Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2011

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.

Hershey–Chase experiment

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are trying to gain insight into how the article could be formatted better for use on WIkipedia.

Thanks, Jmn49114 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - it looks pretty good, especially for some of your first work here, but as you already know it is not yet ready for FAC. I also think it needs some work before it will pass at WP:GAN, so here are some suggestions for improvement with GAN in mind, and FAC eventually.

  • I corrected one error - the article lead used to read "Hershey shared the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Chase for their “discoveries concerning the genetic structure of viruses.”[2]" but Hershey shared the prize that year with Delbrück and Luria, and Chase never received any part of a Nobel Prize.
  • I would treat the FAC as another review - I would look at every point raised there and address it too.
  • There is one disambiguation link, to polymorphism, which needs to be fixed - see toolbox on this page.
  • Looking at WP:LEAD the lead is not supposed to be more than four paragraphs long, but this is five.
  • 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.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - the current lead does not include Applications or the Arsenic-based life forms, for example.
  • The main problem with the article right now is a lack of references. The whole Predictions section has no (zero) refs, and some whole paragraphs (such as one in Crime investigation) have no refs, but need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If a paragraph ends without a ref, that raises a flag for many reviewers.
  • Make sure that all refs have all needed information. 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
  • Things have to be consistent too - so it can't be "Proc. N. A. S." in one ref and " Proc. Nat. Sci. USA" in another ref. I would spell out the full names of references anyway.
  • I have serious concerns that this article is engaing in either synthesis or original research, neither of which is allowed in Wikipedia articles. Hershey and Chase used radioactive tracers, which are not used much anymore. For example, looking at the section on Arsenic-based life forms, there is no mention of either Hershey or Chase in either of the sources used as a reference in this section. Without a ref that says it, this article should not make statements like While controversial, the research demonstrated scientific and experimental principles of hereditary analysis relevant and similar to the Hershey-Chase Experiment. Wikipedia articles follow what the sources say, and if no sources say this directly, this article can't say it either. Do textbooks say anything about the relevance of this experiment to later work in the field?
  • Similarly, both of the techniques described in Applications seems like something of a stretch to relate directly to this (again the radiotracer techniques Hershey and Chase used are quite different from PCR or other modern genetic techniques, and I do not think either uses phages much if at all). I think it is OK to say that this experiment helped set the stage for these techniques, but to go into so much detail is also a WP:WEIGHT issue, unless there are sources that make the explicit points made here.
  • I would make the lead image larger for better clarity.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed this article in the GAN queue. I'd be happy to review, once the peer review is completed and the points above are addressed. I have several years of experience with advanced microbial genetics, and some FAC experience, so would be happy to help push towards FA, if that's the goal. Ping me if interested. Sasata (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Colm comments: I agree with the comments above, so I will try not to repeat them. My main concern is the Applications section. None of these are applications of the experiment; they don't use bacteriophages or blenders, or even bacteria. The experiment has no modern day applications really. It was important to the proof that DNA as the hereditary material—but that's all.(Most scientists had already accepted that DNA was the hereditary material following the meticulous work of Avery, which was published in 1944.) The section on arsenic-based DNA is interesting, but it does not belong in this article. I would resist the temptation to exaggerate the impact of the results of the experiment in an attempt to make the article longer and engaging. Short, accurate, neutral articles are OK. I have just checked my books—they all only devote one or two pages to this subject. Graham Colm (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UM BIOE120 Instructor comments: I agree with most of the comments above. In addition, consider the following:

  • It is necessary to mention that the H-C experiment was not perfect (e.g. see http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2005.09.014), and I am glad that the article has now been edited to that effect.
  • Did H and C provide evidence that DNA carries the genetic code? Genetic information, yes, but the code was revealed many years later. Check your sources and reword this appropriately.
  • Mention the tetranucleotide theory of DNA (prevalent in the earlier part of the 20th century, now abandoned) in the context of the debate that Hershey and Chase were trying to resolve. A good place would be in the Historical background paragraph, right after the word "... the molecule that could carry all the information for such a large amount of traits would have to be as complex".
  • Organism names such as Escherichia coli have to italicized and be spelt out in full at first mention. I don't think you need to mention "E(scherichia) coli bacteria" -- just wikify the word Escherichia coli.
  • Despite Graham Colm's integration edits, I think that "Hypothesis(es)" (as opposed to "Predictions") should be a separate section.
  • The graphics accompanying the article are informative, but better-looking, high-resolution graphics (preferably in a vector format such as SVG) will really enhance your article. **The lead figure can be made more eye-appealing by adding color (different colors to indicate phosphorus and sulfur, different shades to indicate radioactive and non-radioactive). The only difficult thing would be to draw the virus, but give it a try.
    • The hypotheses tested by H and C could be nicely incorporated into the lead figure. Depict the predictions stemming from the two conflicting hypothesis, and highlight what was observed. Such a figure will summarize a large part of the article. Alternatively you could use a succinct figure (without hypotheses/predictions) in the lead and a more detailed figure to accompany the hypotheses section.
    • If you make a really good figure you can also nominate it for a Wikipedia featured picture.
    • The bacteriophage figure (although peripheral to this article), is an SVG and of high quality so I suggest retaining it.
  • The sentence "They showed that, in growth, protein has no function, while DNA has some function" seems a little convoluted and is not making sense to me. Check your source and rewrite it.
  • I agree with Graham's deletion of the "applications" of the result of the H-C experiments. However, you could bring back a little of that material and work it into the introduction and/or the conclusion. (For instance, The H-C experiments, its predecessors and successors served to unequivocally establish that hereditary information was carried by DNA. This finding now has numerous applications in forensics, crime investigation and genealogy [wikify these words]. You may use my suggested sentences verbatim. Add up to one more sentence to explain how this finding is applied in these fields and wrap up.
  • A previous version of your article contained the phrase "[DNA] varies for each individual person while proteins contain the exact same sequences of amino acids for everyone". FYI, this is not accurate. If there is variation in the DNA that codes for a protein, there will be variation in the protein. Of course, DNA happens to have large regions that do not code for proteins, and even these contain mutations.

UM BIOE120 Instructor (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Binoche

[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 needs input and honing from others to improve it and move it towards featured status. The basic content and scope of the article, I believe is good, but it does require other inputs.

