read "so small that...", rather than "very small that...".
  • "Perfect WISPA Year: Ten Tour Titles – And Unbeaten!" This reads like a newspaper headline. Are you quoting something? If not, I suggest removing the capitalization and writing it as more of a sentence, e.g., "David won ten tour titles and was unbeaten".

Lead

The lead should only contain info that is given in the body of the article, and should summarize each section of the article. Right now it doesn't summarize the entire article and it contains statements, such as the quotation from the prime minister, that don't appear anywhere else in the article.

I hope these comments are helpful. Nicol David sounds like a very interesting player who deserves a good article. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I will try to correct any possible mistake that I've done. Can I also get review on the referencing style that I've used? I just want to know whether it is correct or not. Thanks Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 04:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I think the reference style you used is fine. Ricardiana (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Ricardiana, would you help me to correct some 'Verb Tense' error for me. I do not know how to correct it. Maybe then only I will get some idea of the mistakes that I've made. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 05:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll try to help out starting tomorrow. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the "Family and early life" section for verb tenses and also some other things, like getting rid of peacock wording and referring to David consistently by her last name. I hope the edits make sense and help clarify my remarks above. Let me know if you have other questions, and I'll try to work on the article a bit more later. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also made a few edits to "1999" and "2000". Ricardiana (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A big thank you to you for your willingness to improve the article quality (: Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 08:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Ricardiana (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which section should I place this sentence "Nicol has risen in name after her near total ....female player in the game for a while to come." ? Do I need to create a new section ? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 06:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ostend Manifesto[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
First, forgive the state of the references section. Most of it was there when I got to the article, and I plan to go through at a later date and remove the ones that haven't been used.

The main thing I'm looking for is cohesiveness. I reorganized the article completely when I started working on it, and the "Pierce's dilemma" section is a creation of my own after I'd sorted out and expanded upon the previous content. I felt this separated Pierce's immediate situation from e.g. Jefferson and allowed me to elaborate a bit more on why his administration acted the way it did. There was formerly a section called "Soule's role" but it felt better this way. I want to make sure the sections mesh well with each other and progress logically. Then, of course, the usual prose suggestions and such.

Thanks, Recognizance (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: An interesting account of a corner of history probably completely unknown to the vast majority of Brits. My chief thought, after a first read-through, was that the article is light on detail, and might be hard to defend on the comprehensiveness criterion. For example, in the Creation section you don't give the date on which these envoys met, you don't say they met in Ostend, and you don't mention that they had a follow-up meeting in Aix-la-Chapelle. We are pretty much in the dark as to what the Manifesto they drew up actually contained, apart from the proposed purchase price for Cuba and the back-up option of using force. Likewise, we are told that the details of the document were leaked, but not told how this occurred or, more importantly, to whom the leak was made. Presumably to a newspaper, and if so, what paper?

I have not commented on the list of "references" which you evidently have in hand. Apart from a general need to flesh out the article I have numerous further points:-

  • Lead: it is questionable whether, as it stands, the lead fulfils its required function of summarising the whole article. When you have expanded the general text it will be necessary to revise/extend the lead. Incidentally, the last sentence of the lead is not followed up in the body of the article.
  • Historical context
    • 90 miles: metrical equivalent required - suggest use convert template
    • "...Adams observing during his time as Secretary of State..." Give the year when these observations were made, and also of his "later" description of Cuba and Puerto Rico as "appendages"
    • "March of 1854": the "of" in date formats is generally redundant
    • "...the steamer Black Warrior was stopping at the Cuban port of Havana during a regular trading route from New York City to Mobile, Alabama." Clumsy phrasing: "was stopping" should be "had stopped", "during a regular trading route" should be "on a regular trading route", and Mobile, Alabama should be linked. Thus: "...the steamer Black Warrior had stopped at the Cuban port of Havana on a regular trading route from New York City to Mobile, Alabama
    • "After failing to provide a cargo manifest Cuban officials at the dock seized the ship..." This reads as though the Cuban officials had failed to provide the cargo manifest. Suggest rephrase: "After the steamer had failed to provide a cargo manifest, Cuban officials at the dock seized the ship..."
    • You need to say who William L Marcy was.
  • Pierce's dilemma
    • Section heading: I gather from the text that the "dilemma" was the division in the Southern Democratic party, though this is not obvious from the reading. I wonder if the heading should be changed to something more explicit?
    • First sentence needs a citation
    • So does the Calhoun quotation later in the paragraph
    • "President Polk had agreed to an offer of $100 million..." - presumably for the purchase of Cuba, but say so. Also, say to whom the payment would be made.
    • "...the interim Whig administrations...": Wrong use of "interim", which implies provisional or temporary. Why not be more informative and say "...the subsequent Taylor and Fillmore administrations..." (and link the presidents)
    • "...in light of the new controversy ignited by the Kansas-Nebraska Act..." This needs a few words of explanation, rather than presumption of knowledge of this controversy. And "Kansas-Nebraska Act" needs linking
    • "...so a purchase or intervention on the basis of national security..." - needs commas after "purchase" and "national security", then "were" deemed
  • Creation
    • "budding member"? Not sure what this means; does it mean "increasingly influential" or some such?
    • "outside of..." - "of" is redundant
    • "he held ... a foretold 'absorption of the entire continent and its island appendages'". Sorry, this wording makes no sense. Needs rephrasing.
    • Final sentence needs a citation
  • Fallout
    • "stirred with..."? Surely, "stirred by", if stirred is indeed the right word.
    • Try to avoid the close repetition of the word "significantly"
    • More citation needed in the second paragraph, in which most of the statements are presently uncited.

With appropriate additional work this could easily become a Good Article, perhaps even featured in due course. As I can't watch all my peer reviews, please ping my talk page if you have questions arising from this review. Otherwise, good luck wth the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on review[edit]

I agree with Brian's comments. And yes, this is an interesting account of the Ostend Manifesto, which is often overlooked in high school, and indeed college level instruction. Not one of the US glorious moments in foreign policy.

In terms of my own comments, I have several writing/style comments that will also strengthen the content by making stronger statements. I suggest stronger verbs: viewed, considered, stopped, instead of had considered, had stopped etc. for example, Congress considered the "Black Warrior" affair as ....... If you need this many "helping" verbs, you probably have your subjects switched with your objects.

The overview can be much stronger: for example, this is the text you have in the introduction:

The Ostend Manifesto was a secret document written in 1854 by U.S. diplomats at Ostend, Belgium, describing a plan to acquire Cuba from Spain. A product of the debate over slavery in the United States, Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine, the document was not intended to be made public; when news of its existence was leaked, it resulted in public outcry both domestically and abroad. The fallout over the Ostend Manifesto dealt a significant blow to the administration of U.S. President Franklin Pierce, and effectively ruled out any discussions of Cuba's annexation during the prelude to the American Civil War. While the document was never acted upon, American intervention in Cuba would next surface near the end of the nineteenth century in the Spanish-American War, renewing interest in the island among expansionists.


I suggest the following:

The Ostend Manifesto, a secret document written in 1854 by U.S. diplomats at Ostend, Belgium, described a plan to acquire Cuba from Spain. A product of the debates in the United States over slavery, Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine, the document was not intended to be made public. News of its existence resulted in public outcry, both in the United States and in Europe. The fallout over the Ostend Manifesto dealt a significant blow to the administration of U.S. President Franklin Pierce, and in particular to Pierce's foreign policy, and effectively ruled out any discussion of Cuba's annexation as a "slave state" during the years prior to the American Civil War. While the document was never acted upon, American intervention in Cuba would next surface near the end of the nineteenth century in the Spanish-American War, reflecting a renewed interest in the island among expansionists.

The suggested rewrite accomplishes the following:

  • first, it links the name, Ostend Manifesto, with the specific details of what it was, and relegates the date and who/where to "clause" status;
  • second, the manifesto was a product of three debates in the US, not debate in the US over slavery, and by implication, Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine elsewhere;
  • third, Cuba's possible annexation as a slave state is what made the OM such a volatile issue;
  • fourth the intervention in Cuba at the end of the century did not result in the interest in expansion, but was a result of the renewed interest in expansion. Causes and Consequences are reversed.
  • fifth, "domestic and abroad" reflect the US centric pov of many of Wikipedia's articles; I suggest rewording to in the US and in Europe. I'm not sure the Chinese and Japanese were overly concerned about this.

*sixth, while your sources are more than adequate for this article, do you have some perspective to add from the Carib. angle? You've told us what the US perspective was, the European reaction, but what about the rest of the "American" perspective?

  • And yes, there needs to be something in the text about the last sentence of your overview. A short section, with reference to Roosevelt, Rough Riders, Spanish American War, or Remember the Maine or SOMETHIng.

I would say to move up a classification, you need the latter in particular.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carib. Point of View[edit]

I did a quick search to see what is available, using JSTOR as a barometer, and I'm surprised more hasn't been written on the Ostend Manifesto from the Central American and South American perspective! Soooo, I've crossed out the bit above. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had left Auntieruth a message on her talk page to that effect, for anyone else reading this. I'll do my best to incorporate at least the Cuban POV. The article is currently undergoing surgery at User:Recognizance/Sandbox to make the Pierce section about events (including the Black Warrior) during his administration and the historical context into "everything prior to Pierce's presidency" in effect. I've also begun expanding the creation section there and will incorporate the above and any other comments it received. Thank you both for the feedback. Recognizance (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I should mention the Filibuster (military) in the historical context section? I intend to work in a mention in the Pierce administration, particularly since that's part of what it's referring to with the "pro-slavery invasion" they had ruled out. But I want to make sure this is focusing on the manifesto rather than a history lesson. (Also, I've reworked the organisation in my sandbox if you have any thoughts on that.) Recognizance (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Face (Lady Gaga song)[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 believe this article has the ability to be a Featured Article for Wikipedia. It has all the pros of being a FA and I would request to point out anything that might have been missed, prose which can be bettered as well as others, including infos and references.

Thanks, --Legolas (talk2me) 10:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and covers the material in depth. However, I see many small prose errors and deviations from the Manual of Style guidelines. I've listed quite a few specific examples down through the end of the "Critical reception" section. A complete copyedit by someone fresh to the article would be a good idea. You might be able to find someone via WP:Guild of copyeditors. I also noticed an instance of plagiarism, which I discuss below. Here are my comments and suggestions.

Lead

  • " 'Poker Face' has been well-received by the critics with most of them appreciating the robotic hook and the chorus." - The "with plus -ing" construction is ungrammatical. Suggestion: " 'Poker Face' has been well-received by the critics, most of whom have praised the robotic hook and the chorus."
  • Wikilink hook?
  • "The song has been performed on a number of live appearances by Gaga including the eighth season of American Idol and her first headlining Fame Ball tour where alternate variations of the track have been performed, including a piano version which she played while wearing a dress made of bubbles, and an electronic version." - Too complex. Suggestion: "Gaga performed the song for the eighth season of American Idol and her first headlining Fame Ball tour. The live performances included an electronic version and a version in which she played the piano while wearing a dress made of bubbles." Or something like that. Also, perhaps "headlining" should be linked or explained.
Done

"Writing and inspiration

  • ""Poker Face" is written by RedOne and Gaga... " - "Was" rather than "is"?
  • "During her Fame Ball tour performance at Palm Springs on Saturday 11th of April... " - The date should be given in the form, April 11, yyyy".
  • "She suggested that the song dealt about her personal experience... " - "With" rather than "about"?
Done

Music structure and composition

  • "and the more dance oriented beat of next single "LoveGame"" - Hyphenate "dance-oriented" and add missing "the" between "of" and "next"?
  • "The composition also carries the pleather-and-sequins vibe of the downtown underground New York scene." - The jargon here might not make sense to a lot of readers. Terms that might be linked or explained include "pleather-and-sequins", "vibe" and "underground". On a second look at this, I see that the source says, "carry the pleather-and-sequins vibe of the downtown New York scene out of the underground... ". This is an instance of plagiarism, to be avoided at all costs. I don't have time to check all the sources for this sort of thing, but you must be careful to make the distinction between paraphasing and copying. Please see Let's get serious about plagiarism for a full explanation.
  • "Common time" - Lowercase "common".
  • Three sentences in a row start with "The song". It would be good to vary these a bit.
  • "Gaga's vocal range spans from G3 to C5,[10] and has the similar dance-pop tempo in it." - A vocal range doesn't include a tempo.
  • "Gaga explained in an interview with them... " - "Them" is plural, but Daily Star is singular.
  • "the "Mum-mum-mum-mah" hook used in the song is sampled from Boney M's 1977 hit... " - Does "sampled" mean "copied"? Or "imitated"?
Done The plagiarism issue pointed out is not understandable because the source itself says so.
That the source itself says so is exactly my point. I think most plagiarism is accidental and results from not understanding what it involves. In this particular case, you've imitated the language of Kerri Mason too closely. One way to handle this would be to find a way to explain the essence of what Mason is saying but doing so in your own words. "Pleather-and-sequins vibe" is not common language; it is Mason's clever invention. Linking pleather-and-sequins to music genre does not solve the plagiarism problem. Is pleather-and-sequins a music genre? No. It's a mode of dress. Where? In the New York City underground. What are people doing in the New York underground? They are dressing in pleather and sequins to attract sex partners. What has Gaga done? She's brought the underground behavior up where we can see and hear it and put it on TV and FM radio. A translation of this might be: "The composition captures the glitzy sexuality of the New York City underground." Or something like that. Alternatively, you could quote Mason directly and put his words inside quotation marks followed by the citation you've already given. Finetooth (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Understood and done. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "Matthew Chisling from Allmusic called the song as "infectious" and along with the title track "The Fame" complemented them for... " - I think you mean "complimented". Delete "as"?
  • "Andy Downing from The Chicago Tribune called the song as 'jaunty'... " - Delete "as"?
  • "mime much of the same glitzy territory that previous single "Just Dance" had covered," - Is this a direct quote? It's not set off in quotation marks. Is it possible to "mime" a territory?
  • "The New Times Broward-Palm Beach newspaper called the song as 'trashtastic Europop.' - Delete "as"?
Done

Chart performance

  • "March 14, 2009 where it stayed for two additional weeks... " - Full dates like this need a comma after the year. You've included the comma in some places but not in others.
Done

Chart procession and succession

  • Should so many things be bolded and double-listed?
Comment The chart procession template itself bolds the font, we donot manually do it.

References

  • The date formatting in the references needs to be consistent per WP:MOSNUM. Either format (m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd) that you've used is OK, but you have to choose one or the other and stick with it.
Comment Actually the date tab in reference is added as (m d, yyyy) while the accessdate tab is added as (yyyy-mm-dd) which is what I have followed.
With respect, WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says otherwise. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Image sizes should generally be set to "thumb" rather than a specific pixel width.
  • Three fair-use images in one article may be hard to defend.
Comment I know this can be a problem. The first image is used to describe the progression of the song. Most of the FA articles have it. Second image is the music video, which again is a necessity. Third image is added to illustrate the performance on American Idol. A free image is available from the Fame Ball tour, but the major description in the section is for the American Idol performance, hence the third image is added. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • General Comment - shouldn't the release history be more comprehensive, eg with catalog numbers, record labels etc. Also, I have noticed the country names are linked, if I am right they shouldn't, as per WP:OVERLINK? Dt128 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed extra links. However I don't think catalog numbers or record labels are necessary. Obviously the same record label released it. However the format of release can be included. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well not necessarily, many records are released by different labels in different countries. Isn't Lady Gaga one of them? Why not include catalog numbers? Dt128 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, where are the references for the genre/context/content of the song in the lead? Dt128 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Girl Is Mine[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Though not the longest of articles, I think this one is fairly complete and comprehensive. I'll be taking this to FAC in the future, and, therefore, welcome a thorough review.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got a couple nuggets:
  • "Despite this" in the intro. Despite what?
  • Done.
  • Which Dutch charts are cited? Wallonia or Flanders? Or did they not have two charts back then?
  • Not sure which chart it is. It only says 'Dutch chart' in the source, so there may well have been only one chart back then.
  • Personnel needs the instruments linked. It also needs a source (ideally, the album's liner notes).
  • Done.
  • Otherwise, I'm not seeing anything too bad. Looks mostly fine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is well-written and well-organized. I don't recall seeing an article with two infoboxes before, but it seems to me that they make sense in this case. I have a concern about one sensational sentence in the lawsuit section, and I note a small number of other things below.

Lead

  • "The year before, Jackson and McCartney had recorded "Say Say Say" and "The Man" for the former Beatles' fifth solo album... " - Should this be "former Beatle's" since he was only one of the group?
  • Done
  • "The remix received generally unfavourable reviews from music critics." - Wikilink remix?
  • Done

Recording

  • "Jackson stated the recording of the song was one of his most enjoyable moments in the studio." - Insert "that" after "stated"?
  • Done

Release and reception

  • "Listeners were not overtly impressed by "The Girl Is Mine" - Delete "overtly" since covert reactions would be invisible.
  • Done
  • "Rolling Stone stated that the song was a "wimpoid MOR ballad" and that McCartney was "tame"." - It might be helpful to readers if you explained the meaning of MOR. If it's short, you might insert its meaning in brackets inside the quote, or you could add a footnote. I think it probably refers to a rap group, but I'm not sure.

Plagiarism lawsuits

  • "During the testimony Jackson appeared drowsy; the singer's health had deteriorated due to child sexual abuse allegations, and he was addicted to painkillers." - I'd be extremely cautious about writing something like this about a living person. You've cited a source, but on the face of it, saying that allegations caused health problems is a conclusion not necessarily supported by facts. The doubts about this part of the claim lead to doubts about the reason for including the claims. To be fair to Jackson, I'd be inclined to delete this sentence. I don't think the reader's understanding of the plagiarism issue would be altered by its removal.
  • Removed.

If you find these few comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, it was very helpful. :) Pyrrhus16 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mlaffs' comment: Not a full review, but rather a drive-by comment after seeing a piece of feedback above. With regard to your sentence in the lede — The year before, Jackson and McCartney had recorded "Say Say Say" and "The Man" for the former Beatle's fifth solo album... — your original text was somewhat more correct. Just because a musical group's name happens to be plural, it's not really correct to drop the 's' and refer to individual members as a singular. I'd suggest either The year before, Jackson and McCartney had recorded "Say Say Say" and "The Man" for the fifth solo album by the former member of The Beatles… or, more succinctly, The year before, Jackson and McCartney had recorded "Say Say Say" and "The Man" for McCartney's fifth solo album…. Mlaffs (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added the word 'latter', to avoid repetiton of 'McCartney'. Pyrrhus16 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Douglas (architect)[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, encouraged by the comments at Talk:John Douglas (architect)/GA1, I wonder if it is worth submitting it as a FAC. My last attempt with a FAC resulted in so much aggro that I decided not to bother again. But perhaps this article will be deemed more worthy. Thanks, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I had a hard time finding any prose issues in this interesting, richly detailed, and well-illustrated article. That's unusual. I noted a problem with layout, explained below, and I made a few other suggestions, none of which should cause much trouble. Overall, this looks very good to me, as it did to the GA reviewer.

Disambiguation

  • Since there are so many John Douglas articles, it would be good to include a disambiguation line at the top of the article. See John Adams for example. This one might work:
    This page is about the English architect. For other uses, see John Douglas (disambiguation).

Personality

  • "No family papers have survived and none of the documents from the office at 6 Abbey Square have been found." - "None ... has" rather than "none ... have"?
  • This section has two problems associated with images. On my computer monitor the caricature overlaps two sections. MOS:IMAGES advises against this. Also, the St. Paul's Church image displaces the section head, "Architectural styles and practice", below, and that's a no-no too. Perhaps "Architectural practice" and "Personality" could be combined under a single head; this would make room for the two images, I think, and it would help solve another problem. It's best to arrange directional images so that they look into the page rather than out. The caricature would be slightly better if positioned on the left. Alas, MOS:IMAGES says not to place an image immediately below a third-level head, so the caricature can't go directly over from right to left. However, if the "personality" text preceded the "architectural practice" text, the caricature could go on the left further down in the section, and the church could move to the top but to the right.
  • I have attempted to solve this by deleting two images (more about them below), switching the sides of some images, and merging sections (more about this below, too). Does it work? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating in the section heads and subheads any of the main words of the article title. Since "architect" is part of the article title, "Architectural practice" is a bit of a problem. Perhaps the new subhead for this section could be "Personality and partnerships" or something similar.

Architectural styles and practice

  • This head also repeats "architecture". Suggestion: "Styles and practice".

Output and patronage

  • "Being based in Chester, most of his works were situated in Cheshire and North Wales... " - Suggestion: "Since he was based in Chester, most of his works were situated there and in North Wales... "
  • No. Chester is a city; Cheshire is a county. To make this change would be misleading and incorrect. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I conflated Chester and Cheshire somehow. What I was noticing in the sentence, though, was that "being" seems to modify "works" but really refers to Douglas. Perhaps "Since he was based in Chester, most of his works were situated in Cheshire and North Wales"? Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1865 he was commissioned to design the entrance lodge and various other structures for Grosvenor Park in Chester... " - Delete "various"?
  • "Douglas received a large number of commissions from him and from his own son, the 2nd Duke, throughout his career." - I had to stop for a moment to consider to who this meant. Maybe "the duke's son"?
  • I had problems with this sentence and have amended it in a way I hope makes it easier to understand. Is it OK? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems fine. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Styles

  • The image of St. Johns Church, Over, bumps against a third-level head and should be re-located. It could go to the right, which breaks the left-right-left pattern you've established, but I don't think the Manual of Style insists on the staggered pattern. Oakmere Hall in the next section down has the same bumping problem. It could go the right, and Grosvenor Hall Lodge could move to the left. Alas, St. Werburgh Street, Chester, also bumps into a third-level head and should be re-located. St. John's, the Evangelist's Church, has the same problem. Everything is connected to everything, so to create a new, equally attractive layout without violating the no-bump recommendation will require a fair bit of tinkering. The no-bump rule doesn't apply to second-level heads.
  • "The Gothic Revival was a reaction against the neoclassical style, which had been popular in 18th and early 19th centuries... " - Insert "the" before "18th and early 19th centuries"?

Early works (1860–70)

  • "Douglas' earliest significant commissions were for the 2nd Baron Delamere and were very different in type and style." - I thought that from context this must mean very different from each other, but it might be more clear to make this explicit: "very different in type and style from one another".
Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secular

  • "Many of the secular buildings in this period were smaller-scale buildings." - Perhaps "smaller-scale structures" to avoid repeating "buildings"?
  • "The Gelli (1877) is a house in three ranges... " - I wasn't certain of the meaning of "ranges" here but couldn't find anything to link to.
  • "Range" is an architectural term synonymous with "wing". I have added a link which is not perfect, but which I hope gives an adequate explanation. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link is very helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas & Fordham (1884–98

  • "From 1892 the partnership designed a number of houses and cottages in Port Sunlight... " - Delete "a number of"?
  • "Between 1895 and 1897 designed a range of buildings on the east side of St Werburgh Street in the centre of Chester." - Missing word, probably "he".

"Publication

  • Since the frontispiece image overlaps two sections, perhaps "Publication" and "Reputation" could be combined under a single head if that doesn't defy logic in too pushy a way.
  • This image will cause problems wherever it goes, it does not look good and does not add anything to the article, so I have deleted it (it can still be found on Commons). The comment led me to look again at the formatting of the sections, realising that those toward the end of the article are on the short side. "Publication" does not (to me) link comfortably with "Reputation", but there is no reason why "Reputation" should not link with "Influences and legacy", so I have merged them. This left "Publication" rather orphaned, but it fits with "Significant works", so I merged it there. I think this works OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • I checked the licenses, and all look straightforward to me except possibly Image:Boughton Stpauls.jpg because it's not easy to see how a fact-checker could verify the license based on the link from the image description page. It links to the ChesterTourist.com site but not to the page on which the St Paul's image appears. How can a fact-checker be sure that ChesterTourist.com released it into the public domain? I may just be missing something that's right in front of me, but I thought I should ask.
  • On the Commons page the author has released the image to the public domain, so licensing is not a problem. But the photograph is (in addition to its position on the page) a problem. The church is notoriously difficult to photograph, lying between a busy road and a virtual cliff overlooking the river. The photograph is taken from the other side of the river and is unsatisfactory for the purpose of the article because the house in front of it has too much prominence and reduces the impact of the church. So it has gone and IMO the article is no worse for that Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Someone who notices the reliance on Hubbard and Pevsner might reasonably ask if there are any reliable sources that you might have missed or omitted. You've no doubt already thought about this, but I thought I should mention it.
  • Good point! This has caused me difficulties because the only comprehensive authoritative source is Edward Hubbard's biography. The ODNB entry is almost completely a synopsis of the biography and the only references it gives consist of the biography and articles in journals which are not easy to access (and which I guess are covered in the biography anyway). If someone mentions it, I can only answer along these lines. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be fine. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. I have never seen it empty. Finetooth (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year[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 promote this to featured list. However, there are some things that worry me. The main problem is the "Notes" column in the table. I do not know whether it is needed. I did not add it, it was brought in by another user, so I do not know if it should be included, because I do not think that the entire column could be filled, let alone referenced. Also, any corrections connected to grammar or spelling would be appreciated.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: The titles and the article made me chuckle, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think I would add annual or annually to the first sentence, so perhaps The Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, also known as the Diagram Prize, is a humorous literary award that is given [annually] to the book with the oddest title.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Pretty much everything after the first sentence of the lead (for example the prizes given and some of the history) are only in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - I think much of the current lead could be a history and prizes section. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I think the notes are useful, especially for the more bizarre / incomprehensible titles. There are only 6 entries without notes, 2 of which are no award, so I would add notes for the other 4.
  • I think some of the publishers could be linked, for example Harry N. Abrams is now ABRAMS Books

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Gower[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
 Done SGGH ping! 10:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because eventually I'm looking for FAC, but in the mean time some images and a GAC, so I want to know how I am doing thus far.

Thanks, SGGH ping! 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that I don't think this article is anywhere near detailed enough for a guy who played in 117 Tests and was involved in power struggles etc. I don't know much about this period in English cricket but he was very controversial (allegedly). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article looks like it needs expanding. Perticualy the "Commentating and later life" section. BUC (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is still a work in progress. When I say I'm looking for FAC and GAC, I mean in many months time :) SGGH ping! 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree this needs some work before GAN or FAC, although what is here reads decently for the most part. My main problem is I know little about cricket and had trouble following a lot of the article - these probably point to a need to be aware of WP:PRC and WP:JARGON. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Avoid words like currently as they can become out of date, so just in the lead is a former English cricketer who currently commentates for Sky Sports. needs to be changed - I would express it as is a former English cricketer who has been as commentator for Sky Sports since YEAR. (couldn't find the year in the article)
  • I would also qualify records like His 117 Test matches lies behind only Alec Stewart with 133 and Gooch, with 118. with the year (as of 2009)
  • I agree with the clarification needed tag - what is an S grade in History? Presumably a bad / failing grade?
  • Problem sentence With 18 centuries he is also joint 4th with fellow captain Michael Vaughan in the most hundreds scored by an England player[.] He played domestic cricket from 1975 until 1993,... MOS says numbers under ten should be spelled out, so "fourth" (not 4th), seems to be missing a period, and I know little about cricket, so I think it would make sense to at least wikilink centuries here and in the lead (scoring over 100 runs?)
  • I think headers should be consistent, so Domestic cricket and International cricket (or drop cricket?)
  • Here's a man who played 18 years and his domestic career is summed up in five paragraphs - his first game, in which the article says he made "little impression" gets almost all of the first paragraph. This seems to me to be a WP:WEIGHT issue (plus it was pretty much gibberish, again I know little about cricket)
  • I have no idea what numbers follwed by an asterisk like 102* or 144* mean - this needs a note or at least a link. I thought it was a typo the first time I saw it.
  • The photo of the tiger moth airplane left me mystified until several pragraphs later and should a) be closer to the incident in the text, and b) have a caption that provides some context / explanation - I orginally thought this was odd photo vandalism of some sort
  • The quote box on his reply on the Tiger Moth incident did not do much for me either. Why does this have to be set off in a box?
  • This needs a ref (direct quote): According to Michael Atherton in his autobiography, "Gooch was at the other end and as he walked off his face was thunderous". My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Spot the needless repetition Gower was a "most graceful"[31] left hand batsman and had a reputation for being aloof. Considered a graceful player, his languid style ...
  • There are a number of cricket player FAs - I would look at them as models.
  • I noticed a fair number of little typos reading through, but I read for comprehension, so can't point most out - needs a copyedit.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed these, as I said earlier it is no where near FAC or even GAN, was just hoping the PR would give some early ideas. On the Atherton comment above, the citation seems to have fallen off somewhere, so I'll dig around for it. Cheers! SGGH ping! 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream of the Red Chamber[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 not a native English speaker and I think I made bad translations in section #Homophones. I want to make sure there is no mistake.

Thanks, Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Ricardiana

 Done

  • The article talks a lot about homophones, not just in the homophone section but elswhere also. You should include pinyin as well as characters so that people who don't know Chinese can understand these better.
  • The article needs a thorough copy-edit. One problem that comes up often is changes in verb tense.
I will try to do some editing myself (you should check all my edits to make sure that I didn't change the meaning of anything). However, there are some sentences I don't understand and therefore can't change. For example:
  1. "The novel, published up till the 20th century, was anonymous". Does this mean the novel is not published anymore? Or does it mean that the novel was published anonymously until the 20th century and now it is published under Cao's name?
  2. "The Stone and Divine Attendant-in-Waiting (神瑛侍者) are separate while related (while in Chenggao versions they are merged)". What does "separate while related" mean? Related like relatives? What does merged mean - are they the same character in the Chenggao version?
  • Many paragraphs lack citations. Every paragraph (except in the lead) should have a citation. I notice there's been some controversy on the discussion page due to the lack of citations. This is the most important thing you should work on.
  • Some of the paragraphs are very short - only one or two sentences. Try combining the very short paragraphs into longer ones.
  • The references section should include more information - year published, publisher, etc.

Ricardiana (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of American football teams in the United Kingdom[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 worked hard to get as much information as I can into it, and I'd really appreciate some guidance on how to improve it so it could eventually be submitted as a featured list candidate. One specific question I have is the page's title - is it necessary to have "List of..." here, or would a shortened version be better?

Thanks, Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, the "List of" is necessary. "This is a list of American football teams based in the United Kingdom who have been active since the establishment of the first British teams in 1983 and formal competition the year after." Featured lists don't begin like this anymore. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5
  • "by 12 points to nil" - see WP:MOSNUM regarding comparable quantities, nil is the same as saying zero, of course.
  • Changed to "twelve points to zero" - although we always use "nil" when referring to scores in the UK, I went with zero instead.
  • "Nil" would have been fine, and should probably be used since this is a UK topic; it was more a matter of turning that 12 into a twelve. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer "zero", as it is more understandable by the entire English-speaking population—UK readers will understand both easily, so might as well make it easier for all. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this certainly is a bit of a wierd one - a British subject which could be of equal (or perhaps more) interest to American readers! I think I'll keep the international version (zero) for now, and if necessary raise the issue at the WP:MOS talk page. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use US and UK without explicitly defining them; also, preferred usage is "U.S.", but "UK".
  • I changed "US bases" to "American miltary bases" for clarification. As United Kingdom is spelt out in full in the first sentence, is it necessary to wikilink UK? Most, if not all readers will know what this means.
  • Your color in the table and the key also needs an accompanying symbol per WP:ACCESS. Also, it only needs to be on the team name; the rest of the associated teams and organizations aren't playing in the senior league.
  • All done.
  • Use one of the disambiguation link-fixing tools to repair the 8 dablinks (Standish, Crystal Palace, Hatfield, Lancaster, Lincoln, Nottingham Outlaws, Reading, Sheffield Sabres). I can't speak for any links that lead to the wrong locations either, so give them a once-over.
  • That was a good idea, maybe I'll make more use of that tool in future. Thanks!
  • What reference is verifying the tables? I don't see any.
  • I have some references in the BAFL table's header row, but I shall find some more if possible and add them. The flag leagues may be a problem because, unlike the contact leagues, BAFL haven't published full fixtures / alignments yet - I know for sure the adult league's alignments HAVE been confirmed but they're still finalising the schedule. I may just have to link to their homepage for now, where all the teams are listed.
  • Do a check of your tables for copy accuracy; I saw a year 19998 and a year 202...

Hope this gives you somewhere to start. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is a bit of a drive by comment. Can you make sure you click through all the team name links. For example Durham Saints exists but it is an article on the Aussie rules team, not the American football team. In cases like this you'll need to redlink a suffixed page e.g. Durham Saints. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above; had mentioned this in an above comment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, missed that one! Should all be okay now. The two Glasgow Tigers have now been fully disambigged as well. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Leeds[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 achieved GA status and I think it may be suitable for a FA nomination. A peer review would be helpful.

Thanks, Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interseting article, but I think it needs a lot of work before it is ready for FAC IMO. With an eye to WP:FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but most of the headers are not in the lead. This may be a sign that the article may need fewer sections / headers too. The lead also probably should be four paragraphs long per WP:LEAD.
  • Watch overlinking, see WP:OVERLINK. For example in just the lead Leeds is linked twice (once as City of Leeds, which is a redirect). Generally link things once in the lead and then the first occurrence in the article.
  • Do not use abbreviations without first spelling them out, and linking the term if possible, so for example Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) awards
  • Article needs more refs in a few places - one example The Abbey House Museum keeps records and displays artefacts from the abbey as well as from other eras across Leeds. Paintings of the Abbey have come from artists as renowned as J. M. W. Turner and Thomas Girtin. In 1889 the abbey was purchased by Colonel John North and presented to Leeds City Council. The council restored parts of the abbey and made it safe for public enjoyment before opening it in 1895. has no ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:IMAGE do not sandwich text between images.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The hardest FAC criterion for most articles to meet is a porfessional level of English - this needs a copyedit, but I would try to address the other issues first and then get a copyedit or at least print it out and read it out loud slowly.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is at least one similar article that is an FA, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, which seems like it would be a great model.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway[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 need help improving the article after a failed GA review. Unresolved issues can be found on the GA review page. Major issue was lack of information regarding the formation/history of the scenic byway, the reviewer also noted on my talk page that the "flow sucks", so basically I wanted a second opinion and was also wondering if anybody knew of any good sources for info regarding the formation of the DDSB.

Thanks, ErgoSum•talk•trib 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Creating an article for which you can find no model to imitate is an interesting project. I have never written a highway article, although I've edited quite a few, and I recognize in this article some of the methods used for ordinary highway articles. On the other hand, those methods aren't of much use in dealing with what makes this highway unusual. Might I suggest a somewhat different organization?

  • (1) Starting with "Route description" is fine, but I would put all the relevant route material here and not extend it into the history section or any other section. I'd eliminate the lists and highway icons from this section and go with straight prose. I'd make it clear at the outset that the direction of movement from Fruita onwards was counterclockwise around the loop.
  • (2) I'd think about compressing the material about what the designation of "National Scenic Byway" means and I'd delete most of the history of the individual road segments such as I-70. Links to the I-70 article and other specific highway articles would serve the purpose. I'd think about retaining the material about the Old Spanish Trail, however, because I think the "History" section could focus on the history of transportation in this region. The Old Spanish Trail went the way it did, I assume, because of something inherent in the topography, and I'm guessing that would be true of most of the other parts of the byway.
  • (3) This leads to my next suggestion, which is to precede "History" with a section called "Geology and topography" that would help explain the ups and downs of this route (highest elevation, lowest elevation), as well as landforms (mountains, rivers, canyons) that caused its parts to be built this way or that. The geology part of this section would help make more clear what the land was like in the Jurassic, so good for dinosaurs, and how these parts of Utah and Colorado got to be where and what they are.
  • (4) I'd consider adding a section called "Towns" and adding brief descriptions of them that included things like population, attractions, main industries, and so on. Just what to include will depend on what you find. I'd arrange these in counterclockwise order to match the order of the "Route description". (You might change your mind and go clockwise; if you do, make everything go clockwise.)
  • (5) I'd think about adding a section called "Parks" and moving most of the parks material (except for location language) out of the "Route description", putting it here and adding new material. It would be possible to add a sentence or two about each of the main parks like Arches National Monument, and to at least list the others. I'd do these in counterclockwise order also.
  • (6) Other things to think about include weather. Is some of the route closed during parts of the year? Does skiing replace kayaking as a major reason for traveling this route in winter? Does somebody sponsor a marathon on a big hunk of this route? How about flora and fauna in and around the diamond? I don't say that you definitely need all this, but it's something to think about.
  • A site that seems to have tons of stuff is The U.S. Department of Transportation's America's Byways site. Although many of the images on this site are protected by copyrights that make them unusable on Wikipedia, some are labeled "public domain" and could be uploaded to the Commons and used if you see any you like. A lot of text information is here too. See this page, for example.
  • Here a few nitpicky suggestions about prose and style issues:

Colorado

  • "From the trails, one may view attractions such as the Book Cliffs and Coke Ovens overlooks... " - "One" isn't generally used in this way in Wikipedia articles. Something like "Attractions visible from the trails include the Book Cliffs and Coke Ovens overlooks... " would be better.
  • "Nearby attractions include the Rangely Outdoor Museum and the Canyon Pintado ("painted canyon") Historic District petroglyphs, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." - "Petroglyphs" is plural, but "is" is singular. Maybe "... and the petroglyphs of the Canyon Pintado ("painted canyon") Historic District, which is listed... ".
  • "Upon leaving Dinosaur, the DD continues west on U.S. Highway 40 and crosses the border into Utah." - Orphan paragraphs like this one are generally frowned upon. They can either be expanded or merged with another paragraph. A couple more of these appear at the end of the "Utah" section.

Utah

  • "Heading 29 miles (47 km) to the west is the county seat of Duchesne, located within the reservation." - The county seat isn't heading anywhere. Suggestion: "Another 29 miles (47 km) to the west is Duchesne, the county seat, located within the reservation."

References

  • It's good to make these as complete as possible. A good rule of thumb is to try to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for web-based sources. Citation 10, for example, could include 2009-05-01 as the publication date (the last date that the page was updated).

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, and some good ideas. Although, in reference to #2, if you look at the version of the page as it existed when it was failed, you will see that I added a lot of irrelevant info which prompted the GA reviewers comments. I also had links to each of the road articles in the history section, but the reviewer complained that there were too many section headings. So I don't know what to do.
Also, the byways site is pretty useless as far as hard facts are concerned. In fact, any info about the byway which isn't targeted toward tourists is hard to find. But I do like your ideas for the organization of the article. I will see what I can do about it. But as you can see, the problem is there are no precedents to fall back on so I suppose we will be forging a new standard! I appreciate your feedback. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested at the BP Bridge PR, here is my review. I agree with Finetooth's comments and have a few more suggestions for improvement

  • There are several places where the article could do a better job at providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example in the lead, I think it might help to give the states in this sentence The highway forms a diamond-shaped loop with vertices at Moab, Helper, [and] Vernal [in Utah] and Grand Junction [in Colorado]. so that the reader gets an idea that much of the Byway is in Utah. Or also in the lead, I would explain that Interstate 70 is a part of the byway before going into its history.
  • Per the MOS, provide both English and metric units (such as ditances in miles also having the km). The {{convert}} template works well here.
  • Per WP:CITE references generally AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase - unless it is a direct quote or extraordinary claim, the lead usually does not need refs (as it is a summary of the referenced text).
  • I also think I might include DD in the lead, assuming that is a common abbreviation.
  • Per WP:HEAD, the names of subsections should not repeat the names of sections, so I think Utah history and Colorado history as subsections of History might need to be renamed.
  • I think it would be helpful to briefly describe what the land was like during the time of the dinosaurs and why so many fossils are found there. I also think it would be interesting and useful to mention the Native American inhabitants who left the petroglyphs behind, and their later descendants. Were any of these routes Native paths or wagon trails in pioneer days?

Hope this helps. Thanks again for your comments on BP Pedestrian Bridge. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, some good ideas here. I'm really stretching my time here so I will have to address these later, not to mention that this is going to take a lot of work. This article is relatively new, and hasn't been edited that much, so in retrospect, I'm sure the GA nomination was premature... as I can see there is a lot of technical detail that I have overlooked. As far as your comments go, I'm not sure DD is a common abbrevation, but I use "DDSB" a lot, and that is only because I'm always talking about it. Also, I renamed the subsections of "History", adding the words "history" to them specifically to avoid the "same name conflict" between "route description" and "history". So I'm not sure there is a problem there, perhaps you were confused about something? No big deal. Thank you for your comments, these ideas are excellent, and I will definitely keep them in mind when I attempt to improve this article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgoroth name dispute[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 have updated the background information since the last assessment, and would like to know what more could be done.

Thanks, Dark Prime (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comments

Frankly, the lead confuses the heck outta me. What exactly is the "Gorgoroth name dispute"? Am I correct to conclude that the band broke up & the members argued over who actually owned the name? It would also help if some explanation were put in the lead why this is notable. I know little about "Black metal", & almost nothing about "Norwegian black metal", so for all I know Gorgoroth could have been a multi-platinum band -- or just another band in the genre. (Much like, say, the Pond of Grunge.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting. I had hoped that the name "Gorgoroth name dispute" in itself would imply that it was a dispute over a name, and I explained the context. I did not feel the need to explain "Norwegian black metal" as no band articles that I know of in pretty much any genre go to explain what the genre is, hence the purpose of the wikilink. I also mentioned that the people whose names were mentioned were members (and Infernus the founding member), and explained how it began in the next sentence. Dark Prime (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that the lead is confusing, one of the most useful things to keep in mind is to provide context for the reader. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD and probably should be more tan two paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but most of the section headers are not in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but for example the second paragraph of Background has zero refs.
  • There are several dead link tags that need to be fixed - perhaps the Internet Archive has these links?
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The lists at the end of the article do not do a lot for me. The people who testified in the trial should be in that section, not sure the lineup of the successor band belongs in this article (put it in the article on God Seed if it is not already there)
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede its flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in almost all cases.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are three GAs in Category:GA-Class black metal articles that may be useful as model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H.M.S. Pinafore[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed article for peer review because, after it was promoted to GA-class, I expanded the Analysis section, among other changes. I would like community input to see if editors have any suggestions for improvements before going to FAC. I'm particularly interested in thoughts on the prose, MOS, reference formatting or other referencing issues, but any and all comments are welcome. Thanks, Ssilvers (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1.