Thanks, Dohanlon (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Canada Hky (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very detailed article, that looks to be quite good. I think it is a few steps away from FA status, but I believe the basic material is there, and just needs to be molded into the right shape.
  • Access dates for all the web references, as well as publisher information at a bare minimum. Foreign language refs should have this noted in their cite as well. Citation templates will be helpful here.
  • Its a very long article. Not excessive by WP:Article size standards, but for an actress whose career will likely continue for a number of years, it is getting right up there.
  • In this vein, perhaps some of the more trivial information could be removed. A full paragraph about a film in which she only appeared in a few scenes gets the article length right up there.
  • The material in bulleted lists needs to be incorporated into paragraphs. That also makes the page size seem smaller, so this article is actually probably right in the area of maximum length (6000 - 10 000 words).
  • Is there a standard for actors / and actresses on Wikipedia after which their filmography is split to a second page?
  • There is a citation needed tag - that would need to be cleared up before FAC.
  • Images all look good as far as licensing. For captions - a caption that is not a complete sentence should not have a period at the end.
  • Check out the toolbox on the peer review page for disambiguation links that need to be fixed, and a check as to the accessibility of your links.
  • Thanks so much for your feedback. It's most useful. I have done a lot of work in bringing this article to its present state and I'm glad to see you feel that the basics are sound. I agree about editing it to reduce length. The part I know least about is formatting the references - you mention templates – do you have a link for those, I can't find it. Once again thatnks for your time – I'll revise it and maybe ask you to have another look soon. Dohanlon (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pony

[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 there is some energy at WikiProject Equine (WPEQ) to begin upgrading this article to at least GA status. We are all fairly experienced editors and aware that we need more sources/footnotes, but beyond that we'd value some outside eyes, though remember that we already have horse which is already a GA, and our intent is NOT to repeat everything there over here; we want to focus on ponies rather than horses in general. This is an article that should be a high priority for us, has been "stable" (pardon the pun) for a long time as is, plus is an article that gets a lot of general interest, particularly from younger readers. So we would be delighted to have suggestions on WHERE we should focus our improvement efforts. For example, it would make no sense for us to spend time sourcing a section that we ought to just throw out, and we also would value ideas on whether we ought to add/expand something that's not even here. So, in short, if you wanted to promote this article to GA, what would YOU like to see improved?

Thanks in advance, Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a few little fixes on things which just sprang out at me! I'd personally like a bit more in-depth stuff on uses of the pony - for example for adult riders (where appropriate), with pics of ponies with adult riders - maybe some contrasting pics of tiny tot on tiny pony with adult rider on bigger pony? And maybe a bit more on pony-driving (scurry driving with dinky ponies springs to mind). Pesky (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a source, go for it! The problem with these general info articles is, as Pitke so aptly put it, sourcing the "air is breathable" stuff. As for adults and photos, I believe that, though of horse phenotype and (mostly) horse bloodlines, both Stroller and Theodore O'Connor (who was 1/8 Shetland, I think) were technically classed as ponies. Montanabw(talk) 19:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect source for adults successfully riding ponies would be the NFPEC Quadrille Team winning the Riding Clubs quadrille finals at Olympia. All-pony team, all adult riders. Pesky (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this needs more sources. I am not an expert on horses, so I may have missed lots of things, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • EL checker in the toolbox on this page finds two dead links that will need to be fixed.
  • I wonder if some books geared to younger readers might contain some of the "sky is blue" material as refs.
  • There are two places where the text is sandwiched between two images (Polo pony is a full sandwich, the one in Uses is only partial). WP:MOSIMAGE says not to do this.
  • I think the lead image should be one that shows a pony in comparison to either humans or full-size horses. Perhaps one like File:289-o-Galant-SWE-71-SH-03.jpg of a Shetland pony and a human?
  • I am not sure the first sentence meets WP:LEAD - would it make sense to say in the first sentence something along the lines of "although there is no fixed definition as to what exactly defines a pony"
  • There are some things in the lead that are only in the lead, but should be in the article and expanded on there. For example, the pit ponies and etymology are only in the lead.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - withers is linked twice in just the lead. At the same time some special horse / pony terms like barrel should be linked (if there is an article on it here).
  • According to WP:HEAD, section headers should avoid repeating the name of the article if at all possible. So a section like "Horses and ponies" might be better as "Definition". I am not as sure how to rename "Breeds and types that are not ponies"
  • I also wonder about the order of sections. I think it would be better to have the Characteristics section before Uses. Perhaps Definition, Characteristics, History, Uses, and then "Other small horses" (i.e. not ponies)
  • History has no dates / years - I think some specifics would help here. I would talk about landrace and give some specific examples (Shetland ponies), plus the pit ponies should be here.
  • Make sure things belong in the sections they are in - for example Pony Clubs are in Uses - is this really a use? Then the US Pony CLub is in "Breeds and types that are not ponies" - could these two mentions be combined?
  • I was surprised there was not anything on Ponies in popular culture - My Little Pony, Seinfled's "I had a pony", whatever.
  • This is pure OR on my part, but it seems to me that ponies in modern culture (at least in the US) are related to girls much more than boys, and to some extent to affluence (rich children have or had ponies). There is also the use of pony as an adjective - so a pony keg is a small beer keg, and the pony tail might be mentioned
  • Most See also links are of articles that are not linked in the article already - see WP:See also
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments, thanks, Ruhrfisch! It will take us some time to get through all this, but I think you have been real helpful to point us in some good directions. Montanabw(talk) 17:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over There (Fringe)