Hurricane Kathleen (1976)[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 know what is needed for this to become a GA, Thanks. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

This is very far from being a GA. There were some issues that had to be brought up to date and a spelling error, but I fixed those. Some things it could use: a storm photograph, more info from Mexico, more info from the Hurricane Newspaper Archive, not all of the references are formatted the same way, and so on. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to fix the referencing issue. I have checked the Hurricane Newspaper Archive and searched Google images, but I did not have any luck. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Finetooth comments: I only have a few minutes, and then I have to dash off to a real-life situation, but I thought I'd post a few quick comments. Here they are:

  • Orphan paragraphs of one- or two sentences are generally frowned upon in encyclopedia articles. It's better to expand them or merge them with other paragraphs. Ditto for short sections such as "Aftermath".
  • All of the imperial measures such as rainfall amounts need to be expressed in metric units as well. A handy way to do this is to use the {{convert}} template.
  • The referencing issue can be dealt with by generally imitating the ones already done here with the "cite family" of templates. You can use copy-and-paste, taking care to fill in the correct data for each citation. For a more complete explanation of how this family works and to see how "cite book" varies from "cite web" and "cite news" and so on, see WP:CIT. Be careful, though, not to confuse the "cite" templates with other families of templates explained on that same page. The citation formatting, as noted by Miss Madeline, must be consistent within a single article.
  • Except for the lead, a good rule of thumb is to cite a source for every paragraph, every unusual claim, every set of statistics, and every direct quote. Not all of the paragraphs in this article give any source. A statement like "Tropical cyclones bring gale-force winds to the Southwestern United States only rarely" is not common knowledge and must have come from a source. What source?

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. I'll try to say a bit more later. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Finetooth comment: The article needs copyediting and proofing. I see small errors such as the use of present tense to describe an event in the past. The sudden shift to present occurs in the "Southwest" section: "Residual moisture brings more severe thunderstorms to the state on September 24 and 25. The Tucson area is particularly hard hit with flash flooding and hail as large as golf balls." In the sentence after this, a space should be inserted between the reference number and the first word of the next sentence. Two sentences later, the verb tenses are mixed again ("falling" and "accumulated"), and so on. However, I would suggest making the larger changes before asking someone to help with copyediting. Finetooth (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brawn BGP 001[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 many other editors have contributed to this page and I would like to know what else we could add to this page to make it better. To me it looks very informative and I think every piece of information is included, but that's me.

Thanks, Chubbennaitor 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the car, so tell us about it. I added a bit on the engine & transmission, but there's nothing on the chassis design - I'd expect a fairly detailed analysis of key design features like the double-diffuser (plenty of information on this on the official F1 website). Basically, at the moment it reads like Brawn GP in 2009 whereas it needs to be about the Brawn BGP 001 of which it's racing/competition results is only a part of what makes it. AlexJ (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try and do that. Chubbennaitor 16:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be a good idea to look at the project's existing high-quality chassis articles: Brabham BT19 (FA), Brabham BT46 (GA), BRM P261 and Eagle Mk1 (both A-class) for general ideas about structure. Aside from that, I would suggest the heading order: Chassis, Engine and transmission, Competition history (Testing-->2009 (season?)-->livery).--Midgrid(talk) 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also recommend not taking this article to GAN or FAC until after the season ends, as information about the car's racing history will be continually added until then.--Midgrid(talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now know where to look for ideas and thank you for your advice. Chubbennaitor 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches[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 of featured topic criteria 3c, as this will be part of a potential featured topic.

Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The Timberwolves play"-->They play
  • "The team have"-->The team has
  • "McHale have been elected"-->McHale has been elected Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly language nitpicks.

  • Awkward sentence The team joined the NBA in 1989 as an expansion team with the Orlando Magic.[2] I think it means The team was one of two expansion teams that joined the NBA in 1989 (the other was Orlando Magic).[2]
  • I am not 100% clear what this means The Timberwolves has never been in the NBA Finals since its inception.[3] Is this the team's inception, or the inception of the NBA Finals (how I read it, but this does not make sense)?
  • How about combining these sentences to something like There have been eight head coaches for the Timberwolves; the first was Bill Musselman, who coached for two seasons.
  • McHale's winning percentage seems to be the only record statistic not quoted in the lead - why not include it too?
  • I would add "playoffs" to this sentence to make it clearer Saunders is the only head coach to have been to the playoffs with the Timberwolves, with a [playoffs] record of 47 games and 17 wins.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Thanks for the suggestion, but articles are too big for me to peer review, and I, to be honest, am very lazy (as some can tell...) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Alarm[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hey everyone. I'm requesting this review because Rafablu88 and I are planning to put it up at FAC soon and we would like some insight into how the language fares with other FAs in this area as well as if it is missing anything or is formatted incorrectly. Thanks for any insight you can provide. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reiterate what Garden has said and also encourage any willing editors to be bold and just edit something without commenting here, if they feel it would improve the quality of the article to FA standards. We've already followed the comments arising from the GA review. Any type of advice is more than welcome and we will do our best to edit accordingly. Rafablu88 (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well and seems complete, though I should add that I come to this as a total outsider with no prior knowledge of the band or the genre. I have a few suggestions for improving the prose in the early sections, and I see a problem with one of the image licenses.

Lead

  • "The album deals with various themes including personal relationships, transition to adulthood, and politics." - I might tighten this a bit to eliminate "various" and to avoid calling "personal relationships" a "theme". Suggestion: "The album examines personal relationships, politics, and the transition to adulthood."
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while another critic commented that the album instated Bloc Party... " - Instated? Do you mean "established"?
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early ideas and exposure (2003–2004)

  • "It was the joining of drummer Matt Tong after an audition that allowed the band to evolve in terms of how they wrote and recorded the songs on Silent Alarm." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "After drummer Matt Tong joined the group, the band wrote new kinds of songs later included in Silent Alarm." Or something like that.
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, the band signed to independent label Wichita Recordings on the back of successful radio performances... " - I'm not sure what you mean by "signed to". Does it mean "signed a contract with"? And does "on the back of" mean "after"?
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should EP and DJ be spelled out on first use for readers who might not know what they mean?
I doubt they need expanding and they're both linked. Everyone knows what a DJ is and saying "extended play" would probably confuse people more. Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording (2004)

  • "but chief writer Okereke notes that" - Shouldn't this be "noted" rather than "notes"?
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The meaning behind some of the songs has been kept in some level of ambiguity by the band." - Active voice is usually better in cases like this. Suggestion: "The band has made the meaning of some of the songs ambiguous."
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlotte Cripps of The Independent suggested that the songs are crafted to balance dark lyrics with uplifting melodies. Okereke agrees and explains that they try to make clear an existential pointlessness in life." - "Suggests" rather than "suggested"?
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • MOS:IMAGES suggests that image sizes should generally be set to "thumb" rather than a specific pixel width. The two images in the main text sections should be set to "thumb".
The advice page says "generally". I think it's at the writer's and editors' discretion but unless the photo is something ridiculous like 1000px then I think we're OK. Both are nicely merged in the text. Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Bloc Party.jpg has a license problem. If you click on the source link to flickr and then click on the "Some rights reserved" link under "Additional information", you will see that the license includes a "noncommercial" clause and a "no-derivatives" clause. Unfortunately, that makes it unusable on Wikipedia on two counts. WP:IUP says, "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use." I doubt that you can make a fair-use argument for three images in the same article. A possible solution would be to convince the copyright holder to re-license as CC-by-SA rather than CC-by-NC-ND. In other words, it could be used if it had the same kind of license as Image:Bloc Party Warfield 05.jpg.
DONE Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and editing. If I have time, I will definitely have a look at other PR articles. Rafablu88 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Scott case[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 even though I believe it is well-sourced, it has been criticised for over-reliance on one source (Anson Shupe and Darnell), and because it has BLP implications and is unflattering to the main protagonists, Rick Ross (consultant) and the now-defunct Cult Awareness Network. The article has been discussed in the current Scientology arbcom case; I stand to receive a topic ban for articles about Rick Ross, as a result of some edit-warring I engaged in last year (mostly to do with including more of this article's content than was warranted in the Rick Ross (consultant) BLP). At the same time, our coverage has to take note of the fact that the Jason Scott case is considered a landmark civil rights decision that changed the legal landscape in the United States, and put an end to coercive deprogramming.

I most likely won't be able to look after the article any further, so I'll put it in the hands of the community. Judging by the criticism it and I have received, it can probably do with having more eyes going over it. Thanks, Jayen466 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly biased article using conflict of interest sources:
  • This article is incredibly biased towards the point of view of the Church of Scientology's top attorney Kendrick Moxon, who himself collaborated later with conflict of interest scholars to put out propaganda about the events that Moxon and his associates themselves participated in as litigants and attorneys in the case.
Here is some more info on the lack of reliability and lack of impartiality and neutrality in the Shupe source as applied to this case:

"When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone on the "countercult" movement since 1979." Kent, Stephen A. (1998). "When Scholars Know Sin: Alternative Religions and Their Academic Supporters". Skeptic Magazine. Vol. 6, no. 3. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"Shupe did not read the full statements of the plaintiffs and defendants when formulating his opinions for deposition about the events in the case. Instead, he read excerpts from them supplied by the prosecuting lawyer, Kendrick Moxon. When asked if he had considered whether the depositions "may have been taken out of context" Shupe answered that he "trusted Mr. Moxon" to provide a "pretty good sample of the depositions" (Scott v. Ross, et.al., 1995a, 109). ... Shupe's trust in Moxon's judgement, however, about providing a "pretty good sample" of depositions about CAN may have been misplaced. Years earlier, while acting in a legal capacity for Scientology, Moxon was a member of Scientology's Guardian Office, "working in the very office where massive covert operations against the government were being run at the time" (Horne, 1992, 79). In 1992, Moxon misrepresented his actions on behalf of his organization during the U.S. government's criminal investigation of the Scientologists' burglaries into U.S. government offices, denying (to The American Lawyer "knowledge of the criminal operations being run out of the office" (Horne, 1992, 80). ... the grand jury for the case "had" named him an "unindicted co-conspirator" ([ USA ] v. Mary Sue Hubbard, et. al., 1979a, 7)." (Kent and Krebs)

  • The Anson Shupe source Agents of Discord is used no less than thirty times. It is briefly attributed, three paragraphs down, in the subsection "The deprogramming", but even so is used in a highly inappropriate manner. It is cited throughout the entire article as if it were a reliable, independent source. It is not. It is cited as if it backs up actual events, it does not. Rather, Shupe constructed his own version of a narrative, based on court documents provided to him by top Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.
  • The only appropriate way to use this Shupe conflict of interest source, would be at the end of the article, in some sort of Commentary or Analysis subsection, attributing it to Shupe, and noting Shupe was used as a witness in the trial by Kendrick Moxon.

Cirt (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Shupe is considered one of the leading academic experts on the anti-cult movement. [1][2] His CV is here. A previous noticeboard discussion at which Cirt (talk · contribs) argued that Shupe was an unsuitable source is here. I think the majority view was that Shupe was a suitable scholarly source. Shupe was an expert witness at the trial and gives the most thorough account of the case. Jayen466 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shupe was also commissioned by Oxford University Press to give an account of the case in a book published earlier this year: [3] (while the book was edited by James R. Lewis, the section in question is authored by Shupe). This is a top-notch, widely respected academic author, and I am extremely puzzled at Cirt's insistence that he is not. Jayen466 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to deal with Kent's suppositions on Shupe' testimony above is to add them in a commentary section. Note that CAN tried several times to have Shupe's expert testimony excluded; they failed, [4] with their final appeal rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Jayen466 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Interesting that above due to obvious conflict of interest issues I recommended the Shupe source should be moved into a Commentary section, and subsequently Jayen466 (talk · contribs) responded by suggesting the Kent source be added into a Commentary section. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to move both sources into a Commentary section, and rely on independent sources for the main body text itself and account of events of the trial. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shupe describes testimony, citing court records, and much of it is in any event backed up by other sources. Kent is speculating. Jayen466 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kent cites and describes court records. Shupe infers from those court records to create his own POV dramatized account of what he thinks happened. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[5], the endnote no. 42 on p. 194 reads, "Besides a lively media coverage of this lawsuit, there are voluminous courtroom transcripts and verdicts to document Scott's experiences. Here we cite probably the most comprehensive document that describes the scenario depicted (including attempts to have the controversial expert testimony of one of this book's authors (Shupe) serve as grounds for appeal): see JASON SCOTT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RICK ROSS; AKA RICKEY ALLEN ROSS; MARK WORKMAN; CHARLES SIMPSON, DEFENDANTS AND CULT AWARENESS NETWORK, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NORTH CIRCUIT. Before Mary M. Schroeder and Robert B. Beezer, Circuit Judges, and William W. Schwarzer, Senior District Judge. Case No 96-35050. Seattle, WA. September 11, 1997.
Kent does cite testimony (he goes into somewhat more detail than you have reproduced above), but he is speculating when he casts aspersions against Moxon (who is in good standing with his bar association, by the way) and speculates that Moxon would have given Shupe incomplete information. His position is also undermined by the fact that several appeal courts, up to the United States Supreme Court, looked at CAN's appeals and rejected them. Jayen466 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above quoted portions from Kent explaining how Shupe gathered his information from excerpts provided by Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon, speak for themselves. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kent is talking about Shupe's "formulating his opinions for deposition" in the court case. He is not talking about the court records Shupe consulted when he wrote his book 10 years later. Jayen466 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This peer review is entirely pointless if it becomes an argument between old foes with obvious POVs. I'd suggest you both consider striking your comments (or at least disengaging) and letting some uninvolved peers actually review the article. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) For once, we are in agreement. Jayen466 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aliso Creek (Orange County)[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 eventually bring this article up to FA. It has already passed GA status in February 2009 and has undergone some revisions since it was passed for GA. I feel that it is much better in referencing and prose now, but I think there are still some sections that need improving: Name, Course, Geology, and Floods sections need better writing and referencing. Also, I need some help in locating and removing repeat references, as they are quite rampant in this article.

Thanks, themaeetalk 18:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll still be active for around a half-hour, but I'll most likely not be active for the following 17 hours or so, as it is Pacific Standard Time night and I will be busy tomorrow. Thanks, themaeetalk 04:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to be slow. I like this and recognize the large amount of work that has gone into it so far. It needs some work for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement with that in mind.

  • In the lead, I have trouble with is a major river-like stream - the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article and I don't really see anywhere else that says it is "river-like". I also think of rivers as being long, draining a large watershed, and having a steady and large volume flow year-round. From what the article says, this does not seem to be very river-like (it is a nice creek, but is fairly short and small in area and its flow is "erratic" enough that it is not sued for drinking water). If there is a reliable source that says this (river-like), fine (and please put it in the article) but if not, I don't see what it adds to the lead. (done)
  • I would say in the lead that it drains directly into the Pacific Ocean (not everyone will know this from just saying the mouth is in Laguna Beach) (done)
  • Watch for needless repetition - the first sentence in the lead identifies the name as Spanish in origin, then the third sentence says The name, of Spanish origin, was given to the creek by Spanish conquistadors in the 1700s, although there are now many places in California that use the name. I think at least one Spanish here is not needed (perhaps even "Spanish conquistadors" is uneeded too, not sure how wide-spread the knowledge is that the conquistadors were all Spanish - I can see someone asking were there any Norwegian or Chinese conquistadors ;-) )? In the same sentence I am not sure why "although" is used. Here it may help to be more specific on other places with the same name - there are five creeks in CA with the same name. There are many places with Aliso in their name. So maybe it should read something like The name was given to the creek by Spanish conquistadors in the 1700s; as of 2009 it is one of five Aliso Creeks in California, which has many places with "Aliso" in their name. Not perfect, but you get the idea.
  • In the second paragraph in the lead, the geological eras are the oldest time periods referred to, so would it make sense to start the paragraph with that sentence, then go on to the more recent history? Chronological order? (done)
  • It is not a MOS Issue (either way is OK), but I think most readers prefer a lead without references (except for direct quotations and extraordinary claims). Since the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, the refs will also be in the body of the article.
  • One of the most difficult criteria for most articles to meet in FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This needs some work - just in the lead for example I am not sure what this means As a result, the creek slowly declined in importance throughout the mid-20th century, ... since there is no other mention of importance anywhere else in the article. Or The creek continues to be a major pollution problem today would probably read better as Pollution continues to be a major problem for the creek (avoid today and the rest of the sentence gives a year anyway).
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but Floods and Recreation (at least) do not seem to be in the lead.
  • Per WP:CITE references generally come directly AFTER punctuation (no space), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so please fix things like ... watershed had a population of 149,087 divided between eight major cities. [1] (done)
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The layout in the Overview section has a lot of white space (and I looked at it on two very different computers). On the monitor that has smaller type, the header is even with the mouth on the Geobox, then there is white space to the end of the Geobox. Then the locator map for Orange COunty in California has text down to about Humboldt County, then more white space to the end of that map. I think part of the problem could be solved with staggered left right images for the maps. (done)
  • I know how much work it is to make maps, so I hate to criticize but the File:Acmapcomposite.jpg map does not help me much - I can't see where the ocean is on it, the places like cities or mountains or tributaries are not clearly labeled, and it is very obvious that it is pasted together. User:Kmusser makes lovely stream maps and may be able to help here. I would prefer the File:AlisoCreekReliefMap.jpg geology section map as it shows the cities and even a sliver of the ocean. Also would it be possible to add a red dot showing the location of the mouth of the creek to File:Wpdms shdrlfi020l santa ana mountains.jpg? I am guessing it is somewhere below the word basin. (done)
  • I am not sure what the Overview section is about. Usually overview sections summarize the article more completely than the lead. It seems to be mostly about Geographic location, but name is a subsection. I have written a few creek articles and I would include most of this information in the Watershed or Geology sections. I owuld put the roads in the Course section. Your mileage may vary ;-) (done)
  • The Name section does not repeat what the lead has told us, that Spanish conquistadors named the creek. Since the lead is a summary, this needs to be here too. Also since we know this was the border between two Native American tribes, do we know their name(s) for the creek? I also imagine Aliso Viejo takes its name from the creek, but the name section does not mention this either.
  • At least one place besides the alternate name spells it Sulphur Creek (not Sulpher).
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V - current refs 1, 36, and 51 are just titles and links.
  • References need to use the correct title, so I checked one at random. Current ref "Haldane, David. "Pipe to Protect Creek Pollutes It Instead - Los Angeles Times". latimes.com. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/23/local/me-41541. Retrieved on 2009-02-02." needs the publication date (given online) and Los Angeles Times is the publisher, not part of the title.
  • I think the large quotes in the Water quality section would not pass muster at FAC - pick out the best line or two and quote that, then paraphrase the rest in your own words. (see below)

OK, I'll stop for now - ask on my talk page if you want me to make more comments. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be able to revise the map in infobox, and add lables for the ocean, cities, etc. I remember the "Overview" section was added by someone else early in the GA review and I kind of overdid it since then. It has evolved to describe generally the watersheds and drainage in the area, the general location of the creek, etc. AlisoCreekReliefMap.jpg has no higher resolution than 200px, I think, because Planiglobe cannot zoom in far enough.themaeetalk 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually decided to remove the "Overview" section and move its references to corresponding sections. Took less work than I expected. :) Shannon1talk contribs 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be hard to narrow down the quotes, because if I removed any section it would not make much sense. For example, if I remove this: As a result, the area where the creek meets the sea, and the creek itself, are considered permanently off limits to swimmers and bear prominent signs that warn of the dangers of trespassing into such toxic waters. Nevertheless, people do, almost daily. Officials from the Orange County Environmental Health Department say that skin rashes, infections, "pink eye" and other assorted ailments are not uncommon to those who use Aliso Beach and, unwittingly, come in contact with the creek and its invisible bacteria. from the first large quote, the whole thing would not be clear that the creek poses health problems, and I intended to keep it like this through FAC. However, I will try to remove as much as I can from the quotes eventually, if the need arises. Besides, how long is the max length for a quote? Shannon1talk contribs 21:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding - you do not have to remove the information in the quotes, just paraphrase much of it and save the actual direct quotes for the really important points / memorable phrases. For example in this part of a much longer quote:
The water's dirty," Haines said with a snarl. "The county has ignored the problem for years, and we're sick and tired of it. It's nothing but a cesspool stew, full of pigeons and pigeon droppings and nearly 90-degree water, right at the beach!" County health officials acknowledge that the bacterial count at the mouth of the creek--which curls into a warm-water stagnant pond that flushes out onto the beach--is at times alarmingly high, often surpassing the legal limit for California. ... [25] Michael Granberry, The Los Angeles Times, 1997

First off we have no idea who Haines is and the identity or role of this person has to be made clear. Assuming he is a local resident / activist ,I would make it something like this (not sure if I would identify Haines - is he important to understanding the rest of the article?):

A local activist said that the water pollution problem has long been ignored by the county "and we're sick and tired of it. It's nothing but a cesspool stew, full of pigeons and pigeon droppings and nearly 90-degree water, right at the beach!" According to the county health department, the number of bacteria in the creek, especially at its mouth in a warm stagnant pool, frequently exceeds the limits set by California law.[25] Hopefully this is clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try doing that tomorrow first thing on Wikipedia. Good (Pacific Standard Time) Night, Shannon1talk contribs 04:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz standards (before 1930)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I don't know if this is ready to go to WP:FLC just yet, but since it's already gone through a lot of work, I'd like to get some input on it before I update the other articles (1930s, 1940s and later). Any comments on the language, use of references (the list basically has one online source and a lot of fakebooks), readability etc. are welcome. The article was previously in table format, and if someone has ideas on which format is better or how to improve the readability I'd like to hear it. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an impressive list. I know how time-consuming it is to compile such fiddly information. My concern would be the element of ambiguity in the title and in the way the lead describes these tunes. The first paragraph is written in the present tense, so I presume these songs are regarded as jazz standards today. And obviously a song written in, say, 1930, didn't have time to become a standard already. On the other hand, some of these songs were already old and established jazz standards by then. I think it would help if the definition of a jazz standard were clarified somewhat. For example, the last paragraph of the lead starts in the past tense and then drifts into the present tense, which blurs the information. Also, some of these tunes are pre-Jazz, but it's not clear when the phenomenon of jazz standards started. What's the difference, one wonders, between a popular standard and a jazz standard? qp10qp (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent suggestions! This is the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I have made some changes to the lead to address some of the issues you mentioned. I don't know how to improve the definition of jazz standard, though. I thought the list could simply state the usual definition without going into too many details, and if the reader wants to find out more they can consult the main article, where more information can be found. I plan to expand the main article once I'm finished with the lists. Jafeluv (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really is a terrific response. I think it makes the lead far clearer. qp10qp (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Butter and Egg Man? qp10qp (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This omission points out one of the big problems in lists like this: the inclusion criteria. The list started out as an intersection of several unsourced lists (list of bebop jazz standards, list of swing jazz standards, etc), was merged into one huge list and then split into the current four. I tried to find sources for each of the songs listed using jazzstandards.com and several fakebooks, and the ones that I couldn't find a source for were discarded from the list. "(I Want A) Big Butter and Egg Man" was included in one of the lists, but as I couldn't find a source for it, it was dropped. The current inclusion criteria is problematic: if everything from the selected sources is included, the lists will become ridiculously long (jazzstandards.com lists 1000 entries, the combined volumes of The Real Book have 1200 entries, and so forth). On the other hand some often played songs are included in neither, such as the song you pointed out. Any ideas on how to better define the inclusion criteria would be very welcome. Jafeluv (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you don't think I combed through the list to nitpick for an omission, but I just happened to be listening to the Hot Fives and sensed I didn't remember this one being on the list—and it is performed a lot by Dixieland bands. Sourcewise, I've just tried typing in the title plus "standard" to Google Books and came up with this page (fourth para up on the right), amongst others. It's not a big deal, though, because short lists like this can never hope to be comprehensive. qp10qp (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a stub for the song and added it to the list. Jafeluv (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neat article. I always a assumed a butter and egg man was a delivery man of some sort! qp10qp (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sprang[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
An unusual little GA that's been stable for a year. Covers a textile construction technique that had gone unrecognized by scholars until nineteenth century archaeological excavations uncovered ancient examples. Afterward researchers discovered sprang to be in widespread though declining use, and museum examples that had previously been misidentified as knitting were reclassified upon closer examination. Could probably use more sources although there's not really much more to be covered about this small topic. Interested in feedback for possible FA drive.

Thanks, DurovaCharge! 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I found this to be very interesting and generally well-written. I think it is near FA, but needs some work before FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I have read this article three or four times and even read the German version too - I am still trying to figure out how sprang is actually made. My understanding is that this is made only from interlacing vertical threads, so I think that the threads must be lifted off the frame and moved then put back on the frame? Is this right? I guess what I am trying to get at here is that I really don't undertand how this is made still and I think the article needs to somehow explain this better (and I like what is there, just still do not understand it). Would it be possible to have several images like File:Sprang 001.JPG and make an animated image showing the sequence? (just an idea)
  • What does the word sprang mean in Swedish? It is the same word in German and Dutch (and Swedish) - is this worth mentioning in the article?
  • I think there are some places where providing context for the reader are needed for this to be of FA quality - see WP:PCR.
    • For example, I think it would be helpful to give a sentence or two explaining how ancient fabric can be preserved (bogs in northern Europe, dry desert conditions in Egypt or Peru).
    • Or the centuries could be added here Egypt (possibly twenty-second dynasty, also early Coptic) for those not sure what dates these correspond to
    • Is there any idea if Sprang arose independently in lots of places in Europe and Northern Africa or if it just spread from place to place? Obviously South America was independent?
  • The use of italics for the quotation is against WP:ITALIC
  • Five sources seems a bit sparse for an FA. Is this all there is?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Launceston, Tasmania[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 intending to take this article to GAN

Thanks, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Finetooth comments:

Lead

  • The existing lead is nearly an exact copy of the climate section of the Launceston, Tasmania, article, and that seems to be the main reason why it is not an ideal lead. For example, the existing lead mentions the fog-bound airport, but the airport is not mentioned in the main sections of the article. Entirely missing from the existing lead is any mention of the 2009 heat wave. My suggestion would be to move some of the details from the lead into the appropriate lower sections and then to re-write the lead.
  • The first word in the article links to a disambiguation page.
  • "The most rain Launceston received in a year was 829.6 millimetres (32.66 in) in 1992, with 2006 being the driest year when just 394.8 millimetres (15.54 in) fell." - Sometimes "with" is not an ideal connector. Suggestion: "The wettest year in Launceston was 1992, when the city received 829.6 millimetres (32.66 in) of rain. The driest was 2006, at 394.8 millimetres (15.54 in)." Lots of other ways of saying this are possible.

Precipitation

  • "Cold fronts in winter account for much of this precipitation, with mountains surrounding Launceston regularly receiving snow in autumn, winter and spring. - I think this "with" would work better if replaced by "and". Suggestion: "... and mountains surrounding Launceston regularly receive snow in autumn, winter and spring."
  • The image of Cataract Gorge is good, but how is it related to Launceston? Where is the gorge in relation to the city? Does any stream flow through Launceston? If so, is the stream depicted the one that floods the city? More detail about historic floods would be interesting and would expand this short section.
  • Do the hills and mountains have names? How high are they?

Summer

  • Did the tornado cause damage? Was anyone hurt?

Some other thoughts

  • Generally, the metric numbers should be rounded to the same decimal place as the imperial numbers. Thus, instead of "12.2 °C (54 °F)", it would be more common to see either the C number rounded to the nearest whole number or, if tenths of a degree are important, the F number expressed to the nearest tenth.
  • The tables might be more readable if fewer words were in bold type. Bolding loses its attention-getting effect if a lot of things appear in bold.
  • All metric measurements should be given in imperial units also. "Estimates suggest the tornado had wind speeds of between 200 and 250 km/hr", for example, needs a conversion. A handy way to do these is by using the {{convert}} template, which does the math and adds the correct words and abbreviations. You can add a parameter for rounding to the accuracy you want. A complete list of expressions like "km/h" that the template can handle are listed at Template:Convert/list of units.
  • Statistics about wind might be interesting. Ditto for humidity. Ditto for fog. Ditto for cloudy vs. sunny days.
  • Most of the information about the heat wave isn't specific to Launceston. The material is interesting and provides a good background, but perhaps something specific could be added from local newspaper accounts. Were people driven outdoors to sleep? Did the demand for electricity for air conditioning cause problems? Did the heat cause any fatalities in or near the city? Did any bushfires affect Launceston? Was the air ever filled with smoke from fires?

Images

  • It wouldn't hurt to add a link to the base map (locator map) used for Image:09 Aus heatwave map.PNG. That would make it easier for fact-checkers to verify that the base map is in the public domain.

If you find these few suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Attack[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 have done a lot of work to rescue it from its previous sorry state. I would appreciate pointers on making further improvements.

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work ahs gone into this, more work remains before it would be ready for GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs about musical groups, Radiohead is one, that may be good models to follow.
  • The lead is overly detailed and has details not found in the body of the article itself. Since the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only. Since the lead is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
  • As one example, the "1988-1989: Any Love" section is only two sentences now and could include several details about the formation of the band and what the members did before that is currently in the lead.
  • The language is not always neutral and encyclopedic. The first sentence calls them seminal which might be seen as violating WP:NPOV and there is alll sorts of WP:PEACOCK language throughout. For example (again from the lead) With the coffee-table chill-out of Protection in 1994, a rather heavier, guitar-upgraded Mezzanine in 1998, and then the denser, more clinical soundscaping of Robert Del Naja's essentially solo 100th Window in 2003, Massive's overall sound grew persistently more experimental and melancholy, having a greater degree of gothic post-punk texture and moodily cinematic electronica integrated into it. It is OK to use this kind of language if it is a direct quote from a reviewer or one of the band members, or if it is a paraphrase.
  • The article has a lot of very short (one or two sentences) paragraphs and sections - to improve the flow, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Make sure to provide context for the reader - for example there could be more years / dates given in sections (the headers give the general years)
  • There are some sections with good references, but others have few or no refs. The Media usage section has no refs and there seems to only be one in the rest of the article after this. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The whole speculation on their next album section seems iffy - see WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball)
  • Avoid needless repetition (just in the lead Vowles is identified as Mushroom twice)
  • For quotes within quotations, use single quotes, for example "This is a quotation where the band said 'We are a great!' in an interview."

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thorough review. I shall look to follow this in developing the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Cain[edit]

Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there has been a lot of work done on this article and I wanted to know if there was anything else that needed to be fixed/tweaked/etc. I'm hoping to get this to an FA but maybe it's too soon? Please go through the article very carefully and be through. Any suggestions are very much appreciated! :) Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, well-organized, and highly readable. I have no expert knowledge of manga or of articles about this art form, but I enjoyed this one. I have suggestions mainly about prose and Manual of Style issues, as noted below.

Lead

  • Wikilink manga in the first sentence?
  • "Both were serialized in Hana to Yume, with Earl Cain Series 1 though 4 being published from 1992 to 1994 and Godchild released from 2001 to 2004." - The "with" connector seems a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Both appeared as serials in the Japanese magazine Hana to Yume. The Earl Cain series 1 though 4 ran between 1992 and 1994 and Godchild between 2001 and 2004."

Plot

  • "Named after the biblical Cain, his childhood is filled with abuse... " - His childhood isn't named after Cain. Suggestion: "Named after the biblical Cain, he is abused throughout his childhood... ".
  • "Cain returns home and poisons him." - It might be slightly stronger to say "Cain returns home and poisons his father."
  • "Before Alexis plunges into the sea, he curses his son to misery." - I'm not sure you can curse someone to misery. Perhaps "he curses his son, wishing him misery."
  • The "doctor" after Jizabel Disraeli links to a disambiguation page and probably doesn't need to be linked at all.
  • "After the woman Cain loves is revealed to be a "doll" - a resurrected corpse surviving on the fresh blood and organs of others - created by Delilah and dies, Cain vows to end Delilah's experiments with the dead." - This doesn't seem to be a sentence. Suggestion: "After the death of the woman that Cain loves, a Delilah "doll" or resurrected corpse surviving on the fresh blood and organs of others, he vows to end Delilah's experiments with the dead." Or something like that.

Godchild

  • "despite Jizabel's efforts to delay Riff's cruel personality from awakening" - It was a bit of a surprise to learn suddenly that he had a cruel personality. Perhaps something like "despite Jizabel's efforts to delay Riff's second, hidden, and cruel personality from awakening"?
  • "promises Mary that they will have a tea party" - Tea party is linked to a disambiguation page. Ditto for "personality" in the prior sentence. To check for other disambiguation problems, you can run a dab finder that lives here.
  • "Riff attacks Cain, but deliberately shoots himself, sparking a struggle between his personalities;" - Wouldn't the struggle precede the shooting?

Production

  • "or opening the chapter with an everyday scene to contrast the 'scary scenes' " - "to contrast with" rather than "to contrast"?
  • "Yuki's drawing style also changed since The Cain Saga; she believed that Cain looked older than seventeen in The Cain Saga." - "had changed" rather than "also changed"? Also, the second part of the sentence doesn't logically follow from the first. Does this mean that her former drawing style made all of her characters look too old?
  • "focuses on a mystery involving an "Alice in Wonderland inspired" serial killer nicknamed the "White Rabbit" - Suggestion: "focuses on a mystery inspired by Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It involves a serial killer nicknamed the 'White Rabbit' who chops off his victims' heads in the style of the Queen of Hearts."

Manga

  • "Both series were originally serialized in Hana to Yume, with the four Series of Earl Cain serialized between 1992 and 1994, and its sequel Godchild serialized from 2001 to 2004." - Five repetitions of "series" or "serialized" here is probably too many.

Drama CDs

  • ""The Twisted Fairy Tale" revolves around one of Cain's maids and relative believing that they murdered him." - Something is missing. Should it be "relatives"? Is the maid a relative? Who is "they"?
  • "Another drama CD was released by the same company on January 26, 2000 named Count Cain Series ~ Kafka (伯爵カインシリーズ~カフカ, Hakushaku Kain Shiriizu ~ Kafuka?)." - I think it would be slightly better to recast this as "Another drama CD, Count Cain Series ~ Kafka (伯爵カインシリーズ~カフカ, Hakushaku Kain Shiriizu ~ Kafuka?), was released by the same company on January 26, 2000."

Reception

  • "Courtney Kraft of The Book Report... " - Italics for "The Book Report"? I don't know if it's a company (no italics) or a periodical (italics).
  • "Critics felt The Cain Saga and its sequel Godchild could appeal to a broad audience, including its intended female shōjo readers, due to containing elements from the mystery and horror genres." - Perhaps "... readers, because it contained elements... "?
  • "He compared The Cain Saga to EC's 1950s horror stories... " - Should EC's be spelled out for readers unfamiliar with it? Also, in this same sentence, would it be better to include just a few more words explaining who Feldstein and Kamen were? Maybe "Al Feldstein, who drew and edited for EC Comics", for example. This would give a little more context for the reader.

References

  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. For example, in citation 1, pp. 189-190 should appear as pp. 189–190.

Images

  • I removed the terminal period from the caption of the image in the infobox because it was a fragment rather than a complete sentence. On second thought, maybe it would be better to say, "The first volume of Earl Cain was published in Japan by Hakusensha on July 17, 1992." Or perhaps "Cover of the first volume of Earl Cain, published in Japan by Hakusensha on July 17, 1992" since the image shows the cover rather than the volume.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful suggestions. If I have any time left over, I will definitely consider reviewing an article. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any other suggestions? Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kirby[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 Jack should be a GA, and has potential to go up to FA. I recently put it up for GAN, but I now accept that it still requires a lot of work to get it where it needs to be. Anything from the recent failed GAN you want to reiterate or anything you think the reviewer missed or got wrong? There are plenty of sourcing issues. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, especially the first half of the article, but it's a long way from GA. My impression is that the sourcing and the writing deteriorate from "Marvel Comics in the Silver Age (1958-1970)" to the end. I have quite a few specific suggestions, most of them related to prose or the Manual of Style, and many of these carry over in a general way to the second half. In addition, I have concerns about the lack of sourcing and related matters in the second half.

Lead

  • "During the 1940s, Kirby would create a number of comics for various publishers, often teamed with Simon." - "created" rather than "would create"?

Early life (1917-1935)

  • Date ranges get en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: 1917–1935. Ditto for all date ranges in the article.

Entry into comics (1936-1940

  • "Per his own sometimes-unreliable memory... " - "According to" rather than "per"?
  • "However, he took offense to those who suggested he changed his name... " - Suggestion: "took offense to suggestions that"?

Marriage and World War II (1943-1945)

  • "The pair hired writers, inkers, letters, and colorists in order to create a year's worth of material." - Wikilink inkers? Also, letterers (linked) rather than "letters"? Also, wikilink colorists?
  • "landed on Omaha Beach in Normandy on August 23... " - Word missing, maybe "He"?
  • "Kirby and his wife corresponded regularly by v-mail, with Roz sending "him a letter a day" while she worked in a lingerie shop and lived with her mother." - The "with" connector is questionable. Suggestion: "Kirby and his wife corresponded regularly by v-mail. Roz sent "him a letter a day" while she worked in a lingerie shop and lived with her mother."

Postwar career (1946-1955)

  • "After returning from the army, Kirby's first daughter, Susan, was born on December 6, 1945." - Susan didn't return from the army. Suggestion: "After Kirby returned from the army, his first daughter... "
  • "the kid-gang western Boys' Ranch " - To separate the two linked items, perhaps Boys' Ranch, a kid-gang Western? After the change, you might want to use some semicolon separators in the sentence to make it easily readable.
  • "Showing it to Crestwood general manager Maurice Rosenfeld, Simon asked for 50%... " - The Manual of Style suggests using "percent" rather than the symbol in simple constructions like this. Ditto for 92% shortly thereafter. I see that you've used "percent" in some places and not in others.
  • Initially published bimonthly, Young Romance quickly became a monthly title and produced the spin-off Young Love — together the two titles sold two million copies per month, according to Simon[33] — later joined by Young Brides and In Love, the latter "featuring full-length romance stories". - A bit too complicated. Suggestion: Initially published bimonthly, Young Romance quickly became a monthly title and produced the spin-off Young Love. Together the two titles sold two million copies per month, according to Simon, and were later joined by Young Brides and In Love, the latter "featuring full-length romance stories".
  • "Despite the glut, the Simon & Kirby... " - Generally "and" is preferred to the ampersand. Ditto in the image caption. Also, the phrase appears in the caption as Kirby & Simon but here as Simon & Kirby. Maybe Kirby and Simon would be best.
  • "had relaunched Captain America in a new series, in 1954, Kirby and Simon created Fighting American" - It's not clear from this whether 1954 refers to the re-launching or to the creation. If the latter, you could make this clear by removing the comma after 1954.

Marvel Comics in the Silver Age (1958-1970)

  • "The landmark series became a hit that revolutionized the industry with its comparative naturalism and, eventually, a cosmic purview informed by Kirby's seemingly boundless imagination — one coincidentally well-matched with the consciousness-expanding youth culture of the 1960s." - This sentence struck me as oddly polished, which led me to notice that it and the paragraph that includes it is not sourced and should be. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as any statistics, any direct quote, and any claim that might reasonably be questioned. Is this sentence by any chance a direct quote? Is it an instance of plagiarism; that is, an instance of copying someone else's work without giving credit?
  • Quotations of four lines or more should appear in blockquotes rather than fancy quotes. WP:MOSQUOTE has details. Ditto for the quotations in fancy quotes later in the article. Quotations of less than four lines should be embedded in the text in ordinary quotation marks.

Final years and death (1981-1994)

  • Orphan paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences should generally be merged with other paragraphs or expanded.

References

  • Quite a few of these are incomplete.
  • Page ranges, just like date ranges, get en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King products[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 intend to nominate it to GA and would like some outside eyes to show me what it needs to become the best article it can be.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blah) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you have that infobox in the article? I think its enough to have it in the main article. --Skizziktalk 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the info box is included on all articles that were spun off of the main article as it grew. Minor articles do not include the infobox. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just think that an infobox about BK should not be included in any other article than just Burger King. Dunno if there are any guidelines about this. --Skizziktalk 23:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There was a deletion discussion about this shortly after the template was created. The consensus was that this an appropriate use of the template. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I reviewed this before and, while it has improved, I still do not think it would pass GAN in its current state. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem I see is the lack of references (which was also noted in my previous review). For example in the Products section two of three paragraphs in Product packaging have no refs, the Iconography section has no refs, and most of the very listy rest of the section has no refs.
  • My guess is that there are reliable sources for much of this and the PDFs of the menus in various countries are probably the refs. These should be cited directly though, and the Notes should all have publisher and access dates since they are references too.
  • The language tends to be a bit repetitive, here's one random example: The Chili Cheese burger is a small hamburger topped with a hamburger patty, jalapeños and chili cheese sauce. It is part of the 99er (BK Germany's 99 cent menu) menu which also has the hamburger, cheeseburger, Chicken Nugget Burger, King Fries, small soft drink, small-sized cappucino and the King Sundae as available options. The Chili Cheese burger is available in Germany. The first sentence uses the word burger three times. The second sentence repeats menu twice. The last sentence is not really needed as we have already been told this is in Germany. How about something like this instead: The small Chili Cheese burger, available in Germany, is topped with jalapeños and chili cheese sauce. It is part of the 99er (BK Germany's 99 cent menu) which also includes the hamburger, cheeseburger, Chicken Nugget Burger, King Fries, small soft drink, small cappucino and the King Sundae.
  • There are lots of places where I would add dates - when describing menus it is clear that they change, so the items should say "As of June 2009...." or if something has been discontinued it would help to include when this happened, if known.
  • Since much of the article is about regional variations in the menu, I would include this in the photo captions, so BK Chicken Fries and sauce are sold only in North America and Italy.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 203[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article may be Washington State's next GA after an overhaul. I recently expanded it and would like some comments and suggestions. Thanks, –CG 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems to me to be in pretty good shape. I have a few suggestions about prose issues, and I made a small number of minor proofing changes as I went through the article.

Lead

  • "State Route 203 (SR 203) is a Washington state highway located in King and Snohomish counties." - Delete "located"?
  • "The 24.26-mile (39.04 km) long route that begins at an intersection with SR 202 in Fall City." - Delete "long"? Delete "that"?

Route description

  • "SR 203 runs north past NE Tolt Hill Road to cross the Tolt River into Carnation." - I'm inclined to spell out Northeast and similar terms when they are parts of formal street names. Most readers probably know or can guess what NE means, but some might not get it.
  • "South of the US 2 intersection, an estimated 15,000 motorists utilized Lewis Street daily based on average annual daily traffic (AADT) data collected by the Washington State Department of Transportation." - The Manual of Style prefers "use" to "utilize", and perhaps it would be best to specify the year of the data; i.e. "an estimated 15,000 motorists used Lewis Street daily in YYYY... ".

History

  • "Lewis Street became the first portion of the highway to be paved, which Monroe did in 1912." - Suggestion: "Lewis Street became the first portion of the highway to be paved when the City of Monroe improved it in 1912". If you know what the city paved it with, that would be an interesting detail to add, and then you could substitute "added concrete" or "added bricks" for "improved". I'm suggesting "City of" because "Monroe" at first glance might sound like a person.
  • "During 2002, the first 4 miles (6.44 km) stretch of the highway suffered from four fatal collisions... " - It's odd to see the imperial units rounded to a whole number and the metric units rounded to the nearest hundredth. You could use 4.00 mi, or you could round to 6 km. I think the latter is easier to read and that the level of precision here does not matter very much. Also, is "suffered" the right word? Highways don't literally suffer. Suggestion: "During 2002, four fatal collisions occurred along the first 4-mile (6 km) stretch of the highway.." I added adj=on to the template to make the hyphen. The "adj" stands for "adjective".
  • "... and WSDOT responded by retrieving funding for a new project that would install... " - Is "retrieving" the right word? "Obtaining"? Also, would "to install" be better than "that would install"?
  • "A similar project will take place on the 6.19-mile (9.96 km) stretch in Snohomish County, where there were 348 collisions since 2002, 120 causing injuries." - Instead of "where there were 348 collisions since 2002", it might be better to say "where 348 collisions occurred between 2002 and 2009" if 2009 is the right end date. This will prevent the statement from becoming untrue as time passes and more wrecks occur.

"References

  • I tried to fix the p. + pp. duplication in citation 3 by switching to "section", which "cite map" can handle. I think this is probably better, but an even better fix might be possible. Also, I wondered if this citation should have an access date since it does not have an url. I think "access date" in the Wikipedia citations indicates the last time the source was accessed on-line. Thus, an off-line source would have no access date but simply a publication date. When urls change or die, the access date sometimes helps editors find a new url or otherwise figure out how to fix a link-rot problem.

Images

  • Nice photos. Image:DSCN0452.JPG lacks a description on its license page. It and the other road photo could include the direction of the photo; i.e, looking north, facing east, or whatever, as well as other identifying information. Both images could be uploaded to the Commons, which is used more widely than the English Wikipedia by itself.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Finetooth! I've just put these in and shortly will take care of the images, though Image:DSCN0452.JPG's creator hasn't been on Wikipedia since 2006 and I can't find him anywhere. –CG 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Like I Love You/archive2

List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

It's been a month since the last time this article was peer reviewed, and I've put a whole lot of effort into overhauling the whole thing. The only remaining task I have left is to rewrite the episode summaries for "Season 2" and "Season 3," and then I intend to nominate it as a Featured List. (Here's what the page looked like before I started.) I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions on what I've done so far. -- Aatrek / TALK 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs
  • It's looking good, and as loath as I am to let someone break my 100% domination on Star Trek Featured content, I guess I'll have to let it slide :P Some comments:
  • Perhaps for verification purposes, you could ref the plot summaries to the star trek.com recaps.
Good thinking. The summaries need more expansion for sure, but what's there is sourced, at least. -- Aatrek / TALK 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some statements are unsourced and should probably be, such as Whitney's appearances in later films and Voyager, and The Animated Series' air date.
  • "NBC eventually surrendered to the fans' demand" -> a touch POV language there?
Adjusted.-- Aatrek / TALK 20:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mustard (or should I say command gold) dividers between eps in season 1 are missing their left and right borders (season 2 and 3 seem to have them).
It's actually an optical illusion; the colored dividers actually display OVER the borders, and the gold is light enough to seem to disappear. I've darkened the gold color to hopefully alleviate some of that. -- Aatrek / TALK 20:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through other List of/Season TV articles, it seems like the episode synopsis go into slightly more detail (as in revealing the conclusion of the episode). Since you're providing more than a single line synopsis anyhow, maybe you should just give a concise paragraph outline for the full thing. Ep lists aren't really consistent about this sort of thing.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons[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 made a recent series of enhancements to the article, and I'm looking to receive some feedback prior to a possible request for featured list consideration.

Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KV5
  • Don't force image sizes outside of the lead (it's making the table REAAAALLY cramped to have those 200px wide images). Let user preference determine the size per WP:IMAGE.
I like all of the other changes you made. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks good, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • This needs a ref: In so doing, they became the first team to win the World Series in Canada.
I thought that too, and I might just have to remove it — even though I both know it to be true and it's more than a little obvious, I can't find a single direct online citation to back this up. I'm going to look through some reference books tonight at home, but this may get pruned. Mlaffs (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning where the played before Rogers Centre?
Done. Mlaffs (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also should the year be given when the name changed from SkyDome? Perhaps soemthing like Since June 5, 1989, the Blue Jays have played in the Rogers Centre (formerly named "SkyDome" until DATE).[1] ?
Done. Mlaffs (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 6 (1981 MLB season) probably needs a ref.
Done. Mlaffs (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the full names of the awards be linked again in the notes?
Done. Mlaffs (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Dubai[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi guys, I've just rewritten this & am aiming for GA with it I hope, so any comments would be very much appreciated. Thanks! Thanks, Dottydotdot (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AreJay's comments: I'll try and focus more on content rather than structure, since I'm sure you'll get a lot of feedback on standard Wiki structure.

  • Can we conclusively say the "history of Dubai began approximately in 3000 BC"? What's our definition of "history" here? As mentioned further in the article, mangrove swamps discovered in the area predate 3000 BC. This conflicts with the introductory statement. Did you mean history of settlement? DONE
  • Is "re engergisation" a word? :) Maybe go with something simpler? (revitalization? resettlement?)DONE
  • Al Abu Fasala is a dynasty. The Bani Yas is a tribe. (the article mentions both as "clan").DONE
  • The sentence about the 1894 fire is a little long...maybe split this into 2 sentences (the issue of the fire & Dubai becoming a British protectorate are separate thoughts anyway)DONE
  • There seems to be no mention of the Britsh East India Company setting up shop in Dubai and the fact that the British Trucial Oman representative was based out of Dubai.(SORT OF)DONE
  • The dredging sentence is a little unclear. Maybe rephrase? It basically allowed any vessel (as opposed to any boat) to sail through/dock at the old Dubai port.DONE
  • There was also a long standing dispute with Sharjah, which I believe was only reconciled in the 1990s.DONE
  • As far as the formation of the UAE, I think it would make sense to mention the rights/obligations of Dubai and Abu Dhabi vis-a-vis the federation. I.e., Dubai gave up its military (which was then united with that of Abu Dhabi's to form the armed forces of the UAE), but retained (along with Ras al Khaimah, an independent court system, not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the UAE) and independence on issues of finance. Both Abu Dhabi and Dubai retained veto rights over matters of the federation.
  • All indications are that Dubai was aligned with the West prior to Rashid's death. Where was this referenced from?DONE
  • The Sheikh Zayed Road image (c. 1990) cites a source that doesn't exist. I've seen this image before at the Dubai Museum. I don't think it was ever released as a CC image.DONE
  • General comment: The text appears to be a bit choppy. I know cleaning this up isn't easy at all, given the gaps in recorded history. But maybe try to come up with a smoother transition b/w sentences where possible? Thanks AreJay (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those! Not sure what to put in the first sentence; I'll work on that. Haven't got time now, but I'll put in the stuff about Sharjah, alignment with the West & the status of Dubai in the UAE. I'll try & find the photo/another. Thank you! Dottydotdot (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the late response. As far as the intro, maybe take a look at History articles listed in WP:FA to see how they were written up. About your question on the 1990 Dubai image: yes, I do believe those websites were violating copyright law; enforcing intellectual property is a bit of a problem on the internet though. If you're not planning on listing this article on GA before next week, I'll try and read through the article again and work on a few areas this weekend. Any further questions, let me know. Thanks! AreJay (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very kind, thanks! Dotty••|☎ 10:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your comments, I'm not sure about putting in about Dubai's position in the UAE, mainly becuase this is described thoroughly in the Dubai article & I don't feel that it should be in the History of Dubai-but if you think it should, I cede to your greater experience. I see the problem with the picture & will sort that out over the coming days. Dotty••|☎ 10:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase my initial comments, I don't think I put them in proper context. In the section where we discuss the formation of the UAE, I think a line or two about how Dubai went from being a sovereign state historically, to being incorporated into a federation would give the formation of the UAE perspective. Especially given the rivalry b/w Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and Dubai & Sharjah. Dubai was very hesitant to join any confederacy where Abu Dhabi would be given primacy and insisted that it (Dubai) be allowed to maintain its own military. The British and the Saudis arbitrated the issue, and a compromise was reached. Abu Dhabi would remain capital of the UAE and the army would be federalized. However, Dubai was permitted to have its own court system, which was not answerable to the supreme court of the UAE. In addition, Dubai and AD were the only two emirates given veto power over issues of national importance in the UAE. My suggestion therefore was to approach this from a historical context as opposed to explaining the current status of Dubai vis-a-vis the UAE in the article. Hope that makes it a little clearer. Thanks AreJay (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a different photo-as explained in the edit summary. Dotty••|☎ 10:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Aha, I see your point, yep I'll get to that & do it. Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii hotspot[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 its approaching a FA nom, and I need feedback. I'm not very impressed with how my prior reviews gathered dust, but let's see what happens.

Thanks, ResMar 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a joint project being undertaken by both me and ResMar, in order to bring it up to FA standards. I will be assisting with any issues and/or comments. And as a side note, the technical issues raised by the automated peer review have been addressed. ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hawaii hotspot/archive1.

Jennifer Hudson discography[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 becaus I feel that the article is well-referenced. Although it isn't at all ready for FLC, I would like some creative imput as to how I can improve the article to this high standard. Thanks, Dt128 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay. Mostly looks good per MOS:DISCOG. US Dance Club Play column should read "US Dance" and the Canadian cite should be moved up into the column to be with the rest. "If This Isn't Love" needs a ref for its director, and the footnote for her new single should just read "To be released", preferably with a cite verifying it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: The number of albums and singles is really short and I think as such it does not meet the requirements for WP:FL - you may want to ask on the FL talk page. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The first paragraph is one sentence - I think it should be expanded to several sentences, or better, combined with the second paragraph.
  • The lead says three singles and the infobox says five singles - which is correct?
  • The lead says one album, but the article lists two albums. Again, which is it?
  • This needs a copyedit - the proper spelling is "incorporates" and the last phrase in Hudson rose to fame as a contestant on the third series of American Idol, however being eliminated at the "Top 7" stage.[1] is just not grammatically correct.
  • This becoming one of the few people to win an award at the ceremony for a debut performance. needs a ref (extraordinary claim)
  • The top is number one, not number two The album shot to the top of the Billboard charts, debuting at number two on the Billboard 200 chart.
  • Refs need to meet WP:RS - Amazon is not usually seen as a reliable source
  • Refs alos need to be consistent - is it "amazon" or "amazon" as one example?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ota Benga[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Someone nominated this article at WP:FAC without consulting me or User:Outriggr about it, and while FA wasn't necessarily my original goal, I want to get feedback geared toward that end.

Thanks, Recognizance (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I only added a bit to it a few years ago. Thanks for the nod though. I'll provide some feedback maybe, but then I'm tres lazy about wikipedia now so it's probably 5 to 1.) Outriggr (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments This is fascinating and generally well-written. However, it can certainly be improved. If I were working on it, I'd think about adding more background material to provide context for the reader, and I'd try to include more dates and possibly re-arrange some of the material to make the chronology more clear. You most likely have tried to find all available sources for material about Benga, but if not, it would certainly be good to do that since the article depends so heavily on so few sources, particularly on the one book by Bradford and Blume. You might consider taking the article to GAN as the next step after additions and revisions rather than jumping straight to FAC. Here are specific suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "Benga came to America through the action of businessman and missionary Samuel Phillips Verner. The American Verner, under contract from... " - Since "American Verner" might be misread to mean "not some other Verner", would it be a bit better to say, "Benga came to the United States through the action of American businessman and missionary Samuel Phillips Verner. Under contract from the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, Verner... "?

Early life

  • "intended to display 'representetives of all the world's peoples, ranging from smallest pygmies to the most gigantic peoples, from the darkest blacks to the dominant whites' " - "Representatives" in the quoted material is misspelled. If McGee or Bradford and Blume spelled it that way, you could insert [sic] after the misspelling to make clear that it is not a Wikipedia typo.

" ...but was later captured by slavers" - Were the slavers Belgians? A little more background might be helpful here.

St. Louis

  • "The group arrived ... in late June... " - Is it still 1904?
  • "Attempts to congregate peacefully in the forest on Sundays were thwarted by the crowds' fascination with them... " - I wondered what forest was being referred to. Was the exposition held partly in a forest?
  • "On a July 28, an attempt to play to the crowd's preconceived notion that they were "savages" resulted in the First Illinois Regiment being called in to control the mob." - Suggestion: "On July 28, an attempt to play to the crowd's preconceived notion that they were "savages" resulted in a call to the First Illinois Regiment to control the mob."
  • What did the mob do or threaten to do that led to military intervention? Was the First Illinois Regiment a state militia, or was it part of the U.S. Army?
  • "imitating that of the Indians at the Exhibition" - Lowercase "exhibition"? Also, should it be "exposition" or was the exhibition a subsection of the exposition?
  • "awarded the gold medal in anthropology at the Exposition's close" - Lowercase exposition?
  • Why did Geronimo need special dispensation from the war department to appear in the show? Why was he called "The Human Tyger"? I think a bit more background material would be interesting and helpful here. What else went on at the exposition? Again, this is a matter of providing context for the reader.

Museum of Natural History

  • "Benga accompanied Verner when he returned the other Africans, and briefly lived amongst the Batwa... " - It might not be instantly clear from this sentence that he returned them to Africa. Also, the Manual of Style suggests replacing "amongst" with "among". Suggestion: "Benga accompanied Verner when he returned the other pygmies to Africa, and briefly lived among the Batwa... ".
  • It might be helpful to include the dates of the trip. Did they stay for weeks, months? Was it still 1904 when they returned to the U.S.?
  • "He married a Batwa woman who later died to a snake bite... " - "Died of" rather than "died to"?
  • "While Bumpus was put off by the prohibitively high salary of $175 a month Verner had requested and unimpressed with Verner's credentials, he remained interested in Benga." - Missing word? Perhaps "... and was unimpressed with Verner's credentials"?
  • What did Verner want to be paid to do? What position was he applying for?
  • "However, he would soon find another home for the pygmy." - Suggestion: "However, he soon found another home for the pygmy."

Bronx Zoo

  • "At the suggestion of Bumpus, Verner took Benga to the Bronx Zoo in 1904." - Did this visit occur before or after the St. Louis exhibition and Verner's second trip to Africa? The lead mentions two years of travel but doesn't specify what part of that was spent with Verner on his second trip to Africa. Since the lead is to be a summary or abstract of the main text sections, any details like this in the lead should also appear in the main text, usually in greater detail than in the lead.
  • "For his part, Verner was unsuccessful in his continued search for employment... " - What employment did he seek at the zoo?
  • "he snuck in occasionally to speak to Benga... " - It would be interesting to know what language they were speaking. Did Benga learn English, or did Verner speak Benga's native language, or did they communicate in, say, French? Was Benga multilingual?
  • "The two had agreed that it was in Benga's best interests to remain in the United States... " - I assume the "two" refer to Verner and Benga, but it might mean Verner and Gordon since Gordon is mentioned in the next sentence.

Later life

  • "His teeth were capped and he was dressed in American-style clothes in an attempt to lead as close to a normal life as possible." - Suggestion: "His teeth were capped and he was dressed in American-style clothes in an attempt to make his life more normal."
  • Wikilink root beer?
  • "chipped off the caps on his teeth" - Suggestion: "chipped the caps from his teeth"
  • "near his benefactor, Gregory Hayes" - I think this is the first mention of Hayes in the article? Who was he? In what way was he a benefactor?

Legacy

  • "To this day, the display is still labeled "Pygmy" - The meaning of "to this day" and similar constructions such as "today", "now", and "currently" change with time. It might be better to say something like "As of 2009, the display... ".
  • "The similarities between Ota Benga and Ishi, the sole remaining member of a Native American tribe who was displayed in California around the same period – including the subsequent publication of a book on the subject by the descendants of the scientists involved – have been observed." - Suggestion: Scientists noted similarities between Ota Benga and Ishi, who was displayed in California around the same period as the sole remaining member of a Native American tribe. Their observations led to subsequent publication of a book on the subject by the descendants of the scientists."
  • It might be good to include the name of the book here instead of just saying "a book".
  • "Rather than simply exposing the racism of the American public (as members of Ota and Ishi's respective races perceived them)... " - I wasn't sure here whether you meant "them" to refer to "public" or "racism" (which are both singular) or to Ota and Ishi. If the latter, I don't see the logic. Ishi's people were all dead, and perhaps Ota's were all dead too. How could they perceive anything?
  • "in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, using the "CSI approach" - Many readers will not know what CSI stands for. Linking to "forensic science" explains the idea but not the letters CSI. Perhaps it would be better to drop the short CSI quote and simply paraphrase it as "using the methods of forensic science", or something like that. Or perhaps CSI could be explained.
  • Wikilink bridge in "bridge of the song"?
  • "Dr. Ben B. Halm" - The Manual of Style suggests Ben B. Halm with no "Dr." If his degree or field is important to mention, it can be added after the name in a form like "Ben B. Halm, a surgeon at XYX Hospital" or "Ben B. Halm, head of the drama department at the University of XYZ" or something like that.

References

  • All of the date ranges and page ranges in the citations need en dashes rather than hyphens. Thus pp. 200-203 in citation 2 needs to look like this: pp. 200–203

Images

  • Images generally are set to "thumb" size in Wikipedia articles rather than forcing a set pixel width, per MOS:IMAGES. The lead photo in the upper right is often an exception.
  • Image: Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg has a problem with its description page. Fact checkers must be able to quickly find the source image to verify the license at the Commons. The link on the description page for this image goes in a circle; it simply replicates the image rather than linking to the source image in the source context. You can fix this by figuring out where the image came from and replacing the circular link with a link to the source page in context.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westland Wizard[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 Ive made large changes and contributions. I would like to know how I can improve the article.

Thanks, LouriePieterse (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a basic copyedit, and added a couple {{citation needed}} tags which need addressing. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 19:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please see WP:LEAD - the lead needs to be expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article this long. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Article needs more references, for example the last paragraph in Design has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Images are all up for possible deletion - any way to clear up their copyright status?
  • Writing seems decent, but there are places that seem like they could be original research, especially without refs. FOr example The production of a modern service type for the R.A.F. is largely a utilities competition. One should also remember that many a designer has failed to get his machine accepted, not because its performance was inferior to that of other types in the same class, but because one of the utilities was not as good as the corresponding one on another machine.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ish comments:

  • Big chunks of the text seem very similar to This article in Flight magazine. This probably needs rewriting to avoid accusations of copyvio.
  • The Flight International references need fuller details (and it was known as Flight at the time) - links to Flight's web archive would help. If you want to use cite templates then cite journal would be appropriate, although other ways of formatting references are available.
  • What makes Virtual Air Museum a RS? Ditto 1000 aircraft photos?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bombay under Portuguese rule (1534-1661)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A Short article. Help on adding more contents will be appreciated.

Thanks, KensplanetTC 07:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Arrival of the Portuguese[edit]
  • During the arrival of the Portuguese, suggest At the time of the arrival of the Portuguese,
  • and was an archipelago, suggests that it then ceased to be an archipelago.
  • Between 1513-14, they requested Sultan Bahadur Shah to allow them build a fortress at Mahim. What was his response?
  • the Portuguese were constantly prowling about Bombay for the ships of the Gujarat Sultante {{WP:Weasel]] words.
  • During 1528-29, Lopo Vaz de Sampaio seized the fort of Mahim from the Gujarat Sultanate, when the King was at war with Nizam-ul-mulk, the emperor of Chaul. Which king?
Accession of the islands to the Portuguese[edit]
  • Sultan Bahadur Shah had grown apprehensive of the power of Humayun Who is Sultan Bahadur Shah?
    • It has been adequately mentioned in the "Arrival of the Portuguese" section, that he was the ruler of Bombay during the Portuguese arrival in Bombay. KensplanetTC 14:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Development of islands[edit]
  • Suggest breaking up the paragraphs as this is a little bit dense.
  • and in 1548 by the Dominion order established in Goa in 1545, do you mean Domincan?
  • After the British gained possession of in 1661, it was believed to be anglicised to Bombay from the Portuguese Bombaim. Implies that that was what was believed at the time, which is not what I suspect what you wish the sentence to mean.
  • In 1554, during the viceroyalty of Pedro Mascarenhas, the seven islands of Bombay were leased to Garcia de Orta, a Sephardi Jewish Portuguese physician and botanist, for a yearly rent equivalent to about £85 sterling. all the other rents were in pardoos and rupees, conistency is best.
  • He also mentioned several accounts of the islands and the people living in Bombay during his time. Clumsy phrasing, who did he mention them to?
  • During his regime, as regards the population of the island, Bombay was composed of seven villages subordinate to two cacabas (kashas) or chief stations, at which customs-duty was levied. As regards? - clumsy phrasing.
  • They collected the rents of the King and of the inhabitants and their estates, and were also merchants. Which king are we talking about here?
  • A few Muslims of less mixed descent were living in Mahim, but the bulk of the followers of Islam belonged to the Konkani Muslim community. What does of less mixed descent mean? Some of this phrasing suggest WP:Plagiarism.
  • A prominent merchant among them was Ralph Fitch from London. They mentioned that Bassein and Thana were tading in rice and corn on a small scale. They mentioned? Plagiarism? Certainly unclear.
  • The immense natural advantages of Bombay aroused the cupidity of the English who recognized its value as a naval base - aroused the cupidity - weasel words.
End of Portuguese rule[edit]
  • In 1652, the Surat Council of the British Empire, what is the Surat council?
Lead[edit]
  • Broadly OK.
Overall[edit]
  • I recommend a thorough copy-edit, rendering into in plainer English. Too much appears to have been copied wholesale from the MAHARASHTRA STATE GAZETTEERS or only slightly paraphrased. When referencing would be better to mention the volume and chapter so that sources can be found in the online version. I haven't checked the refernces in detail, but seem broadly OK, subject to the caveat mentioned above. Images seem OK, St Michaels Chucrh image might need explanation as it appears to be a modern buidling. Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of national parks of Sweden[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 (based on List of National Parks of Canada) for peer review because I'd like some comments before I take it to FLC. Thanks, TheLeftorium 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm looking forward to it! :) TheLeftorium 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: In general the lists look pretty OK, and the illustrations are wonderful. Some suggestions for improving the article:-

  • General point: would it be possible to include a map of Sweden, indicating the geographical locations of the main parks? An equivalent map exists in the Canada national parks list.
  • Lead
    • The words "national parks of Sweden" in the opening sentence should be bolded, and not linked
    • My view is that "Sweden" does not require linking. If you want a link on "national park" you can create it at next mention, in the second sentence.
    • There is no need to list the names of the nine original parks, since this information is included in the list which follows immediately.
    • Awkward sentence: "There are currently twenty-eight national parks in Sweden, though a twenty-ninth park, Kosterhavet National Park, is scheduled to open in September 2009." 28 and 29th can be stated numerically, and it's not really a "though" sentence. Thus: "There are currently 28 national parks in Sweden; a 29th, Kosterhavet National Park, is scheduled to open in September 2009."
    • "The Swedish national parks must represent unique landscape types and be effectively protected and used for research, recreation, and tourism without damaging nature". Presumably this statement is covered in the citation, but it would be better if you stated the authority behind the assertion. There are also too many "ands" in the sentence, and the odd grammar glitch. Suggest: "According to [xyz], Swedish national parks must represent unique landscape types, be effectively protected, and be used for research, recreation, and tourism without damaging nature."
    • "The reason for this are..." Should be "is"
    • Repetition of adjective "large". You can avoid this by calling the mountain ranges "extensive".
    • No spaces around mdashes
    • "Approximately" 200,000 hectares should not be converted to an exact total of acres. If you insert "sigfig=2" into the conversion template you get an answer of 490,000 acres, which matches the hectares approximation.
    • What is meant by "unbroken cultivation"?
    • reindeer-herding" needs a hyphen
    • Last sentence: the mdash point again, and the spurious accuracy in the conversion.
  • List
  • Future national parks
    • "thorough" in the first sentence is POV-ish and should be deleted
    • "thirteen should be expressed numerically
    • Is the column heading "Establishes" deliberate? If so, what meaning is it intending to convey?
      • Can you clarify what you mean? I'm not sure if I understand you. TheLeftorium 16:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hectare area figures are all round numbers, which suggests approximations. The acres should be approximates, too, using the "sigfig" option.

THat's it. I hope that you find these suggestions helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent review! I have addressed most of your concerns, but I left a question further up. TheLeftorium 16:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Sells His Soul[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently was a candidate for WP:GA. Unfortunately, the GA review was closed as fail at that time, due to instability and failure of WP:WIAGA point number five. The first GA reviewer brought up many points at the GA review, which can be seen at Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1. I'd like to hear any other potential feedback from peer reviewers here, as well as if the article's current state is sufficiently better than at the time of the first peer review - before trying again for WP:GAN. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notices placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Animation. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note

The use of "can't" noted by Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/June_2009#Bart_Sells_His_Soul is used in the name of a source, so that should not be changed. I will do some additional copyediting throughout the article. Cirt (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I've done some additional copyediting throughout. Cirt (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Fortunately, the article seems to have stabilized since June 8, 2009. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine for GAN. That wasn't much of an edit war, and it's died down. I haven't looked into the changes from before, but it looks like one of the better Simpsons ep GAs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll give it a little bit more time, to see if editors will provide input coming from those WikiProject talk page notices I gave, above. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Mumbai attacks[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 article has been a good article since a long time and I believe that almost everything has been list with a neutral point of view.Additional details have been split into relevant articles.This quite might be a FAC

Thanks, Princeaditya (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment on the content. You may wish to include a mention of the criticisms levelled that there was no unified press briefing, that repeated claims of the operations being over, and the criticisms of the Naval commando chief giving a press briefing. You might also wish to include the role of the media, the live coverage, and the fact that some criticisms were made that some news channels' coverage was deemed more editorial rather than objective. In the aftermath section, you would wish to include the impact it had on the Indo-Pak relationship, and the public response in Pakistan. Hope these are helpful. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIPS

  • Cut down some datail on previous attacks.
  • The TOI frontpage needs a strong reason to be here. (Its not about this article and already there is a train img.)
  • Kasab's journey from VT (I hate those who named it a silly CST) to hyospital, cinema stealing cars etc is totally missing. Attacks part is incomplete.
  • "On 25 August 2003 two bombs exploded in South Mumbai, one near the Gateway of India and the other at Zaveri Bazaar in Kalbadevi. At least 44 people were killed and 150 injured. No group claimed responsibility for the attack, but it had been hinted that the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba was behind the attacks" Update on who did this. recently a man, wife and friend have been or will be gone in a final verdict.
  • "The taxi — MH 01 G 779, was used by Ajmal Kasab and Abu Ismail Khan to reach Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus from Badhwar Park" "The terrorists who attacked Leopold’s Cafe and the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel had taken this cab" i conut 2 cabs. this means a third cab was taken by the other pests? Note rumors about total 4 cabs used and 2 more bombs put in. What about the bomb found at VT.
  • "a federal anti-terrorist intelligence and investigation agency, like the FBI, will be set up soon to co-ordinate actions against terrorism" update - it is set up. Hometech (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, how all this shook cricket is also needed. Hometech (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's review
  • The blank Motive section was puzzling. Removed.
  • Background can be curtailed
  • Removed TOI image about 11 July attacks, not 26/11 --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kentucky Headhunters[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 promote it to WP:GA. I have alread promoted a couple other country music band articles to good-article and followed pretty much the same basic blueprint for this one. In fact, it easily has more sources than either, so I think it might have more of a chance. I would like more suggestions as to what else I should change before sending it to WP:GAN.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good to me. It's broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and seems factually accurate and verifiable. I made some minor proofing changes, and I have some suggestions about prose and Manual of Style issues as well as one thought about images. Since we were both working on the article today, I used strikeouts to indicate the suggestions you have responded to already.

Lead

  • "The original Itchy Brother lineup was reunited for 1993's Rave On!! and a compilation album before the band exited Mercury." - Wikilink compilation album on first use?
  • Do you need the terminal period after CBuJ? Its web site doesn't seem to use it.
Done. Brain fart on my part.

History

  • "Fred joined RCA Records artist Sylvia's road band... " - This might be too many modifiers in front of "band". Suggestion: "Fred joined the road band of Sylvia, an RCA Records artist... "

Musical career

  • "The band took its new name from "headchopper", a word that blues musician Muddy Waters used to indicate that he had supplanted another band in a gig." - It might be good to add the new name to this sentence. Suggestion: "The band took its new name, The Kentucky Headhunters, from "headchopper", a word that blues musician Muddy Waters used to indicate that he had supplanted another band in a gig.
  • Wikilink gig?
Done and done.

Pickin' on Nashville

  • "Mercury Records signed the band in 1989 through the assistance of record producer Harold Shedd." - Suggestion: Mercury Records, assisted by record producer Harold Shedd, signed the band in 1989.
  • He also said that the label was reluctant to release the song as a single." - I can't be sure who "he" refers to. It might be Greg Martin, or it might be Fox.
  • "...due to its high local influence." - Does this mean that the record company thought it might not sell well except to a local (Nashville?) audience? Was the liquor store in Nashville?
  • "It was certified double platinum by the RIAA... " - Spell out and abbreviate Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on first use?
All four done.

Electric Barnyard

  • "with none of its four singles reaching Top 40 on the U.S. country charts" - Insert "the" between "reaching" and "Top 40"?
  • "Its first singles release was a cover of The Ballad of Davy Crockett... - Wikilink cover on first use?
Both done. Cover is already wikilinked earlier in the article.

Rave On!!

  • "The album sold poorly, despite support from the band's touring with then-labelmate Billy Ray Cyrus." - Suggestion: "Although the band drew attention by touring with then-labelmate Billy Ray Cyrus, the album sold poorly."
Done.

Songs from the Grass String Ranch and Soul

  • "Unlike with their previous albums, the band decided to record entirely original songs for Songs from the Grass String Ranch." - Suggestion: Changing methods, the band decided to record entirely original songs for Songs from the Grass String Ranch.
  • "All five members co-wrote all of its songs, with four also being co-written by Verlon Dale Grissom." - Suggestion: All five members co-wrote the songs with assistance from Verlon Dale Grissom on four of the songs.
Done and done.

Work with other artists

  • "as part of the side project The Mighty Jeremiahs" - Italics for The Mighty Jeremiahs?
Done.

Musical styles

  • "The band's combination of styles is most notable in their cover song choices on their early albums, with all three Mercury albums containing a Bill Monroe cover, and other covers ranging from Waylon Jennings to The Lovin' Spoonful to Carl Perkins." - "Band" is singular, but "their" is plural. Also, the "with + containing" clause is probably not the strongest construction here. Suggestion: The band's combination of styles is most notable in its cover-song choices on early albums. All three Mercury albums contain a Bill Monroe cover and other covers ranging from Waylon Jennings to The Lovin' Spoonful to Carl Perkins.
  • "Their original compositions often take a regional theme, with the single "Dumas Walker" being a notable example." - Suggestion: The band's original compositions, such as the single "Dumas Walker", often develop a regional theme."
  • "At their peak in the early 1990s, The Kentucky Headhunters was considered... " - "At its peak" rather than "at their peak"?
  • Wikilink dark horse?
  • "due to the significant mainstream attention that their works received despite the band's rougher sound" - "Its" rather than "their"? Alternatively, "due to the significant mainstream attention that the band's works received despite its rougher sound"?
All done.

Images

  • As others have noted, the infobox lacks an image. If no free images can be found, it might be better to add a fair-use image of an album cover to the infobox than to use the one in the history section.
  • The source link for Image:Itchy.jpg is circular. It gives no way for fact-checkers to examine the source image in context to make sure the license is OK. The fix for this problem is to track down the source page and provide a link to its url rather than to the image by itself out of context.
As I have said on Finetooth's talk page, I have contacted Greg Martin, and he has agreed to submit a photo to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The page numbers in the citations should be indicated by "p." if a single page and a "'pp." if more than one page. To produce "p.", set the "pages" parameter in the "cite book" citation to "|page" rather than "|pages". I did this for citation 5, but I see others that need fixing.
Done.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Hulme railway station[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Well, I'd like some feedback on this. I've put pretty much every scrap of information I could find about this station into it (that was worth putting on that is), and wish to bring it to featured quality. Any feedback will be great.

Thanks, Majorly talk 01:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and nicely illustrated article. I have concerns about the prose in places, especially the heavy dependence on passive voice. It's not always possible to use active voice, but active is generally more direct and punchy. I list quite a few specific examples below. Also, I think a map would make the material more accessible to readers who live far from Manchester.

Images

  • These are well done and interesting, but I thought of two others I'd like to see. A diagram of the rail lines showing Cheadle Hulme in in relation to Manchester, Stoke-on-Kent, Macclesfield, and other places mentioned in the article would be really helpful. Less important but possibly interesting would be a photo of the station's interior.

Lead

Background

  • "These proposals were altered somewhat over the next two years, and negotiations between the railway companies based in Manchester and Birmingham were made." - "Negotiations ... were made". I'm not sure it's possible to make a negotiation, and the passive voice seems a little strange to me. Who made the proposals? Were the two companies negotiating with one another, or were they negotiating with Parliament or some other entity?
  • "The eventual plans for a line to Crewe and a line to Stoke were approved by Parliament in 1837." - This sentence would be easy to flip to active voice, thus: "In 1837 Parliament approved plans for lines to Crew and Stoke."
  • "Edgeley railway station was opened in February 1843 in response to complaints that the Heaton Norris station was 'too inconvenient', and soon became Stockport's busiest station." - "... and soon it became... "?

Cheadle station

  • "Instead, it was decided to move the junction south to Cheadle Hulme." - Some of the passive sentences can be flipped to active if you can identify an actor. Who decided? If you know the answer, you can then say, "Instead, X decided to move the junction south to Cheadle Hulme."
  • "The line was constructed over a number of years: it opened for goods traffic as far as Poynton in June 1845... " - The phrase "over a number of years" is vague. It would be better to add the exact number if known or perhaps to say, "The line opened for goods traffic as far as Poynton in June 1845." Also, should goods be linked?
  • "In June 1846 the completion of the line to Stoke-on-Trent was authorised." - Who authorised it?

Derailments

  • "several coaches were derailed" - Delete "were"?
  • "A hearing determined that the derailment was caused by the train's excessive speed, and the train driver had been unaware of any restriction." - Passive/active. Suggestion: "A hearing determined that the train's excessive speed had caused the derailment and that the train driver had been unaware of any speed restriction."
  • "In July 1969, there was another derailment near Cheadle Hulme involving a freight diesel locomotive." - The "there is" or "there are" openings are less strong than something like this: "In July 1969 a freight diesel locomotive derailed near Cheadle Hulme."
  • "There were no injuries, and the derailment blocked off services to both Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent for several hours." - Suggestion: "It injured no one but blocked services to Crew and Stoke-on-Trent for several hours."

Alterations

  • "The other two platforms were accessed from these two platforms using a footbridge, which was removed when the lines were electrified." - Just to break up the string of passives, you might say "Passengers accessed the other two platforms by a footbridge, which was removed after the lines were electrified."
  • "Cheadle Hulme was also used as a goods depot until 31 October 1964, when good trains were withdrawn." - "Good trains" might be misunderstood. Should this be "goods trains"?
  • Wikilink car park?
  • "The lines to Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent were electrified in 1960 and 1967. The first instance of "electrified" appears a couple of sentences before this one. Move the link to the first instance?
  • "growing amount of traffic travelling down Station Road, it was decided that the parts of the road... " - Who decided? If you know, you can flip from passive to active.
  • "The bridge carrying the line to Stoke was upgraded first: the road was more than doubled in width and the height was increased by 3 feet (0.9 m), allowing double-decker buses to pass under it." - The logic of the sentence is a bit off since the road was not part of the bridge. Suggestion: "The bridge carrying the line to Stoke was upgraded first. The road under it was more than doubled in width, and the bridge height was increased by 3 feet (0.9 m) to allow double-decker buses to pass under it."
  • "New entrances to the platforms were built, and the entire station was installed with electric lighting." - Again, if you can identify the actor, you can break up a long string of passives. Something like this would be punchier: "X built new platform entrances and installed electric lighting throughout the station."
  • Spell out Member of Parliament (MP) on first use for foreign readers who might not recognize the abbreviation alone? Also, this sentence would be easy to flip to active: "Stephen Day, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Cheadle Hulme, opened the updated station in March 1998."
  • The Manual of Style generally advises against one-sentence paragraphs. I think the one at the end of this section could be merged with the one above it.

Services

  • "access to platform 4 is near to the Cheadle Hulme public house" - Delete "to"?
  • "During the financial year 2007/08 the station was used by passengers 424,000 times... " - Passive/active. "During the financial year 2007/08 passengers used the station 424,000 times... "
  • "Passenger services are provided by Northern Rail." - Passive/active. "Northern Rail provides passenger services".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Finetooth. Majorly talk 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
I think this is shaping up nicely now, and I've only got a couple of comments to add to what's already been said:
  • I think there are one or two too many images, and in particular the last image drops out of its section. Have you considered perhaps using {{doubleimage}} to combine, say, the two views of the station front? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea - I have done this, but I found a copyright free pic of the front in 1900 so used that instead of the 1988 one. It still looks a little busy though. There's also a great aeriel view of the station, which is apparently copyright free too. Majorly talk 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about using it instead of the viaduct picture? That doesn't really seem to have much to do with the station. I'm not certain what's causing it, but that double image is now overwriting part of one line of text on my display ... I think the image layout needs looking at throughout the whole article. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Alterations: "The junction itself was revamped in 2000 and the signal box was removed in a similar fashion to several other stations on the route, having been superseded by a central signalling point at Stockport station." I think I know what this is trying to say, but what it's telling me now is how the signal box was removed; it was removed just as it was at the other stations. What about just dropping the "in a similar fashion to several other stations on the route"? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted it. What is your opinion with regards to a FAC? Majorly talk 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in California, 1950[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • [{{fullurl: This peer review discussion has been closed.
|action=watch}} Watch peer review]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nom it for FA. I am not going to do that, by the way, until I have the complete election statistics, which I will get in July when I go to California. So take it as given I know that needs to be done. I just want to hear about everything else. This was a landmark election (Nixon/Douglas) in U.S. history and is still talked about, and I'd like to get it to FAC in August.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I can't do it all at once, but here is a healthy chunk to get started on. I do enjoy these wallows in the Nixon murk.

  • Lead
    • WP:LEAD states that articles "should begin with a short declarative statement answering two questions: what/who is the subject, and why is this subject notable." Your opening sentence only answers the first. In fact, the issue of notability is not addressed until the third sentence, and then somewhat obliquely, with references to "bitterness" and the voting record of Vito Marcantonio, of whom I suspect few of your readers will have heard. I suggest that this first paragraph is redrawn to comply with WP:LEAD and also to clarify the "red scare" notability issue.
    • Second paragraph: A bit confusing as worded; I had to read it several times to ensure I had the right chronology. Also phrases like "leapt into the race" carry a strong whiff of opinion. A suggested rewording of the paragraph follows – would you consider this?
Both Douglas and Nixon gave up safe congressional seats to run against Senator Downey; no other representatives were willing to risk the contest. In March 1950 Downey announced his retirement, after which Los Angeles Daily News publisher Manchester Boddy joined the race, attacking Douglas as a leftist and making the first comparisons between Douglas and Marcantonio. The Douglas-Boddy Democratic primary contest was won easily by the former, but the bitter contest left the party divided. Only two party officials considered contesting the Republican primary with Nixon, and each soon stepped aside.
  • Early campaign - Background
    • I suggest that the "Early campaign" heading be dropped, and that this "Background" section be transferred into the "Primary campaigns" section.
    • Is "liberal lion" a recognised political label? If so, perhaps it should be in quotes, and/or cited. If it is editorial shorthand for a leading liberal, the desciption perhaps ought to be modified.
    • Too much information in one sentence? "Douglas, the wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, had represented the 14th district, which combined Hollywood with a large part of poverty-stricken South Central Los Angeles, since 1945, compiling a liberal record in the House of Representatives." I would split: "Douglas was the wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, and had compiled a liberal record representing the 14th Congressional district since 1945. This district combined Hollywood with a large part of poverty-stricken South Central Los Angeles."
    • "In the post-war years" is a bit vague. "Between 1945 and 1950" would be more accurate.
    • "Much of the 1950 campaign..." Does this refer exclusively to the Senatorial election? (You have just mentioned that Governor Warren was running for reelection, and there were presumably Congressional races too).
    • Another sentence to split – suggest: "Marcantonio, the sole congressional representative of the American Labor Party, represented East Harlem. He denied being a communist, and in general, rarely addressed the issue of the Soviet Union and communism."
  • Democratic contest - Early campaign
    • The Lybeck quote ends "crucify a statewide candidate with upon a cross of no-gold." Is the "with" meant to be there? It doesn't make any sense.
    • "On October 5..." Give year
    • You don't need "From then on" and "throughout the remainder of the year" in the same sentence.
    • The positioning of the Earl Desmond sentence in the middle of the Douglas v. Downey spat, looks odd. I think it would be better placed as a "Meanwhile..." sentence at the end of the section.
  • Boddy versus Douglas
    • First sentence belongs to previous section, surely?
    • As this is a new section the "major candidates", should both be named, e.g. "he and Douglas"
    • "April" should be April 1950" (we need to know the year)
    • "as yet" is redundant
    • (Comment not for action) The "Helencopter" - is that all Dick Tuck did, make a terrible pun? No wonder Douglas lost.
    • "Soon after Smathers' triumph, which in the days of the yellow dog South was tantamount to election, Nixon visited his friend, Congressman Smathers, for an explanation of his victory." Awkward repeat of "Smathers". I suggest the sentence ends: "...tantamount to election, he was visited by his friend Richard Nixon, who sought an explanation for this victory."
    • "Boddy linked Douglas with Marcantonio, and the congresswoman later stated that the publisher was stockpiling ammunition for Nixon to fire later." This isn't really an "and" sentence. I would suggest: "Boddy linked Douglas with Marcantonio; she later stated that the publisher was stockpiling ammunition for Nixon to fire later."
    • I'm not sure that "a full-page ad" is encyclopedic. Maybe it is. What "warning" did the ads give to Democratic voters?