[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 nominate it soon for FA. It recently was promoted to GA status, and I have heavily expanded it to qualify for FA's criteria. It would be great if some users could look it over and raise any comments and/or concerns they might have with the article. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 03:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is anyone having any trouble understanding the plot? Being a Fringe viewer, I am aware of the episode's background, but other users might not be. Should I provide a brief background section (placed above the plot) to explain certain important plot items from earlier in the season? Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by David Fuchs
  • The plot... yeah. Whenever you've got time-travel and/or alternate universes, it's difficult. The lead reads "The plotline follows Olivia (Anna Torv) and Walter (John Noble) as they lead a team of Cortexiphan subjects to the Other Side in order to retrieve Peter (Joshua Jackson), after discovering that he is unwittingly an integral part of the alternate Walter's plans to bring about the destruction of their universe using an ancient doomsday device." And kind of loses me, even though I know the basic gist of the plot. My basic thinking going into plot details is "throw at least one descriptor before the proper noun", in this case "FBI agents" or whatnot. "Cortexiphan"? "Other Side"? maybe "...to an alternate universe" here and explain "alternate universe, or "Other Side" in the plot?
    • I can go line-by-line on the things I don't immediately understand in the plot, but it might be helpful if you take a stab at it first :) Learning experience!
  • I'm not sure that a background section is necessary (it would lead to a lot of redundancy if you were trying to do all of the episodes, for example.) From what's currently in it, I think you just need to explain some of the stuff in-line of the plot section. I'll take what you have a do a test edit when I have time to show you what I mean. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking at various FA articles on television episodes, and they don't seem to require intense explanations into each television show (examples: Lost's Confirmed Dead and The Simpsons' The Joy of Sect, to name but a few). On the other hand, should I model it more like No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)? Sorry about all the questions, I'm just getting nervous about the upcoming FA process, and want to be as prepared as possible. Also, I made a few tweaks with my article, but still left the background section until it is recommended I delete it. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the background section and added more about the premise to the lead. I think it looks pretty good, but let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 18:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Badge of Courage

[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 was recently passed as a GA, and I plan on taking it to FAC at some time in the near future. Therefore, I'm especially interested in knowing what to do to bring it to FA-standards, but any comments or recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

[edit]
  • According to WP:LEAD, the lead could have one more paragraph if you wish, I would suggest using it, and giving a little bit more detail about the plot and discussion of the legacy section and background,Sadads (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could have one more paragraph, but I don't think it needs it. The Open Boat (FA) only has two lead paragraphs, and yet manages to succinctly summarize the article. An in depth plot summary is unnecessary, and the book's background and legacy is already mentioned. María (habla conmigo) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Plot

[edit]

Historical accuracy and inspiration

[edit]
  • "the harrowing" sounds very dramatic and sensationalist, are you sure you aren't working for this guy's publisher? :P No, really, I think the biggest problem I have, having read this far, is that the language is incredibly oriented towards committing the reader to the opinion of the work with sensationalist phrasing. Good prose is exactly what we want for FAs, but sometimes you get to a point where it's rhetorically polished to the point of absurdity, Sadads (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style and genre

[edit]
  • "Some critics have explored the novel in terms of Christian allegory, pointing in particular to the dramatic death of Henry Fleming's friend, Jim Conklin. Crane biographer John Berryman was one of the first critics to interpret the novel as a modern wasteland through which the protagonist plays the role of an Everyman. Still others read the novel as having a Naturalist structure, comparing the work to those by Theodore Dreiser, Frank Norris and Jack London.[34]" This quote leads me desperately curious to what extent they explored these allegories and structures. Is it possible to do a subsection covering how they do this, esp. with the Christian allegory. If there are multiple critics that cover each approach this shouldn't be to hard to really expand on, Sadads (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be expanded, although I don't think it requires as much as a subsection. It's impossible to cover every facet of criticism, and most modern critics disagree with those who originally saw a Christ allegory in the 60s, etc. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very unclear how this connection could be made, especially if you are communicating to a lay audience. Additionally, these comments immediately intrigued me, but I feel that the value of commenting on that type of analysis is communicating a basic understanding of how they approached it, not ignoring it in favor of newer critics opinions. If new critics do disagree strongly with such interpretations this too must also be brought up, or you are ignoring a significant portion of the scholarly discussion. I now have serious doubts in the breadth of scholarship which you approached in writing the article, if you have consciously chosen to omit opinions or omit comparing these opinions to contemporary opinions, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said the article is complete. I did, however, say this particular thought could be expanded, and I could very well do so according to the scholarship which is available. Thanks for the suggestion. Again, however, that small tidbit about the Christ allegory does not require a subsection. What you must understand is that there are literally hundreds of ways to read this particular novel. There are dozens of possible allegories, themes, motifs, etc. that have been written about, and to dedicate a subsection to one allegory in particular, over the many others, goes against WP:UNDUE. Please refrain from making assumptions about my intentions, however. I've written eleven Featured Articles, so I believe I kind of know what I'm doing. María (habla conmigo) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

[edit]
  • " enlightened identity" is this really the term you want to use? Enlightened has a myriad of connotations, many of them very religious, which don't really make sense in this case. You may need more content on if the existential thoughts are actually beneficial or if they simply are existential? I think the assumption being made here is that they in fact elevate Fleming mentally, however their is no context for individuals unfamiliar with the work itself. Also, identity has some multifaceted connotations as well which show both physical and mental transformation as well as deep seated personality changes. Please consider the wording, Sadads (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critic William B. Dillingham also noted the novel's heroism paradox, especially in terms of the introspective Henry's lapse into unreasoning self-abandon in the second half of the book, stating that "in order to be courageous, a man in time of physical strife must abandon the highest of his human facilities, reason and imagination, and act instinctively, even animalistically." excedingly long sentence, consider breaking up, Sadads (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]
Note from nominator

I would very much appreciate further PR comments from someone experienced with FAC. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: This looks quite good to me (although I have not read the novel in question, so I cannot vouch for the article's comprehensiveness). I have some suggestions for improvement, mostly nit-picks. Thanks for another nicely done article on an (the) important work by Crane.

Lead

  • It seems odd that the painting of Crane is only available in black and white - I did a Google image search and did not see any color versions. Since it is a painting from 1894, it is PD in the US and any photos of it would also be PD in the US. Do any of the books on Crane have the image in color (so that it could be scanned for use here)?
  • It's strange, but I don't remember seeing a color version of the painting. In print and online, they all seem to be in black and white, and I don't know who holds the original. I'll make an effort to check through the sources again, however. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Realism be capitalized here? I am not sure. Although Crane was born after the war, and had not at the time experienced battle firsthand, the novel is known for its Realism. Seems to me that as an adjective it might be lower case, or if it is referring to the movement / theory, perhaps something like "...the novel is known as an early example of Realism" or something like that would work? (I just made up the early example part)
  • Should the revised 1982 version be mentioned in the lead?
  • Is this one of those novels that has never been out of print? If so, I would say so (although the reprints for WWI make it sound like it had gone out of print back then, in which case it might help to say that).
  • Aha, good point. While several of Crane's volumes of poetry and short stories were out of print by the 1920s (only to be reprinted after his revival), I don't believe Red Badge ever went out. Weatherford says as much, so I'll add it accordingly. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always thought direct quotations in the lead still needed a ref per WP:MOSQUOTE Also notable for its use of what Crane called a "psychological portrayal of fear", ...
  • A sentence more on legacy in the second paragraph of the lead couldn't hurt (perhaps mention the movie(s) and one of the assessments of it). Probably better to add such a sentence (if added at all) before the current last sentence of the lead.