I shall return, as somebody somewhere once said, and did. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these within two or three days, am back on the road. Also working on your illustrious ancestor with an eye to the Aug 17 bicentennial of his death. As for Tuck, that is the only reference I find to him, yes there are stories (him booking a huge, empty hall for Nixon), but frankly, from what I know of Nixon and Chotiner, that one's got to be a myth. Anyhow, thanks for the comments and looking forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made most of those changes, if not all. I favor leaving in the full page ad, it shows it wasn't in the classifieds! While I can't get 100 percent confirmation, the committee who ran that ad was almost certainly Boddy's committeepuppet, if you get my drift.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point on the "full-page ad" phrase was merely whether the abbreviation "ad" is encyclopedic. Nothing else. Sorry I didn't clarify that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comment

  • Republican contest
    • Nixon decided to seek the Senate seat in October. Give us the year so that we are clear with the chronology.
    • "The representative made an announcement of his candidacy..." This will confuse those, especially Brits, who are unware that "representative", lower case, is how members of the lower house in the US Congress are sometimes styled. They will wonder who made this announcement – the representative of what? It reads perfectly OK as "Nixon".
    • ""there was no need. The Democrats were self-destructing." This is cited, but who actually said it?
    • Fourth paragraph, third sentence, should begin with a pronoun
    • "With no challenge by any Republican officials, Nixon won an overwhelming victory in the Republican primary, with his cross-filing rivals, Boddy, Douglas, and Desmond, finishing well behind him, but well ahead of the two fringe candidates."
      • "from any Republicans", surely - why specify "officials"?
      • "Challenge from" is maybe better.
      • Isn't there a redundancy here? An overwhelming victory indicates of itslf that his opponents finished well behind him.
  • Joint appearances: "The audience gasped in shock at the idea of the former first lady, known for her liberal views, contributing to Nixon's campaign." Should be separately cited.
  • War in the Pacific
    • Inappropriate section title. The war is barely mentioned and is drowned by a mass of campaign stuff. And, from a geographical point of view, the Korean War was hardly a "war in the Pacific". Korea is cut off from the Pacific by the Japanese archipelago.So, I would retitle the section.
    • "However, the President, holding a grudge against Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Roosevelt, eldest son of Franklin Roosevelt, for trying to oust him in 1948, refused to campaign in California." A bit clumsy. A slight adjustment would give: "However, the President refused to campaign in California; he held a grudge against Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Roosevelt, eldest son of Franklin Roosevelt, for trying to oust him in 1948."
    • What is the basis of the updated values, here and elsewhere?
    • "Leaving aside the issue of communism..." would sound more detached as "Aside from the issue of communism..."
    • Again for the benefit of we Brits, could you say something like: "the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act"?
    • "As public support for the conflict..." It is a while since you mentioned the Korean War, so this "conflict" needs to be clarified.

To be concluded. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on these. The "War in the Pacific" was supposed to reference the Korean war, of course, but also the nasty little fracas between Nixon and Douglas along the Pacific Coast of North America! Should I still change it? And as for the "Republican officials", I'm not sure which parties Meyers and Leavitt belonged to (the fringe guys). Leavitt ran only as a Republican, while Meyers cross filed. So I need "officials" in there to exclude them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all those changes, though I used different language in some cases (as in the Taft Hartley Act). I've added a ref to the money site I used in the Rogers and Checkers articles. I'm not sure what you meant by that sentence starting with a pronoun, possibly that two straight sentences start with "Nixon", so I made it so they don't. Thanks for the comments, can't wait to hear how it all comes out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you finish, I'd appreciate your view on whether I should submit it for FAC soon even though I don't have the vote percentages for the primaries (all I have is what was printed in Gellman). I will get them, I'm going to the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda when I go to California in a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've not had time to list detailed comments on the remaining sections. I have read them, and saw little to trouble me beyond quibbles. I can look again if you wish, but it won't be until after 26th because I'm away until then. As to when to send the article to FAC, I don't think it's necessary to wait for the primary vote percentages. I've seen plenty of less-prepared articles than this at FAC; it's up to you, really. Can't see any reason why I wouldn't support it, even if it needs a few more tweaks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then thanks, I'll move ahead with this and close the PR and nom for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition[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 am listing this article for peer review. The article has been stable on content for a long time. It recently underwent a major rewrite and prose by an anonymous editor. I think the article is at the stage of FAC, and would like more comments before an FAC is proposed. Thanks, rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement mostly language nit-picks and a few MOS issues.

  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • The bold "The" looks odd in "The Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition, or The German mission to Kabul, was a diplomatic mission..." could it be "or the German mission to Kabul, was"?
  • I would identify the prince as Indian in Nominally headed by the exiled prince Raja Mahendra Pratap...
  • I would wikilink the Raj in to propagate Asian socialist revolution and attempt to overthrow the British Raj.
  • I think I would move World War I much earlier in this sentence to make it clearer In August 1914, alliance obligations arising from the war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary brought Germany and Russia to war, while Germany's invasion of Belgium directly triggered Britain's entry into what quickly became World War I. perhaps something like In August 1914, World War I broke out when alliance obligations arising from the war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary brought Germany and Russia to war, while Germany's invasion of Belgium directly triggered Britain's entry.
  • The first sentence says the Expedition "sought to encourage Afghanistan to declare full independence from the United Kingdom" - I think the background section should do a better job explaining the political status of Afghanistan and the UK at the time.
  • Turkey was a part of the Ottoman Empire (the "Sick Man of Europe") at the time (until 1922 or so) and this should be made clear in the Background section too - there are a few mentions of Ottoman later, but calling it Turkey now is not really accurate
  • There are some places that need references - this would be a problem at FAC. For example, in Composition the last two sentences of the second paragraph have no refs, or the entire Epilogue section has zero refs! My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Identifying the maps as by Reginald (or is it Rex - be consistent) Dyer in the East Persian cordon section does not help much (Dyer is not mentioned in the text until much later and then only once). See WP:PCR

There's a start for you - hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will start acting on these soon. Cheers. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Newspaper titles in the references need to be in italics (I noted footnote 87)
    • A suggestion is to find ISBNs or OCLCs for the books missing those. While not strictly necessary, it is something that helps out at FAC.
    • The ISBN for the Lovett ref is for the 2001 reprint, your need to note that you're using a reprint of an earlier edition. Right now the citation implies you're using the 1920 edition.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles timeline[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 list for peer review, with the intention of eventually raising it to FL status, because it is a long, complex, process to create it, so I thought I'd better get input before I move on too far with it. I would like to know whether the list is formatted correctly, what I could add to the prose, and whether the coverage is of the right depth.

I have looked at FL-rated timelines, such as Timeline of Jane Austen, and they compare the subject's works with current affairs of the time. I do not believe that would be faesable, due to the extreme detail and accuracy of this article. However, if you believe this is the only way it could become featured, I will happily re-format it to matc that style.

I would be very grateful for any input anyone can provide, even if it is a one sentence telling me the timeline is totally useless.

Thanks, Dendodge T\C 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

  • The article is obviously at a quite early stage in its development. The approach taken seems to be to record individually every appearance made by the Beatles over the six or so years they operated as a group – the "extreme detail" approach. This will make for a very long timeline - it's already pretty lengthy, and it only goes to 1963 at the moment. Are you absolutely sure that this is the best approach?
  • The active years of the Beatles as a performing/recording group, roughly encompassing the 1960s, were pivotal in popular culture – the "swinging sixties" – and it would in my view be a great shame not to be showing anything else that was going on in the world of music, alongside the Beatles' years of fame. Likewise, the outside world was pretty tumultuous during those years, and it would be beneficial to have some of this information in parallel to the timeline: the Profumo affair and the fall of Macmillan; the Kennedy assassinations; Vietnam; the Prague Spring and the student protests of 1968, etc., etc. – these were the background to the Beatles. Surely worth acknowledging?
  • So, if it were up to me, I think I would reduce the detail in the main timeline, by summarising routine appearances as "on tour" without exhaustively listing them, restrict the main timeline to events that were truly significant, and I would include columns, as per the Jane Austen timeline, that would enable me to illustrate parallel musical and other events. That is the way I would do it, but you are of course entitled to do it your way.
  • A minor point: can you tell me what the little sporadic blocks of colour on the right of the list are for? They don't seem related to your colours key.

Sorry if this isn't much help to you, but it may give you some alternative ideas on how to proceed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input—that's exactly the kind of thing I was after.
The colours down the right hand side refer to location, and are mentioned in the key.
We have discussed splitting this into 2 articles, one of which uses the 3-column approach and the other of which is the completed version of the timeline as it is now. How does that sound to you? Dendodge T\C 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Neuner[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 worked on it based on a translation from the German article, and I'm interested how it might be improved further.

Thanks, EnemyOfTheState|talk 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks overall at least GA quality to me, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would add a date to sentences like Neuner has won 14 World Cup races and she has achieved 22 podium finishes. from the lead - presumably this may change in the future.
  • Since the relative age of her sister is given (younger) why not say her brothers relative ages too (presumably older?)
  • This reads well but could use a copyedit to polish some rough places - for example Her parents were reluctant, but they eventually supported her ambition of a professional sports career.[6] sounds a bit stilted and might read better as something like Her parents were reluctant, but they eventually supported her ambition to become a professional biathlete.[6]
  • Article does a nice job providing translations of most German words, but Zollhauptwachtmeisterin is not translated (Head customs official??) and there may be other examples
  • Add words here Germany's women's national coach Uwe Müßiggang had already considered her [for the team] two years earlier ...
  • There are several Presque Isles in the US, I would add Maine to the 2006 Junior/Youth World Championships in Presque Isle, United States
  • Is Microsoft Encarta a WP:RS?
  • There seem to be many references that are identical / repeated - these should be combined. For example current refs 36 and 37 seem to be the same and refs 51 to 54 are also apprantly all the same. Ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this.
    • These references are actually not identical. The IBU website gives pages with results from the same World Cup identical titles. EnemyOfTheState|talk 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK< thanks for clarifying that - not sure what to do in this case - the refs can't combined, but is there anything that could be added to make clearer that they are different? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I included the type of race in the link titles to get rid of the identical reference titles. EnemyOfTheState|talk 15:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I tried to make some appropriate changes. EnemyOfTheState|talk 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Jean[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'm hoping to take this article to Featured Status and, therefore, welcome a thorough review. Pyrrhus16 14:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Instruments should be linked in the Personnel section, which also needs a source (liner notes?). Otherwise, I see no major issues. The prose seems to read well enough, all that can be sourced is source, and the article is quite comprehensive in its coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media

  • File:Mowtown25moonwalk.gif - This is going to have to be OGG format. Do you know how to transcode it? (See here for help. If that is too confusing, let me know and I'll try to do it myself. I'm a newbie to this too, though, so it might take me a few days to get it right.)
  • File:David Cook - Billy Jean.ogg - I'm not sure what the American Idol performance adds. That seems like a very "of the moment" performance, not one that is historically important.

I've added some refinements to the fair use rationales, but otherwise everything else looks good. Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've removed the David Cook sample, but have no idea how to create or convert ogg video files. Pyrrhus16 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this whole video conversion thing, so I might not be able to get it done in time for the FAC. I'll try, though. Leave a message at my talk page, reminding me to do it this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. :) Pyrrhus16 09:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks pretty good, here are some fairly minor suggestions for improvement.

  • There are a lot of covers and samples discussed in the article so I am not sure why Kanye West's cover is the only one mentioned in the lead - there is only one other mention of it in the text itself. Based on the amount written in the article, Chris Connell's cover gets the most description, but I am not sure any other artist has to be mentioned in the lead.
  • Done
  • I would look at all of the links and make sure they add to the reader's understanding - do we really need links to freeway or psychiatric hospital - are they unknowns or do the links really improve understanding of the song? See WP:OVERLINK
  • Done
  • At the same time there are some places where adding links could help - for example "seventh" is not linked and there are six articles on musical sevenths (see seventh), so a link would let the reader know which is meant.
  • Hmm, I'm not too sure which one is the correct one to chose.
  • Jackson is American so the article should use American English, but there are some British English words and spellings that are out of place here - noticed "whilst" and the semi-automated peer review lists other possibilities.
  • Doing
  • I would use an image from the video that showed something lighting up when Jackson touched it, especially given the amount of description devoted to things lighting up in the video - maybe a dance move where he is on a lit square - even en pointe (on tips of his toes)?
  • Done
  • Was Jackson siging any version Billie Jean when he was burnt filming the Pepsi commercial? If not, there seems to be a bit too much on that in an article on this song.
  • Yes, he was singing the Billie Jean/Pepsi jingle.
  • I am used to seeing what is in "Chart procession and succession" (awkward name) in a navbox at the end of the article, not here.
  • Done
  • Is About.com a reliable source, even for for music reviews???
  • I asked at WP:RS/N. They said it was.
  • VIPs in The VIPs acknowledged Brown's performance with a standing ovation.[59] seems a bit POV
  • Done

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly did help. Thanks for the review. Pyrrhus16 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Murphy (Irish politician)[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… 1.I'd like the article to conform to the wikipedia standards 2.I want the article to be as accurate as possible on detail 3.I value other points of view 4.I want to correct any grammer,spelling mistakes 5.I'd like to get some suggestions on improving the readability Thanks, Mibbles (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Murphy is an interesting fellow, certainly worth writing about. This is a good start, but the article needs quite a bit of work to conform to the Manual of Style and other Wikipedia standards. I read closely through the early sections and less closely further down. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

Lead

  • The claim that Murphy was the first unemployed man ever elected to a national legislature sounds doubtful even though sourced. Should this be "Irish national legislature" instead of "a national legislature"?
  • "He resigned his seat on 13 May 1958 in protest at the indifference of the main political parties to the plight of the unemployed." - Suggestion: "to protest the indifference" rather than "in protest at the indifference".
  • "After his resignation he subsequently emigrated with his family... " - Delete "subsequently"?

Early years

  • "His father was the famous athlete... " - "a" rather than "the"?
  • Wikilink republican movement? Should it be uppercase, Republican Movement?
  • "The strike lasted several months until only three of the original committee remained, with Murphy being one of them." - Suggestion: "The strike lasted several months until only three of the original committee members, including Murphy, remained."
  • "Arrested in 1941 by the Fianna Fáil Government, he was interned with a number of other republicans... " - Delete "a number of"?
  • Wikilink sacking?
  • "However in 1956, during which record unemployed figures were reached in Ireland," - Suggestion: "However in 1956, when unemployment rose to record heights in Ireland,"
  • MOS:ITALICS#Quotations says to avoid using italics for quotations unless the italics are part of the quoted material. I removed the italics from the blockquote in this section, but they should be removed from all of the direct quotes in the other sections as well.

Protest committee

  • MOS:BOLD advises against most uses of bolding. Exceptions that apply to this article include the John (Jack) Murphy in the first line and heads and subheads that are automatically bolded but not things like Unemployment Protest Committee in the main text.
  • "with 11 other Dublin men he formed the Unemployment Protest Committee" - Since you use UPC on subsequent references, this first instance should include the abbreviation too. The standard pattern suggested by the Manual of Style looks like this: Unemployment Protest Committee (UPC). Subsequent references can then be UPC, which the first instance has explained to the reader.
  • "imply that the UPC had been a political organisation[5], - In Wikipedia articles, the reference number always comes after the end punctuation of the cited phrase or sentence, like so: "imply that the UPC had been a political organisation,[5]" Any of these that you see in the article should be flipped.
  • "The marches were usually preceded by a home made-coffin "We organised marches through the city. We hoped to arouse the conscience of the Nation. We carried a black coffin, symbolising our only hope if we did not fight." - The first sentence needs a terminal period after "-coffin". Then the quote needs a tag, such as "Murphy said" to identify the speaker of the words inside the quotation marks. The tag doesn't have to come at the beginning. You might use "We organised marches through the city," Murphy said. "We hoped... ". I'm assuming that Murphy was the speaker.
  • "However despite their pagentry the UPC marches seem to have had limited impact either on the employment situation or on the policy makers and ministers who were in control of the same." - Spelling, diction. Suggestion: "However despite their pageantry the UPC marches seemed to have limited impact on employment or on policy makers and ministers."

1957 general election

  • "The fall of the Government on 4th February 1957" - Lowercase "government"?
  • "employment on to the political agenda the U.P.C decided to run a candidate" - Remove the points from U.P.C. for consistency? I see other instances of this later in the article, and they all should be fixed.
  • "Jack Murphy said at the time" - Delete "Jack"?
  • "Two names were put forward as possible Candidates at a meeting in Parnell Square." - Lowercase "candidates". Wikilink Parnell Square? I see other instances of "Candidate" that should be lowercase.
  • "After much consideration it was decided that Jack Murphy would be more suitable as a Candidate." - Delete "Jack"? Lowercase "candidate"? The Manual of Style recommends using the last name only after the first use of a full name unless to do so would be confusing; e.g. if the article mentioned more than one person named Murphy.
  • Most of this section lacks sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim that might reasonably be questioned, every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every paragraph. Where does the material in this section come from. WP:V explains the importance of verifiability.
  • In general, this section needs more proofreading and attention to detail. Also, look for terms that might not be familiar to readers outside Ireland and see if they can be linked to other Wikipedia articles. I mentioned Parnell Square above, but River Liffey is another.

General comments

  • Rather than continuing line by line, it makes more sense to me to suggest that more of the balance of the article be condensed by paraphrasing rather than using so many long direct quotations and that the claims and quotes be sourced.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urse d'Abetot[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 take it to FAC and would appreciate help in noticing any bits that aren't clear to a non-medievalist, as well as prose flow and other concerns.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Content looks good, but I think it needs a copyedit and to provide context in a few places. So here are some specific suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • The lead should be longer per WP:LEAD (I think at least two paragraphs are needed).
Will work on this. This article just sorta grew and grew and grew. Considering the little we know about the guy, I'm pretty impressed by the size of the thing! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unclear on both parts of his name. There is the cryptic statement that Urse may be a nickname given his "tenacious temperament" but no explanation what Urse means. Drawing on my very rusty Latin, I assume it is derived from Ursa (bear) - are these considered to be tenacious animals? Whatever the case, it needs a note of explanation. Also his last name is apparently from the village, but the link goes to La Cerlangue, which makes no mention of the name St Jean d'Abbetot. Again some sort of explanation (even Adding "known today as La Cerlangue" would be helpful. It might also help to explain why his brother's name was completely different.
clarified Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is just having read Ivanhoe at an early age, but I think it would help to give a few sentences on the Norman Conquest and the whole Saxon vs. Norman dynamic - I assume at least part of his land acquisitions were because of the whole Norman Conquest
Added background section. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also help to have a bit more background on the rebellion of 1075, as well as a few sentences on what a sherriff had to do then.
A bit more has been added. Why they rebelled is unknown. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is decently written, but could use a copyedit to smooth / polish things (I know you usually get someone to do this). Awkward sentence Urse also acquired after Æthelwig's death lands that Æthelwig had seized through less than legal means, when Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux and half-brother of William I, presided at the lawsuit brought to determine the ownership of the lands. This might be better as something like After Abbot Æthelwig's death, Urse also acquired lands that Æthelwig had seized through less than legal means, when Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux and half-brother of William I, presided at the lawsuit brought to determine the ownership of the lands.
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make clear it is William II in In 1088, shortly after William became king, Urse was present at the trial of William de St-Calais, the Bishop of Durham,[30] ...
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be useful to explain in a sentence or two how Henry seized the throne.
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like having the first sentence in a section with a pronoun (He died... would read better as Urse died...). Some people will skip sections and this could be confusing as is.
Fixed. I agree and just missed it before. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did his son die? Urse was suceeded as sheriff by his son Roger d'Abetot, and Roger's successor Osbert d'Abetot probably was a brother of Urse
Well, obviously Roger died sometime (grins) but no, he lost office because he was exiled. Clarified in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think adding a map showing the position of Worcester in England would help and provide another image
Will hunt. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on these, thanks SOOO much. I didn't add the link to La Cerlangue, I have no idea whether the two places are linked, so I've removed the piping of the link until I uncover something that connects them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What'd I Say (song)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article passed GA. This song in very influential in rock and roll, cited by all the stuff within. I would like to take it to FA. I have requested some materials from ILL, but I'm worried that no material will be available that gave musical critiques of the song at the time. There are three entries for Charles in the Music Index for 1959, and a few more for 1960. Everything I found on EBSCO and JSTOR is in the article already. Anything you suggest is welcome. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Hi. I'm not sure I can help much on the specifics you mention above (I don't know what ILL is, even), but I have gone through the article carefully and have picked up numerous prose and general points for you to consider. Overall I found the article interesting and engaging, a definite FA in the making.

  • Lead
    • Is "What I Say" a recognised alternative title? The only reference in the article to this form is in the Charles quote.
    • Punctuation: suggest a comma after "two parts" in the opening sentence
    • Second para, first sentence:
      • Suggest a link on "pop" to pop music
      • Could the close repetiton of "Charles" in the opening phrase be avoided by rewording?
      • The sentence is probably too long, could be split.
    • Could you add a date for the recording of "I Got a Woman"?
    • Again, the date of its Rolling Stones ranking would be helpful
  • Background
    • nbsp: 27 years old, 300 days
    • "...where his style was similar to that of..." As this phrase presumably refers to the ten years recording for both record labels, it would read better as "...in a style similar to that of..."
    • Comma after 1954?
    • How does the Wexler quote "We didn't know shit..." etc illustrate his remembrance of the success of so many Atlantic artists? It seems too general a remark for that.
    • This phrasing: "Ertegun and Wexler found encouraging Charles was accomplished with a hands-off approach" is a bit telegraphic and reads awkwardly. Suggest a slight expansion: "Ertegun and Wexler found that a hands-off approach was the best way of encouraging Charles."
    • Suggest a flip: "Charles toured 300 days a year from 1954 into the 1960s with a seven-piece orchestra." to "From 1954 into the 1960s Charles toured for 300 days a year with a seven-piece orchestra." I think the latter version reads more smoothly and flows better into the rest of the paragraph.
    • "Charles began merging..." I would make this "In 1954, Charles began merging...", and start the next sentence "His first attempt was in the song..."
    • I'm a bit confused by the "either" in: "...based either on the melodies of Gospel standards "My Jesus Is All the World to Me" or an uptempo "I Got a Savior (Way Across Jordan)". "Either" means one and not the other; is it not possible to say which of these was the basis of "I Got a Woman"? Or is it actually both, in which case "either" should be deleted?
    • "It was the first Ray Charles record that began to get attention from white audiences..." "Began to get", or simply "got"?
  • Composition and recording
    • Tense change with "Charles uses..." and later back to "Charles indicated..." I think that a consistent past tense for this paragraph is advisable, since it is an account of an historic event.
    • Additional citation necessary for the audience reaction, the feeling the room shaking etc.
    • The phrase "although it had not yet been recorded" is redundant, since you have just described the improvisation of the song
    • Comma required after "8-track recorder"
    • Punctuation suggestions: replace the semicolon after "Dowd and the producers" with a full stop. Then make the following a sentence: "A previous recording called "Money Honey" by Clyde McPhatter had been banned in Georgia; Ahmet Ertegun and Wexler released the song despite the ban, risking arrest."
  • Reception: Delete first comma (after "radio stations")
  • Legacy
    • "While The Beatles were developing their sound in Hamburg, they played "What'd I Say" at every show, trying to see how long they could make the song last and using the audience in the call and response, with which they found immense popularity." Needs a citation
    • Likewise: "When Mick Jagger sang for the first time with the band that would become The Rolling Stones, he performed a duet of "What'd I Say"."
    • The paragraph beginning "In the late 1950s..." has no citations at all.
    • "...used the song to the B side..." I would have thought "as the B side"
    • MOS: no spaces around mdashes
    • Penultimate para: spelling of "Raeletts" seems to have changed.

That's it. Please contact my talk page if you have any problem with my comments, and good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Boulton[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 hurriedly improving this article in the hopes of getting it FA and TFA on August 17, when the bicentenary of Boulton's death is being celebrated. Things go smoother at FAC if a few eyes have looked seriously at the article before it hits that page.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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 get feedback for improvement before nominating this list for featured status. The list is similar to List of Survivor contestants and List of American Idol finalists (both FL-class). Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now realizing this peer review should have probably been directed to the Arts section, as opposed to the Everyday Life section. Big Brother is hardly artistic, but perhaps media/TV lists and articles are better suited there. My apologies...
One quick question. I know duplicate linking is generally frowned upon, but is accepted in tables. In this case, I linked all occasions of home towns and states. However, I did not do the same for duplicate mentions of occupations--only the first instance was linked (for example, "waiter" would only be linked once). If it is preferred that each entry is linked, I can certainly do so. Also, wasn't sure if occupations should be linked as often as possible, or only the more specialized positions. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is not a show I have watched, but this list seems decent. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • My understanding is that lists no longer begin with "This is a list of..." - it might be worth looking at WP:WIAFL as the criteria have changed recently.
  • Avoid words like "to date" in the lead - use things like "As of June 2009" instead as things can become outdated.
Done.
  • The lead seems to be a bit short although I am not sure what else could be added to it.
I agree. Me either. I am thinking perhaps some commentary on a couple of the abnormalities, such as why certain HouseGuests were expelled, have two eviction dates, or left the show (walked).
Done. Will add more if required during the FL nomination.
  • Links in the table are not consistent, for example Mother and Roofer both have articles but are not linked in the table.
  • I also note that at least one name is not consistent when cited multiple times - it is "Chicken" George Boswell in the photo caption, just George Boswell in Season 1, and George "Chicken" Boswell in Season 7. Be consistent.
Ok--this I was not sure about. The website for Big Brother 7 actually has George listed as "Chicken" George, which is why in the table he is listed with the nickname for Season 7 but not for Season 1. As for the image, I went ahead and put "Chicken" George since he is often referred to in that manner during the show. Any suggestions?
I would pick one name and stick with it consistently. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the biggest problems is that there are a number of copyrighted images that need a fair use rationale to be included here. My guess is that at WP:FLC most fair use images would not be seen as allowed under WP:NFCC - they are just uses as illustrations which is not sufficient for fair use here.
Hmmm... I am not too familiar with how images work on Wikipedia. I just saw them being used in other articles, so I copied the file name to make this list look better. We'll see what happens during the FL nomination process.
I can guarantee that the images at least need Fair Use rationales for this article. There are 8 images currently and 2 are free. The other six are copyrighted and need to qualify under fair use. Criteria 3a at WP:NFCC is Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information I do not see how six non-free pictures enhance understanding - they are being used more as decoration (especially when there are two free images already). My guess is the best image to try and get in for Fair Use would be one that shows all cast members for a season. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would somehow list which previous season the all stars were in in the table - perhaps the season number could follow their name in parentheses, so George "Chicken" Boswell (1)
  • I would somehow explain how someone can be evicted twice - so in Season 6 the entry for "Kaysar Ridha" has her Evicted Day 33 and Evicted Day 47 - and there are others like this. I would mention this possibility in the lead and use footnotes to explain specific cases like this.
Will do. Done.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your assistance. Feel free to leave additional comments or replies if you wish. Much appreciated, and best wishes! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome - I replied above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


2003 Afro-Asian Games[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 really want to obtain comments and feedbacks about this article. I desire to promote this article, first to Good Article status and then to featured article status.

Suggestions on improvement are most welcome. If you would like to suggest changes, please do so in my talk page or the article's talk page.

Thanks,

Ankitbhatt (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Suggestions will be made here as that is what peer review is for. This has a long way to go before it would meet the GA requirements, and further to go to pass at WP:FAC. So here are some suggestions for improvement towards GA and FA.

  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. For one thing it needs to be expanded to 3 or 4 paragraphs given the length of the article.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • I am confused by the lead. The first paragraph says More than 2000 athletes from 96 countries competed in the Games. A total of 129 events in eight disciplines were conducted. Also, 120 countries sent oficial representatives to these Games. then the second paragraph says These Games, however, had less scope, since 96 nations participated in only 8 sports. Since these were the first games, what is the comparison to in "These Games ... had less scope"? Less scope than what?
  • Make sure to provide context for the reader - who came up with the idea for the games originally? Or link Rupee and crore in " Rs.103 crores See WP:PCR
  • Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) prargaphs and sections that need to either be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve article flow.
  • Article needs more references, for example the stadium sections are largely unreferenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source - see current ref 10
  • Look at WP:WIAGA - GA criteria- and WP:WIAFA - FA criteria to see where this needs to go.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation and as a possible model FA 1896 Summer Olympics

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Retriever[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been a WP:GA for a while now, listing it here to get some feedback on how it can be improved further. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notices posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dodo bird

  • Many references to breeders' sites and general pet sites. Some seems authoritative but I doubt most meet the WP:RS standard.
  • The lead is too short.
  • Appearance: Should start with a broad description of the dog, and then mention breed standards and differences between standards and field/show lines. Right now, the article only states what they should look like and the differences between field and show lines, but don't actually describe the breed in general.
  • I think "History" should be the first section.

--Dodo bird (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts[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 believe it can be a GA and has plenty of FA potential. I realize it failed GAN in 2006, and has an old peer review in 2007. Anything from those that you want to reiterate, anything you think is sufficiently fixed, or any new stuff that has come up? There are plenty of sourcing issues. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mlaffs' comments: I'm going to have a look at this, as it's a particular area of interest for me. I also have some material at home that may prove helpful wrt sourcing. More to come… Mlaffs (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome; very much appreciated! :) BOZ (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments What I noticed about this is that so much of it is unsourced, which is a shame as there are several very good books out there on Peanuts and Charles M. Schulz.

  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The article mentions Chip Kidd, ed. (2001) Peanuts: The Art of Charles M. Schulz but does not seems to use it as a reference. This is a fascinating book and would be very helpful (as well as fun to look at).
  • Another source that I have not read but comes highly reccommended is Michaelis' Schulz and Peanuts See the official website which looks at how Peanuts reflects many incidents in Schulz's life
  • There are also books by Schulz himself, some of which are listed in the article. I have "Peanuts A Golden Celebration" from 1999 which has a lot of strips and a fair amount of commentary by Schulz himself. I think the Complete Peanuts books also have some ciritcal and historical commentary.
  • I would also look at Google books and scholar - there has been a lot written on this strip and its creator. The current article uses mostly internet sources, but a good library should have many of these books.
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm open to all input. :) BOZ (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bosworth Field[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Parallel MilHist review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field

"A review, a review! My gratitude for a review!" I have greatly expanded the article on this penultimate battle in the Wars of the Roses and would like to eventually make it a Featured Article. Please take a read and offer your comments/critiques. Thank you, Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1.

Boise homosexuality scandal[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 pretty close to GA status, although I am a bit concerned that it relies pretty heavily on a single source. It's a brand-new article that no one else has looked at so I want another set of eyes on it before making the GA nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber[edit]

(OMG I have relatives in Boise!) hehehe, fascinating topic. I don't have much time but will jot a few style notes. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...leading them to quietly halt the investigation - "halt" I always think of as sudden and abrupt (and sorta noisy). I was wondering whether "wind down" or "desist" or something was better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section Investigation and first arrests starts rather abruptly. I think some background or context-setting might be good. i.e. A few sentences which might mention that Boise was a fairly conservative part of America (I guess ???), and current laws on homosexuality at the time (briefly and succinctly)

More later, have you pinged Moni3? if not I will do so. She will be helpful I am sure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - an NPOV tag has been added to the article. There is discussion on the talk page. Anyone who further peer reviews the article, please pay close attention to that issue. Otto4711 (talk)

Dollis Brook Viaduct[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 is my first proper attempt at an article beyond a Start-class and i would just like to see where this could be improved. This has been expanded a lot since its creation a month ago.

Thanks, Simply south (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article that I found quite hard to review, as much of the article appeared to be about the railway line rather than the viaduct itself.

I will leave the WP:lead until almost the last.

  • In view of what is currently in the lead, the Etymology is somewhat problematical. OK, it is about the name Dollis and that makes sense with the article title of 'Dollis Brook Viaduct'; however, the lead gives another four names, i.e. Dollis Road Viaduct, Dollis Viaduct, Mill Hill Viaduct and Finchley Viaduct, two of which don't include the term 'Dollis'. I'm tempted to leave the Etymology section as it is.
    • Dollis Road Viaduct appears to be the official name as well as the Dollis Brook Viaduct. Mill Hill Viaduct is the next most commonly used and refers to the area in which the viaduct sits, which is basically on the boundary of Mill Hill and Finchley, which is also what\where the viaduct is referred to. Simply south (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History -
  • The first paragraph has some rather terse grammar. The first sentence is OK as an introduction, but I would suggest reworking the rest of the paragraph along the lines of ....

    "The viaduct was built as part GNR's single-track Edgware, Highgate and London Railway line, from Finsbury Park to Edgware via Finchley and Mill Hill, by the contractor Smith, Knight & Co. The line, which was authorised by an Act of Parliament in 1862; and both the line and the viaduct came into use on 22 August 1867.[3]" Although built to carry two tracks, the viaduct initially carried only one.

  • I think the existing paragraph which uses 'viaduct' and the 'bridge' is referring to a single structure. I've also moved the first sentence from the following paragraph into this one.
  • The second paragraph uses 'line' and 'branch'. For someone such as me who is not familiar with this section of railway, the terms line and branch are somewhat confusing.
  • Length, span and architecture -
  • Your first (only) paragraph has some good technical information and references, which is great. However, the unasked question that you don't answer is: Why was a 60 foot high brick viaduct needed to cross a stream and a road? Could not one or a pair of a 10ft/12 ft /15ft high bridges, or an earth embankment with one or more small bridges, do the same job - for less cost?
I think i am quibbling over a minor point but does it matter if there is no info on the length other than the arches? Simply south (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question. Looking at the picture of the viaduct with the car underneath, I'm asking why it was 60ft high, a 10ft/12 ft /15ft high bridge would (I presume) allow a bus to pass underneath?Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was meant to say the length of the viaduct and i don't have an answer to those questions yet... Simply south (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around the viaduct -
  • This reads as a bit of a 'dogs dinner'. The first part is about a long distance foot path; and this would perhaps read better as:

    "The Dollis Valley Greenwalk, a long distance footpath between Moat Mount Open Space in Mill Hill and Hampstead Heath passes (under / alongside / between - whatever is appropriate). It is designed to link many green spaces and wildlife corridors along the way and is approximately 10 miles (16 km) long.[7][8]

    .
  • The rest of the paragraph is about geology and one option is to move it to a separate paragraph within this section. However, the London clay / glacial beds may have influenced the construction of the viaduct, e.g. in respect of depth of foundations, etc; and if so should be discussed elsewhere.

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk)21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Rhodes/Cistine's proposition[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 made some amendments to my article after receiving feedback from a fellow Wikipedian. I require assistance to review the content again to ensure that it is suitable for publishing. Please suggest improvements (if any) on the article for it to be ready for publishing. I would like to ensure that the article does not sound like advertising for the company, but to inform readers on the shared services and outsourcing development in Perak, Malaysia.

Thanks, Cistine (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review only works for articles that are in article space - this would have to be moved to Walter Rhodes for the PR to work / continue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the other PR has been opened, I am archiving this Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson High School (New South Wales)[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 believe that it deserves a good ranking. It has no major problems and there is appropriate referencing for all sections. The History is clear and comprehensive. All sections are clear and written for an outside reader with no technical descriptions or badly written parts to them. The article itsef is an appropriate length and not too long for a reader and not too short so as not to leave the reader wanting. The article has requests for further assessment on Wikiproject Schools and Wikiproject Australia. There currently is no non-selective non-private School Article that has achieved a ranking higher than a 'B' class regardless of importance.

Davidson High School itself is quite notable for having done some controversial dance pieces in the Rock Eisteddfod several years ago. It also counts among its alumi as diverse a range of people as Nine Network Journalist, Tara Brown, former NSW Politician and Shadow Minister, Andrew Humpherson and two members of the 1980s/90s bannd INXS: Andrew Farriss, and Michael Hutchence, who actually met each other while at the school and formed their band.

I'd like to get some feedback on how the flow of the article is and how the sections are written. I would also like to see whether this article is referenced properly and whether some sections either need expansion or cutting down.

Even if this article still does not meet the requirements of 'GA' status, I feel that it is important to get some feedback and and some responses from more experienced editors on how we can give the article that rating some time in the future.

Thanks again, Stravin (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a start but has a long way to go to meet basic Wikipedia standards. Davidson seems to be an interesting school with students who do interesting things. I found the material about the satiric plays fetching and wouldn't have minded hearing more. I was curious about the changing motto; I'd like to know the reasoning behind these motto changes. On the other hand, I found the material about the senior staff and the student leadership to be boilerplate stuff without the kind of specific detail that would make it memorable.

Also, I must note that the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:MOS is a great resource, though it takes quite a while to master it. I see many places in the article that violate the Wikipedia style guidelines. I'll list a few of these below.

  • WP:LEAD says the ideal summary of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the rest of the article. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention the main idea in each of the text sections and to avoid including material in the lead that is not developed in any text section. The existing lead is an introductory paragraph rather than a true lead.
  • MOS:HEAD says that unless a section head contains proper nouns, only the first letter of the first word should be capitalized. Thus "Senior Staff" should be "Senior staff". The style manual also suggests using heads that are unique within a page; thus "Season of Performing Arts" would be better as "Season" to avoid repeating "Performing arts".
  • MOS:QUOTE says to use blockquotes only for quotations that take up four or more lines on a computer screen. Shorter quotations simply appear in the main text inside quotation marks.
  • MOS:ITALICS advises against putting quotations in italics.
  • WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists advises against using lists "if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs". The houses of Davidson High School, for example, could easily be included in the sentence about them rather than in a list.
  • Instead of appending Mr. or Ms. to names, Wikipedia style is to simply use the full name; e.g. Chris Bonnor.
  • Although I've learned a lot by studying the Manual of Style, I've learned even more by looking at examples of successful articles. You can find a list of education-related articles with Good Article (GA) status in the Education wing of WP: GA#Social_sciences_and_society. I see several articles about high schools in the list. Looking at several of these high-school articles will give you an idea of what's possible and what other editors have done to solve the problems of content, layout, and illustration.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eros Ramazzotti[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 promote it to "B" status. I have contributed to the article significantly ever since I discovered it here on Wikipedia. I have once posted this very article for Peer Review about a year ago; however, it was not yet ready for "B" rating as it needed numerous improvements. Since then I have made lots of changes to the article to meet the certain criteria.

Thanks, Harout72 (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I don't do music article assessments, so I will just review this as if it were aiming for GA. There is a lot of information here, but the article needs some work to better follow the WP:MOS so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation without a space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase - so fix things like Ramazzotti has sold over 40 million records in his 25 years of career [3].
    Done.--Harout72 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also has a fair number of placess where a copy edit could polish the language - for example the sentence quoted above would read better as something like Ramazzotti has sold over 40 million records in his 25-year career.[3]
  • The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which impedes the flow of the article. These should be combined with other paragraphs, or perhaps expanded.
    Done.--Harout72 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although much of the article has refs, there are a few places that need refs, for example In the course of the international tour for Stilelibero, Ramazzotti also appeared in eastern European countries including Moscow, Russia where he gave three-day sold out concerts at Kremlin Palace. Throughout his career, Ramazzotti has done duets with some very well-known artists such as Cher, Andrea Bocelli, Joe Cocker, Carlos Santana, Tina Turner, Anastacia, Luciano Pavarotti, and Laura Pausini. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
    Done.--Harout72 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
    Done.--Harout72 (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the refs used all meet WP:RS - looking online it appears that there are some English books on Eros, though many are out of print now. I would also see what is in his autobiography.
  • Would it make sense to give English translations of the names of his songs and albums? This is the English Wikipedia.
    Done.--Harout72 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Pinter[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 welcome review of this article, particularly concerning its length, detail, referencing style, prose and accessibility for Wikipedia readers. It would be good to get direction on ways to take it forward to featured artcile status. There has been disagreement amongst editors on the general style and tone of the article - in particular one editor's resistance to improvements suggested by others.

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive1.

Hurricane Cora (1978)[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 while it's been upgraded to GA, I personally want to know what the article needs for an A-Class listing (if one can be given alongside the GA badge), and, if by some chance it'd last, an FAC run. While I'm only just contemplating FAC, I really want to know what it needs for A first, as I'm aiming one step at a time. I especially want the prose and wording looked into.

Thanks, Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks decent. At a first glance, I'd love to see more met. history, such as why it maintained such a westerly track at such a low latitude. Actually, I realize you might hate me for this, as it might jeopardize it staying at GA status, but the NHC actually has a whole archive of info on it, namely discussions but also some other fun things to fill out the article. Here is the link. I suggest you trawl through all of that before considering FA status. I was impressed with how much you got for the "Impact, Records, and Naming" section. Keep it up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, especially because of the material about the balloon and the swim. I see quite a few prose and Manual of Style problems in the text that would certainly prevent the article from FA consideration, and I agree with Hurricane Hink that the content is thin. Even if you only aim for A status, it would be good to make the article as close to comprehensive as possible and to polish the prose and adhere to the Manual of Style as closely as you can. I did not analyze every sentence in the article, but here is a representative list of things that I noticed.

Lead

  • WP:MOS#Chronological items says that dates such as August 7 in the lead are not normally wikilinked. Suggestion: Unlink all of the linked month-day dates and plain months such as August further down in the lead and throughout the main text sections.

Meteorological history

  • "In early August, a disturbance was observed in satellite images moving off the coast of Africa on August 4." - How about "On August 4, satellite images showed a disturbance moving off the coast of Africa." This would change the sentence to active voice and eliminate the repetition of "August".
  • "a forward speed of roughly 20 mph (32 km/h)" - MOS:CONVERSIONS recommends spelling out the main units and abbreviating the secondary units in the imperial–metric conversions. I find the {{convert}} template handy for doing the conversions because it not only does the math but inserts the correct spellings and abbreviations. Here's what this conversion looks like using the template: 20 miles per hour (32 km/h). Further down in this section, the 980 millibars can be converted to inches of mercury like this: 980 millibars (29 inHg). You can force the rounding in this template by adding another parameter with the desired degree of rounding; e.g. |1 or |2. You can force a hyphen with |adj=on. Suggestion: Use the template to make all of the conversions consistent throughout the article.
  • "The hurricane would continue in this direction throughout its lifespan." - It would be better to stick to straight past tense for this event in the past; i.e. "The hurricane continued in this direction throughout its lifespan."
  • "After becoming disorganized, a Hurricane Hunter aircraft... " - The aircraft wasn't disorganized.
  • "The dissipating storm continued on, striking the island... " - Suggestion: "The dissipating storm struck the island... "

Impact, Records, and Naming

  • Suggestion: "Impact, records, and naming" per MOS:HEAD.
  • "While passing through the Lesser Antilles, reports of squalls... " - The reports weren't passing through the Lesser Antilles.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Requested peer view to make it a good article.

Thanks, Bangali71 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost nothing on the mineral resources. In an article on the most mineral rich area in Bangladesh that's kind of odd. The Geography section is pretty poor on about haors. This too is pretty odd for a region half covered in haors. The History section is about Sylhet District, but the Civic Administration section is about Sylhet Town. Now, that's really confusing. On top of that, the article needs a thorough copy-edit. This much could be seen at a first glance. But, I believe all of them are serious issues. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message good criticisms made but i do require some help to develop in particular economic mineral rich informations i cannot find many references, please attract more users to this discussion thank Bangali71 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit drowned in real life work right now. But, things should get better pretty soon. I promise to lend a hand as much as I can. Unfortunately, The Green Editor and AA, two great editors with an interest in Sylhet, have retired or gone inactive. Let's see what can be cooked up. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I would contact Aditya as these seem like very good suggestions (and I am not familiar with this city). While this looks like a pretty good start, there are numerous mostly minor things that need to be addressed before it is GA, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per the WP:MOS provide English units as well as metric - {{convert}} is useful here.
  • Article needs more references in a few places, for example The rapid growth and expansion of Sylhet occurred during the colonial period. Sylhet Municipality was established in 1878. A devastating earthquake demolished almost the entire town on 12 June 1897 following which a modern and European model new town was built on the wreckage. Many new roads were constructed in the late 1890s and Sylhet became really connected to the other parts of the country with the establishment of an extension line of Assam-Bengal Railway in 1912-15. From the very beginning of the 20th century, the importance of Sylhet increased with the establishment of the tea industry. In the 1950s and 1960s, rapid urbanisation took place in the town, fostered by the expatriate Sylhetis and the process is still ongoing. needs a ref or two. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Watch organization - in History the narrative flow jumps around in time (we go from 1781 to the Second World War to the early colonial era (Assam), then we have information on Twin Cities, but there is another section on that at the end of the article. There is also very little on history post 1947 and especially as part of Bangladesh.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on cities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places and I note that Dhaka and Delhi are both FAs and may be useful models. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Finetooth comments: I find articles about geology interesting, and this one is no exception. While reading through the article, I noticed and fixed a few small things related to prose and Manual of Style issues, and I have listed other suggestions below. After making any changes that might stem from my comments, it would be good if you could find someone with a professional understanding of geology to review the article too. (I'm not a geologist, just an amateur admirer of science.) You might ask someone listed at WP:PRV#Natural Sciences.