Background

  • I am never 100% sure of logical quotation (LQ) but there are a few places that seem not to follow it to me. The first is He later stated that he "had been unconsciously working the detail of the story out through most of his boyhood" and had imagined "war stories ever since he was out of knickerbockers."[4] (last quote is not a full sentence)
  • Would New York City be clearer in At the time, Crane was intermittently employed as a free-lance writer, contributing articles to various New York newspapers.?
  • It looks like Lake View, New Jersey is today part of Paterson, New Jersey - see here. Not sure if that is worth mentioning or linking.
  • More LQ - He would later relate that the first paragraphs came to him with "every word in place, every comma, every period fixed."[6]

Publication history

  • Maybe these would make this slightly clearer (since there are three versions of the novel discussed). In 1982, W. W. Norton & Company published a version of the novel based on Crane's original 1894 manuscript [of 55,000 words]. Edited by Henry Binder, this version is questioned by those who believe Crane made the original edits [for the 1895 Appleton edition] on his own accord.[11]

Plot summary

  • Would it help to add that the regiment is fictional in On a cold day, the 304th New York Regiment awaits battle beside a river.? There were so many different Civil War regiments that I wondered if it was real as I read this section.
  • Link Confederate?
  • Tighten / clarify? A line of Confederates hidden behind a fence beyond a clearing are able to shoot at Henry's regiment, which is ill-covered in the tree-line, with impunity. could perhaps be something like A line of Confederates hidden behind a fence beyond a clearing shoot with impunity at Henry's regiment, which is ill-covered in the tree-line.
  • Perhaps say that the book ends with the following lines before the long quote?

Historical accuracy and inspiration

  • Is "previous" necessary in ...he wrote The Red Badge of Courage without any previous experience of war.[14]? WOuld it help to add "or battle" at the end (not sure).
  • Add "a" in He would, however, later serve as [a] war correspondent during the Greco-Turkish and Spanish-American Wars.?
  • Is the antecedent of "the author" clear in Thomas Beer wrote in his problematic 1923 biography of the author that Crane was challenged by a friend to write The Red Badge of Courage after having announced that he could do better than Émile Zola's La Débâcle.? (Preceding sentence also discusses author Warren Leee Goss)
  • This sentence makes me stumble each time I read it - The metaphor of the "red badge of courage" itself may have been inspired by true events; historian Cecil D. Eby, Jr. noted Union Officer Philip Kearny's insistence that his troops wear bright red unit insignia patches, which became known marks of valor and bravery.[18] Perhaps it would be smoother as something like The metaphor of the "red badge of courage" itself may have been inspired by true events; historian Cecil D. Eby, Jr. noted that Union officer Philip Kearny's insisted that his troops wear bright red unit insignia patches, which became known as marks of valor and bravery.[18]?
  • Should "private" be capitalized (as a rank) in Furthermore, there was a private James Conklin who served in the 124th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment,[22]...?

Style and genre

  • Can locations be political or military? By avoiding details regarding the political, military and geographical locations of the conflict between the states, the novel becomes divorced from its historical context.[28] Perhaps something like By avoiding political, military and geographic details of the conflict between the states, the novel becomes divorced from its historical context.[28] (which is a bit tighter too)
  • Could "labels" be omitted in Notably lacking labels are the dates in which the action takes place, and the name of the battle; these omissions effectively shift attention...
  • Can anything more be said about the anonymous critic - the publication he wrote for or the year? Crane's realistic portrayal of the psychological struck a chord with reviewers; as one anonymous critic wrote [in YEAR? in the Some City Newspaper?]:
  • Is it the "Tattered Soldier" (Plot summary) or "the tattered soldier" (Style and genre)?

Themes

  • Tighten? The first twelve chapters, leading up until he receives his accidental wound, expose his cowardice. The following chapters of the story then detail his apparent heroism.[35]
  • Tighten? "As critic Donald Gibson stated in his work The Red Badge of Courage: Redefining the Hero..."

General

  • For books that do not have an ISBN, an OCLC can be found at World Cat and added.
  • Would it be possible to add anything about the success of the book and its effect on Crane's life in legacy?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely helpful! Thanks for your in depth and knowledgeable review! I've already reviewed three articles over the past week, but I'll see if I can pick one more up before I finish up here. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome - please let me know when this is at FAC. Forgot to mention I made a few minor edits to fix what seemed to be typos - please revert if I made things worse or introduced errors. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active zone

[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 the readability of the article. Specifically, I want to know if some terms come across as confusing. I would also like to know if anything needs to be elaborated on better explained. Please don't hesitate to be very critical, I would appreciate any and all criticisms.

Thanks, Studentne (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. WHile the article looks quite good for a first effort, it needs a fair amount of work to conform with the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • 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, but the 1970 naming seems to only be in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article has a least one diambiguation link that needs to be fixed - see the toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page.
  • Article needs more references, for example the first two subsections in "Vesicle pools" have zero refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Are any of the articles cited available online? DOI or PUBMED information should be given if available.
  • Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD in that they repeat the article name (which should be avoided if at all possible)
  • Per WP:See also the See also section usually does not repeat links aalready in the article
  • The table in Proteins of the Active Zone has no refs and has only two entries in the second column - either add more to the second column, or convert this to prose.
  • The article calls the protein "Bassoon" but the figures use "Basson"
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNA nanotechnology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is my first attempt at promoting an article to featured status, and I'm interested in any feedback that will help improve the article. There are two categories of feedback I'm especially interested in:

(1) What improvements do the article need to fulfill the Good article/Featured article criteria? Which level do you think it is closer to?