  • I wonder if it would be useful to include a separate section explaining a bit of the plate tectonics affecting the Hawaii in general. Some mention of the hotspot, the direction of plate movement, and Kohala's position in the chain would help readers unfamiliar with the background. Would completely submerged older volcanoes be worth mentioning? Would Loihi Seamount on the other end of the chain be worth mentioning just to put Kohala into a larger context?
  • A dabfinder tool shows six links such as "axially" in the article that go to disambiguation pages rather than to the intended target page. The tool lives dabfinder here, and you can run it on any article.

Lead

  • WP:LEAD says the lead should be a concise overview of the whole article. The existing lead is more like the introductory paragraph of an essay than a true lead. A good rule of thumb for a lead is to include at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include material that is not mentioned in the main text sections. (I see that the lead got a bit longer since I wrote the sentence before this one, so you are moving in the right direction.)
  • "reducing its height by over 1,000 m (3,281 ft)" - MOS:CONVERSIONS says to spell out the primary unit and abbreviate the secondary unit. Also, if you round the primary unit to the nearest thousand, you should probably round the secondary unit in the same way. I like to use the {{convert}} template because it spells and abbreviates automatically, and it does the math. You can hyphenate with the adj=on parameter, and you can add a rounding parameter. Here's what this particular conversion looks like: 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) or rounded to the nearest thousand 1,000 metres (3,000 ft). The template will handle squared units, cubed units, weights, velocities, and almost anything you can think of.
  • Some of the primary units in the existing article are imperial, and some are metric. Since this is a U.S.-centric article, the primary units should be imperial. Thus the meters and feet in the example above should be flip-flopped.
  • "and thus constitutes 5.8% of the island of Hawaiʻi" - The Manual of Style suggests using "percent" rather than the symbol in simple cases like this one. Also, shouldn't this be Hawaii rather than Hawaiʻi since you use Hawaii in the infobox? Alternatively, you could add an explanation of the variant spellings. A separate "Name" section, with some etymology, is a possibility for expansion of this article. A general reader might like to know what the Hawaiian terms, even well-known ones like Mauna Loa, mean in English.

Geological history

  • "History" would be better than "Geological history" to avoid repeating a variant of "geology" in two heads.
  • "In addition, the two features align to one another more closely then does the ridge to Mauna Kea, of which it was once thought to constitute a part of." - Delete the last "of".
  • "a change in the orientation of Earth's magnetic field so that the positions North and South poles interchange" - Insert "of the" between "positions" and "North"?
  • "The rock in the younger Hawi section, which overlies the older Pololu flows, is mostly 260 to 140 thousand years, and composed mainly of hawaiite and trachyte." - "thousand years old" rather than "thousand years"? Also, "is composed" rather than "and composed"?
  • "the lowest layers may actually be in the Pololu sect," - Is "sect" the right word?
  • "obtained from Waipio Valley on the volcano's east flank in 1977, were dated replicably to 60,000 years" - "reliably" rather than "replicably"?
  • "The United States Geological Survey has, not surprisingly, assessed the extinct Kohala as a low-risk area." - Delete "not surprisingly", which is an interpretation.

Characteristics

  • "The volcano has several unique geomorphic features" - Wikilink geomorphic?
  • "There is a small string of faults on and near the main summit... " - Wikilink fault (geology)?
  • "The volcano stayed active well into the formation of these mountainside valleys, as the arrangement of the later-life Pololu lava flows, which separated into two directions and often went into Pololu Valley, shows this." - Delete "this"?
  • "and it is believed the valley formed formed from the tumbled-out rock from the landslide" - Delete the second "formed"?
  • "Rainwater easily seeps into the lava, creating a large lense of fresh water... " "lens" rather than "lense"?
  • "dikes cool underground into dense rock with few cracks and vesicles" - Wikilink vesicles?

Images

  • MOS:IMAGES suggests setting most image sizes to "thumb" rather than to a specific pixel width. The infobox image is an exception, and the Kohala side view might be an exception as well, but I don't think the others qualify.
  • MOS:IMAGES also says to avoid creating text sandwiches like the one in the "Districts" section. The section is too short to accommodate two images.

I hope these comments prove useful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Arrow[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 trying to bring it up to Good Article standard, but I have not done this before, and would like some advice regarding the quality of the article, and improvements that can be made, before I nominate it.

Thanks, --GW… 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and well-illustrated article. I have a few suggestions about prose and Manual of Style issues that should not take long to address except perhaps for re-working the lede. I noticed a tendency to use passive voice even when it would be easy to use active voice. Usually active is more punchy and direct.

Lede

  • WP:LEAD defines the lede as a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything in the lede that is not developed in the main text. The existing lede doesn't mention "Cancellation", and it's pretty thin on "Development" and "Vehicle". Also, nothing about the naming conventions appears in the main text.

Development

  • "The first and second stage engines were built by Bristol Siddeley in Ansty." - Suggestion: "Bristol Siddeley in Ansty built the first- and second-stage engines." This switch is to active voice and to hyphens on the compound adjectives.
  • "The third stage was built in Somerset by Bristol Aerojet, whilst the solid propellent was produced by the Explosives Research and Development Establishment in Waltham Abbey." - Flip passive to active? Also, the Manual of Style suggests replacing "whilst" with "while".
  • "The stage was designed and integrated by the Rocket Propulsion Establishment in Westcott." - Flip to active voice?

Vehicle

  • Wikilink oxidiser?
  • Wikilink Specific energy?
  • Wikilink centre of gravity?
  • "Attitude control on the first two stages was provided by thrust vectoring." - Flip to active voice?
  • "The eight first stage combustion chambers were arranged in pairs... " - "first-stage" rather than "first stage"?
  • "During the coast, the attitude control system was used to maintain the correct attitude for third stage separation." - "third-stage separation"? Ditto for similar constructions in which X-stage is used later in the article as an adjective to modify a noun? I'm also itching for this sentence to be active voice and for "attitude" not to be repeated. Perhaps "During the coast, a control system maintained the correct attitude for third-stage separation"?
  • "Despite this, the upper stage of R3 collided with Prospero after the spacecraft had separated, resulting to damage to one of the spacecraft's communications antennae... " - Suggestion: "Despite this, after the spacecraft had separated, the upper stage of R3 collided with Prospero and damaged one of the spacecraft's communications antennae... ".
  • "Although none were ever built, several derivatives..." - Subject-verb agreement. "Although none was ever built... "
  • "Another suggestion was to mount the entire rocket atop a Blue Streak missile, whilst a... " - Replace "whilst" with "while"?

Launches

  • "The launch site at Uist was rejected as it was too inaccessible, and it was determined that there was a risk of a rocket launched from Norfolk dropping spent stages on an oil rig in the North Sea." - Suggestion: "The launch sites at Uist and Norfolk were rejected because the former was too remote, while a rocket launch from the latter might drop spent stages on an oil rig in the North Sea."
  • Why was the launch site in Barbados rejected?

Cancellation

  • "The cancellation of the Black Arrow project was announced in the House of Commons on 29 July 1971 by Minister of State for Trade and Industry Frederick Corfield." - Flip to active voice?
  • "As the R3 rocket had already been shipped to the launch site, with the second stage having arrived three days earlier, permission was given for it to be launched." - Delete "with"?

References

  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. For example the range in citation 2 should be pp. 155–188 rather than pp. 155-188.

Images

  • The last two images in the article create a partial text sandwich on my monitor. This could be fixed by moving Image:Black Arrow R3 Stage 1.JPG down about three lines.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have edited the article to try to address most of your concerns:
  • I have mentioned the development and cancellation in the lead, and moved the naming conventions out of the lead.
  • I know that I have a tendency towards using passive voice. I have switched the sentences that you pointed out to active voice.
  • I have added the three links you suggested.
  • I have not hyphenated the stage names, as although they could be seen as compound adjectives, stage numbers in rocketry are generally not hyphenated.
  • I have corrected the subject-verb agreement issue that you raised.
  • I have replaced "whilst" with "while" in both the instances that you raised.
  • I have partially modified the sentence on UK launch sites per your suggestion, but I opted to leave the word "risk" in, as I feel that without it, the sentence seemed to slightly overstate the chance of it happening.
  • I could not find any information on why Barbados was ruled out. My guess would be that it was because there was already infrastructure at Woomera, but since this is essentially OR, it has no place in the article.
  • I have removed the word "with" as you suggested.
  • I have hyphens with dashes in two references.
  • I have relocated the second image to the next paragraph.
Thank you very much for your detailed review. I had a quick look at the backlog, but couldn't find anything that I knew enough about to provide a good review of. I will keep an eye on it, and as soon as something that I can help with comes up, then I will try to review it. --GW… 09:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears none of the refs with urls incorporated have them archived. It isn't required, but useful if the links go dead.--Rockfang (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added archive links to all references using the {{cite web}} template. I am currently trying to archive the FLV video, and if that works, I will add an archive URL for that as well. I have commented out the archive URLs for now, to avoid them interfering with the normal links, with the exception of links hosted by a service which is scheduled to shut down at some point in the next few months. --GW… 09:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would they interfere? Both the archive url and the normal would show up. (An example)--Rockfang (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't like the way that the archive link took precedence over the normal one. Sometimes some quality is lost in the archiving process. --GW… 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of China (Pre-1911)[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 get ways to improve this article and maybe one day bring it to GA and FA status(I've done quite a bit of work on this former stub already). This article, as you can see, deals mainly with Chinese Economic history before 1911(the modern article is a start ).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Teeninvestor (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

This is not a full review, but a quick look has revealed numerous problems:-

  • Length: WP:LENGTH says: Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style) This article has over 14,000 words of readable prose, and it seems obvious that it should be split. I would have thought that the end of the "Southern and Northern dynasties" section would be an appropriate cutoff point. This would give you two long, but not overlong, articles dealiing with Chinese economic history, and would significantly incease the chances of each article being read.
  • Prose: from the little I've read – the lead and the first few sections – the prose is going to need a great deal of attention. Here are a few sample points that will need fixing:
    • Lead
      • The opening sentence does not conform to the requirements specified in WP:LEAD. See the section relating to the format of the first sentence.
      • "The early Chinese civilization..." – "The" not required
      • "sizable commerce" is not idiomatic. You could say "extensive"
      • Overlinking – "commerce" and "currency" are everyday terms
      • Non-encyclopedic language: "By 500 BCE, however, a new powerful government organized the economy like never before."
      • Incomprehensible: "A new merchant class sprung up, though it was surveyed." What does this mean?
      • "organized long wars..." Wars are waged, provoked, etc, but are they "organized"?
      • Unencyclopedic: "...and set the tone for things to come."
      • POV language: "...no less breathtaking than the reforms of the warring states period," "allowed astonishing advances"
      • "an event known as the Great Divergence." Known by whom?
These are a sample of faults found in the lead. The whole section needs the attention od a skilled copyeditor.
    • Feudal Era (c. 2100 BCE - 475 BCE): In this very short section I found multiple problems:-
      • Unencyclopedic language "The Chinese civilization started off..."
      • "...which is regarded by the Chinese as their ancestor." Huang Di was a person, and cannot be followed by "which"
      • "...appointed their vassals to the land." "Appointed" is not the right word here
      • "highly independent" is non-idiomatic. Perhaps "wholly independent"?
      • "monarchy" is an institution, and should not be followed by "who"
These examples seem fairly typical of the prose problems throughout the article.
  • MOS issues:-
    • Many of the year ranges have hyphens, not ndashes
    • No-break spaces are missing throughout
    • Small numbers (under 10) should be written out, e.g. five not 5
    • Proportions should be written as "one-tenth" or "10 per cent", not as "1/10"
    • Metric measurements require conversion to imperial
    • Large numbers should be written as, for example, 2,200 not 2200
  • Other points
    • Page ranges require "pp." not "pg"
    • Several of your sources lack information (publisher, publisher location, year, ISBN)

I hope you won't be put off by the apparent negative tone of these comments. The two big issues, in my view, are the splitting of the article and the bringing of the prose up to standard. The remaining problems can be quite easily fixed. I fully appreciate the effort that has gone into building this article and hope you will continue with the good work. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. For the prose I have contacted many copyeditors to help, but the article itself has already be split(the original article was Economic history of China which was split into this article and Economic history of Modern China, so the prose size is now below 90 kb. This is itself quite a broad topic, after all.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the article has already been split – but it's still 14,000+ words. Economic history of Modern China has barely 3,000 words, so perhaps the splitting point was wrong? There is no reason why it shouldn't be split again. It is possible that your difficulties in finding copyediting help is related to the length of the article as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy[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 have done a lot of work on it, and I would like to see it become A-class (WP:MILHIST rates lists as if they were articles; only difference is FL instead of FA) or an FL. I want to know exactly what is wrong with it. It probably needs copyediting, but I wanted to be certain before I put the tag on; potentially wasting a few minutes of someone's life.

Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 12:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 22:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I found this interesting. I have little or no relevant knowledge, so the article taught me something. I am inclined to agree with your remark that it needs copyediting; the prose is a bit wayward in places. I have done a detailed review on the lead and the first section, highlighting the prose issues that need fixing (and a few other points). Similar prose problems arise in the remaining sections, so a good copyditor is a necessity. I've also made a suggestion on the table formats.

  • Lead
    • I don't think the first paragraph meets the requirement of WP:LEAD which says, inter alia: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable? You begin by introducing the history of the destroyer class of ships. This feela as though it should be the second sentence rather than the first.
    • A date is required for the Spanish-American war
    • "Roosevelt wrote..." Where did he write this, and to whom was he addressing his remarks?
    • "pushing for..." would be better as "and pushed for", or "and pressed for"
    • "Congress soon authorised..." Can you give a date? Thus "On [date] Congress authorized..."
    • "From 1918–41..." Should be "Between 1918–41"
    • "During World War II, the United States began building destroyers with five-gun main batteries, but without stability problems." This sentence reads oddly; I think it's the "but", followed by an unexplained reference to stability problems. These problems do not appear to be identified later in the article.
    • Why is "frigates" in quotes? Should the term be linked?
    • Tangled sentence: "Other destroyers were produced, including the last all-gun destroyers, and a class for the Shah of Iran, but instead was added to the U.S. Navy, due to the Iranian Revolution." The sentence should be split along the lines "Other classes were produced, including the last all-gun destroyers. A special class was produced for the Shah of Iran, but due to the Iranian Revolution these ships could not be delivered and were added to the U.S. Navy"
    • Small numbers (under 10) should be written out, thus "three" not 3.
  • Pre-World War I
    • Several problems with this sentence: "The threat a small, fast, torpedo–delivering ship could pose to the battle line became clear to navies around the world; giving birth to the torpedo boat, including the USS Cushing of the United States Navy.":-
      • "Torpedo-delivering should have a hyphen not an n-dash
      • The semicolon is misplaced - should be a comma. Better still, the sentnce could be split (see below)
      • Some rephrasing is also advised (see below)
      • Thus, the sentence might read: "The potential threat posed to the battle line by a small, fast, torpedo–delivering ship became clear to navies around the world. This potential gave birth to the torpedo boat, of which USS Cushing was the United States Navy's first."
    • "As president..." - give the date[s]
    • nbsp missing: "16 torpedo boats". There may well be others so please check.
    • Small numbers are shown numerically when they should be written out.
    • Clarification needed: "The Smith and Paulding classes weighted 740 short tons (670 t), the reason these classes were nicknamed "flivvers" (lightweights)." Without some means of weight comparison, it is not apparent that 740-ton ships were lightweight. Try: "The Smith and Paulding classes weighted 740 short tons (670 t), this relatively light weight being the reason these classes were nicknamed "flivvers" (lightweights)."
  • Tables
    • These look generally in good order. On a point of presentation, however, could the details in the columns be centered? I know that writing repeated "align = center" will be a chore, but the effect on the tables' appearances will be worth it.

I hope that these comments and suggestions will help you to improve the article to the standard you desire. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Lies (band)[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 previously (see Wikipedia:Peer review/White Lies (band)/archive1, based on this revision), and it was recommended that I "...hold off nominating this for FA until the first album is fully released and toured". It was stated also that "this is not a criticism of the article in anyway", with there being few criticisms of the article in the last review itself. Now that this milestone has passed, i have put further work into the article and that it is as good as it can be. This is the most effort I have put into any article on Wikipedia, and would love to see it featured.

Thanks, SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jafeluv[edit]

Lead:

  • "The band are complemented by Tommy Bowen..." are → is
  • "White Lies' musical style has been described as dark yet uplifting by the media,[3] with the former drawing comparisons to Joy Division, Editors and Interpol." The "with -ing" structure is ungrammatical. Should probably be "White Lies' musical style has been described as dark yet uplifting by the media,[3] and the former has drawn comparisons to..."
    •  Fixed - Have changed to "White Lies' musical style has been described as dark yet uplifting by the media,[3] with the former drawing comparisons to Joy Division, Editors and Interpol." Does this suit? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • The subsection headings are confusingly named. "Formation (2005-2007)" already talks about the name change, and To Lose My Life... is already discussed under "Name change and debut singles (2007-2008)". Either move the text to the corresponding section or rename the sections.
    •  Fixed - Sections renamed to "Formation (2005–2007)", "Early releases (2007–2008)", "To Lose My Life... and future (2009-present)" - is this better? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Early releases" is definitely a better name for the second subsection. However, I somewhat disagree with your dividing the text into subsections by year rather than by event. In my opinion, the second and third paragraph of "Early releases" should be under "To Lose My Life...", since they already talk about the debut album. The last subsection could then be "To Lose My Life... (2008–present)". The current "2009–present" is kind of confusing anyway since 2009 is the present :) For an example on how to divide information into subsections logically, see Metallica (a featured article). If you think the last subsection will become too long you can make "Future" a new subsection (just a suggestion, of course). Jafeluv (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have renamed the sections "Formation", "Early releases", "To Lose My Life" and "Future", with the removal of dates. Should the dates be kept out? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If by dates you mean the years in the subsection headings, I have no problem with including them. If you looked at Metallica, they do include the years. Same with AC/DC, Genesis (band) and Slayer – all featured articles. What I was concerned about was putting the information under the right heading. So, if a subsection is titled "To Lose My Life", it's supposed to contain all the information on the album in question. I see you've moved the text I suggested. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change and debut singles (2007–2008):

  • "As well as this, the band signed with..." → "The band also signed with..."
  • "When asked about their name, the band said they chose the name because..." → "The band said they chose the name because..." – The first part is redundant.
  • "playing single "Unfinished Business" and "Death"" → "playing the singles..."
    • I hadn't included a reference to "Death" being a single as of yet as this is not mentioned until later in the article. Have changed to "playing singles "Unfinished Business" and "Death"" in the meantime. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tour included an appearance at the CMJ Music Festival in New York" – "New York" should probably point to New York City instead of New York

To Lose My Life... and future (2009-present):

  • "The cover was included as a b-side to..." – Capitalize B-side.
  • "Upon the release of To Lose My Life, White Lies became the first British act in 2009 to achieve a number one album." – The source doesn't seem to support the claim. It talks about the first number one debut album.
  • "the latter being the band's first performance on US television.[47]" – Facebook is not a reliable source.
  • "Whilst in North America, the band co-headlined..." – Replace "whilst" with "while". See here.
  • "Whilst still in the UK, the band made..." – "Whilst" again.
  • "due to the nature of the band's song writing techniques.." – Songwriting is one word.

Dead references:

Jafeluv (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration of Barack Obama[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 failed FAC twice and could use some more feedback.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will start by saying this looks much better compared to the previous peer review. I also wish someone else would peer review it, but as I noted before the FAC comments are a very detailed review in and of themselves and I would look at them closely. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I like the images in the article now and their placement very much. Ialso like that the sound and video clips are there. My only quibble here is that at least one image File:2009 Obama inauguration luncheon.jpg is not set to a thumb width as the MOS reccommends. I did not find the slightly larger size helped me see it better - is there a reason it is set to a specific pixel width? I also note the two images in Ceremony: "A New Birth of Freedom" come close to sandwiching text, but there is not much room to move them and I like both (and my monitor tends to compress things a bit).
    • I have resized the image you mentioned. Instead of going with the default thumb size, I went with reducing it from 275px to 225px, which is the same size as the image below it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking in some detail at the Plannning section, I will try to point out some issues that recur throughout the article.
    • First, I think it might help to add the date of Obama's election (Nov. 4) so the reader has some idea of the time scale. Thinking about this more, is there any info on when the planning committee started work - presumably they could do some planning before the election was held? WP:PCR
      • I am not sure I see a point in that section where his election and its date is relevant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess my thought on including this in a sentence or two is two-fold. First, I think it shows that the planning committee had relatively little time to organize everything - Obama was elected Nov. 4 and the full schedule was released Dec. 17 (less than 6 weeks later). Second, I think that there are non-Americans who read this who might not know the date of the election, so providing it is useful. WP:PCR Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a sentence with a reference about the platform construction beginning on Sept. 24. and noting the Nov. 4 election. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second, the article is inconsistent as to the name of the committee that organized all of this. The official website uses "Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies" (although the Wikipedia article is confusingly United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies). I think this or an official abbreviation would be used throughout. However, the lead uses "Presidential Inaugural Committee" which links to United States presidential inauguration (but I would think the previous link here would be much better). The Planning section calls it the "Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies" in the first sentence, then refers to it as the "2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee" in the second sentence. To confuse matters more, the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration is also mentioned, but I think that is OK. I think I would use the official name in the lead and the first occurrence in Planning and then put one or two abbreviations or shorter names to use after it, so something like "...were planned by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (also known as the Inaugural committee or JCCIC)" and not use any other names. FYI, I made up the short name and abbreviation - use the common short name, but define it. As it is just in the Planning section we have it called "Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies", "The 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee", "the committee", "the congressional committee", "the Presidential Inaugural Committee" and "the presidential committee".
  • I have revised the article to clarify the roles of the two different committees. The link to "Presidential Inaugural Committee" is redirecting currently to another article. Perhaps it will eventually be its own article, but for now the only choices for this article are leave it or remove it and for now I have left it. Aaron charles (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK< just looked at it again - can you add who the members of the Presidential Inaugural Committee were? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only committee member besides Obama and Biden that I could find is Emmett S. Beliveau, and he doesn't have a Wiki page. I suspect that this committee has a makeup of volunteers, staffers and maybe donors, as opposed to composition of the congressional committee. Aaron charles (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The committee (whatever you call it) only has six members, most of them pretty well known and all members of Congress. I would include all of their names (and not just Diane Feinstein's).
    • While I think this could benefit from a copyedit, it read pretty well until I got to the last paragraph on Washington DC changing operating hours for bars and restaurants. This is the longest paragraph in the section and to my mind the least important and least interesting. I would cut this back to maybe three sentences
  • The District of Columbia City Council passed legislation signed my Mayor Adrian Fenty to allow bars and restaurants that paid a registration fee to to operate 24‑hours a day between January 17 and 20, with no alcohol served after 4:00 a.m. EST.[18][19] This extension of normal hours was done to accomodate the large crowds expected. The Hotel Association of Metropolitan Washington agreed to pay for extended Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority train service on January 19 for visitors attending and workers providing support for inaugural events.[20] I don't think normal alcohol operating hours are needed and am also doubtful that the compromise moving the closing time back from 5 am to 4 am is needed.
  • Sentence showing the need for a copyedit: The Presidential Inaugural Committee and members of the 111th U.S. Congress distributed invitations and color‑coded tickets to both dignitaries and ordinary citizens to gain access to, and view the swearing‑in ceremony from, reserved sections on or near the U.S. Capitol grounds.[22] Eeek! I had to read this three times before I was sure what it meant
  • More context - the "We Are One" concert section does not have the date. I think a fair number of readers will look at only a section they are interested in and The day after Obama arrived in Washington, D.C., an inaugural concert, "We Are One," took place at the Lincoln Memorial. would be confusing.
  • Spiritual observances section - why not just call this Prayers? or perhaps Invocations? I also think this could be organized better. As it is it directly quotes Lowery saying when "white would do what is right" twice (needless repetition). I think I would mention both, talk about Warren first (as he spoke first) then about Lowery second (as he spoke second). I thought Obama's speech, Lowery's prayer, and Aretha's hat were the three best parts of the ceremony.
  • More context - I would mention RObert Byrd is the oldest member of the Senate in Luncheon
  • OK, I have spent a fair amount of time on this and am not done with the whole article, but need to do other things. I think these are general points that could be addressed throughout.
  • I think the International attention section is much better, but why not call it International reaction?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian general election, 2009[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 this article is a good candidate for featured article candidate. This page has been extensively worked on, and everyone has meticulously worked to make sure everything is accurate and referenced. We are hoping to get good feedback on how to clean up/improve the article, so that it is an article of highest quality. The sections I think should be reviewed are Results section, to make sure it is cleaned up properly and everything is referenced and accurately represented. Thanks, Harish89 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a huge amount of work has been put into this, it needs much more work to make the Featured Article criteria. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should not be more than four paragraphs, but the current lead is eleven paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article may need fewer sections / header too
  • There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which impede the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in a few cases. Just in the lead there are six or seven such paragraphs.
  • There are several places that need references. FOr example the whole Electronic voting machines section has zero refs and the sentence The previous Lok Sabha had 128 MPs with criminal cases. definitely needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Current refs 2, 4, 5, 8 are just links now, see WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There is a huge amount of data given in tables and lists - could some of this be put into subarticles per WP:Summary style?
  • The article seems to me to need a better narrative thread - at present it is more a disjointed collection of various facts and data.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Canadian federal election, 1993 and South Australian state election, 2006 are both FAs and may be useful model article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senedd[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 already passed as a Good Article, but I would hope that it can become a Featured Article one day. The major problem really is that I don't think that "its prose is engaging or brilliant or of a professional standard", therefore I could do with all the help I can get.

Thanks, Seth Whales (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The building is interesting, the images fetching. I have quite a few specific suggestions about the overall layout and the prose through "First selection process". I agree with other reviewers that the lists should be turned into prose if possible, but I think it would also be wise to compress some of the material in other ways as well. It takes a lot of wading through process to get to the building. It's a case of too many words chasing too few core ideas. For example the third paragraph of the lead says: "The 5,308 m² (57,135 sq ft) Senedd was constructed in two phases; phase 1 was between March 2001 and July 2001 and phase 2 was from August 2003 until it was handed over to the National Assembly in February 2006. Phase 1 ended when the National Assembly terminated the contracts of the Richard Rogers Partnership and the main contractor, Skanska. A new management structure was introduced for phase 2, with the main contractor, Taylor Woodrow Construction, reporting to project managers, Schal International Management Ltd, who in turn reported to the National Assembly via the Project Board. The Richard Rogers Partnership were still the main architects, but where they had reported directly to the National Assembly, in phase 2 they report to Taylor Woodrow Construction as a subcontractor." I think most readers would be more satisfied with "The Senedd was constructed in two phases, the first in 2001 and the second lasting from August 2003 until February 2006. Between phases, the National Assembly changed contractors and the project's management structure but retained the original architectural firm." The main text sections can and should include much more detail than the lead, but even there it's good to aim for the minimum number of words necessary to convey the essential information. What is essential and what is peripheral is to some degree subjective, but my main suggestion for this article is to aim for concision.

Done.

Layout

  • The large number of attractive images is instantly apparent, but so are a couple of associated problems. The Manual of Style frowns upon text sandwiches of the sort found in "Design selection process". This one can be fixed by moving the box on the left down or the illustration on the right up so that the text is not squeezed between them.
Done.
  • The multiple images seem fine up to a maximum of three wide, but the four-wide multiple "Shortlisted sites in the second selection process" squeezes the text too much, in my opinion. Much nicer, I think, is the block of four, "Shortlisted sites in the first selection process". I'd suggest making the four-wide multiple into a block of four to give the text a little more breathing room.
Done.
  • The block of color in "Timeline of cost increases and time delays" might be a bit too much, and I don't think all those words at the bottom of the table should be bolded. Bolding quickly loses its effect. I think the meaning conveyed by the table will be clear with no coloring and far less bolding.
Bold removed and I have toned down the colours, but I have kept the colours to still show the 2 phases of construction.
  • The image of the Pierhead Building is too big for its section and on my screen overlaps the section below.
Moved into single group of 3 images.

Lead

  • "The total cost of the building was GB£69.6 million, which included £49.7M in construction costs and was opened by Queen Elizabeth II on 1 March 2006." - Suggestion: flip these so that the opening date precedes the cost.
Done.
  • "The 5,308 m² (57,135 sq ft) Senedd was constructed in two phases... " - WP:MOSNUM says to spell out the primary units and abbreviate the secondary units in most circumstances. Thus this should be "5,308-square-metre (57,130 sq ft) Senedd... ". I like to use the {{convert}} template because it spells and abbreviates according to MOSNUM recommendations, and it does the math. It's possible to add a rounding parameter or to add |adj=on if the expression requires a hyphen, as this one does since it's an adjective modifying Senedd. Also, shouldn't the imperial unit come first; i.e. 5,308-square-metre (57,130 sq ft)?
Done..I think

First selection process

  • Date autoformatting is deprecated by the Manual of Style. Thus 31 July 1998 in the "The Government of Wales Act 1998 was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and was granted Royal Assent on 31 July 1998" should not be linked.
Done.
  • "Before the referendum took place, the Welsh Office asked Symonds Facilities Management (later known as Capita Symonds) to investigate possible sites for a new Welsh Assembly, both vacant and possible new build sites in Cardiff." - Something's amiss in this sentence. It might be better to end the sentence after "Welsh Assembly". I don't know what to do with the last phrase because I'm not sure how vacant sites in Cardiff might differ from new build sites in Cardiff.
Done.
  • "had reduced these down to a shortlist of five sites" - Delete "down"? Ditto for other instances of "reduced down" in the article?
Done.
  • The Manual of Style suggests that, where possible, lists should be rendered as ordinary prose. This one could be reduced to "In making their decision they considered the need for a space of 80,000 square feet (7,400 m2) that would be ready to use by May 1999. The building was to be of appropriate stature, location and quality with good access for the disabled and good staff accommodations." Or something like that. You could add a few more details, but I would avoid including unnecessary detail.
Done.
  • "The move to Cardiff City Hall would have also avoided a disruptive move for Welsh Office staff etc. at the Crown Building." - Delete "etc."?
Done.
  • "Ron Davies, MP." - Spell out and abbreviate on first use, thus: "Member of Parliament (MP)"?
Done.
  • "In October 1997, both the Welsh Office and Cardiff Council agreed to the District Valuer providing an independent assessment of the market value of Cardiff City Hall and the relocation costs of staff etc." - "... Council agreed that the District Valuer should provide... "? Also, delete "etc." here and everywhere else it appears. It's almost always better to say exactly what "etc." stands for or to omit it. Since the article already leans toward too much detail, deleting "etc." seems the better option.
Done.
  • "A final offer of £3.5M was made by Ron Davies and the Welsh Office on 24 November... " - The Manual of Style suggests that unless the meaning would be unclear, only the last name should be used on second and subsequent references. Thus it should be "Davies" rather than "Ron Davies" from here to the end of the article.
Done.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I am in the middle of making more changes before it goes to FA Nomination. Seth Whales (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of European dinosaurs[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 work towards featured list status.

Thanks, —S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list, here are some suggestions for improvement, but I am not sure it could qualify for FL under the new rules.

  • Article needs more references, for example there are only three refs in the whole thing right now. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. A list article can have general references, but I do not see that here.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - List of dinosaurs is a FL and may be a useful model list.
  • I also am concerned that this may be ineligible for FL status under Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, especially 3b In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. This seems to largely recreate material from the FL List of dinosaurs.
  • The use of color in the list does not seem to meet WP:ACCESS
  • I would add much more detail to the Notes section. I would also define nomen dubium etc (not just link them)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ruhrfisch.

On reading your remarks, I suspect the FL criteria won't tolerate this; which is a pity. (We couldn't improve List of dinosaurs into a sortable list with a timeline because it's already more than twice the recommended length, so I do feel smaller sub-lists that provide more detail are justified.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always discuss this at the talk page for FLC, it may be that I am reading the criteria wrong (or that the consensus would be this is OK). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choral symphony[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 although this is a Good Article, it could be a great one or even a Featured Article. To do that, however, will take feedback as well as time and effort, and the best way to get feedback is through Peer Review.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Choral symphony/archive1.

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[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 ahead of a a FAC as part of the {{Invincibles Advert}} Thanks, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I have started the review, by commenting on the lead and Early tour section. The rest of the review may be spread over a few days as I am trying to keep pace with several commitments. I am making minor grammar and punctuation edits as I go through. At this stage I am concentrating on prose, so I'm not commenting on elongated citation strings...for the moment.

  • Lead
    • This sentence: "Regarded as the last bowler to be selected for the team, Ring played in only the Fifth Test, taking 1/44 and scoring nine after off spinner Ian Johnson was dropped for poor form. " Readers unfamiliar with cricket notation won't understand "taking 1/44" so you need to spell it out (having done this once you can use the notation in future). Also you need to clarify that Ring took Johnson's place in the Test side. Thus: "Regarded as the last bowler to be selected for the team, Ring played in only the Fifth Test, replacing off spinner Ian Johnson who was dropped for poor form. In the Worcestershire match, Ring's bowling took one wicket for 44 runs; batting, he scored nine runs in his one innings."
    • "Ring took 60 wickets at a bowling average of 21.81, the highest among Australia's frontline bowlers." Precede the sentence with: "On the entire tour..." Then, some readers won't immediately gather that "highest" in bowling average terms means "worst". So instead of saying "highest" I'd say something like: "...which made him the most expensive of Australia's front line bowlers."
    • The business of the new ball rule needs to be more fully explained. I believe that the rule applied only to the Tests. It also needs to be clarified that a new ball became available after 55 overs of each innings.
    • "Ring was used primarily in the tour matches" – you mean the non-Test matches (they were all tour matches)
    • Again, the last sentence needs to clarify that these were Ring's tour batting figures.
  • Early tour
    • "Despite replacing Colin McCool and making his debut in the Fifth and final Test against India in Australia during the preceding 1947–48 season and taking 6/120,[4] Ring was omitted." I would reorganise this sentence, since the relevant point is Ring's omission from the Worcester match: "Ring was omitted from this match, despite having replaced Colin McCool to make his Test debut in the fifth and final match against India in Australia during the preceding 1947–48 season; Ring had taken 6/120."[4]
    • McCool does not need linking again, neither does Ian Johnson
    • "Made to follow on, Leicestershire made 147..." Avoid the repetition: "Made to follow on, Leicestershire totalled 147..." or: "After following on, Leicestershire made 147..."
    • "Ring made two" – think of the non-cricketer, and say "Ring scored two runs"
    • "After failing to pass two in his first three innings..." Tense error, and lack of clarity. Should be: "After having failed to score more than two runs in any of his first three innings of the tour,..."
    • "...triggering a collapse of 4/27" will, again, fox those unfamiliar with cricket notation, so: "...triggering a collapse in which four wickets fell for 27 runs"

Will continue as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another instalment:-

  • Overlooked for selection
    • It might be as well to identify the "other spinners"
    • The verb "peter" requires "out" or "away"; thus "petered out into a draw".
    • Awkward sentence: "He removed John Parker —who had top-scored in both innings with 76 and 81—twice." Suggest: "He twice dismissed John Parker, who had top-scored in each innings with 76 and 81."
    • "Ring then played in Australia's only match before the Fourth Test, which was against Middlesex." This sounds as though the Fourth Test was against Middlesex. Needs rephrasing: "Ring then played against Middlesex in Australia's only match before the Fourth Test."
  • Fifth Test
    • You should say who considered Yardley's decision "surprising"
    • "Precipitation in the previous week meant that the Test could not start until midday had passed." Hmm...bit of loose wording here. Presumably it was the state of the pitch, affected by earlier rain, that held up play. I don't know the facts, but your sentence doesn't really tell us anything.
    • "Along with the rain..." Was it actually raining while they played? My guess would be that the humid conditions were a result of earlier rain, and that the sentence could simply begin: "The humid conditions assisted..."
    • "Watkins swung Ring to the leg side..." This wording might confuse people who are unfamiliar with cricket-speak. I would suggest a slight modification: "Watkins swung a delivery from Ring to the leg side..."
  • Later tour matches
    • "the incoming" is an unnecessary description for Mann
    • "...to seal an innings victory..." should be "which sealed an innings victory"

I have made numerous copyedits. I will try and end the review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last instalment:-

  • Role
    • Earlier lack of explanation about the new ball rule repeated here. General readers need to be told all the salient points: a new ball was made available in the Tests after 55 overs of each innings, instead of after 200 runs had been scored in the innings per the previous rule. This generally, but not always, meant that the new ball was available sooner. This tended to benefit the faster bowlers, who are usually more effective when a shine is on the ball, and worked against the spinners who often bowl better with a well-used ball. It might be worth commenting that the current (2009) new ball rule for Test matches is 80 overs.
    • The comparison is made between Ring's strike/economy rates and those of McCool and Toshack. Why Toshack, a medium-pace bowler, and why not Johnson, another spinner with whom it seems Ring was in direct competition for a Test place?
There is a possiblity that he can be dropped for a second spinner in the case that there were two very successful spinners, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirming that Ring was a lower-order barsman can surely be done other than with a 34-reference string. There's nothing wrong with giving your reader a general source, lilke the tour record per Wisden 1949, which they can look up to confirm this unremarkable fact.
Switched YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "capable with the willow" is informal cricket-speak, not encyclopedic. Likewise "tons"
    • In the last paragraph you refer to the "tour selectors". Earlier, you refer to "Bradman's first choice team" and say that "Bradman recalled Ring..." and use other language to imply Bradman was in sole charge. So who was selecting the teams?
  • General point: I found numerous nbsp violations, many of which I have corrected, though I think there are quite a few in the earlier part of the article that I didn't pick up, so please check.

I hope you found this peer review helpful. Please call again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Nominator: More than a week ago I spent several hours reviewing and copyediting this article. I don't expect you to respond immediately as you no doubt have several other things to do. I do expect some indication that you have seen the review, that you appreciate the time taken to help you with your article, and that you will respond as soon as possible. Otherwise you may find that help is less willingly offered in future. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was, hence the changes. Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luton Town F.C.[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been gearing this article up for a while now, and a lot of work has gone into it. I'm putting it up for peer review to iron out any creases in it.

Cheers, 000Cliftonian000 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

Before looking at the article I made a mental list of things I expected to see in it: material about the Southern League days which I know little about, the major events of the 1980s top flight years including the dramatic nature of the 1983 escape from relegation, the 1988 League Cup win (and the penalty save which turned the match), rivalry with Watford, the away fan ban, and of course the recent events which culminated in the loss of league status. Most of these are present, but I think more attention can be devoted to the comparative success of the 1980s - the club's only major trophy win gets just seven words. More specific comments:

  • The origin of the club's Hatters nickname should be included somewhere. – done. 000Cliftonian000
  • All facts mentioned in the lead should also be mentioned in the body of the article. – done. 000Cliftonian000
  • Probably only the history article hatnote needs to be at the top of the History section. – done. 000Cliftonian000
  • Luton joined the Football League in 1897, but left three years later due to poor attendances, high wages, and the fact that due to most professional clubs at the time being in Northern England, they were spending too much money on transport - ought to be split into two sentences. – done. 000Cliftonian000
  • The price of the programme is too minor to be worthy of mention. – done. 000Cliftonian000
  • The list of club staff should possibly be trimmed so that only those notable enough for an article are included. – done. 000Cliftonian000

Overall the article is very close to GA standard. If you intend to take it all the way to FAC, let me know and I will leave detailed comments with that in mind.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments. I'll have a run through to look for any prose issues at some point.
  • The club also fields a youth team at Under-18 level and operates a Centre of Excellence for boys in the Under-9 to Under-16 age groups - can I take from this that the club have no reserve team?  Done Cliftonian • talk
  • Neil Brown's site only covers league football since the end of the Second World War, so it doesn't support the assertion that only three players have scored more than 100 league goals for Luton.  Done Cliftonian • talk
  • Since lutontownfc.com is a fansite, its reliability is likely to be questioned at FAC. Ditto http://www.clubfanzine.com/QPR/v2.showNews.php?id=11995 .  Done Cliftonian • talk
  • Soccerbase sometimes uses incomplete data for its managerial records pages, so it'd be a good idea to double check the figures with a second source. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by ChrisTheDude

Looks good generally, here are some points I picked up

  • First Division is linked twice in the lead
  • Football League linked twice in three sentences in the first para of History
  • "Luton first adopted their white and black colours for the 1920–21 season" - what did they wear before?
  • Mention that Payne's 10 goals in a game was (and remains) a League record
  • "Top flight" used twice in consecutive sentences in the 1970s, try to vary the language a bit more
  • "won the League Cup in a year later" - spot the extraneous word
  • Don't start a sentence with a number, as you do with 2003 and 1994 in different places
  • "The club didn't adopt their own crest until the 1973" - the 1973?
  • You state that the stadium is in Bury Park twice
  • "These boxes replaced the Bobbers Stand in the 1986" - as per earlier point about 1973
  • Sentence about plastic pitch has no full stop
  • "New Stadium" heading should have a lower case S on stadium
  • In this section you use "unpopular" twice very close together
  • "Luton Town are one of the best supported clubs in League Two" - might want to reword this as (barring the potential collapse of multiple other clubs) they will cease to be members of League Two next month
  • "The first Luton player to be capped while playing for Luton" - two uses of "Luton" seems redundant
  • Don't think hatnote to seasons article belongs under "Honours"
  • "Luton Town's honours include the following" - the use of "includes" suggests there are others that are missing, if this is not the case then change to something like "Luton have won the following honours"
  • Ref formatting needs a lot of work, eg in some cases you have the publisher as "www.lutontown.premiumtv.co.uk", in others as "Luton Town F.C." (the latter is correct), you also have "BBC" and "BBC Sport". A number of refs have no publisher shown at all. A couple have "When Saturday Comes" as both work and publisher, it is not necessaryto show it twice. Also, if you plan to take this to FAC, you'd definitely be challenged on the reliability of AWK, twohundredpercent.net, Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats and NNDB – all done. Thanks 000Cliftonian000

Hope all this helps, anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Armitage James[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's a Good Article already, and I wonder what more would need to happen to make it a Featured Article.