(2) Would a non-expert or even a member of the general public learn something from reading the article? How can the article be improved to increase its usefulness to the broadest audience?

Of course, any feedback is welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick glance by Reaper Eternal

I haven't gotten any articles to FA standards myself, so somebody else can give you a better peer review. I'm also no biology expert (only taken biology at the high-school level). However, I'll point out a couple things that stand out to me:

  • Fundamental concepts: "Base pairing" is already linked in the lead.
  • Polyhedra: 1st paragraph has no footnotes.
  • Potential applications: Your comments on programmable matter are unsourced.
  • Materials and methods: Entire section is unreferenced.
  • External links: Gives the appearance of a linkfarm. Not all those links to labs are necessary. (See WP:EL for guidelines.)
Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the first item, my impression is that an article shouldn't be wikilinked more than once within a section, but this resets at each top-level section break. The next two items are easily fixable. The fourth is a bit tricky, as I'm not aware of any methods-specific review in this field, so I'd have to either cite a primary source that used each method, or use more general sources like Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. For the final item, I think that links to labs notable for working in this field are a useful thing to include; this field is small enough that the current list is already comprehensive. It would be nice to have some objective criterion for inclusion though (e.g., they're mentioned in a review, or they already have a Wikipedia article). Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • This one can absolutely make it at FAC with a little attention to detail. I typically copyedit just before FAC, so that it will be fresh on my mind when it hits FAC, and I'll be happy to do that here. I'll also keep an eye on this peer review, too. Different reviewers at FAC are all over the map on rules for linking; a few will reject the article if terms are linked more than once anywhere in the text (although links in infoboxes are fine). We'll just have to see when we get there. You'll need one citation at a minimum per paragraph to non-primary sources. For the EL links, do you have a secondary source that supports the notion that each of these labs is doing essential work? - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If people want to play around with what gets wikilinked where, that's fine, as long as it follows common sense. Right now the more technical sections are primary source heavy, but the secondary sources already in the article cover all the statements made in those sections, so it's just a matter of matching the refs to the paragraphs. Everyone linked in the History section is mentioned in the cited review articles—that section uses exclusively secondary sources—so that could be used as a lower bound for notability for external links. (This would cover nine of the seventeen labs currently listed as external links.) Also, five more have written reviews or papers which are cited in this article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Hummel

[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 it's GA nomination and I would like to see it reach featured article status. A lot of time and effort has gone into it, and I believe it has potential.

Thanks, HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kanavb :- I think the article is pretty good, I only noticed very few things that might help it. Actually, I'm NOT qualified enough the review it properly, but I though these might help.
More Pictures:- The article is pretty lenghty, and I really feel we must add some pictures, otherwise it's too boring. There are only 2 pictures in the whole article. Just a suggestion!
Significant Others:- Should it not be added in the infobox? As far as I know, it's there on every Glee character page. Why not here? Blaine Anderson would be added.
That's it! I'm afraid I have not helped much! Kanavb (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the comment about having more images. Wikipedia's very edgey about including non-free images, and it's best to not include them needlessly. The current ones serve their purpose and aside from the infobox are all free. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maria

Hi, this is a great article. I've read it previously while doing a little fan-research on the show (I'm a huge Gleek), so I'm glad to see it's only improved over time! If you plan to take this to FAC, I would suggest a heavy-duty copy-edit -- perhaps even two. I see some issues with the prose throughout, which can often stall or sink a nomination; "brilliant" and "professional" prose isn't taken lightly. :) A few particulars:

  • Try to vary sentence structure more; it's a bit tedious -- especially in a lead -- to begin most sentences with a subject: "The character", "Kurt", "He", "Colfer", "Kurt", etc. Shake it up a bit with a few more complex sentences.
  • Kurt is regularly portrayed by actor Chris Colfer. -- as opposed to not being regularly portrayed? :)
  • In the beginning, the show was leaning on Kurt being overly flamboyant. -- "leaning on... being" is awkward.
  • Watch the repetitive wikilinks: "Grilled Cheesus" is linked in back to back sections (and again later on), and there may be others.
  • What does "a de facto male lead" in the first sentence mean? At first I thought it was referring to his role in New Directions, but I guess it can also refer to him being a male lead of the show itself. Is it truly necessary?
  • I don't believe awards are referred to "in quotes", such as "Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Miniseries or Television Film". I've not seen them in actor/film FAs, anyway. (American Beauty (film), for example.)
  • The role has earned Colfer nominations for several further awards -- "several further" is clumsy and doesn't make much sense. In fact, this section ("Accolades") is weird because it doesn't seem to be in any sort of order; should it be by award type, chronologically, what?

That's all I have for now. FWIW, disagree with the above commenter about the need for more images. The lone FU one in the infobox may cause issues in its own right. It seems a fairly comprehensive article, although I don't have any experience with writing high-quality pieces about fictional characters. Like I said, the main issue will be the prose, which definitely needs to be tweaked and then re-tweaked; not because it's bad, but because the lot at FAC are picky. Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll recommend it for a copy-edit and see if I can fix up some of the things you mentioned in here. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than Today

[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 has potential to reach featured article status. This was in FAC a day ago and general consensus was that the article had prose problems that should have been solved earlier in PR. Because of this, I am now here. Note: Australian English (which is similar to British) is the preference.

Thanks, I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The final comments on the previous peer review are dated 30 March. The rules of WP:PR require a gap of at least 14 days between peer reviews of the same article, so this had been renominated a little prematurely. However, I will post comments within a couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments (answered by I Help, When I Can. [12]): I have had to deal with this rather hurriedly. The article is certainly in better shape than it was during its recent FAC, but I think that some further work is necessary.

Lead
  • Despite your explanation offered in the recent FAC, the phrase "positive to mixed reviews" reads confusingly. Are we to understand that the song received no entirely negative reviews? If this is so, it would clarify if you said "both positive and mixed reviews from contemporary critics", but as it stands people will continue to wonder what you mean Good Point. Done.
  • "Reception for the video was mainly positive, with most noting its similarities to Minogue's previous music videos." Most who, or what? Done.
Background
  • "Pallot stated when Minogue personally called her later..." very awkward phrasing. I'd delete "personally" as redundant, and rephrase: "Pallot stated that when Minogue called her later, ..." Done.
  • Why were subsequent sessions that Minogue had with the duo "less successful"?
  • Pardon my ignorance, but what does "retool" mean?
Composition
  • Not an appropriate title for this section. It deals with the song's general character, and includes some review comments, but does not discuss the song's composition.
  • Unnecessary repetition of name in "Pallot's version of the song is composed in the key of G major with Pallot's vocal range..." Just "a vocal range will do". Likewise the Minogue sentence later. Done.
  • General readers probably won't understand voice ranges expressed in terms of B4 and G6 etc, and will find the chord progression details mystifying; what will they make of "F-E♭-Dm-Dm-E♭-F", for example. I am not sure how much of this technical information is useful in a general encyclopedia article.
Critical reception
Chart performance
  • You cannot have "worse" success. You can have "worse results", or "less success". Done.
Music video
  • I haven't had much time to look at this section, but I'd say the girls are wearing pink wigs as rather than "like" shoulder pads. Done.
  • Female dancers (plural) can't be wearing "a Pac-Man-esque helmeted band (singular). The Pac-man link isn't at all helpful to someone like me, who wondered what a Pac-Man-esque helmeted band was (do I have to read the whole Pac-man article to find out. Done. Bad wording.
General

A lot of work has gone into the article since its FAC outing, but I still feel that the prose could do with some further polish. From the edit history it is evident that most of the work has been done by a single editor; I feel that before a return to FAC, a fresh, final copyedit from a previously non-involved editor would be a big advantage.

I hope these comments are helpful to you. As I am not at present able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any queries you wish to raise, arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ (answered by I Help, When I Can. [12]):
Resolved comments from Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Lead
her eleventh studio album, Aphrodite (2010). -> why the comma? Done.
Critics compared the track's composition to Minogue's works in the early 90s on Rhythm of Love and the songs of the Scissor Sisters. They also applauded the dance-oriented lyrics. -> merge them. Done.
  • Background
recording sessions for Aphrodite -> link the album Done.
to retool the album. After being retooled by Price -> synonyms needed Fixed Earlier. Double Check.
  • Composition
Christel Loar of PopMatters and Nick Levine of Digital Spy -> wrong italics See above.
  • Critical reception
Loar of PopMatters -> as above See above.
Popjustice, while -> as above See above.
Nima Baniamer of Contact Music -> as above See above.
Levine of Digital Spy -> as above See above.
  • Chart performance
from the Aphrodite album on that chart -> Why the link here? Done.
Minogue also claimed the third ... the first artist to claim two -> Synonyms needed Done.
the video for "Get Outta My Way" -> overlinked Done.
music videos for "2 Hearts" and "The One" -> overlinked Done.
Pink is the New Blog -> wrong italics See above.
HardCandy -> wrong italics See above.
  • Live performances
2009 For You, For Me Tour -> overlinked Done.
the annual Royal Variety Performance -> wrong italics
As far as I know, it is a televised affair. You could say the same situation as Children in Need. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing
"Can't Get You Out of My Head" (BBC Live Lounge Version) – 3:16 -> overlinked Done.
"Get Outta My Way" (BBC Live Lounge Version) – 3:40 -> overlinked Done.
  • Credits and personnel
Source:[53][7][4] -> Source:[4][7][53] Done.

:20.- Apple Inc.. -> Apple Inc. Done.

She received a standing ovation from all four judges; Dannii Minogue, who is a judge on the show and Minogue's sister, gave her praise. She called the performance a "ten out of ten".[38] -> Yes, it is sourced, probably neutral, but we need to know that her sister loves her? or that all judges gave her an standing ovation?
I saw such information given in other GA's. Honestly it is spot-filler information, but it does represent reception. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to 'I Don't Feel Like Dancing' [sic] right? -> Exactly why it is wrong?
The original title of the song is "'I Don't Feel Like Dancin'". Still want me to change it? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:QUOTE, "If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic]", this typographical is irrelevant and the best is correct it. Done.

Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chart performance
The section in not neutral: "It proved to be her least successful UK charting [single] since..."; "single had similar or worse success in other European countries"
Yet in the next paragraph, I mention her success on the American charts. And after that, I talk about how Minogue saw the single as a failure herself. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding positive content after negative content won't make it neutral, in any way. The best to do is write it neutral: "[the] single had similar or worse success in other European countries" to "[the] single had regular performance as well in other European countries" or something like that. Also, note that the first quote is grammatically incorrect, I added a missing word within brakets. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I revised it and some of the sentance could be debated as neutral. I removed any part of those sentences that couldn't be proved with the citations. Also, I didn't add the word "single" because it is her worst charting, period. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, "Better Than Today" is one of Minogue's lowest charting singles in the United Kingdom. It proved to be her least successful UK charting since 2008's "The One" which peaked at number 36." -> unsourced
Would the chart positions of "The One" be a sufficient resource in this case? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be WP:SYN. USe a source which compares both chart performances on that country (e.g. ChartStats of Minogue). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
which peaked at number 69. -> unsourced
Would cited chart positions be sufficient? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cited.
  • General

The article should be written in Australian English (e.g. I have only experience with BE and AmE, but sentences like "colored font" should not be "coloured font"?)