Thanks, BencherliteTalk 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is cleanly-written and readable and well-structured. At the end, though, I feel that I don't know much about this man. The article is filled with praise for him, but most of it is general. Quoting praises such as "one of the greatest and most forceful characters who had ever devoted himself to education" or "brilliantly successful, raising the school in the 11 years of his reign to a pitch of all-round excellence which it had not known before" or "remarkable scholastic career" or "great and powerful influence" are honorific snippets that lack specifics. What's missing from those quotes and from the article itself is a level of detail about his life and work that would allow the reader to form judgments from evidence rather than being told, in effect, what to think. For example, what exactly did he do to raise Rossall to "a pitch of all-round excellence which it had not known before"? Did the math grades go up? Or what?

The hissing and booing by students at the end of James' first year is the only dark thing in this biography, but generally people in high places (or low) don't live a whole life without encountering difficulty, controversy, and plenty of dark things. I wondered what made the students hiss and boo. After that, I wondered what else might have happened in this man's life that was not "brilliantly successful". Surely, since he seems to have held firm opinions and "never dealth in the fine shades", he must have been involved in controversy now and again. What I am getting at here is that the portrait of the man seems strangely incomplete. I don't know what else might have been written about him, but my first thought if I were working on the article would be to look for other sources that might flesh him out a bit more.

Lead

  • "to a pitch of all-round excellence which it had not known before" - It's standard practice to provide a source for direct quotes directly after the end punctuation of the quoted material. Ditto for any other direct quotations in the lead or elsewhere.

Infobox

  • I believe the caption should read Herbert Armstrong James rather than Dr. James.

Early life and education

  • Deciding whether a word is a common noun or a proper noun can be difficult. In this section alone, nouns that are capitalised include Standing Committee, Literae Humaniores (which needs italics since it is Latin), Bachelor of Divinity, Doctor of Divinity, and University. I'd be inclined to treat these as common nouns, especially "standing committee" and "university", about which I think there is no question. I can't quickly find a specific MoS guideline for each of these, but The Associated Press Stylebook treats "bachelor of arts" and parallel constructions as common nouns and WP:MOSCAP#Institutions says "university" is a common noun in the way that you have used it in the last sentence of this section. I see another instance in "In 1918, during his time as college President, his photograph was taken for inclusion... " in the next section. Here "president" is being used as a common noun and should be lowercase. You might check the whole article to catch and fix any others like these.

Teaching career

  • "When Dr Percival was appointed Bishop of Hereford... " - John Percival is preferred on first use, then Percival on subsequent uses, per the Manual of Style. I believe the "Dr" is an academic title covered by WP:CREDENTIAL, and in any case the first name, if known, should be used on first use. Ditto for Viscount Cave in the lead or any similar construction.
  • "it was said that the school had "seldom stood higher since Arnold's day" than under his leadership. - "Arnold" should not be linked inside the direct quote, per WP:MOSQUOTE. I'd also suggest adding his first name, Thomas, here inside square brackets to indicate that it was not part of the original, thus: [Thomas] Arnold. If you want to link to Thomas Arnold, you could add a sentence explaining who he was.

St Johns College

  • WP:MOSQUOTE suggests using blockquotes rather than fancy quotes for quotations of four lines or longer. Also, I'd recommend plain text rather than italics here since the blockquotes provide enough emphasis.

Images

  • I would recommend cropping the extraneous writing from the lead image and re-uploading a clean version.
  • Captions consisting of sentence fragments alone don't need terminal periods per WP:CAP#Wording.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I'm taking a break from major editing at the moment, but will take up some of your suggestions in due course. The major problem is tracking down more sources to flesh out the bones, alas. Regards, Bencherheavy (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wind[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 what needs to be done to prepare the article for FAC, outside of changing the refs to cite web format. Thanks, Thegreatdr (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made to the caption length, ref placement, headers, and to add nbsps per the automated peer review. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks really good overall, especially the amount of referencing and broad coverage. The major concern is that the writing is choppy which can be difficult to avoid with a well referenced article, but the various referenced facts must be blended into cohesive well flowing prose. A few other points: 1) The first scientific description needs one or more reliable references that it is the first. The wording should probably change to first known anyway. 2) The section on windblown soil mentions soil loss from deserts but doesn't mention some of the other side of that effect such as loess and some of the benefits in agriculture that can come from it. 3) Discussion of wind damage is tangentially covered by the discussion of storms and such, but since it really has an effect on modern civilization, it should get more attention. 4) the section 'Effect on flying animal migration' doesn't actually tell about that effect on migrations themselves. Instead it tells of the effect of migrations on weather radar and I didn't understand what the increase in returns meant. The only effect on animals given is to insects which don't migrate as far as I recall. 5) the history and mythology section could stand to be reorganized a bit with the history part possibly expanded to include a wider cultural representation and maybe promoted to be the heading over the mythology and religion part anyway. Those are part of the historical impact of wind on civilization in my mind. Overall though try not to lengthen the article. Find some other things that may be able to be summarized and moved to subarticles so that when you flesh out the needed parts of the article it stays the same overall length. Hope that helps. Particularly the flow of the prose will get you tomatoes thrown at you if it arrives at FAC the way it is. Sorry thats not something I can help with, perhaps directly asking people for some copyediting help once you've done all the reorganization and referencing you want to do would work. - Taxman Talk 13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your review. I've made preliminary changes based on most of the points you brought up. Which section, in your opinion, needs the fixed prose-wise to help the flow of the article? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good improvements I think. The damage section probably needs some information on the economic impact, though that may be hard to get since hurricanes for example cause a lot of the damage from water. That's related though I guess. I don't mean to be harsh, but honestly the prose throughout the article needs improvement for flow, starting from the lead section on down. I especially noticed it in the lead then realized it continued throughout, though less so in places. One sentence. Jumps to another. Related idea without transitions. Again, I don't mean to be mean, but if you want this article to be the best, you've got to know, right? Core topics like this are much harder to write than detailed subtopics in most cases and you've done most of the hard work. - Taxman Talk 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Check out the changes to the second paragraph of the lead and see if those type of changes are what you think would improve the flow of the prose. If so, I'll keep going. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that's along the right track. Just be careful that if it makes any sections too long, they'll need to be summarized further. But your best bet is still to do your best then talk to a better copyeditor than I for more improvements. - Taxman Talk 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My first full pass at improving the flow of the text within the article has been made. Any other suggestions which could improve its readability? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is really well-done in many ways, but the biggest issue is the structure. It really needs to be completely rethought. Unfortunately there aren't any similar articles at FA level to pattern off of. After that it seems to me that there is too much fine-grained detail on some thing while at the same time no discussion of Katabatic wind or Sea breeze. I was expecting to read something about such kinds of winds, that are predicted by such features as mountains or shorelines in addition to those predicted by latitude.--BirgitteSB 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)[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 get it to be the best possible article it can be. There is already a lot of information here but some tips or information to improve it would be great. Help getting it to FA?

Thanks, Peppagetlk 05:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick look. Very nice work. Liked pics (experts will check copyright). Text in nice-sized even blocks. Good logic, fair tone. My pers fav: plenty of refs! :) But I'm not much use as a reviewer: I overlook too many points for improvement. Steel yourself, I think you're heading for an FA, but you'll soon get a work over from better judges than I. Very best! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have only checked out the lead and plot sections so far. Here are my comments on those - the rest of the review will follow at short intervals.

  • Lead
    • "...eradicate them off Earth." – "from earth" would be better phraseology
    • 'It received many negative reviews, noting the film was "heavy on special effects, but without a coherent story at its base".' There are issues with the grammar and phrasing here, but the main problem is that your direct quote can only be attributed to one review, not "many". So I suggest the following: 'It received many negative reviews; typically the film was found to be "heavy on special effects, but without a coherent story at its base".'
    • As the above is a direct quote it must be cited.
    • "During its opening week the film took top spot at the box office and has grossed over $230 million worldwide." I suggest you specify U.S. box office, then say "and has since grossed..." etc
Done but I added where the quote came from --Peppagetlk 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot: the plot summary is quite disjointed and hard to follow. Specific points:-
    • Instead of saying "with a speed of 3x107m/s" and then having to explain via footnote, why not just say: "at one-tenth of the speed of light"?
    • What is a "biological" spaceship?
    • How do we get to know that the being's name is Klaatu, and what his mission is?
    • "In the ensuing confusion..." is too vague. It sounds like panic rather than confusion. Can you say precisely who did the shooting, and what caused the panic? Did Klaatu present his mission in a threatening way, perhaps?
    • "...detained by Regina Jackson" Should this be "detained on the orders of Regina Jackson"?
    • "he soon finds himself eluding the authorities" is odd phrasing. Suggest: "and is pursued by the authorities..."
    • "Klaatu meets with Mr Wu..." How did they meet and where – a brief account is necessary.
    • By whom has Mr Wu been "assigned"?
    • What was the purpose of the meeting with Professor Barnhardt? How did the meeting come about?
    • Does the film really end just "like that"? No closing message about the nature of a non-technological earth, either stated or implied? Very odd.
I think the changes I made better explain what actually happens in the film. The ending is just that, anything electronic is dead and I can assume that they are going to change or Klaatu thinks they are going to change but who knows. --Peppagetlk 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a little more. Although you may not wish to respond fully until I have finished the review, it would be helpful if you would briefly acknowledge my comments.

  • Cast
    • When Derrickson and Stoff are mentioned, they should be properly introduced here. Derrickson has been mentioned in the lead as director, and Stoff in the infobox as a producer, but we need reminding of who they are.
    • The last sentence of the Keanu Reeves paragraph has me confused. I'm not sure what you mean by "combine" two versions of the recording. Also the phrase "a reversed version of a recording where he said the line backwards" doesn't make sense – a reversing of something said backwards would bring us back to normal.
    • Most of the paragraphs in this section are fully cited, but the Jaden Smith entry has only one citation. Does this cover all the information in this entry?
I checked and it does cover all the information for Jaden. Also the recording was brought back to "normal" but because he said it backwards it sounded more alien when the recordings were combined. --Peppagetlk 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production - Development
    • The quotations should not be in this decorative form but should be included in the general text.
    • "Derrickson also did not write in Gort's back-story..." Backstory is one word. But this informations is meaningless, unless we are told the nature of the backstory that Derrickson decided not to write.
Done I changed the wording around to better explain why the backstory was not written. --Peppagetlk 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming
    • Second paragraph is not really about filming. Should it be here, or elsewhere?
    • Very minor point: "light pencil" may be confused in readers' minds with the "light pen" computer device. Perhaps "faint pencil marks" would avoid this confusion.
Done - I decided that the paragraph could have its own section under the production. There isn't much information, at the very least it should go under Development. --Peppagetlk 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effects
    • "They approached their spacecraft as inter dimensional portals resembling orbs." Sorry, wording is completely incomprehensible to me.
    • Measurements in feet and pounds need metric equivalents. Suggest use "convert" template.
    • "The visual effects team looked at molecules" Erm...I'm not a scientist, but are you sure this is possible? Or at least can you say how they did it?
    • "The 15th draft..." – of the script?
Done - I agree the wording wasn't very clear and I think I improved it. I also checked the source and it was 15th draft of the script. The notes did not explain the molecules so I changed it to every natural object which was in the notes but is less confusing. I thought this was better then going for a direct quote. --Peppagetlk 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks Brian, Peppage's good work now given careful constructive feedback. Best to everyone as the process continues. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poses (album)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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 put the article through the Featured Articles process. Before doing so, I'd like feedback to improve the article--spelling, punctuation, grammar, content, context, etc. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks so much! Another Believer (Talk) 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - while I do not write music articles, I have peer reviewed a fair number of them and this seems to be missing some information (or at least have it presented differently) than most album FAs I have seen. Anyways, here are some suggestions for improvement.

Thanks for the suggestion. I wrote the Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall album, which is different than many other FA album articles because it is a live recording. I will certainly look at other articles to use as examples.
My bad - I peer reviewed that too, but thought it was by another user (wait, your user name changed, OK, now I get it ;-) ). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the models and this article, there should be much more on the writing and recording process.
  • There are several places where it would help to provide context to the reader - for example, when did he stay at the Chelsea (dates)? When was the album actually recorded?
  • Or this sentence in the lead needs to make clearer what the comparisons are being made to / with With fewer operatic elements in an attempt to create a more radio-friendly pop record, the album addresses debauchery and love in less esoteric means. (presumably his debut album)
  • The order of several sections also seems to be different than most album articles - it seems like listy things (track listing, personnel) usually come at the end of the article, not in the middle.
  • The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others to improve flow, or perhaps expanded. Look at the Stefani article (model) for a treatment of songes (there are several songs in a paragraph there).
  • The MOS says block quotes should be four lines long or more. The block quote in Development is one line plus a single word on the second line on my monitor.
  • The reissue of the album is mentioned once - when was it? Why was it reissued?
Ah, yes. Thank you for the reminder.
  • Watch for typos - the lead says the song by his father is One man guy, but later it is written as "One may guy"
Done.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestions and comments. I appreciate your feedback, and look forward to improving the article based on your recommendations. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


ItsJustSomeRandomGuy[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 have contributed significantly to the article at User:Raaggio/Sandbox, added a Fair Use image, corrected the prose, removed unnecessary stuff, tabled the episodes, etc. Ninety percent of the prose was created by other people, and I have spotted some errors. I'm nominating it for Peer Review to also discover the errors and perfect the article.

Thanks, Raaggio 04:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a lot of work has been put in to this article, it needs a lot of work to meet the Manual of Style. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead needs to be expanded to more than just one paragraph. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I think per WP:Summary style and also how most such articles are formatted, the episode lists should be split off into their own article / list.
I am awaiting WP:CONSENSUS on this. I'd love the idea because the list can eventually become an FL, but per WP:SIZERULE, a 60kb article might not be a necessary split. I hate controversy, so I'll just wait off for some more comments before splitting the video list to ItsJustSomeRandomGuy videography. Raaggio 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is most articles on television shows have separate lists for the actual episodes unless there are very few episodes. Since there are so many episodes, it seems to me that would be the model to follow - I do not write articles on TV or Internet shows, so there may be a different specific guideline applicable here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I also am concerned that the article relies too much on primary sources (the programs themselves) and needs more refs from independent third-party sources.
You are right. I'll get on this right now. Raaggio 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also make sure that the sources used are reliable sources - blogs are not generally reliable sources, for example
for example what? Raaggio 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to tell with the way refs are formatted now, but for example what makes http://www.stinkbrown.org/2008/05/21/itsjustsomerandomguy/ a reliable source? It seems to be a blog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception is lacking - reviews are mentioned, but not what the reviewers said.
  • The level of detail seems excessive - not sure all of this meets notability although the overall channel does.
WP:NNC states "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people."... therefore, the notability guideline is not relevant here. Raaggio 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just know as I read this the level of detail seemed excessive to me in places. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're the second person to state the dilemma. Can you try to specifically state where, because I as the writer am completely oblivious. Try and tell me so I can correct them with ease. Thank you, Raaggio 04:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get on most of this soon. Raaggio 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second look Given your question about excessive detail, I took a second look at the article just now. Here are my thoughts.

  • Lead is still way too short - I am also not really sure what the article is about. The first sentence of the lead and infobox make it seem to be about Michael Agrusso, the person whose pseudonym this is, then the lead says it is also about the YouYube channel. For being a biography there is very little on Agrusso (when and where was he born, what else has he done?). There is some info in the lead "American voice acting teacher, writer, and performer working in Los Angeles" but this is not clearly restated in the text. There is next to nothing on Brinna Li.
  • There are some places that need more context for the reader - except for a link in the Infobox we are not told much abouit Marvel or DC or their rivalry. The characters and creators are also not really explained (though most are linked). If someone is not already fairly knowledgable about comics a sentence like "in which Lex Luthor attempts to prevent Stan Lee from creating the Marvel Universe." will be menaingless (and Stan Lee is not even linked here).
  • I tried rereading this and just got bogged down in details. Here is one examples with a suggested pared down version:
    • Since the premiere dates are given in the tables do we really need all the detail about Goblin bloggin? Also posting real world emails in Wikipedia articles is against the guidlelines. In general the prose could be tightened, so here's the original:
      Also, in the interim period between After Hours #5 and #6, Agrusso created a new spin-off for the Green Goblin character. Titled Goblin Bloggin', it parodies Internet bloggers, as the Green Goblin rants about his life and relationships, and responds to emails. Agrusso set up a real hotmail account specifically for fans to write emails to the fake blog: goblinbloggin@hotmail.com. He posted Goblin Bloggin' #2 between After Hours #6 and #7 on October 7, 2007, and Goblin Bloggin' #3 between Happy Hour #1 and #2 on July 6, 2008.[6]
    • This could just be shortened to something like
      On August 28, 2007, Agrusso posted the first epsiode in Goblin Bloggin', a spin-off for Marvel's Green Goblin character which parodies bloggers. As of May 2009, there have been three episodes (posted following After Hours #5, After Hours #6, and Happy Hour #1) in which the Green Goblin rants about his life and relationships, and responds to emails. Agrusso set up a real hotmail account specifically for fans to write emails to the fake blog.
  • I also note the episode lengths are not in the tables (at least for Goblin Bloggin')

Hope this helps some more. Remember this is supposed to be an encylcopedia article, so not every detail is needed (they should be in refs for the interested), Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station[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 a prelude to our third attempt at reaching Featured Article Status, as I'd like some sets of new eyes to make sure that we've dealt with all of the issues brought up during our FACs (which can be found at FAC 1, FAC 2 and in various sections on the talk page), to ensure we're meeting every single requirement of WP:MOS, to review our referencing, and to have a good overall look at the article to ensure it's as good as it can be.

Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJH Comments:

  • In the following sentence, "...allowing for equipment to be developed in the relatively safe location of Low Earth Orbit": should it say "evaluated" rather than "developed"? Is new equipment really being designed and built on board the station?
  • I think that some parts of the text can be tightened up. E.g. "Researchers are also attempting to gain a better understanding of" => "Researchers are investigating"; "NASA has indicated a desire" => "NASA wants"; "to gain new insight concerning states of matter, specifically in regard to superconductivity." => "to gain new insight regarding superconductivity."
  • "The station is also anticipating a particle physics experiment" Please fix this anthropomorphization.
  • "The solar array normally tracks the Sun to maximise the amount of solar power. The array is about 375 m2 (450 yd2) in area and 58 metres (190 ft) long." This part switches to singular, followed by plural later in the paragraph. So is this dimension for a single solar array wing? Please clarify this.
  • "...and living equipment." This is odd. Is it meant to indicate equipment used for biological experiments?
  • I agree with the suggestion that the Major Incidents section be forked off to a different article. That information is bound to keep growing.
  • "...it is visible only for brief periods of time." Could this be made more specific? For example,this site says a pass "may last up to 5 minutes or more (between 2 and 3 minutes is more typical)..." The same paragraph could also mention the popular hobby of photographing the station from the ground.
  • Is the marriage of Yuri Malenchenko really considered part of space tourism? The "ISS Golf Event" seems pretty trivial, as does the "Paper aeroplane launch". Could all of these be possibly be merged into a single section that covers such recreation and novelty topics?
  • "The environment on the station is instead often described as microgravity," This could be clearer. Please clarify what this term replaces and that it is describing some low level of acceleration.
  • "creation of by-products from certain materials." Please disambiguate.
  • The second sentence of the Purpose section doesn't quite work for me because the same advantage can be derived from unmanned spacecraft such as the HST. I think it needs to explain why it is advantageous to have a human crew present.
  • Can the expression "Long-term expedition crews" be defined before it is used?
  • I'd like to see some mention of materials processing among the experiments being performed.
  • Could you expand on "The atmosphere on board the ISS..."? Is this atmospheric configuration primarily for astronaut comfort? For example, contrast with commercial aircraft flights that use lower cabin pressure to reduce the stress on the cabin. Another alternative was a lower pressure of pure oxygen.
  • In the Space Station section, could you cover the possibility of emergency evacuation?
  • The article is notably lacking a section on criticism, particularly with regard to the discussion about cost versus expected scientific benefits. I think this is essential for neutrality. Yes the "Politics and financing" section links to "International Space Station program", which covers the criticism of the station, but that is not summarized here.
  • I'd like to see a little more coverage of safety issues, such as debris impacts, EVAs and radiation.

Good work so far. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garden City High School (Kansas)[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 desperately want this article to become a good or possibly even a featured article. I have worked extremely hard on this article and I would like another opinion on how to improve it. I am extremely grateful for any advice or help on the article. Thank you SO much.

Thanks, Zach Nelson 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment by doncram Hi. I checked whether the old high school building was listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and found that indeed it was, in 1996. So I added an NRHP infobox to the article. It suggests that 1910 was the building date (or another significant date) in contradiction to other info in the article now. You should request a free copy of the NRHP application (and associated photographs) by email to email address: nr_reference at nps.gov (provide your postal mailing address). If it is in electronic form they will email it, otherwise will send by postal mail. This will be a very useful source for you to develop the early history section of the article. NRHP applications are usually written by professional historians.Good luck! doncram (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article, there are many areas that need to be improved before it is ready for GA, let alone FA. With a future WP:FAC in mind (shoot for the stars), here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article (or two) is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are two WP:FAs which are about high schools that seem like they would be great models: Plano Senior High School and Stuyvesant High School
  • The lead image File:GCHS logo.png has a very questionable free license - it says it is from the school website and appears to be an official school logo, and as such it would be copyrighted (but the license says it is in the public domain). It needs a fair use license and rationale - see WP:FAIR USE. There is also no reason to use the same image twice in one article, and if it is fair use this violates WP:NFCC
I replaced the questionable image and I believe it contains the appropriate tag. JHawk88 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too short and needs to be expanded to 3 or 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
I have lengthened the lead and it has a much more descriptive introduction. I feel like the lead is of appropriate length now. JHawk88 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs more references, for example the whole School layout section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
I have added several additional refs and I am still adding more. I feel like the current number of refs is enough or close to it. JHawk88 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article uses a lot of primary references (school's own websites) - are there secondary sources (town history, newspaper articles, etc.) that could be used?
I have added additional secondary sources. JHawk88 (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also make sure that the refs used are from relaible sources and actually mention the fact they are used to back up - for example current refs 14 and 20 do not give the publisher (statsheet.com), and this ref does not say s/he went to the high school, just that the player is from Garden City KS.
I added additional, more reliable sources which prove that he went to GCHS. JHawk88 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that when the same ref is used more than once (like refs 14 and 20) you can use the <ref name = "blah">Reference text</ref> then the next time you use it just insert <ref name = "blah"/> and it will be used again.
  • Watch out for peacock language like Throughout decades of athletic success and state championships, Garden City High School has established itself as one of the top athletic programs in the state of Kansas. - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK see also WP:NPOV
I have fixed the peacock language and will continue to try to use a NPOV from now on. JHawk88 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an abbreviation is used, define it the first time so add (WAC) after the first use of Western Athletic Conference
I have added abbreviations. JHawk88 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there needs to be a little bit about the city the school is in - are there other high schools in the same place (public or private)? How populous is the city?
  • The article seems to focus too much on athletics - high schools are primarily for edcuation, though sports play an important role.
I have trimmed the athletic section slightly and have significantly lengthened non-athletic paragraphs to take some emphasis off of the athletic section. Additionally, I intend to include other clubs and activities which are non-athletic. JHawk88 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable golfers need to be with notable alumni. Notable alumni should generally be confined to people who are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia - see WP:NN
I eliminated the notable golfers in large part because they do not have their own Wiki pages. JHawk88 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs more images - can you take a picture of the current high school buildings? I also did not have a really clear sense of the physical layout of the various buildings, where are they with respect to each other?
I have added an image of the front entrance to the current high school as well as another picture to help illustrate the history of the school. I will continue to try to add images that I can find. Additionally, I will try to properly tag images that I can use. JHawk88 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P. T. Barnum[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I was browsing over this page and wanted to get an expert's opinion on how to re-organise it. It needs significant work in that respect. I also want to get input on the prose.

Thanks, Zelnr (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:LinguistAtLarge[edit]

Here are my impressions after a very cursory glance at the article:

  • The lede needs to be longer and both introduce the article (it does this ok) and summarize the article (this is what it doesn't do very well). You might try writing a one- or two-sentence summary of each section of the article, then take those summaries and try to work them into the lede. See WP:LEDE.
  • For organization, I would remove the entire "Life" section heading and make all the level three headings under it level two headings. == instead of ===.
  • The "Statue" section near the end is sort of hanging there out of place. I'd put it before the "Publications" section (See WP:LAYOUT) and try to expand it if possible. It would be good to reference it as well.
  • I'm not sure that the "Profitable Philanthropy" section heading should be enclosed in quotation marks.
  • Go through the entire article and work on the wikilinks. Someone tried to link Bridgeport, CT, but they only used single brackets. Also the name of the state should be spelled out, not abbreviated. See WP:OVERLINK for more help.
  • There are some date ranges (1625-1695) that use a dash (-) instead of an ndash (–) See WP:DASH.
  • There are a lot of parenthetical phrases in the article. I would try to rewrite those sentences to avoid the use of parenthesis.
  • One of the items in the "Publications" section is missing the ISBN.
  • Make sure all the links in the "See also" section are relevant. If the article is already linked in the body of the article, it doesn't need to be repeated in the See also section. WP:SEEALSO.
  • The "External links" section seems to be a bit on the heavy side. Review each link and make sure it abides by WP:EL.
  • There seems to be a mixture of citation styles, notably, "(Lott, 1993, 78)" should be converted to a footnote-style reference. WP:CITATION.
  • I would try to avoid contractions such as "she'd be his companion..." WP:CONTRACTIONS
  • There is liberal usage of quotation marks in the article, I would review this and make sure it is appropriate.
  • Try using the {{inflation}} template for the dollar amounts in the article.
  • You also mentioned wanting feedback on the prose. I haven't read the article in-depth, but you might want to take a look at this essay for some advice on writing good prose. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
  • I would move the image of Barnum up into the infobox, and try to fill in as many items as possible in the infobox. You might want to get a copy of the vertically formatted infobox here {{Infobox Person}}, since it's easier to read. Also use the {{death date and age}} template for his date of death in the infobox.

And that's all I see at the moment. Best of luck with the article! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ricardiana[edit]

Prose review:

  • "Barnum never flinched from his stated goal 'to put money in his own coffers.'" I think this would be better either as "his stated goal:" or as "his stated goal of putting".
  • "He was a businessman, his profession was entertainment, and he was perhaps the first "show business" millionaire." Violates parallelism.
  • "He denied saying "There's a sucker born every minute" but his rebuttal to critics was often "I am a showman by profession...and all the gilding shall make nothing else of me."[1]. " There shouldn't be two periods there. There are other typos in the article as well.
  • "Barnum started as a store-keeper, and he learned haggling, striking a bargain, and using deception to make a sale." Perhaps this is just personal taste, but I think that the "and" should be "where." I also think that "started as" is a little colloquial; could you just say "B's first job was..." Finally, to my ear "haggling, striking" sounds awkward; you could put the verbs in the infinitive to avoid that.
  • "He was involved with the lottery mania in the United States." This is vague. What do you mean? Also, what is your source? This whole "Early life" section lacks in-line citations.
  • "The young husband had several businesses" Generally, paragraphs should begin with the subject's name, rather than a pronoun or some other, vaguer term. Also, I suggest using a stronger verb than "had" - "own", "oversaw", etc.
  • "Joice Heth, claimed by Barnum to have been the nurse of George Washington, and to be over 160." I think you could condense this. Perhaps: "who, Barnum claimed, was over 160 years old and had been George Washington's nurse." Ergh - that's not great, but you get the idea.

...More later. Ricardiana (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Joice Heth died in 1836, no more than 80." This seems an irrelevant opening to the paragraph. Maybe it belongs at the end of the previous paragraph? Even so, I think you need to tell us more about why Heth's death was important for Barnum.
  • Fourth full paragraph after the lead - this is the first paragraph after the lead to have an in-line citation. All of your paragraphs should have in-line citations, especially as (as someone pointed out on the article's talk page) Barnum was notorious for lying about his deeds and accomplishments.
  • "In 1842, Barnum introduced his first major hoax, the "Feejee" mermaid, which he leased from fellow museum owner Moses Kimball of Boston, who became his friend, confidant, and collaborator. " This sentence has a lot of clauses, which is something I normally like. Here, though, it seems a bit much. I think you could break it up.
  • "Though exploited, Tom Thumb enjoyed his job and had a good relationship with Barnum free of bitterness." Should be "that was free". Also, this seems quite POV. Do you have a source - a quotation from "Tom Thumb", perhaps?
  • "In year 1843 Barnum hired the traditional Native American dancer fu-Hum-Me, the first of many Native Americans he presented." Another paragraph opener with no relation to the topic of the paragraph.
  • External link to "amused" - I don't think is necessary. Also, external links within the text of an article are discouraged.
  • "It opened the door to visits from royalty across Europe including the Czar of Russia and let him acquire dozens of attractions, including automatons and other mechanical marvels. " Avoid beginning sentences with "it." Also, I'm noticing a strong tendency to call Barnum "He" much more often than by his name. In general, the pronoun should only be used in a paragraph after the proper name, and I wouldn't use the pronoun in more than two consecutive sentences. I notice many places where you use "He" repeatedly - for example, the first two paragraphs of the section called "Diversified leisure-time activities."
  • "his serious, nervous, and straitlaced wife" - very POV - need to change wording or give quotation from source.
  • "he had piles of spending money, food and drink, and lived a carefree existence. " Another violation of parallelism; also "piles" is too colloquial.
  • "A much-cited experience of Barnum as a legitimate impresario" - this reads awkwardly. Could it be "Barnum's first experience as a legitimate impresario"? I think "much-cited" would be unnecessary in an article with more in-line citations.
  • "She was unpretentious, shy, and devout, and possessed a crystal-clear soprano voice projected with a wistful quality which audiences found touching. " Way POV. As above, you must cite such statements!
  • "and "Jenny Lind items" were available" - what are "Jenny Lind items"?
  • " to avoid seedy connotation and to attract a family crowd and to get the approval of the moral crusaders of New York City" - in general, try to avoid using repeated "and"s in a sentence. Also, "connotation" should be plural here.
  • " But by 1856, the company went bankrupt sucking Barnum's wealth with it. " needs a comma.
  • "Despite critics who predicted he could not revive the magic, Barnum went on to greater success." What magic? The magic of wonderment? Too POV and casual in tone.
  • " Many circus historians credit Bailey with this innovation." Which historians? Why? ~This kind of statement is symptomatic of the article's major problem, which is a lack of sources, a lack of citations, and a lack of distinction between the encyclopedic authorial voice and the sources' voices.
  • I'm not sure that the "Life and legacy" section needs a whole paragraph on Barnum's houses, especially as that is the only paragraph in the section about his "Life".
  • "A statue in his honor was placed in 1893 at Seaside Park, by the water in Bridgeport." "In his honor" is implied if it's a statue of Barnum - is it? Or is it a statue of a circus elephant or something "in honor of" Barnum's circus? Also, I am not familiar with the location - what does "by the water" mean? A pool, the ocean....?
  • "was perhaps the most famous American in the world" - source?
  • "Some had every edition." Some people? Some publishers? Read? Owned? Collected?
  • "At the end of the 19th century the number of copies printed was second only to the New Testament printed in North America." Source?

~

I think that further peer review of this article is not maximally helpful at this time, because what the article really needs is to incorporate more sources. After the article includes more sources, with in-line citations, then the organization will be easier to figure out. The prose will also change, possibly significantly, in the process of adding sources, so my suggestion is to do the work of incorporating sources and citing statements, and then come back for a peer review afterwards. Ricardiana (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Recognizance[edit]

User:Ricardiana is right about further review at this time. However, I do want to say that this is a topic I've been meaning to get around to working on for some time, and as I'm familiar with it, please feel free to leave me a note if you'd like help in the future or want to get a second opinion on something. I'm in possession of a copy of P. T. Barnum: The Legend and the Man but have yet to get beyond the first few pages or so because of time constraints.

Definitely a fascinating topic that would be great to see on the main page some day. Recognizance (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Although over the last two years this article has been up for Peer Review four times and was a Featured Article Candidate twice, it still has yet to ever receive a real line by line copyedit. This is likely because it is a long one. Criticism from the old FACs included minor prose problems, and a lack of textual references. All helpful suggestions are appreciated!--Patrick «» 20:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dincher's PR

  • Lead
The state is geographically shaped by the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay, home to much of the state's flora and fauna.
Consider. The geography of the state is shaped by Blue Ridge Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay, home to much of the state's flora and fauna.

:I would drop mention of Fairfax County as the most populous subdivision. I doesn't seem to be all that noteworthy. Most populous city is a keeper.

The second paragraph is jumbled. It begins in 1607, touches slavery and ends with politics. Suggest re-working. Then again chaning roots to history might do the trick.
The third paragraph of the lead is very nice. It's well connected.
  • Geography
I am not sure that the bits about the charter and Potomac River are needed in the lead paragraph of this article.
Geology and terrain. These form instead of these shape. These shape caused me to stumble and you want the article to flow.
Stating that the mountains are the highest points in the state is stating the obvious. I'd just name the highest points.
What does dendritic mean? - needs a link
Since earthquakes are so rare in VA, I see no need to mention them at all.
  • Climate
I am not going to read the "daughter article". I am just reading what's on the Virginia page.
Suggest according to location instead of depending on location.
Drop all of this In elevated / mountainous, and upland areas just start with west of the Blue Ridge.
Drop in the coldest places the number cited is the average low for the state correct?
Hurricane Gaston instead of Gaston
Mention of the urban heat island is nice. Well put and placed.
  • Flora and fauna
Note - the convention used for this article is that species names are capitalized, but other plant and animals are not: so "Cooper's Hawk", but just "hawks". This note is hidden in our FA Pennsylvania state park articles. Apparently White-tailed Deer needs to be capitalized but deer is not. Same goes for the other critters.
Wild Turkey instead of turkey (bird)
drop also from the sentence about the swamp extending into NC.
  • History
again I am just reading what's here and not on the daughters.
Consider dropping Chief from Chief Powhatan. There seems to be a movement to drop Chief from the title of Indian leaders. See Shikellamy and Sitting Bull
Colony section is very well written - nothing stands out as needing correction.
Statehood - drop the also in the sentence about freed black populations in Richmond and Petersburg.
Learned a new word manumission - nice.
Touch on why West Virginia split off. And mention that it was part of the Union
Suggest
Main article: Virginia in the American Civil War
in the Civil War section
Not sure if biracial is the right adjective for the Readjuster Party. Biracial seems to imply an idividual of biracial makeup. Not a political party. Maybe desegregated instead. Not sure of this one.
Modern history intead of modern times.
Tell more about the protests in Farmville, world wide readers might not know about Brown vs.
Maybe drop the VA Tech shootings. I am not sure that this has world-wide significance. Unfortunately it has become one of many of these types of attacks.
  • Cities and towns
Do cities and counties really function in the same manner? This sentence is odd.
Political subdivisions in this state seem to be really confusing. The information about independent cities is very interesting. Now I understand why the bit about Fairfax County is in the lead.
Richmond, the capital, ... instead of Richmond is the capital. This is just repeated information from the history and infobox.
I'd name the naval base at Norfolk.
On a personal note - Loudon County is no longer an appealing way to get around DC. Used to go that way all the time. I don't anymore.
Tell us how big Suffolk is. It's a biggun.
  • Demographics
Is there an updated population estimate?
Where is Goochland County? This will help us understand where the population center is.
spoken fluently instead of very well
  • Etnicity
Looks fine.
  • Religion
Perhaps note that the Roman Catholic population grew with the arrival of Hispanics. This must be true.
Muslim increase is probably also due to arrival of immigrants.
Why mention Frontline ministry?
  • Economy
Drop the very and just go with well balanced or balanced.
Good information on the technology. Learned something here, too.
Just say Government agencies instead of well-known government agencies.
  • Culture
The first sentence about the spread of culture reads oddly.
Not sure if the sentence about the poet laureate is needed.
  • Fine and performing arts
The first paragraph reads more like a list than like a paragraph.
So does the second.
  • Festivals
Listy too
  • Media
I think this section could be cut entirely. As media is become less local and more national.
  • Education
Listy.
  • Health
Listy - too many additionallys
  • Transportation
With low disbursements for both roads and bridges, and a low road fatality rate, Virginia has a good system with a tight budget. - this is POV
drop currently after Washington Metro ...
the sentence about the company offering space tourism is not needed. It just seems like it was tacked on.
  • Law and gov't
More info about rankings of state gov'ts might be needed here.
What's a uified judicial system?
Perhaps say why the governor cannot run for re-election.
  • Politics
Fix the citation needed.
  • Sports
Ward Burton and Ricky Rudd are no longer active drivers in NASCAR.
Is Richmond trying to get another team? If so this should be mentioned.
  • State symbols
Listy - you could drop the listing of all the presidents from VA and just metion that x amount came from there.

The first part of the article is much stonger than that last part. It gets very listy after the culture section. For now the article is pretty good. I didn't check for grammar, punctuation, etc. I wouldn't really be able to find it. I am too used to reading the writings of my second grade students to find these types of mistakes. Dincher (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Abdul Wali Khan[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Abdul Wali Khan I've listed this article for peer review because…i've been working intermittently on this article over the last 3 years..its gone from good article down to a C and i would like to get it up to FAC at some stage..some help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Zak (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting person and while it is clear that a lot of work has gone into the article, I agree that it needs a lot more work to get back to GA, let alone up to FA. So here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN and FAC.

  • The lead is currently 6 paragraphs but WP:LEAD says not to have more than four paragraphs in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • The MOS stringly suggests putting an image in the upper right corner of the lead - since there are some images in the article already, why not use one there?
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • Images will face very close scrutiny at FAC - the image of him with his father needs a date when it was taken (so the over 50 years old claim is justified). The second fair use image needs a fair use justification in any case - see WP:FAIR USE
  • One of the biggest problems I see is that there are several places that need references - the first paragraph of Early life has none, or the second and third paragraphs of Early politics have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Many of the references are listed as dead links. Make sure that there is enough information too - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Attribute statements better - for example in the first paragraph in Legacy identify who these critics are (and in the same paragraph Others argue that if he had compromised with Pakistan's military establishment ... needs aref and identification - who are these others?)
  • I think it is clear from the article that it is mostly a Biography - could that section header be removed?
  • Per WP:See also, See also is generally for links not already in the article (though it is a judgment call)
  • The hardest FAC criterion for most articles to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. This needs a fair amount of copyediting and polish
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underwire bra[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like a peer review of this article to see where it can be improved. It just made good article status, and I'd like to get it to featured status if possible. How can the prose of the article be improved? Do you see any obvious information that is missing from the article? Any new sections it should have?

Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not an expert on bras, so I do not know if anything is missing here, but think what is here looks pretty good. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • Would it be possible to have a photo of someone wearing an underwire bra? Perhaps even better could there be before (regular bra) and after (underwire bra) photos to show how an underwire bra affects appearance?
    • I have added a photo of someone wearing an underwire bra. The idea of having a before and after picture to see the effects of an underwire bra is good, but I don't have the possibility of creating one at this time. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good find on the new pic, I don't have the possibility of making before and after pictures either. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several external links in the article to US Patents - these should be converted to references per the MOS and WP:CITE
    • All the patents use the {{Cite patent}} template to create the external link, and at the end of the sentence the patent is also referenced in the references section with {{US patent reference}}. Is this duplication undesirable? If so, I can just remove the inline external links because the references are already there. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I was not familiar with the cite patent template - if this is standard, leave it as is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I like what is there, the History section has about a 30 to 40 year gap (1950s to 1989). I looked at one ref (current #8, Kanner, Bernice (1983-12-12). "The Bra's not for Burning". New York Magazine) which gives sales figures on underwire bras for circa 1983 in the US. It also discusses advertising, which might be something to add (lifts and separates?)
    • I would love to flesh out the history section, but I think I've exhausted all my resources for more material. The New York Magazine article is good and has a lot of historical information, but it's more aimed at bras in general, and not specifically at underwire bras, so I'm not sure how useful it's going to be. If you happen to find any more resources, I'm completely open to them. I've tried to research to see if the bras made by Maidenform from about 1950 to 1980 or so were underwire bras, but it's hard to determine. Maidenform has this patent from the 1940s, but I don't think it's for an underwire bra. Maidenform has a history section, but it is very sparse. Here is a list of many of their ads from the "dream" series (1950s-1970s), but again, I can't be sure they are underwire bras. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can sympathize on having gaps in the historical record - I just thought if I looked at one ref and found a new nugget to use, perhaps it would be worth looking at the existing refs a second time. I also have access to the New York Times archives and there are 685 matches on a search of "underwire bra". The first match is an ad from Apr 4, 1954 for the revolutionary Pauline Goddard underwire pettico-bra. I looked at the first 100 matches and they are all ads Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:HEAD the titles of headers should avoid repeating the title the article, so the header "Underwire" should be changed if possible. Perhaps "Design" or "Construction" would work instead?
    • The way I read WP:HEAD is that you shouldn't repeat or refer to the article title in headings, which to me means if the article is called "Underwire bra", then you shouldn't have sections such as "History of the underwire bra", "Underwire bra and security checkpoints", "Accidents and attacks with underwire bras" etc. I think this case is different, since the topic of the article is the bra and the "Underwire" section talks about the underwire itself, which is a part of the bra. While I wouldn't be opposed to a "Design" or "Construction" section, the current "Underwire" section only discusses the piece of wire, not design/construction of the whole article of clothing. The relevant part of WP:HEAD says Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, so I don't think the current heading is a problem, because it's not referring to the subject of the article, it's simply the name of one of the components of the subject of the article. What do you think? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this, Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Please read this and decide what to keep in See also (many of which are already linked in the article)
    • Ok, I went ahead and removed three links that were already in the body of the article. I left Lingerie and Wonderbra, which are not in the body of the article. Those two links are in the nav template at the bottom though. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem if it is in both the See also and the nav box. If you think it important enough it could be in the article and See also, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate your taking the time to review this article. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City bombing[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 expanded this article significantly a few months back, and after opening an A-class review with no reviews, I'd like to see what needs to be done prior to nominating at FAC. I have a goal of getting this on the main page on April 19, 2010, and want to get the ball rolling early. The article has a peer review in the past, and the article has changed quite a bit since then. I would appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks in advance for your time and efforts. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have read over the article which is very good. It was good to find out more info on the subject as i am english and live in england so know very little about this attack and aslo this happened before i was born, so from a prospective on information for non knowers of the subject matter in much detail it certainly has given more knowledge of the incident.

In terms of the article it is very good as said before, it is extremely well detailed to the smallest of details. One thing though that could be said is where it is stated about the aftermath of the attack e.g. where testomy of victims i believe via use of previous legislation, i think it may be good if known if the law regarding the purchase of the bomb material like fertalizers was made stricter as a result due to the easy access of such a large quanity of the substances, are there limits now due to this i do not know but over in england there may be limits on the quanity able to be brought for this reason.

Overall brilliant article should be ok realistically for FA even though i have not got an FA or properly reviewed one before, sorry. Your response on my query would be apreciated. 02blythed (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I found a couple of sources that detail requests for legislation concerning the sales of ammonium nitrate and added them to the article. Although sales of it are not restricted, some states require identification. In addition, Congress passed a bill two months after the bombing requiring that small, traceable chemicals be included in commercial explosives so that, in the aftermath of a bombing, its makeup could be traced back to the original purchaser. Let me know if you notice any other issues or if you'd recommend any rewording. Thanks again for reviewing the article (I know it's a long one!), I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edits regarding the legislation and believe that it amounted to more than i expected i did not think as much info would be able to be generated on the subject, good research skills. I will be looking for this at FA and will immediately support the nomination due to the very high quality of the article. 02blythed (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments I agree this looks like it is ready for FAC - I read almost all of it and only had a few nitpicky concerns

  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
I never know when to use the different quote templates, but I replaced the two occurrences of "cquote" to "quote". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence was a little confusing at first as it follows numbers of victims. Twenty-four people, including sixteen specialists, used full-body X-rays, dental examinations, fingerprinting, blood tests, and DNA testing to identify the bodies.[68][71][72] Would it make sense to recast it as To identify the bodies, twenty-four people, including sixteen specialists, used full-body X-rays, dental examinations, fingerprinting, blood tests, and DNA testing.
Much better. Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chairs were designed by independent artists, so I added a non-free art tag to the the image along with a fair use rationale. Hopefully that is sufficient. If not, I may have to remove the image and look for one of the building instead. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to make sure all the images are OK before FAC - most looked OK to me on a spot check.
I made sure the images all have sources, details, and fair use rationales if necessary. Currently the article uses 5 non-free and 9 free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any official position / theory on the extra leg? Is there any chance it is from one of the other victims?
I thought I had added more details on the leg, but I guess it had been branched out with the conspiracy theories article. I added a paragraph to the trial section which details the history of the unmatched leg and how it applied to the trial. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, well done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was very helpful, I appreciate it. Let me know if I didn't address these correctly. It will be interesting to see how the images work at the nomination. Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the changes look fine - thanks. I think all 4 or 5 fair use images are defensible under WP:NFCC. I had a few more thoughts / suggestions:

  • The more I think about it, since the monument is part of the National Park Service, my guess is that the art is work for hire for the US government and so free. User:Jappalang checks images at FAC and may be able to help with this.
I sent him a message to take a look at the image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:FBIphoto04-19-93.JPG - I would see if a link to this image can be provided (seems as if it was originally online but no URL is provided)
I sent the editor who uploaded the image a message to see if he knows the source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The St. Joseph's Church section needs a ref.
Added a few sources to the section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs - I think the current 3rd and 4th paragraphs could be combined in one.
I merged the paragraphs together. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when this is at FAC and I will be glad to support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be sure to do that. I'm going to wait for the conclusion of this peer review and get a few more editors to copyedit the article before giving it a try. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw your note on Malleus' talk page. Well done on this article. I'd support it, with the only suggestion of changing the word "opine". I hate that word, for some reason. --Moni3 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. One of the other editors who had copyedited the article must of used it (I don't think it's in my vocab), but I changed it to "asserted". If you can think of a better alternative, let me know. Thanks again! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade[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 meets all the criteria wanted. At first the article was not written very well. So, I look through the article and made some clean up on it. The beginning paragraphy for the article wasn't so goo, so I changed it.[11] In the marketing paragraph, there were two links to article that didn't exist. So, I cleaned them up.[12]

Thanks, WCW - (Want to Talk) 07:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I reverted these edits: the lead doesn't need any further description of the plot and your second point does not meet WP:REDLINK. Alientraveller (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the WP:REDLINK, I was wrong and I'm sorry. But, the lead should have description about the plot. Like the article who wrote yourself, Casino Royale. World Cinema Writer (talk•contributions) 07:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stop being excessive. And I've had little involvement in Casino Royale. Stop defending your edits by saying such and such does this and that. Alientraveller (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's first paragraph needs a lot of attention and expansion. I'm just helping you to bring the article to the FA. I want to be friends. I do want us to be nemesis. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments[edit]

I've fixed some of the grammatical issues in the plot summary.

The weakest section of this article seems to be the section on cultural references and this deserves better treatment.

  • First, yes, an important cultural reference is the father-son relationship; much more has been written about this, and could be included in this summary, especially in light of the fourth installment, which is also about fathers and sons, but from the different perspective. A subtheme of this is the reference to not only fathers and sons, but the shift between generations: in the beginning of the film, for example, Henry Jones Sr. is obsessed with the Grail. His obsession nearly gets himself, and his son killed. His son nearly buys into the obsession; his father lets the obsession go, and tells "junior" to do the same.
  • The second important cultural reference is the importance of personal choices: this reference begins with the opening scene, and continues through to the end, and really has two subthemes: what choices to people make, and what motivates those choices. It is emphasized at the end, where Elsa chooses for Donovan, Donovan drinks, dies, and the Knight says, "he chose poorly." Throughout the concluding minutes of the film, each critical point is highlighted by a difficult choice: Elsa's choice to take the Grail beyond the seal, and then her refusal to let it go; Indy's attempt to recover it; his father's choice to let it go; etc.

Someone else needs to comment on the special effects and technical achievements.

--Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boycott[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 recently failed FAC for prose issues, and I would appreciate some help with this. Cheers, SGGH ping! 16:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I have copyedited the lead and will raise a few questions later, but Wikipedia is playing up so I'm packing up for the moment. Will return tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now copyedited down to the "Playing style" section. This section is misplaced; it should appear in the article at the end, rather than at the beginning, of Boycott's career. Also it deals with rather more than his playing style, since it covers his bowling and also deals with his fielding. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are those not aspects of his game? SGGH ping! 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may be aspects of his game, but they aren't significant factors in his "playing style". My chief problem, however, is the misplacing of the section, interrupting the chronology. Such material would be better placed at the end, when the main facts of his career have been established. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved it. SGGH ping! 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More copyedit comments: I have got to the end of the "Early years" section (I altered the title from "Early days"). Please note the following:

  • The anecdote at the start of the Early years section should go. This is an encyclopedia, and its tone must be kept encyclopedic. I suggest you replace the anecdote with a brief account of Boycott's county debut and early matches in 1962 – missing from the article at present.
The anecdote is how he got noticed and signed for Yorkshire 1st XI. I have reworded it and included info on his debut in first-class and then county championship matches. SGGH ping! 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can "on drive" and "forcing through the covers" be linked, in the way that you have linked "straight drive" later in the section?
I've removed the whole line, its covered in playing style. SGGH ping! 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Close anecdote ("I joined Geoffrey in the middle..." etc) is also non-encyclopedic and should be reworded or removed.
I respectfully disagree, I think the comment is illustrative of Boycott's scoring problems, at least according to his fellow players, and of the friction he had with them. It also foretells a number of similar incidents later in his career. SGGH ping! 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that the next sub-section is called "Captaaincy" and starts in 1971. That leaves a five-year gap in Boycott's career (1966–70)
I'll fill in some more info. SGGH ping! 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a difficult one, as from around that period he begins playing for England, and the early days international section covers most of it, and then the captaincy is the next most significant county event. Will be tough to fix. SGGH ping! 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't say I'm altogether convinced by your responses, above, but if that's your decision, well OK. I'll carry on with the copyedit, but please note I will be on a wikibreak after 25th May for 10 days or so. I'll do as much as I can before then, but I have other commitments, too. I'll do my best. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further ce comment: Captaincy section: can you give dates for Ted Lester's quoted comment and the Radio Leeds interviews? Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copyedited the "Late years" section, but that's as far as I can go for now - am away until 3 June. Will be happy to resume then if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments1 (as usual, skip the non-actionable ones, or those which you disagree with) In his previous Gillette Cup match, the quarter final against Somerset, Boycott had taken 32 overs to accumulate 23 runs[47] and so at Lord's, after Yorkshire had slowly reached 22/1, captain Brian Close promoted himself to number three to urge Boycott into action

  • Long line
Fixed SGGH ping! 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of these shots, a lofted straight drive off England paceman Geoff Arnold was nearly caught by Boycott's team mates on the players' balcony, despite the modern-day fielding restrictions not existing in 1965 and thus allowing more fielders to patrol the boundary.

  • Split the line. Sounds as if the lack of fielding restrictions allowed players to field in the balcony :-)
Will alter. SGGH ping! 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17 years later, in 1982, Boycott and Graham Stevenson added a record 149 for Yorkshire's tenth wicket against Warwickshire; Stevenson hitting 115.[48]

  • Early days is not the section for this line (and there is no need to pair it with the Close stand).
Will find a place for it SGGH ping! 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographer and Daily Express columnist Leo McKinstry, however, collected statistics to argue that Boycott's captaincy had little effect on Yorkshire, as the club's 47 points in 1971 contrasts to a close 49 in 1970 when Boycott was not captain, and is far higher than 30 in 1969,

  • I don't get McKinstry's logic. How can you compare batting points from two different seasons and cite it to support Boycott's captaincy.
I'll re-read the source to check he doesn't mean points in total. Though I suppose that the fact that McKinstry's logic may be flawed doesn't mean the fact that he argues such shouldn't be included, maybe. SGGH ping! 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree on that point. We are under no obligation to include anything that we think are incorrect, inaccurate, too biased, illogical, views that are followed by only a minority (except while explicitly saying so) etc just because a source said so. Since your article is certain to get more readers than McKinstry ever will, we would be amplifying the damage if we blindly quote him. Tintin 10:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Events/Tables/County_Championship_1970.html & http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Events/Tables/County_Championship_1971.html are the two seasons. Tintin 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I shall edit. SGGH ping! 11:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1974, Boycott's form dropped sharply, scoring only 75 runs in seven matches

  • There is no sequence where Boycott had such a bad patch (at least in fcc). He in fact scored 1220 @ 58 in the season. Tintin 05:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that includes Tests (though he refused to tour and play for England '74-77) and MCC, the source is referring to Yorkshire I believe. SGGH ping! 11:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have revisited the source and added clarification, those season stats include England, MCC and a match against Cambridge where he scored a century, I have reworded the source to illustrate that is the first seven first class matches against county teams (i.e. not Cambridge) SGGH ping! 11:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am changing it to innings, which caused part of the confusion. The sequence is (140 v Camb), 1 & 17 v Northants, 15 & 14 v Indians, (89 v Ox), 12 & 1 v Indians (for MCC) and 15 v Warwicks. Thus seven innings but only four matches. Tintin 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1982, Boycott and Graham Stevenson added a record 149 for Yorkshire's tenth wicket against Warwickshire; Stevenson hitting 115.

  • May mention Boycott's score here as it interesting (79 having opened the innings against Stevenson's 115 at No.11)

If You're Not the One[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 expanded from a stub into a fairly lengthy article. I would like a review on the quality of prose, references (both reliability and number) and what other elements should be added. I would like to take the article firstly to Good Article standard.

Thanks, 03md 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. I have some suggestions for further improvement.

  • Typos and small errors should be cleaned up. For example, "If You're Not the One" should be in quotation marks throughout, and the plain year dates in "Cover versions" should not be linked. The sentence that starts "Bedingfield himself belives... " should say "believes", and so on.
    • Delinked years
  • Using "cheesy" three times in "Background and writing" might be one too many.
  • Do you really need a table for just the two items in "Release history"? Could this section be expanded or merged?
    • Changed to short prose section
  • In the "Critical reception" section, "every chart-mauling uber-ballad" looks strange because "uber" is a German word rather than an English word, and it's not spelled quite like that. Perhaps ü, the German letter, would be better here. I see that the source uses the English "u", but I don't think it is correct. Using cut-and-paste, you could insert [über-ballad] in the same way you've inserted [recalls], but that might be a bit clumsy. Perhaps [sic] inserted right after the misspelling would be the best way to handle this.
  • Further down in this same section, we have "is as vomit-inducing as anything the man in the plastic mask has ever wretched forth at the world". Surely the critic means "retched" but has misspelled it. Another [sic] might be required to keep readers from thinking you have misspelled it rather than the source. These two instances make me wonder about the sources. Newspaper and magazine articles are generally reliable; dot.com critiques might not be.
  • WP:MOSNUM says that consistent date formatting should be used throughout the main text and consistent date formatting should be used in the citations. The main text date formatting does not have to be the same as the citation date formatting. I believe your citation date formatting is OK, but in the main text I see 20 February 2003 as well as April 7, 2003 in the "Chart performance" section and two m-d-y dates in the "Release history" chart.
  • Orphan paragraphs of only one or two sentences are generally frowned upon. Two solutions are possible: expand or merge. I see four short ones in "Cover versions" and another at the end of "Critical reception".
  • Some of the material, the whole "Music video" section for example, is unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph, every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every unusual claim or claim that might be reasonably questioned.
  • Citation 18 is incomplete.
  • I'd be inclined not to accept a fair-use rationale for the second two of the three cover photos on grounds that they don't add anything necessary to the reader's understanding of the subject. The first one does the job.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hardy Boys[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 recently passed GA with a number of helpful comments, and I would like to continue improving the article. Eventually, I would like to try to get this article to FA status, as I did with Nancy Drew; I think they would make a nice pair. I would be grateful for any and all suggestions.

Many thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Hardy Boys/archive1.

SECR N class[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 is well on its way to reaching FA status. What the article needs at the moment is checking of prose by a third party editor who is detached from the writing of this article. Otherwise, a general check-over is required prior to starting the FA process.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing notes

  • Wasn't the initial livery SECR grey, with engine number in white on the tender?
  • Think the Churchward references need tightening up. He used long travel valves- did the N class use similar?Ning-ning (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woodham references- could they be deleted? (since the same info about wagons gets repeated ad vapourem). Ning-ning (talk)
  • Section headed Second Woolwich Batch with Woolwich in quotes refers in the text to their nickname as "Woolworths". Should the quotation marks be removed from the heading, as it gives the impression that "Woolwich" is a nickname as well? Ning-ning (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've dealt with these to some degree, although any help you can give in fine-tuning the factual content of the article will be greatly appreciated. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's comment

Just to let the reviewers know, I (as the lead editor of this article who nominated it for Peer Review) will be away from Wikipedia over this weekend attending a railway open day at Eastleigh railway works, and will not be able to respond to any reviews until Sunday evening. However, please continue reviewing the article as the moment I'm back, I'll endeavour to catch up on the backlog. Thanks for your understanding, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this looks pretty close to ready for FAC, so most of my suggestions will be pretty nit-picky.

  • There are some places where abbreviations are used without being spelled out first. Just in the lead GWR and CME should be spelled out in As the first non-Great Western Railway (GWR) locomotive to use and improve upon the basic principles established by GWR Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) George Jackson Churchward, ...
  • I know the years are in the second and third paragraphs of the lead, but I was wondering if it wouldn't help to put some indication of time period in the first paragraph as well. I saw the image and, while I am not a locomotive expert by any means, thought "this looks much older than 1948" when I read the caption. Perhaps even add something like "built between the First and Second World Wars" or something similar to give an idea of the time these were built?
  • This might just be AE vs BE, but it seems like a word is missing from the caption N class No. 31871 at Plymouth [in?] 1948 in early British Railways livery
  • This is linked, so it might be OK as is, but perhaps adding something about the Watercress Line being a heritage railway to One N class locomotive has been preserved on the Watercress Line.[4] would help?
  • In the Background section, it seems like "K passenger tank locomotive" should be linked (it seems like it is a redlink, so maybe this is a stub to write?). I also think it would help immensely to give some sort of year / dates here to provide context to the reader
  • There are several places that seem to need references, for example in the Background section the last sentence of each paragraph does not have a ref and seems like it needs one. There are also some places where it seems like repeated refs could be merged, so the first two sentences of the Background section both use ref [5] - why not just have the ref at the end of the second sentence (the first is not a direct quote that needs its own ref that I can see).
  • I am unclear on the meaning of this sentence Production began towards the end of the war with No. 810 emerging from Ashford works a month after the first of the K class 2-6-4 in August 1917.[5] I think it would be clearer as Production began towards the end of the war with No. 810 emerging from Ashford works in September 1917, a month after the first of the K class 2-6-4.[5] (not sure the date is correct as I am not sure if that is what the sentence means). I would link the wheel arrangement 2-6-4 here too.
  • In First SECR batch I would add GWR here to drive home the point that these owed a lot to designs from another line the new locomotive displayed several Churchward influences, making them similar to the [GWR] 4300 class.
  • Missing word? ... as Midland Railway influences could be found with the placement of the locomotive fittings, as [the?] water top-feed into the boiler was located inside a dome...
  • I know this is implied by No. 810 was run in and trialled over a period of three years before construction of the first batch continued in June 1920. The initial batch of 15 locomotives was built at Ashford works between 1917 and 1923 but would it make sense to explicitly add something like with 14 of them built between 1920 and 1923?
  • I just don't get the "Woolworths" nickname - if they were nicknamed "Woolwiches" maybe. Is this an allusion to the chain store F. W. Woolworth Company? Is Woolworth a nickname for Wollwich? I think this needs a bit of explanation for interested but culturally deprived foreigners ;-)
  • In the Second "Woolworth" batch section I am fuzzy as to the time scale - could the year(s) when the kits were made be added to the first paragraph?
  • I also think it would help to add "London's" to Metropolitan Railway (until I clicked the link I thought it was an Irish railway)
  • Is there any idea of how many of the 100 kits were sold / how many of these were built from the kits (besides the 50 built by the SECR)? Presumably all the kits were sold (or scrapped??) before the third batch was built (or they would just have bought more kits)
  • Unclear sentence The success of the 2-cylinder design spawned the three-cylinder N1 class locomotive, which was developed from a kit of parts for another N class locomotive.[5] First off, "three-cylinder N1 class locomotive" needs a link. Second, was the N1 developed from one of the kits for these locomotives? Or is there a third N class (these, N1, and something else) that also had kits that led to the N1??
  • Missing word? although originally equipped with smokebox-mounted snifting valves, these were removed by Oliver Bulleid [at?] the end of the Second World War.[10]
  • OK, Operational details and preservation makes the N1 development clearer - does this need to be in two places (2nd batch and Operational details and preservation though?)
  • Spot the redundancy with No. 1850 being fitted with J. T. Marshall valve gear valve gear between 1933 and 1934.[12]
  • I think the sentences in Operational details and preservation are organized thematically, but it does mean that they jump around a bit chronologically. The third paragraph is post war / Nationalisation, the fourth goes back to Southern Railway, then forward to the (unspecified) date when the last example was rescued from the scrap yard (can the year be added?)
  • Any chance for more images? Is the preserved locomotive visible to the public for photographs?
Unfortunately, it is shunted out of sight at Ropley on the Mid-Hants Railway, so it is difficult to get photos of it unless someone is willing to put one up. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make sense to indicate in the lead that the preserved engine "is currently stored pending overhaul"? Also probably want a year in place of currently (as of 2009...)
    I removed this recently, BulleidPacific had included it. My thought was that including it would mean the lede would have to be kept updated as the loco's operational status changed, which seemed unnecessary effort. EdJogg (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems seen with livery etc. Refs seem OK too

Hope this helps - seems overall quite nicely done. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the lead editor, thank you for such a thorough review. (My apologies for not having had time to go through and fix some of these previously!) Some of these changes require access to references which I do not have, so I will have to leave the application of your suggestions to BP when he returns.
EdJogg (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's comment

Well, I'm back from an excellent time at Eastleigh, but I'll do a quick fix now, but the rest will have to wait until at least tomorrow. Thanks for the review! Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've sorted out most, if not all the issues highlighted above. Please feel free to highlight any more that need addressing, or bring to the editor's attention anything missed out in the last round of edits. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at it later - there is an image of one under steam here on Flickr - the photographer might be willing to release it under a free license if contacted. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit more time than expected and read through it quickly just now while looking at the PR - the major issues all seem to have been resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svetozar Delić[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 make a GA out of it. I know it's quite short, but it's the best I can do given the scarcity of sources.

Thanks, —Admiral Norton (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ricardiana

 Done

Hi, this is quite an interesting article. You mentioned the scarcity of sources - I tried putting "Svetozar Delić" into a Google Books search, and a number of items came up (no previews available, unfortunately). Do you have access to library that could get some of these? I would offer to get them myself and add info to the article, but unfortunately most of them are not in English and I couldn't read them. Ricardiana (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of the GA criteria:

  • Well-written - I've made a number of small changes to grammar - word order, use of articles, etc.
  • Verifiable - yes.
  • Broad in coverage - see above. This language's Wikipedia article [13] lists a couple of additional sources in particular.
  • Neutral - yes.
  • Stable - yes.
  • Images - I think this is OK. I'm not an expert, though.

Ricardiana (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Sony Ericsson Open[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the very early articles related to tennis tournament to be listed for PR under new structure. I would like to take this article at least to GA, hoping that this structure can create FAs in the future. Comments are requested on the structure and limits (in terms of detail of tournament) of the article. And also on general improvement of the article. LeaveSleaves 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 03md (talk · contribs)

  • "event Miami Masters" --> "Miami Masters event"
  • 'the' possibly needed before 2009 ATP World Tour and 2009 Sony Ericsson WTA Tour in the lede 'an' needed before ATP World Tour Masters 1000 in lede
  • "2000 Sony Ericsson Open was 25th edition of the Miami Masters tournament" - 2000 needs to be changed to 2009; 'the' needed before the number; 'the' before 2009 ATP World Tour
  • definite articles (i.e. the, a, an) are missing throughout the article
  • I have corrected errors in the "Tournament" and "Players" sections
  • "tiebreaker" should be changed to tiebreak

The quality of the prose is otherwise excellent and NPOV. Hope this helps. 03md 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes enacted. Actually both tiebreaker and tiebreak are acceptable terms, but I've changed it to tiebreak to reflect consistency. I'm not particularly sure about usage of definite articles and would wait for others' comments before making changes. Thanks for your input. LeaveSleaves 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Should "first time winners" be "first-time winners"?
  • "...to win for their respective countries..." not sure about the way this sounds. These players aren't playing for their countries really. I know what you're saying, could you rephrase it somehow to reduce this implication?
  • 25th or twenty-fifth? Why have both?
  • Lead says Crandon Park is in Key Biscayne, Tournament section says Crandon Park is in Miami. This (as we all know) is a serious bone of contention so I suppose consistency would be useful here!
  • "The tournament consisted of both men's and women's singles and doubles events. The events were played on 12 Laykold Cushion Plus hard courts.[2] " merge these two short sentences.
  • "$4,500,00" missing a zero methinks.
  • "men's and women's singles and doubles events" vs "and Doubles winning teams" capitalised or not?
  • "47 of top 50 players" - context? World top 50 I presume?
  • First few sentences of Players section are choppy and need merging/revision to run on as smooth and engaging prose.
  • "six players, including Lleyton Hewitt and Marcos Baghdatis were" comma after Baghdatis.
  • " Marina Erakovic – Tiantian Sun and Francesca Schiavone – Chan Yung-jan withdrew " took me three times to work out this sentence was implying a team of Erakovic and Sun, and a team of Schiavone and Yung-jan. Perhaps you could rephrase it subtly?
  • "suffered a hamstring during" hamstring injury presumably? And state that it led to his presumable withdrawal, hence the victory to his opponent.
  • "hard fought" should that be hyphenated?
  • "en route to fourth round" missing a "the" here.
  • "faced an uphill battle" you don't really explain why other than stating the scores - maybe expand by saying he was taken to tie break in both sets?
  • "Djokovic and Murray appeared in then seventh and fourth Masters final and 19th and 17th career finals. " do you mean "their" rather than "then"?
  • Not keen on starting a sentence with "But..."
  • Don't think you need the "Final score" subsection. I'd wrap it up (along with the other "Final score" bits) in a final summary section.
  • Women's section starts with two sentences containing "the second round".
  • "no. 3" could easily write number 3?
  • "Seeded players continued to lose with nine more eliminated in the third round. Second seed Dinara Safina, Vera Zvonareva and Ana Ivanovic were among the seeded players losing.[43][26]" merge these and sort references numerically.
  • "...Li coming out strong in the three set match..." what is "coming out strong" - do you mean she won? if so, state that.
  • Find a suitable link to the Williams sisters rivalry article here.
  • After Serena wins, you can refer to her as Williams, not Serena. It should be clear who you're referring to.
  • Your image captions need a full stop.
  • "along with third seed Mahesh Bhupathi – Mark Knowles" aren't these third seeds?
  • "Fisher — Huss" looks like an em-dash to me, while the others look like en-dashes. Could you check it please?
  • I think an explanatory note as to what "7–6(5)" actually means would be useful for non-tennis experts.
  • "4–6, 6–3, 10–3. " vs "4–6, 6–3, [10–3]." - which one and what does it mean?
  • Not necessarily relevant, but I'd suggest the Sony Ericsson Open template is made similar to the other tennis templates so it stacks nicely, i.e. full width, and change the awful green to that nicer grey shade.

Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've enacted most of the changes suggested. Here are the reasons for suggestions I have passed on for the moment:
  • The doubles team conjunction (Player A – Player B): I understand your concern and I felt it too when used it in this fashion. The problem is I couldn't think of a better way. If I use a slash (/) instead of dash (–), I feel that wouldn't be too pleasing in the prose. Same is the case with repeated use of "and" for every team. Can you suggest a better method.
  • I added "Final score" part mostly as an at-a-glance result for the reader. Are you suggesting that we create a separate "Final summary" section? Because I feel it'll be mostly rehashing the lead, except for addition of scores.
  • I've kept Serena for the final's description mainly as a continued disambiguation to avoid confusion which Williams played.
  • I've tried to link most of the terminology over at Glossary of tennis. I think a description on representation of tiebreak score would be too detailed for this article. I feel it is fair to assume some minimal understanding of the scorelines with the help of links provided. LeaveSleaves 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Palomares B-52 crash[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Over the past year this article about a nuclear accident has grown and improved to the point where it now provides a good quality overview of this incident. I'm listing this for a PR to find out what additional changes it needs to satisfy the GA/FA criteria. Please take look and post your comments. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Socrates2008

I've just completed the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash article, which is now at FA status. Many of the sources for the two incidents overlap, so suggest that anyone wanting to improve this article starts by looking at the sources in the Thule article. In any event, I feel there is considerable room for improvement - details to follow. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for improvement:

  • Expand details of Operation Chrome Dome (this was the "southern route" - 12 flights/day)
  • What was the outcome of the incident? (e.g. nuclear overflights over Spain/France/Italy, changes in procedures & safety, future of Operation Chrome Dome operations, political consequences)
  • The list of ships will need to be cleaned up or moved to a separate list. The section should rather contain prose detailing the activities of these vessels.
  • References are slim - there are a number of reliable sources that can be tapped for more information
  • Details of the clean-up operation and Camp Miller are slim; there are recent reports that some contaminated material was buried instead of being removed
  • Circumstances around the recovery of the weapon in the sea can be expanded; e.g. how/why did they drop it?
  • I understand that this incident may have been the first time that one of these bombs was seen in public.
  • The bomb type is not consistent in the article and its captions
  • Photo of the accident scene / Palomares
  • Palomares should be linked when it's first mentioned
  • WP:MOS

Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is not yet of FA quality, and I appreciate your independent feedback.—RJH (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I understand that it's not FA .— this was not meant to be a criticism, but rather a pointer to some reliable sources. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Windsor (goat)[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 that this quirky article is of encycopaedic interest; it currently has significant media coverage regarding the recent retirement (e.g. here), so sources are available. I'm working hard to improve it as quickly as possible, and seek assistance and advice. Note, I am making efforts to source images (I've contacted the MoD, and await feedback from them). As I am pretty much the only contributor so far, I would most appreciate people who were prepared to dive in and help improve it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jafeluv

  • "Goat in the military" is linked to military mascot in the lead, however later it's stated that Billy "is not a mascot". Change to link to military animal?
No longer linked in lede  Chzz  ►  03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billy — Army number 25232301[5] — is..." em dash should be unspaced. See WP:EMDASH.

 Done  Chzz  ►  03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it adds background, so I'll leave it for now.  Chzz  ►  03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cropped image might be better for the lead. The topic of the article only covers about 25% of the current image.
I understand your concern, but I think that the image gives context, and is attractive and interesting, with the regimental outfit of the goat master.  Chzz  ►  03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Windsor (known as Billy) [...] was a lance corporal..." Using past tense in the first sentence implies that the subject is deceased. The article should start with "William Windsor (known as Billy) is..."
I disagree; he was a lance corporal, and is now retired. I think that the article makes it clear that he is alive.  Chzz  ►  03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were couple of instances of the same reference being cited two or three times in the same sentence. At least for me, it's distracting to have so many citations in the text where one would be sufficient.  Done  Chzz  ►  03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The tradition of having goats in the military originated in 1775[2] when a wild goat walked onto the battlefield in Boston[2] during..."
  • "Three months later, on 20 September[5] at the same parade ground,[5] Billy regained his rank during the Alma Day parade which celebrates the Royal Welsh victory in the Crimean War.[5]"
  • "Billy — Army number 25232301[5] — is not a mascot, but a ranking member of the regiment;[1] since joining in 2001,[5] he has served overseas, and has met royalty.[1]" – Wouldn't having [1][5] at the end of the sentence be enough?
  • "The deployment to Cyprus with the 1st Battalion was Billy's first overseas posting,[7] and despite being ordered to keep in line, he refused to obey.[7]"
  • "He was reported through the chain of command, accused of disobeying a direct order,[12] and following a disciplinary hearing was demoted from lance corporal to fusilier.[12][1]"
  • "At one time a royal goat was "prostituted"[8] by being offered for stud services by the regiment's serving goat major to a Wrexham goat breeder.[8]"
  • "court-martialled under the lesser charge of "disrespect to an officer"[8] and reduced in rank.[8]"

Good luck with the article! Jafeluv (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that you mean. Mea culpa; remnants from sourcing bits from different articles and stitching together. Definitely, I will take these comments on board when improving the article further. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  06:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Hulme[edit]

Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it up to standard for FA. It's currently a GA. The main problems outlined to me are a) Prose issues and b) Excessive detail. Since I am the main author of the article, it is difficult for me to find such problems, so I'd appreciate it if someone could go through the entire article and help me out by pointing out which areas are unnecessarily detailed, and where the prose needs improving. Anything else that comes up would be great too.

Thanks, Majorly talk 18:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • My pet peeve - There is sandwiching of text because of images in "Economy" and the second image in "Landmarks" drags into the next section. Now, for other stuff - "In 1879 Cheadle Hulme became part of Cheadle and Gatley, so the census data for during this period is for the entire Cheadle and Gatley area." That seems to stick out and seems out of place. Should this be a footnote or something? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article, well-sourced, well-illustrated, and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. I didn't see any details that I would call "excessive", although it's always possible to trim a bit here and there if you think reader fatigue might be an issue. On the other hand, I found plenty to say about prose issues, and I hope my suggestions will be helpful.

Lead

  • "In the early-14th century" - Although mid-14th century would take a hyphen, I believe that's because "mid" can't stand alone as a word. Suggestion: "early 14th century". I see quite a few instances of this same construction elsewhere in the article.
  • "In the early-14th century it was split into two, the southern part being approximately where Cheadle Hulme is today and the northern part being approximately where Cheadle is today." - Suggestion: "In the early 14th century it was split into southern and northern parts at about the future locations of Cheadle Hulme and Cheadle, respectively." Something like this would be tighter and would eliminate the word "today", which varies in meaning as time passes.
  • "Unlike many English villages it did not grow around a church; instead it formed from several hamlets, many of which retain their names in parts of the area today." - Suggestion: "... many of which retain their names as neighborhoods within Cheadle Hulme"?

Toponomy

  • "on the banks of the Mickerbrook near its confluence with the River Mersey" - Wikilink Micker Brook? Should Mickerbrook be one word or two? Wikilink River Mersey?
  • "Suggestions for the origin of the name include the words Cedde... " - Big C or little c?

Early history

  • "The estate was originally held by a variety of people... " - Does this mean held simultaneously as in "co-owned"? If not, perhaps you could delete this phrase and begin with "One of the earliest owners of the property was the Earl of Chester. It was later held by a Gamel... ".
  • "was divided between her two daughters, Clemence and Agnes" - Delete "two"?
  • "when it merged with Ridge College in Marple, changing its name to Ridge Danyers College" - Suggestion: "when it was merged with Ridge College in Marple and its name was changed to Ridge Danyers College." Although my suggestion uses passive voice, this may be preferable to the idea that the college acted upon itself to merge and to change its name.
  • "In 1626 the title of Viscount Savage was created for him by Charles I." - Here active voice might be better. Suggestion: "In 1626 Charles I created for him the title of Viscount Savage."
  • "Joan aged 23 died during childbirth... " - Suggestion: "Joan died during childbirth at age 23... "
  • "who bequeathed it to the Bamford family when he died without issue in 1760" - "Without issue" might be a less familiar word to many readers than "childless".
  • "it is from this Hesketh that the current Hesketh Tavern public house gets its name" - "Current" is another time-related word that, like "today", is non-specific. Suggestion: "it is from this Hesketh that the Hesketh Tavern public house in Cheadle Hulme got its name".
  • "one of Robert's descendants" - Shouldn't this be Hesketh's descendants (last name rather than first)?
  • The Hesketh Tavern image should be moved up a bit to avoid bumping into the subsequent section and section head.

19th century

  • Shouldn't this be "19th and 20th centuries" since World War II material appears here as well as 19th-century material?
  • Wikilink air-raid shelter on first use?
  • "but its villagers knew the extent of the war, and air-raids could be heard from Manchester." - Suggestion: "but its villagers knew the extent of the war and could hear the sounds of air-raids on Manchester."
  • "Many of the names of these hamlets still feature in the names of areas today" - "Appear" rather than "feature"?
  • "Some of the many farms which covered the area also retain their names in schools built in their place, such as Orish Mere Farm and Hursthead Farm." - Suggestion to move modifier a bit closer to the modified: "Some of the many farms such as Orish Mere Farm and Hursthead Farm which covered the area also retain their names in schools that were built in their place."

Governance

  • "It is represented by six councillors on the borough council, three representing the Cheadle Hulme South ward and three representing the Cheadle Hulme North ward." - Maybe active voice would be better here too. Suggestion: "Six councillors, three representing Cheadle Hulme South ward and three representing Cheadle Hulm North, serve on the borough council." Or something like that.

Geography"

  • Is Micker Brook one word or two?
  • "there are a few buildings, landmarks, and objects that date back to the 16th century" - Delete "back"?
  • "The majority of buildings in the area are houses from the 20th century, but there are a few buildings, landmarks, and objects that date back to the 16th century, in addition to Bramall Hall which dates from the 14th century. In particular, there are many Victorian buildings in several places across the area." - Does this really belong in "Geography"?
  • "The mean highest and lowest temperatures (13.2 °C (55.8 °F) and 6.4 °C (43.5 °F)) are slightly above the average for England... " - To avoid the nested parentheses, perhaps "... highest and lowest temperatures of 13.2 °C (55.8 °F) and 6.4 °C (43.5 °F) are slightly above the average for England... ". Ditto for the rainfall later in the sentence.
  • "average hours of sunshine (1,394.5 hours)" - Suggestion: "average hours (1,394.5) of sunshine"

Economy

  • "The local population would have been made up of farmers and peasants... " - "Was" rather than "would have been"? In the next sentence, "Kept" instead of "would have kept"?
  • "Today the only farm remaining is Leather's Farm on Ladybridge Road." - Another "today". Suggestion: "In 2009, the only farm... "
  • "the site of the original exchange is now home to an office block" - "Is now" has the same problem of variability as "today" and "current". Suggestion: "the site of the original exchange became home to an office block"
  • "There is also an ambulance station located in the vicinity of the fire station with the closest hospital being Stepping Hill Hospital in Hazel Grove." - Suggestion: "An ambulance station is near the fire station, but the closest hospital is Stepping Hill Hospital... ".
  • "was sold in 2006 and converted into flats" - Wikilink flats?
  • Reference 64 should come after the punctuation.
  • "amongst" - The Manual of Style suggests using "among".
  • "contains amongst other businesses a Halifax Bank, Oxfam, Somerfield, a newsagent, a hairdressers, a furniture shop, an opticians, a pharmacy, and several restaurants" - Is Oxfam a business? Is a "hairdressers" a business, or should this be a "hairdresser's shop" or something of the sort? Ditto for "opticians"? Perhaps this is slang. I'm not sure.
  • "the old petrol station" - Wikilink petrol?

Landmarks

  • Wikilink pitch and putt?
  • "The park is used for a number of special community events throughout the year" - Delete "a number of"?

Transport

  • "It was, however, very slow and noisy, earning it its nickname." - Suggestion: "It was, however, very slow and noisy, as its name suggests."
  • "Cheadle Hulme is situated near the A34 Cheadle bypass, and international transport link Manchester Airport." - Is something missing? Or could this be recast as "Cheadle Hulme is near the A34 Cheadle bypass as well as the Manchester Airport, which handles international flights"?

Venues

  • "Cheadle Hulme once had its own cinema named the Elysian Cinema, which was located on Station Road, but this closed in March 1974 meaning the closest cinemas to Cheadle Hulme are approximately 3 miles (5 km) away in Grand Central Stockport and the Parrs Wood entertainment centre, both leisure complexes which include facilities such as cinemas, restaurants, bars, bowling, and fitness opportunities." - Too many clauses? Suggestion: "Cheadle Hulme once had its own cinema named the Elysian Cinema, on Station Road, but it closed in March 1974. After that the closest cinemas to Cheadle Hulme were about 3 miles (5 km) away in Grand Central Stockport and the Parrs Wood entertainment centre, both of which have restaurants, bars, bowling lanes, and fitness spas, as well as cinemas."
  • "There are restaurants throughout the area that sell food in styles from all over the world" - Suggestion: "Area restaurants sell food in styles from all over the world... "

Religion

  • "Methodism was fairly common in the area, and the oldest reference to their meetings is from 1786." - Suggestion: "Methodism was fairly common, and the oldest reference to Methodist meetings in the area dates to 1786."

Notable people

  • Unlink "poet", "mathematician", and "automobile", which most English speakers are likely to find familiar?

Images

  • Nice images overall, and, zooming through them rather in a bit of a hurry, the licenses look good to me. My one suggestion would be to try to find a more clear image for the infobox.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extremely helpful review, Finetooth. I've fixed most of the issues mentioned here. Majorly talk 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic Poems (Liszt)[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 it for Feature Article review, and the best way to do so is through feedback received under Peer Review…

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ricardiana

 Done

List of works

  • I suggest putting this section down further, after you've discussed the works. Coming upon a list at the beginning of the article was surprising and made me think for a second that you were shooting for a Featured List rather than FA.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liszt also made additional versions for the piano" - made is a rather weak verb. Composed? Wrote?Also, the immediate switch to passive voice in the rest of this sentence is mildly confusing and I think unnecessary.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventing the symphonic poem

  • "The direct ancestors for Liszt's symphonic poems were the dramatic overtures written by Beethoven for Egmont and Coriolanus, originally written for stage productions" - close repetition of "written" - could be "originally written for stage prod. of ..."
  • "These overtures enact specific dramatic events from their extramusical sources while displaying a concentration and expressive power later echoed by many other single-movement works" - rather vague. What events - what sources - what other works?
  • "Also, before attempting single-movement orchestral works" - this is not the best transition.
  • "MacDonald points out that Liszt's invention" - Who MacDonald? we haven't heard of this person yet.
  • "in bredth and scope" - I'm seeing various mis-spellings and typos here, one of which I fixed without comment. I see more: a little further down we have "primmarily" and "so far from being an being rigid". Etc. The article needs a thorough copyedit.
  • "Nor could they" - you go on to discuss how there's a difference between Classical and more Romantic types of music ... what about these differences justifies the idea that Liszt's works could not be Classical? They aren't, but that's not the same thing.
  • Ralph Wood quotation is long and should be in blockquotes.
  • Second paragraph - you've jumped back to Beethoven again, without transitioning. I'm getting the feeling that Beethoven is a lot more important than Liszt in this article.
  • Temperley quotation also long and should also be in blockquotes.
  • "In one way, Liszt had little choice in the path he took" - seems POV. From source?
    Done. These points have been addressed and, in many instances, elininated. Jonyungk (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Composition process

  • "in similar manner to how Richard Wagner would later compose" - clumsy. Perhaps "in a manner similar to that later made famous by Richard Wagner".
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph is rather difficult for non-students of music to understand. What are "kaleidoscopic" contrasts - the link is not overly helpful here?
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liszt indicated a cut of 45 pages " - italics here are unnecessary and too casual in tone.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To the modern mind, where every phrase of a musical work may be considered inviolable, Liszt's view on cuts and alternative passages in his works may appear confusing and mysterious. Wouldn't offering to jettison such a large section of a composition, or to offfer such a range of alternatives, cause one to question the worth of the rest of the piece?" -- is there is a source for this? Without sources, this paragraph appears like a POV battle against a freshman student straw man.
    This paragraph is sourced, but I will add additional footnotes to make this abundantly clear. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This paragraph has since been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liszt's justification for composing as he did was the comment" - this whole paragraph is a bit repetitive. In addition, we seem to be moving away from the symphonic poems - something of a problem in the whole article. In the wealth of contextualizing info about Beethoven and Wagnerian technique and Liszt's general compositional philosophy, the symphonic poems themselves are a bit lost.
    Done. This paragraph has been eliminated.
  • "One important note: Raff " - it would be helpful, and less abrupt, to have a quick reminder here of who Raff is.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Programmatic content

  • This section is a little repetitive within itself. E.g., the idea that music is more important than representation for L. is stated several times.
    Done. Much of this section has been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and historical importance

  • The historical importance sub-section is only one paragraph, and a short one. And with only one source. Is there more info about the influence of these works?
    There are actually two sources for this paragraph—two different volumes of the New Grove, by two different authors. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've since expanded this area and made it a separate section. Jonyungk (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • War of the Romantics should be linked.
    It is already linked. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; my mistake. Ricardiana (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nor was this the only time Brahms would write program music" - this and the next sentence both begin with "nor". I'd change one.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially in cities where they were used" - colloquial, but "cities" aren't really the ones used to anything here. Suggest something like "cities where audiences were used".
    Changed "they were used" to " listeners were accustomed. " Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was almost stopped entirely due to hissing " - a little confusing. "almost stopped, entirely due..." or "almost stopped entirely, due ..." I think the "entirely" could just be deleted here.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a number of sentences that lack periods at the end.