I can understand Brit English, but when I'm typing, Am English usually comes out. I need someone to proofread it using Aus English. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to do this before nominating it to FAC, it would no take many time.
  • Composition and critical reception
Popjustice compared -> wrong italics
See previous peer review for explanation.
In the previous PR you stated that there were no consensus about this. Regardless of a consensus or not, this is a grammar issue. Published stuff (albums (excepting singles), books, films, newspapers, etc.), latin nomenclature, to do emphasis, and other things have to go in italic text. Per MOS:ITALIC: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized", an neither of them are online magazines, newspapers and/or new sites with original content. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Yes they are. All sites italicized are online publications with original material. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are proably confunding the originality here. The material passes the threshold of originality, but they are not listing new things (which is that kind of originality). If those websites were the very first in review singles, they should be italized, but they are not. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Popjustice is a highly respected music website with a editorial staff and the works. It's staying. I Help, When I Can. [12] 05:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently, after acknowledging that both "Better Than Today" and "Get Outta My Way" charted poorly across the world, she confirmed there would be no more singles released from the album.[26] -> relevant to the album, not the song.
Sentence tells us why "Better Than Today" is the last single. Backs up statement in lead. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then, it is an incorrect section to make that statement. Also, it is not neutral. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the chart performance is the reason. It is correct. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video
I, as a reader see the next of the music video image: Minogue holding a microphone singing in front of a stage wearing a blue dress]]. Therefore, the image fails our fair use policy as images of Minogue doing that exist.
They also show the projection of the lips, her wardrobe in the video and the shoulder pads. If I write an in depth caption, would that cure this worry? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Write a decent caption won't make it pass NFCC#8, because the main idea behind the sceen is "Minogue in the video (doing something that can be repelaced by free content)." I'd use images of Kyle throughout the article instead.
Most of these performances resembled ones from the tour and the music video as well. -> Unsourced
I could cite the videos themselves, or the choreo. I think that I have provided adequate citations for the wardrobe. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cite them {{cite video}}. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
1.- Allmusic. -> wrong italics. Passes MOS:ITALIC.
4.- Publisher needed
5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.1, 26, 27, 28.1, 32, 44, 50, 52, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 69, 72, 73.- as ref 1
14, 15, 19, 36, 37, 42.- as ref 4
Some of them don't have publishers listed because the publishers are the exact same entity. Change anyway? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If thry repeat both (e.g. BBC. BBC) the best to do is use the publisher field only. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Novice7
    • Query:The sheet music says Better Than Today: Kylie – Digital Sheet Music, but it's used to analyze Pallot's version too. Does it really say about Pallot's version of the song?
    • More comments to follow :) Novice7 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Kirkman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is approaching GA level (quality not length), and I wanted to see what you guys think of the quality of the article and if another couple of sections can be eked out or not. Thank you! MobileSnail 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pretty good work. In most athlete articles I've read, the author gives short shrift to anything other than the athletic career. I like big "early life" and "post career" sections. I do have a few questions and concerns about small things.
  • What was his mother's name?
Done Found it. MobileSnail 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch your verb tenses. You frequently switch from simple past tense to past perfect and variations. Say "he did" rather than "he would do".
Done I think. I'm not sure exactly what instances you are referring to, but found what I think to be a few tense changes which I fixed during a copyedit. One sentence that remains somewhat past perfect is "...he was never given the chance to prepare". I'm not sure how to reword that one. MobileSnail 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Post-Foreman", the ranked opponent wikilink is a bit of an Easter Egg ... could you reword it to mention the ranking system of the wiki article?
Done Fixed that (hopefully). MobileSnail 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the Kirkman-Norton fight stopped by the referee? Cite it.
Done Was a referee technical decision, but there were no special circumstances that ended the bout. Has been cited.
  • I'd like to see more information from media coverage, which I find gives a great accounting of sporting events. For older topics like this one, it's difficult to find these accounts online, but they're well worth the effort of digging up offline items. You might try Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, or the New York Times, all of which have extensive online archives.
Searching now. I am also trying to dig up an image where I can at least contact the copyright owner regarding its possible use. MobileSnail 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've got the bones of a good article here, but try to put some muscle onto it by consulting more sources. A nitpicking editor might also contest some of the existing sources on reliability grounds. Be sure to have arguments ready to support them or find sources you know are reliable. Keep up the good work, and let me know if I can help! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One question: do you believe there is a saturation of citations, or have I used them fairly appropriately? MobileSnail 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unclear by what you mean by "saturation". I think you're getting close to the point where if you need to add something, you're better off trying to find another source ... if I'm passing an article for featured status, I don't like seeing too much reliance on one or two sources.
  • Watch yourself on weasel words like "remarkably" and "only". Unless you explain why something is remarkable or why a figure is small enough to be considered "only", you're starting to bring a point of view into the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It says "210 lbs". The abbreviation for pounds is 'lb' not 'lbs'. Adding a kg value would help make the article accessible worldwide.
  • It has links to dates (e.g. 1966), common English terms (e.g 'nurse, American), and repeated geographical items (e.g. 'Seattle, Washington'). Low value links dilute the effect of high value links. You may wish to reconsider these.
  • It uses lots of flag icons. I think the article would be better without these.
  • It uses flag icons in the table as the only code for nationality. If nationality is important, it should be available in text form for readers that don't can't break the flag code, or view the article as text.
  • It has section headings "Kirkman-Foreman", "Post-Foreman", and "Upset by Memphis Al Jones and Afterwards". These may be meaningful to people that know the subject, but they could be made more meaningful for less knowleadgeable readers. For example, the 'Kirkman-Foreman' section doesn't use that term within the section but it does mention that it is a fight. Similarly, the word 'upset' is not mentioned in the section and it isn't clear what it means, the section mentions the more plain English term 'loss'. Perhaps the section titles could mention fights and replace the word 'loss' with 'upset'.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Reality TV Swindle

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to see if I can get this article up to GA status, but I wanted a fresh pair of eyes to look over it and offer any criticism first. My main concern here is the prose, and whether I've explained things well enough. I'm also concerned about whether the 'Media reaction' section contains too many quotations. I welcome any other advice and feedback on how this article can be improved. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off I commend you for wanting to pull this article up to GA status. It's a noble effort and thank you for your work. I'll go through the article with the GA Criteria in mind. I'll also make some small edits to improve flow or prose.