Bibliography

  • What style guide are you following?
    This has been revamped to follow Chicago Manual of Style. Jonyungk (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardiana (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Some observations on the lead section:-

  • I have fixed a couple of nbsps in the first line; check for others in the rest of the article
  • "They were enormously influential..." should be avoided per WP:Peacock; otherwise the neutrality of the article looks dubious from the outset. Note that WP:Lead says: "The lead section should neutrally summarise information in the body."
  • "Liszt's intent, according to Hugh MacDonald in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1980)..." I don't think it's a good idea to include the source in the text. It would be better to say "Liszt's intent, according to musicologist Hugh MacDonald..." and leave the source for the citation.
  • "Extremely creative amendments" is another example of non-neutral phrasing that requires attention.
  • Verbosity: "Possibly knowing well how the public liked to attach stories to instrumental music in an attempt to explain the inexplicable, and feeling that since many of these works were written in new forms, some sort of verbal or written explanation would be welcome, he provided context before others could invent something to take its place." This sentence is a slightly longer version of what appears in the body of the text; the purpose of the lead is to summarise. A summary form might be: "He was aware that the public often liked to attach "stories" to instrumental music, and decided to provide his own context before others invented something else."

I have read through the rest of the article, rather quickly I must admit. I noticed that referencing is quite thin in places – for example, see the first part of the third paragraph of "Composition process". In all, the article seems comprehensive, clearly written, and with good illustrations – I am considering pinching "Liszt conducting" for the Smetana article. If I have time I will give the text more attention, but as you rightly guess, I am quite busy at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BP Pedestrian Bridge[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 Torsodog (talk · contribs) and I have tried to get this topic promoted to FA. Now Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) has done a copyedit and we think it may be ready. We were looking for what are hopefully some final pointers.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A generally well-written article which follows progress from the requirement, the design brief and the completion of the bridge.

  • The 'Construction' section may benefit further from referencing on the technical details such as the length, height and span etc., as a lay reader from another country has to take your word regarding these measurements!
    • It seems to me that everything is sourced. There are a couple of paragraphs where the entire paragraph is cited by one all-encompassing reference. However, these references cover all claims in the respective paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. It is personal preference, and I am trying to prevent this article from being shot to pieces by over-zealous reviewers, but the proof is in the proverbial pudding. I f it were one of my articles on steam locomotives, I'd reference it left, right and centre to hammer home the fact that what I say is fact, and not fiction, which is why having one reference for a whole paragraph may be too little. But I'll leave it at that. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a slight problem with the 'Aesthetics' section, as "The bridge is noted for its sculptural characteristics. Kamin describes the bridge as a delightful pleasure that was designed to emphasize its artistic elements while deemphasizing its concrete and steel support system." Possibly lengthen the first sentence by removing the '.' and adding 'and' so that it reads "The bridge is noted for its sculptural characteristics and Kamin describes the bridge as a delightful pleasure that was designed to emphasize its artistic elements while deemphasizing its concrete and steel support system." It means that the entire sentence falls under the reference. There are a few over-short sentences that could be expanded in this way in this section.
    • Thanks - I believe I have fixed these, but will let Tony and Torsodog deal with the references issues as they are more familiar with the sources. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, the actual referencing within the article looks good.
  • The 'References' section needs expanding from the Gilfoyle book. There are at least three others (Jencks, Waters, Feuerstein) that could be added in this section, as anything found on Google Books has previously been published in 'hard' copy.

Hope this provides a few pointers for improving the article even further. Well done to all editors on the work achieved so far! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to look good, other than the little issue I've raised above, I'm happy that this article will go pretty far if the same degree of attention to detail is continued. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Hello again! I was the editor who reviewed this article way back when it was nominated for GA. Nice to see you again. I see this article has vastly improved since I saw it last, but two failed FA noms will do that to an article. Sorry to hear that your efforts at recognition have gone un-noticed. Here are my issues...

  • Infobox PSF? Pounds per square foot? Perhaps some explanation or wikilink would be appropriate.
  • Well Wikipedia:MoS#Units_of_measurement says In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses. This is not in the main text anywhere and I just realized it needs a ref. I do not think most people will know PSF is "pounds per square foot". I am also not sure people need both PSF and psi (my guess is most readers will not have a good feel for either unit. Actually thinking about it, 100 PSF seems kind of low, even for a pedestrian bridge. A person's footprint is probably close to a square foot, but most people weigh a lot more than 100 pounds. So we need a ref and I think PSF and Pascals work. I checked Wiktionary but it does not have PSF either. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion on Tony and my talk pages and a commnet on the WikiProject Bridges talk page, plus not being able to find a ref for it, the load section of the Infobox has been commented out. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent spelling "Band shell" and "bandshell" are both used? I'm not sure which is appropriate but consistency would be nice, perhaps a wikilink upon first mention would help.
  • Final plan There is mention of the clearance of over 14', to allow for future layers of pavement. Perhaps some mention of the fact that most trucks are 13' 6" in height (Illinois truck height limit is 13' 6" pg. 11, therefore trucks over this height need a special permit, and obviously are limited in the roadways on which they may travel) might provide some context for the choice of a 14' 6" height.
  • I have found a WP:RS for the Illinois Vehicle Code and have added it to the article. However, I am unsure how the Vehicle Code was actually considered in the Bridge design because I don't think we have a source linking the Vehicle code to the planning. What do you think of the current text?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked it a bit and moved some of the detail into the ref as a note. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aesthetics While not mandatory, the hyphenation of prefixes that end with the same letter as the word are usually hyphenated, "deemphasizing" just doesn't look right.
  • Aesthetics The parenthetical statement in this sentence "Gehry has a long history (going back to the 1960s and first appearing in his architectural designs in the 1980s) of artistic use of scaled animals such as fish and snakes." should probably be moved to the end of the sentence to provide better context.
  • Aesthetics "multidimensional geometric complexity of its curvatures" is this a direct quote?
  • The quote is "The bridge has a double curve as it crosses Columbus, both in its pathway and in its profile, and the complexity of its geometry testifies to how computers have given Gehry unparalleled formal freedom."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the sentence to incorporate (quote) two phrases from Kamin's review sentence - is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all I can find for now. Also, if anyone would please jump over to my PR which has gone pretty much un-noticed, and provide some feedback, it would be appreciated. It is listed as the Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway, two sections down. Thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has since gotten a nice review, but will take a look at the article and see if I can think of anything else to add, thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have dealt with Finetooth before, and his name suits him, he is thorough. I see you have fixed the issues, and everything looks much better. Good luck with your next FA nom! --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/641.php
      • Thanks! I agree this looks dodgy. I checked and this is current ref 5 and is not needed - it is used twice and both places it is backed up by another ref that is reliable. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014834
      • This is current ref 34, which is used six times. Current use "a" is backed by two other refs, which cover the cost, but not all the construction details. Current uses "b" through "f" are all in the crdits section. Ref 61 can replace use "c" (Skidmore Owings and Merrill). This source can replace use "d" (Permasteelisa) and part of the construction details in use "a". Have not found refs for the others yet. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took this out in two places (Skidmore... and Permasteelisa) - it is still used in four places. The first two are backed up by other refs / information in the article. The Structurae page cites two articles and the last two places it is used (for steel subcontrators) is pretty non-controversial, so I think it is OK to leave in. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=863
      • This cites Atlas Steels Australia and here is their data sheet, which is the same information. Is this (from the manufacturer) more relaible? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I was bold and swapped out the ref from Azom for the Atlas Steel ref. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is very helpful - I will check the other two refs more carefully - the structurae ref is the most used of the three and I do not have time to look at each use now. azom is used only once and the web page cites a source, but this also needs to be more closely examined. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedřich Smetana[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have sweated blood over this, and it badly needs fresh eyes. It's the sad, sad, story of a composer who endured many false starts, failures, disappointments and personal tragedies before finally becoming recognised as the founding father of his nation's music. But by then he was too ill to enjoy his success, inflicted as he was by deafness and madness. He is mostly known for the brilliant Bartered Bride overture – this article tells the rest of his story. Comments welcomed from all quarters, on all aspects. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bedřich Smetana/archive1.

Al Williamson[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 just finished building it up, with, I think, a decent variety of sourced material. I'd like to eventually submit it for a GA assessment, so any feedback and help is appreciated. Feel free to edit the article.

Thanks, Scott Free (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by hornoir (talk · contribs)

  1. Do a detailed grammar check of your article, as I happen to spot a ton of stray commas. I tend to do this too, but you need to squash them.
  2. Complete the infobox, especially notable works & awards. Make the image caption a little more informative (perhaps include the year it was done, for instance).
  3. In the lead, "of partly Colombian descent" is horribly awkward. Consider removing.
  4. Also in the lead, consider changing "He is best known for" to "His most notable works include" or the sort. Less limiting and more professional sounding language.
  5. Last sentence of the lead, please remove the word noted. It is too ambiguous here. Is he primarily an inker now? Better known for his inking than penciling?
  6. First sentence of Early life and career: was he born outside of wedlock? That's what the first sentence implies. Either revise wording or make clear.
  7. Throughout the Biography sections there are quite a few poorly connected threads/thoughts. Scan the phrasing to make sure everything reads correctly.
    i.e., "He took an interest in comic strips via the Mexican magazine Paquin at the age of nine (the magazine featured American strips and 'the Underwater Empire by Argentinian cartoonist Carlos Clemen)." reads better as "At the age of nine, Williamson displays an initial interest in comic strips by reading the Mexican magazine Paquin, which reprints American work alongside original Mexican stories." That's still not great, but you get the idea (I hope).
  8. In each decade you seem to have a list ("Some notable work from that period include" sort). Try to assimilate this information into the article more fluidly.
  9. Personal life is too short. This information belongs in the lead and can easily be worked into the appropriate Biography subsection.
  10. Influences is also too short and, to be honest, unimportant. I'd simply remove this list of artists that Williamson has influenced.
  11. "Selected Works" should probably be altered to "Further Reading" or the sort. Remove the "as inker" mini-list.
  12. Consider changing the template used for Footnotes to {{Reflist|2}}. It just makes things look tidier.
  13. Be a tad more selective with the External links, most of them should be Footnotes and that's all. Also use more descriptive titles and impose a bit of organization to their order.

Thanks for the great comments Hornoir - if anybody wants to tackle these points on the article, by all means, feel free to do so. --Scott Free (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reducing the number of non-free images. Just keep the ones that you have specific commentary on. If that's none, keep maybe 3. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenrothes[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 more can be done to help push Glenrothes towards FA status. The strength of the article is it has a good layout with appropriately placed pictures (where needed) and enough text to justify the pictures or section, so it is not seen to be too menadering. The weakness of the article that i find, is the reference work and lack of/or no references at the end of some sentences or paragraphs. I know that a lot of work has been put into this article and i hope you would be kind enough to give feedback.


Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. You need to have no bare numbered links in your references, the links should be formatted with titles of the pages. Per the MOS, nothing should be in all capitals, even when it is in the original. You've got article titles in italics, when they should be in quotations. 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Shearer[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to eventually take this page to FAC and any and all comments would be most welcome. -- Scorpion0422 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jafeluv

Infobox:

  • Occupations: Uncapitalize all but the first one. Also wikilink the occupations.

Lead:

  • Expand the paragraph about The Simpsons. You should give the role due weight since it's the one he's most known for.
    • Will do.

Early career:

  • "Shearer received the role when he was seven-years-old seven years old."
  • Done.
  • The second paragraph uses quotation marks a lot. A part of it could be reworded to avoid a direct quote.
  • "The show, which starred Christopher Guest, Tom Leopold and Michael McKean, was not picked up." – Either wikilink Michael McKean or omit the first name.
    • Done.

Spinal Tap:

  • "The film satirizes the wild personal behavior and musical pretensions of hard-rock hard rock and heavy-metal heavy metal bands..." (Note also that heavy metal should point to heavy metal music, not heavy metal.)
    • Done.

The Simpsons:

  • The second paragraph talks about "Flanders" and "Monroe" and seems to assume that the reader knows who they are. When I read the last two sentences, I had to look back to see where "Monroe" was introduced (way back in the first sentence).
    • Done/

Le Show and radio work:

  • Quote box: replace -- with dashes.
  • Done.
  • "Since the merger of the XM and Sirius satellite radio services the program is no longer available on either; on which Shearer commented, 'because I guess, you know, mergers are good.'[42]" – What does the last part add?
    • Removed.

Further career:

  • The part about Not Enough Indians uses too many "quotes", some chould be reworded to avoid a direct quote.

Personal life:

  • "Shearer was married to Penelope Nichols in 1974"
  • Done.
  • "...divorcing in 1977" → "They divorced in 1977."
  • Done.
  • "has been to every edition of Jazz Fest since then, except one." – Why is this relevant?
  • "Shearer often speaks and writes about the Hurricane Katrina disaster, belittling the coverage of it in the mainstream media[65] and criticizing the role of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in causing it." – Causing what?
    • Fixed.

Filmography:

  • Probably large enough to warrant a separate article.

Awards:

  • "On June 19, 2008, it was announced that Shearer would receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in the radio category." – This has been already stated twice in the article.
    • Removed.

I hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Guardamar[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 know whether it can become assessed as a good or featured article. If not, what changes must be made?

Thanks, S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As it stands this is a stub as it has one reference and is quite short. I rated it at stub class and added a translsation from Spanish template. Citing the Spanish Wikipedia is not allowed as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Article needs more references, as only one is cited and it is used only once currently. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Provide English units to go with the metric equivalents - {{convert}} is helpful here.
  • Article does not really have a lead or sections, but should. See WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
  • Image needs a caption - perhaps state that the original parts of the sculpture are darker in color and the restoration is lighter?
  • I don't understand this sentence As nothing from the site is more recent than 300 BC, and the site flourished between 430 and 350 BC, it seems likely that the Lady dates from 400 to 370 BC. How do you get a date between 400 and 370 from this (since the years 400 and 370 are only mentioned once as possible dates how were they arrived at)? Why not 430 to 300 BC?
  • This is so short and has no refs to check, so it is hard to know what else to talk about - try expanding it and adding refs.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of state highways in Pend Oreille County, Washington[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list is probably the best list I have ever written, and combines elements from the FL List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan and former FL/list List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York [deleted]. I hope to see this list as the Washington State Highway WikiProject's first FL.

Thanks, –CG 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not think I would use a deleted article that is also a delisted FL as a model. This is not that similar to the Michigan model - perhaps it should be made more similar. Your mileage may vary. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates whether the list has enough members to meet the FL requirments. Lists with less than 10 members may be too short and this only has five highways.
  • The lead needs to do better job of summarizing the article as it is supposed to do per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every section should be mentioned in the lead in some way, but the Traffic and Selkirk loop are not in the lead at all that I can see. I also found the lead confusing in places in that it appears to disagree with the text of the article. Examples follow:
    • First off, I tend to think of US highways as somehow more important than state routes. The article lists US 2 first (but also lists the highways in numerical order). The lead lists US 2 last. I would have the lead and text list the highways in the same order. The Michigan model lists US routes first.
    • The lead says Idaho State Highway 41, an Idaho highway that has a 0.41-mile (0.66 km) section partially in Washington To me this says 41 is an Idaho state highway in Washington state, but the text says it is the shortest Washington highway. Which is it? I also think the 0.41 mile section is what is entirely in Washington state (and the text seems to back me up here).
    • I would also try to describe each highway in similar terms in the lead - I like best the ones where the length and rough direction (east-west or north-sourth) are given. In any case I would try to be consistent
  • Avoid needless repeptition - two examples. In the lead and one route on the U.S. Highway System in Pend Oreille County—U.S. Route 2. We have already been told the county, why not give the length and direction instead? In History The first designated highway in Pend Oreille County was State Road 23, which was first designated in the State Road system in 1915 ... why say designated twice? How about something like In 1915 State Road 23 became the first designated highway in the State Road system in Pend Oreille County ...?
  • Any chance for a map of the county showing these routes? US Census maps are free and show highways. The Michigan model has such a map.
  • Per WP:See also the section is generally for links not already in the article, so why include the county and US 2 links?
  • Problem sentence The roadways in Pend Oreille County fall into one of two general classifications: state highway and local streets. The next sentence talks about US 2, which is neither (so aren't there three classifications?) (or would it be state-maintained highways and local streets, with an explanation that state maintained highways include state roads and US highways)
  • Any chance for a picture other than maps and road number signs?
  • Looking at the AfD for the deleted article, people noted that there was nothing new in the list that was not in the individual articles. Is that the case here?
  • The placement of the traffic subsection seems odd to me - it is in a section called Roadways, but it is not itself a roadway - it seems like a better fit in History as most of it is comparisons of AADT in 1970 and 2007.

Hope this helps - I think this needs a fair amount of work before it is ready for FLC. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnes Op. 37 (Chopin)[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 trying to improve it to GA status. Is this article comprehensive enough yet? Also, does anyone have any other suggestions for improvements?

Thanks, Edward130603 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

Thanks for working on this article! I love Chopin's nocturnes! In my opinion, this article not comprehensive enough for GA yet (see below). Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. Right now, it briefly introduces the pieces and then tells us a number of people's opinions on them. These opinions should probably be in a "reception" or "legacy" section. It might be a good idea to add any influence that the piece had on subsequent pieces to such a section.
  • It might be worth briefly describing what a nocturne is and how each piece fits that genre.
  • The "Analysis" section for 37.1 should not be linked to another website - it should be presented in sourced paragraphs on Wikipedia. This kind of musical analysis should be provided for both pieces.
  • In general, the prose of the article relies heavily on quotations. I would suggest paraphrasing more. The article also includes many phrases such as "huneker commented", which interrupt the flow of the prose. Paraphrasing will remove that cumbersome style.
  • How much Chopin scholarship have you looked into? I would imagine that there is quite a bit on his nocturnes - perhaps entire books. I'm a little concerned that each book I looked at was available for preview on Google Books. While Google Books is a good starting point for research, when it comes to music scholarship, you are inevitably going to have to go to a library. Most material simply isn't available for free on the internet, unfortunately.
  • As I was reading, I was wondering about the following:
  • What about the history of the composition? The lead mentions Chopin composed the pieces in 1838. Is there a connection with anything in his life?
  • What about the history of publication? How were the pieces initially published? I know Chopin tried to make money off of some of his pieces by slightly changing them. Did that happen with these? What later important editions exist?

I hope these are helpful comments! Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scott Free

Nice article, here's a few comments -

  • To my knowledge, the following article is one of the few examples of an in-depth article on a specific classical music piece, it could be helpful for reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_(G%C3%B3recki)
  • How about a section on notable recordings and performances - are there any good CD reviews that comments on these pieces? Richter has an interesting take on the No.2 piece. I like the performances by Arrau, Rubinstein, and Moravec.
  • It would be nice to have a sound clip for No. 2
  • Here's a review that mentions the pieces-

http://www.ivanmoravec.net/albums/al-9792332.html

Hope this helps, all the best. --Scott Free (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French Democracy[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Basically, I'm looking for anything that I might have missed before sending this article about a machinima film to FAC. This passed GA and has been refined since. I'd take it to FAC now, except that it's been almost three years since I've nominated anything there, so I might need a reality check. —TKD [talk][c] 08:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The semi-automated peer review commented on the quantity of images. One, in the infobox, is a non-free screenshot from the film, used to portray the characters. The other is a free-use photo of the creator. I don't think that any more relevant images could be found, and additional non-free screenshots would probably not meet NFCC. —TKD [talk][c] 00:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • None of the references that incorporate url's have them archived. I know it is not required, but it is quite useful if any of the links go dead.--Rockfang (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good idea. I'll work on it in the next few days (currently a tad busy in real life). —TKD [talk][c] 07:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Very interesting and informative. My comments are pretty well limited to prose and presentational issues, since I don't have the knowledge to judge technical matters. I think the weakest part of the article is the Synopsis section, which needs to be rewritten in stronger and more detailed terms, so that the character and impact of the film can be more fully understood. Here are my detailed points:-

  • Lead: last sentence: "Some raised concerns..." Who are these "some"?
  • Synopsis
    • I assume that the electrocution of Benna and Traore was accidental? This should be made clear.
    • It would also help if the location of the real-life event was given – France? Morocco? America? Elsewhere?
    • Use of terms like "discuss" and "disagree" sounds a little weak, as though police brutality was a debating point. The point should be made more forcibly, as the "discussion" led the three men to violent protest.
    • In the following sentence it is not grammatically clear who "they" are – the three men, or the black population?
    • "Angered, the three riot using Molotov cocktails." This key sentence is expressed too telegraphically. For example, as written it looks as though there were Molotov cocktails handily place nearby. Presumably the film cuts rapidly from one scene to another, but the impression of instant anger, instant violence, needs modifying in the prose.
    • The last sentence contains two unrelated statements that are not obviously connected by an "and". The two halves of the sentence should be separate, and should be expanded. Was it an anonymous white family? Was any reaction portrayed, or did they watch impassively? What form did the dedication take – verbal, visual, both? Some elaboration is required.
  • Background and production
    • Sentences should not begin with a numeric (MOS). You could say; "Alex Chan, 27 years old...etc"
    • "at the time" – of what?
    • "...after he noticed and bought The Movies" Just "after he bought" will do. Also, in the lead you have described The Movies as a business simulation game; some similar description is required here: "after he bought the online business simulation game..."
    • "Because Chan had no computer microphone, the film presents dialogue in English subtitles." A non sequitur. The sequence presumably is: Because Chan had no computer microphone the film lacks a soundtrack. The film therefore presents dialogue in subtitles. Chan chose English as the language for these subtitles in order to reach a wider audience.
    • "Restricted to the scenery provided by the software, Chan set the electrocution deaths in a shack." As I indicated earlier, it would be helpful to have the true location of these deaths.
    • I don't think "approximate" is the right word here. He was forced to use the Paris Metro as a stand-in for the New York Subway.
  • Reception
    • Word missing? "portrayal of police action against minorities"
    • Another missing word? "However, some critics felt..."
    • "...it completely differed..." Not sure that "completely is necessary. If it is, I think the phrase reads better as "it differed completely"
    • Apostrophe after AMAS? Looks wrong. Also, you should define AMAS here, rather than at the next mention, in the next section.
  • Legacy
    • Based on the interest..." → "Based on this interest..."
    • "Others further contrasted The French Democracy's serious nature with the prevalence of gaming-related references in other machinima works..." Sorry, this sentence lost me. What is meant by** "gaming-related references"?
    • Who is Olli Sotemaa?

I hope that you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the extensive comments; I do find them helpful. I'll work on addressing them. —TKD [talk][c] 03:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice article. Aside from a few wording problems, most of which were addressed by Brianboulton, the only real problem I see is the use of citations in the middle of a sentence. It might be in the MOS (I think it used to be, when I read it over two years ago); I don't know. But it's pretty standard to have citations placed after punctuation, as it's jarring to read over them mid-sentence. The article looks like it should easily be FA quality after the issues mentioned in this peer review have been taken care of. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know some people prefer not to insert footnotes mid-sentence, but I do it sometimes for precision. WP:CITE doesn't disallow this. However, I'll look again after I've fixed the wording issues that Brian raised. —TKD [talk][c] 03:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese classifier[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm mostly looking for another pair of eyes to go through this article for a pre-FAC copyedit; I'm great at copyediting other people's writing but terrible at copyediting my own, since I already know what I'm trying to say. Also, I am concerned about keeping the article accessible and comprehensible to lay readers, so it would also be helpful if someone could keep an eye out for any parts that might be confusing and point them out.

Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and take a stab and this article. As I understand from your intro you are looking for copyediting. I will do a ce of the article and I will add suggestions here to help bring the article to FAC quality. A caveat here, I am totally ignorant of the subject matter so I will be looking primarily at MOS compliance, prose, grammar etc. Suggestions for content improvement will need to be sought from someone with more expertise. Sincerely, H1nkles (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I'm not sure about the use of non-breaking spaces in the second paragraph in the lead. These are little things reviewers at FAC key in on.
    • I added those to try and make sure the pinyin transliterations are always next to the characters, to help readers who don't read Chinese. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense, you may run into this issue and the em dash issue at FAC though, which is why I brought it up here. H1nkles (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same can be said for hard dash (—). I'm not a 100% expert on WP:DASH so I'll just refer you to this for insight into whether or not you should use this form of dashes in the context it is used in the lead.
    • I think in that case they're pretty much the same as parentheses, and that use appears to be "allowed" by MOS. I think it's mostly a style/taste issue (for example, I remember a high school English teacher who believed that too many em dashes is a sign of poor writing...although I suppose you could say that about too many of any punctuation mark). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has been the subject of debate, with some proposing that classifier-noun pairings", I was just about to fix this portion of the sentence as it is in the passive voice but I'm not sure who you mean by "some". In the subject of the sentence it is "Speakers", but it isn't clear if that is who you intend with this part fo the sentence. Also watch for weasel wording here. I'm going to make a couple fixes to this run-on sentence, but I think it will need to be rewritten as it is unclear. Your thoughts on this would be instructive as this sentence is the crux of the paragraph.
    • Sorry about the ambiguity there. The people doing the proposing are not the "speakers", but the various linguists (basically, the people down in the bibliography) who are trying to understand why the speakers do what they do. I recognize the weasel issue, but at the same time I was trying to keep the lead pretty general, especially since the prototypicality theory is not strongly associated with any one person (like relativity and Einstein, for example...in an article on relativity it would make sense for the lede to mention Einstein, but as far as this topic is concerned there doesn't seem to be any one person famous for having this "breakthrough" idea, it's just sort of an idea that started floating around). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types

  • I rewrote the intro sentence in this section, please review to see if it is an improvement and still conveys the meaning you intend.
  • This sentence, "In everyday speech, people often use the term "measure word" to cover all Chinese classifiers and massifiers,[14] and the Chinese term 量词　(liàngcí) itself, which is used like a "measure word" in everyday speech, translates as "measuring word",[15] but in actuality the various types of classifiers exhibit numerous differences in meaning, kinds of words they attach to, and other syntactic behavior" is a run-on sentence. Unfortunately it is very content-laden so I don't want to try and figure out how to break it up. The sentence is confusing to me, though, and I would appreciate clarification.
  • I unbolded the classifier and massifier words in this section as they are used earlier unbolded. I did switch them to italics to draw emphasis to them though.
    • That sounds good. I had originally bolded them because that was the first place they were really formally defined, I guess, but things have moved around and in any case the italics work just as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a [who?] template after "various authors" in the first sentence of the third paragraph in this section. At least put an in-line citation at the end of the sentence or a note, better to even attribute one of the "authors" to avoid weasel wording.
    • I meant that sentence more as an introduction to the paragraph than an actual content sentence. The rest of the paragraph is just examples of the things that have been proposed by the "various author", and each example has a footnote with a list of authors in it; I didn't bother citing the first sentence because I was thinking of it as basically a mini-lede. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term, "whereas massifiers may not." is not grammatically correct (dangling participle) so I changed it to, "whereas massifiers do not have this option." I'm not sure if it still flows properly though. If you don't like it then change it back.
    • Technically, I think dangling participles is more of a style issue than a grammar issue, but your rewording sounds fine to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah and I know I'm speaking to a linguistic expert so I won't try and act like I know more than I do :) H1nkles (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another [who?] template to the second to last sentence in the last paragraph in this section. Same issue as above.
    • The footnote is at the end of the following sentence; I figured it should be clear because the one sentence flows into the other, but I could move the footnote to right after "some researchers" if you think that would be an improvement. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lion's share of this section is devoted to nominal classifiers with a very short sub-section on verbal classifiers. I understand that nominal classifiers are used more often. Is there anything else that could be added to the verbal classifier section? It just seems unbalanced to have so much information on one and so little on the other?
    • Unfortunately, as far as I know there's not much more that can be said; there are very few verbal classifiers, and they haven't really generated much research interest. There's no reason they shouldn't (there are just as many questions about them as there are about the nominal classifiers), it's just that all the "hot topics" seem to have been in issues relating to nominal classifiers, so that's what all the literature talks about; there's not much to say about the verbal ones other than that they exist. Also, the reason so much spaces is devoted to nominal classifiers is mainly just to explain the distinction between classifiers and massifiers (because I figured it might be complicated, so I ought to spend some time making it clear rather than just glossing over it); within verbal classifiers there is no widely-accepted distinction like that, so there's nothing major to explain. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've got to move on for a while to other things but I will return to continue to review. H1nkles (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copyedits so far. I just moved and am still getting things unpacked so I'm in a rush right now, but I'll try to leave some responses soon. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, I'm continuing my review in the midst of real life concerns as well. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to nouns

This section is pretty solid, I did a couple of minor copy edits but for the most part it's sound. I moved one of the notes outside a parentheses, which is more stylistic than anything. I commend you for the frequency of examples, which helps cement the difficult concepts into the reader's mind. I also liked how you added a very brief description of asphasics so the reader was not left feeling dumb for not knowing the definition of an asphasic. H1nkles (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and historical development

  • "this suggests that ____ predate classifiers by several centuries" is there a missing word here? It seems like should be a word here but I could be wrong.

Purpose

  • "to introduce major characters or items (as opposed to minor characters or items)" I don't think you need the information in the parentheses. Seems superfluous to me.
  • Also watch the use of dashes (-) when you are giving an example. This is found throughout the article and is fine in limited usage but could be frowned upon at FAC. Again this is more stylistic than anything.
  • Can you give an example of an example with problematic use of dashes? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. If you mean the use of dashes in the word-by-word glosses, some of that is related to standards within the field (for example, using dashes between certain kinds of compound words and not others). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you use a colon (Different nouns often require different classifiers, based on inherent properties of that noun: for example, many flat objects such as tables, papers, beds, and benches use the classifier 张 (張) zhāng,) and parentheses [and others claim that they are just motivated by analogy to more "prototypical" pairings (for example, "dictionary" takes the same classifier as the more common word "book").], and dash (Finally, Chinese also has "massifiers", or words that are not specific to any one object—for example, the massifier 盒 (hé, "box") may be used with anything that fits into boxes, such as cigarettes or books, even though those nouns also have their own special classifiers.) In the Usage section you use a semi colon, (On the other hand, when a noun is not counted or introduced with a demonstrative, a classifier is not necessary;[8] for example, there is a classifier in 三辆车 (sān liàng chē, three-CL car, "three cars")). You shift back and forth between semi-colons and parentheses until the Categories and prototypes subsection when you shift to dashes and use this format 4 times (I removed two other times towards the end of the article). I understand that context requires different punctuation but per WP:DASH dashes other than em and en dashes should be avoided when possible in the article. Again this is stylistic but could be nit picked at FAC, which is why I bring it up here. H1nkles (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, got it. I thought you meant with like example sentences. Thanks. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the page (just searching the page for "for example" and replaced most of the punctation with semicolons. In a few places, though, I just split it into two sentences. The one instance that uses parentheses I kept, since it's two examples of two different things within the same sentence, which means semicolons wouldn't really work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • These look good, I believe that page ranges (pp. 3–6) need hard (ndash) dashes. You may want to check this but in one article I passed through FA Olympic Games the page ranges have hard dashes.
  • Hm...they are en dashes, I just changed them to actual dashes (rather than code) in a word processor. I can change them back if that would be better. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [24] is formatted oddly w/o the (p.), is there a reason for that?
  • Ref. [28] has a p. x, why is that? I just realized that x is for Roman numeral 10, sorry. H1nkles (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of refs have no page numbers at all, this will be noticed at FAC.
  • These are for cases when the reference is the entire article. For example, "one article was about bla bla bla", I just reference the whole article. I suppose I could hack it by referencing the first page, where the abstract is, but I don't know how much difference it makes. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about ISBNs on the various books, some have them and some don't. Why is that?
  • Looks like I missed a couple, and have added them where possible. Some of these books just don't have ISBNs, as far as I know; Chao (1968) is just really old and I've never seen an isbn for it, and the book with the Peyraube chapter is really just a conference proceedings. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on the lead

I think the lead is going to need some work.

  • There is information, much of the last paragraph, that does not appear to be in the article. At least I can't recall seeing amounts of classifiers in the article (though I could be wrong).
  • You have information in the article (origins, historical development, and purpose for example) that are not mentioned in the lead.
  • You'll need to do some work to make the lead jive with the rest of the article.

(Outdent) ok that is all for my review. The article is coming along nicely. As you continue to refine the article keep in mind what you say in the latter stages of the article, most languages do not have classifiers, so most readers will have no concept of what a classifier is, much less why it exists or what it means. Make sure you keep the article as readable for the general population as possible (keep the cookies on as low a shelf as you can). I think the abundance of examples really help the article. There are a few instances of jargon, (discursive, salient, foreground, and bound morphemes) that could be defined a little bit, but you do wikilink them and the reader could do further research should s/he desire to know more. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Cutie Honey episodes[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm pretty much done with this anime episode list. I took months off from the article, then came back yesterday and today to finish its summaries. It is now B-class.

  • Is this list a potential featured list? If not, what can I add or fix? I don't see many (if any) issues that would keep it out, except maybe copyediting.
  • Any other suggestions?

(If this looks familiar, I requested peer review of New Cutie Honey a while back, but not for this list of its episodes.)

Thanks, an odd name 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of New Cutie Honey episodes/archive1.

Matrix (mathematics)[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 it to meet FA criteria. I want to post it to FAC, but not now. I want some comments on how to improve it to meet FA criteria. Also, I am gathering Wikipedians to improve it. Leave a message on my talk page if you are interested.

Thanks, Visit me at Ftbhrygvn (Talk|Contribs|Log|Userboxes) 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead I would quible about
Matrices consisting of only one column or row are called vectors
vectors are really one-dimensional arrays rather than degenerate two dimensional arrays. I also thing mention vectors and tensors is too high in lead as the article starts by saying what matricies are not.--Salix (talk): 06:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The box on positive and negative quadratic forms takes quite a few logical jumps. From matrix to quadratic eqn to ellipse/hyperbola. I think a bit more explination could be useful here.--Salix (talk): 06:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... I tend to mistrust "are really" in an encyclopedic context. Row vectors and column vectors are degenerate two dimensional arrays, their two-dimensionality being heavily influenced by the two-dimensional paper we write on (historically) and (more recently) the two-dimensional computer screens we read. As for "vectors", well, these "are really" directed magnitudes, elements of a vector space, or disease transmittors. :-) Geometry guy 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Geometry guy[edit]

(All editors are welcome to contribute to this section)
  • Initial comments. This is a challenging article to bring to FA. It has had many beneficial contributions from editors like Jakob Scholbach, who is an expert on bringing mathematics articles to FA. However, the current article is a mess: in the words of a country yokel being asked for directions, "if I were wanting to bring this article to FA, I wouldn't start from here". But start from here we must. Geometry guy 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The challenge. The challenge for this article is that the notion of a matrix is utterly elementary. An intelligent 12 year old should be able to grasp it, and we hope that most 18 year olds can. Some parts of this article may only be accessible to mathematics graduates, but most of it has a broad audience. Geometry guy 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead. Issues concerning the lead should be fixed last, but I'm bringing them up now, because similar problems occur throughout the article. First sentence "is a rectangular array of numbers, as shown at the right." Actually on the right I see a rectangular array of letters decorated by subscripts; I must be too stupid to understand this article. Second sentence (see above): matrices and one dimensional arrays represent geometrical notions such as vectors, linear transformations, bilinear forms and tensors; they are not equivalent to such concepts. Third sentence: the relation between linear transformations and matrices has not yet been explained or even defined. Fourth sentence: "usual identities" not explained; the identity "AB=BA" need not even make sense. Geometry guy 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. In the absence of any substantial response, I will just add briefly some other things I noticed on my read through.
    • Most of this article focuses on real and complex matrices,... seems to be an unhelpful and inaccurate selfref: most of the matrices in the article have integer entries.
    • There are WP:ACCESS issues with the examples of linear transformations: in particular, the black dot (origin) is hard to see.
    • The fact that a right inverse is an inverse for square matrices is a triumph of linear algebra, and should not be made into a definition or noted without comment.
    • The fact that tr(AB)=tr(BA) does not need a specific citation: it needs a formula which shows they are manifestly the same.
    • The first paragraph on the determinant is opaque unless the reader already knows what it means.
    • The last paragraph on the determinant should probably mention that Gaussian elimination is generally more efficient than Cramer's rule.
    • There is very little on row/column operations and Gaussian elimination: these are an essential part of what matrices are for.
    • It may be worth discussing eigenspaces and the primary decomposition theorem.
    • The Computational aspects section has too much digressive material on computing and numerical analysis: BASIC ROMS of the 1970s are decidedly off-topic.
    • The first paragraph of Abstract algebraic aspects and generalizations is a mini-lead and is mostly unhelpful e.g., "Matrices, subject to certain requirements tend to form groups known as matrix groups." conveys almost no information and personifies the topic.
Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lockett[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 caught my attention as it was tagged for clean-up nearly a year ago. I have expanded it well beyond what it was less than a month ago, and would like to bring this article up to standard to eventually be rated better than 'Start'.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and clear that a lot of work has gone into it, I think it needs some tweaks to be B class. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please see WP:LEAD - the lead should be two or three paragraphs for an article this long. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. May also need fewer headers / sections.
  • Article needs more references: the whole current status section has only one ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The History section is quite nicely referenced.
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others, or if possible expanded. The two 1944 and 1946 sections could all be combined I think.
  • Without refs the Current status section seems to be approaching original research, which would be a no-no. It may also be a conflict of interest if you are one of the people trying to get this on the NRHP.
  • Any chance for some free photos of the surviving structures? Also useful to have a map giving its location (the NRHP infobox does this automatically if it is listed).
  • This sentence needs a ref Eventually both locations would be abandoned when the Regiment was amulgated in Monterey sometime in the 1920s. and the word "amulgated" seems to be a mis-spelling of some other word?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York[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 get it up to Featured List standards, and I am too close to be objective. There is one recently added NRHP thta I will be creating a stub for and getting the picture. Suggestions about the opening text are welcome.

Thanks, Lvklock (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the properties don't have anything in the summaries. That's an easy fix. I would think all the summaries should be two or three sentences long. Might a capsule history of Syracuse at the beginning be in order? Otherwise it looks good. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did some work on the summaries last night. Some of the articles are just stubs, and don't merit more than a sentence at this time. I have one more to write, which is trickier because the article linked doesn't really address the history, so I need to add a section of history to Thornden Park, and then will write a summary. I know the intor needs work....am formulating. Lvklock (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put a summary in for Thornden Park and improved the underlying article. dm (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, and given that I'm an SU alum, I have taken a good look at this:

  • You can write a longer intro, following along the lines of what we've done at List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. Tell us about the trends these listings reflect. What aspects of Syracuse's history come out here? What are the oldest buildings listed? Do they have anything to do with the city's early, pre-industrial settlement? Anything to do with salt mining in what's still known as the Salt City? Do the churches or any buildings listed reflect later developments, such as new immigrant groups settling in the city? What major architects have work in the city (besides, of course, Ward and I.M. Pei, who designed the first of the two Newhouse buildings at SU, but that's too new to be listed)?
  • I would actually consider that, AFAIC we don't need a separate article for an MPS limited to properties in one subdivision that has already merited a separate NRHP list article (properties spread across multiple subdivisions, like the NYS post offices or the Hudson Highlands Multiple Resource Area I've been working on, are another matter). Thus, I think, you could have a section discussing the Ward properties and their historical significance instead of a separate list article, and noting that they were submitted and listed together, then make your list article a deep-link redirect to that section.
I agree that having a section in the text on the Ward Wellington Ward MPS properties would be very appropriate. It has separately been discussed that the now-separate Architecture of Ward Wellington Ward in Syracuse MPS article should be merged into the Ward Wellington Ward article on the architect, and the present nominator agreed. I suppose the target for the MPS material could be in this list-article instead or also. So, as a matter of supporting this Syracuse NRHP list-article, i think that merger out of whatever material is in the MPS article to both places should be done now or before FL nomination of this list. I'm not sure, but am guessing what Daniel Case meant by making "your list article a deep-link redirect to that section" unless it means to replace the MPS article (which i think i started) by a redirect to the new section on WaWeWa here in this article. Sure, or redirecting to the WaWeWa architect article would be another option. doncram (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: Every summary needs to be sourced to wherever the info contained came from, usually the NRHP nom. It's tedious and laborious but when it's done it'll kick butt.

That's about it. I hope you are able to get the remaining properties and write articles about them. And get a nice photo of Walnut Park at this time of year, when it's nice and green (And don't give up on getting a shot from the upper floors of Bird Library, either). I am glad to see this so far along ... one day National Register of Historic Places listings in Poughkeepsie, New York (a smaller city with more listings, because it's older, but in many ways similar) will be as good. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your input. The suggestions for what to include in the intro are especially helpful to my accountant brain! I thought it had been decided (maybe at List of NHLs in AL featured list review) that each summary shouldn't have a footnote, as they summarize sourced articles. Or, should the sources be listed, but not footnoted? Definitely something to work on. I'm off at lunch today to get a pic of Temple Society of Concord, the newest listing. Perhaps can run by Byrd Library as well, and get the park. Lvklock(talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just took a look at List of NHLs in AL, and they absolutely are all footnoted. OK, will do! Lvklock (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think every description needs to be footnoted, just unusual assertions that stand out as needing extra support. The overall column of descriptions should have a footnote saying basically: "see the articles". It would be more helpful as precedent for other NRHP list-articles, to establish that excessive footnoting is not needed. Please see discussion in peer review and featured list review for List of NHLs in NY (a list-article that was not promoted to FL for other reasons). It would help to establish a more solid precedent, to save wasted effort in putting in excessive footnotes that detract from reader experience of these list-articles. doncram (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the article to be a featured list, everything in it must be clearly supported by external references. Some featured list articles avoid numerous footnotes because they reference a single source that supports all (or most) of the list contents, but that may not be possible in this instance. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've received some good suggestions here. I made a couple of small tweaks to the article. In my fairly cursory review of the article, I noticed a few other minor things that could stand to be improved:
  • The following sentence in the lead is both awkward and unduly self-referential: "There are 45 properties and districts in Onondaga County but outside of Syracuse, and they are in the accompanying list-article National Register of Historic Places listings in Onondaga County, New York." I think it could be condensed to become a more straightforward cross-reference note, such as "See National Register of Historic Places listings in Onondaga County, New York for listings in Onondaga County outside the city of Syracuse."
  • Not all National Register-listed properties are properly referred to as "sites." Therefore, that word does not belong in the sentence that introduces the table.
  • I don't think it makes sense for the "location" column to be sortable. I don't see any value in sorting a list on the basis of entries that start out with strings such as "210-216 West Water Street", "2000-2004 E. Genesee St." and "Roughly bounded by ..." (On the other hand, the "Neighborhood" column is a very nice feature and seems to be a good basis for sorting by geography.)
  • These are not "landmarks" (OK, some of them surely are, but that is not the case for all, and anyway they are not designated as historic landmarks), so that word should not appear in the second column's heading.
  • For accessibility purposes, (1) the images should have captions to be displayed in alt tags and (2) the color code listed in the legend should be supplemented by a symbol (or some other indicator that does not require the user to be able to perceive color).
  • Since everything on this list is on the National Register, it's not at all obvious to me why not all of the list entries are color-coded as "NRHP-listed." It appears to me that everything in the table should have that color code (which leads a person to think that the color-coding is extraneous) and the "historic districts" footnote should simply say "Historic district," and not "NRHP-listed historic district." [Yes, I am aware of the history of the NRHP wikiproject's color coding and classification schemes. What I am saying is that in the context of this list article, these things look very peculiar.] --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/June_2009&oldid=305619401"