  • One thing I see that you may want to look at is the haphazard sprinkling of in-line citations. Usually in-line cites go at the end of the sentences and/or paragraphs. See WP:CITE for more thoughts on citations and specifically their placement w/in an article.
Thanks for bringing that page to my attention. I've gone through the article and moved as many cites as seemed appropriate to the end of their sentences.
  • This quote strikes me as odd:
"Reality TV was a popular genre of television programming in the UK in the early 21st century."
We are still in the early part of the 21st century. Perhaps replace with "in the first decade of the 21st century." Better yet, is it still a popular genre of television programming in the UK? If so then make it present tense and take out the time frame altogether.
Done. I'd put that as I felt that it was important to put some sort of historic context to the article, but, if it makes it confusing, I'll change it.
  • Not sure what is meant here:
"Most reality TV shows offered a cash reward to winning or successful participants...."
Aren't winning and successful the same thing? Could one of the adjectives be deleted?
Removed "winning".
  • The Craig Phillips image has a caption that starts with "Two years before the swindle...." I would recommend removing this wording as it tacitly implies that Phillips was in some way involved in the swindle.
Heh, that's a really good point. Based on your comment below, I've just removed the entire image.
  • I might try to combine the two sentences on the motives for the people who applied for Russian's show. See if you can trim it a bit and make sure that it is referenced well.
Done.
  • In the Aftermath section after the sentence about the contestants being gullible wannabees there are 6 references. I don't think this is necessary. Is there a reason for all 6?
I was just aware that any sentence that begins with "Some critics..." usually gets slapped with a {{who}} tag pretty quickly, so I wanted to make sure that I established who the critics were that were being referenced. I've reduced this to just three, which I hope is a more suitable number.
  • References:
  • I'm not sure what the purpose is of the General vs. Specific reference breakdown. If the General references are intended to be broad coverage of the topic then this should be listed under a Further Reading section. I see that you do have a specific reference to each of the books in the article. To avoid confusion you may want to list the books in a Notes or Bibliography section.
Done. Added a Bibliography section.
  • The format of the references is consistent and coherent.
  • Ref 3 appears to be a TV show? If so you rely heavily on it and it cannot be independently checked (unless someone recorded it or ordered a copy from the producers). This weakens the source a bit. I don't think you'll have much trouble at GA with this but if you have aspirations of moving it to FA then you'll need to not rely so heavily on this source.
Done. Thanks for the advice. I've tried to reduce the number of times that I use that particular source. It is all available on YouTube (albeit in about seven different parts), but I don't see anyway that can be easily cited here (or even if it would be appropriate to).
  • What is the point of the quote after Ref 24?
Just to highlight the use of that particular ref to source the info that it cites. But if it doesn't work, I'll remove it.
  • Overall the article is well put together. There aren't too many quotes in the final section and I've outlined or fixed some of the prose issues I see. If there is a free image of Russian that would be far better than the image of Phillips. Nothing against Phillips but it's a little odd to have an image of someone who is only tangentally connected to the article while the primary subject is not pictured. This concludes my review I hope it was helpful. Best of luck at GAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review H1nkles, your advice has been very helpful! A Thousand Doors (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netball and the Olympic Movement

[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 could use some additional guidance in terms of what content is missing, ideas for pictures, how to improve organisation, and compliance with Manual of Style. I'd like some additional insight into if, given the issue that it is hard to find additional sources for information, it might eventually be able to be featured. (Please note that I won't be online as much between April 4 and May 3. No hurry and I won't be able to quickly address comments.)

Thanks, LauraHale (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this and other netball articles. I knew almost nothing about netball before reading this, and think it needs some more background and history to be clearer. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Ruhrfisch comments

  • The lead is not really a summary of the whole article, which is should be per WP:LEAD. The first section is on bias, but there is nothing on this in the lead that I can see. There is also nothing in the lead that says this is primarily a women's sport or that the Olympic recognition is for the women's sport (indeed I am not sure it says anywhere in the article explicitly that Olympic recognition is for the women's sport).
  • As someone who knew next to nothing about netball before encountering the series of articles you are working on at PR, I was a bit mystified by this article, which assumes the reader knows pretty much what netball is. I would start the body of the article with a brief history and description of netball (who playes it, how, since when). I would also give a brief history of the modern Olympics - these need only be a few sentences each for a paragraph or two, but I think it would really help to provide context for the reader.
  • If this is done, the Bias against women's sport section might be retitled as something like "Background and bias against women's sport" (I assume the background will only be a paragraph and thus too short for its own section).
  • Another way to approach this might be to make the section into more of a "History of bias against women's sport" - give a breif history of netball and description, then start with the modern Olypics and how there were no women allowed at all in the first games, and only 11 in 4 sports in the second games. Could sya that male athletes and events for men have always outnumbered female athletes and events for women. It might help to organize the section more chronolgically.
  • Language is OK but if this is going to try and become a WP:FA it will need a copyedit to polish a lot of rough spots. One example The sports Rugby sevens and golf, primarily played [by?] men, were chosen for inclusion in the Rio Olympics ahead of netball.[1] Seems to be missing a word (by). Also it is not clear from the sentence if only the men's version of sevens and golf are to be played at Rio, or if there will be women competing in these sports too. Finally, I would add the year 2016 Rio... as not everyone instantly knows what year the Rio Olympics will be.
  • Another example (from the lead) of how the writing could be improved (in this case tightened): It has never been played at the Summer Olympics, but recognition means that it could be included at some point in the future. could just be It has never been played at the Summer Olympics, but recognition means that it could be included in a future Olympics. or even simpler just It has never been played at the Summer Olympics, but recognition means that it could be in the future. or perhaps even just It has never been played at the Summer Olympics, but recognition means that it could be.
  • For an image, how about File:MalawiFijiNetball.jpg with a caption something like "Although it has never been played in the Olympics, netball has been played in the Commonwealth Games since YEAR (here Malawai vs Fiji)."
  • The quote boxes are OK, but the quotes really don't seem that encyclopedic in tone - they (especially the second) seem more like quotes from a newpaper article profiling a team than a neutral encylopedia article. Your mileage may vary ;-)
  • The article is told from a fairly pro-netball point of view. Are there any critiques out there by people who say it should not be an Olympic sport? Is the Tiddlywink Society grousing about netball being recognized when they are not?
  • I would try to tell the story of the process that led to Olympic recognition a little more coherently. As it is now, the article says
In 1995, netball became a permanent Olympic recognised sport.[10][11][12][13] after a twenty year period of lobbying[11][14] and a two year probation period.[13] This makes it eligible to be played in future Games.[15][16] ...
  • What if it were instead something like this
In 1975 the FILL IN THE BLANK and other organizations began a concerted lobbying effort to win Olmpic Recognition for netball.[11][14] Netball was given a two year probation period in 1993, and in 1995 netball became a permanent Olympic recognised sport.[10][11][12][13] Recognition makes it eligible to be played in future Games,[15][16] although no Olympics through 2016 (Rio) have included netball.
  • I have almost no idea what this means One attempt was made in 1989, when Olympic recognition was sought for the West German World Games.[17] This failed.[note 2] (the note does not help). How are the West German World Games an Olympic event? More detail is needed.
  • In general, this would be more interesting if there were more details about who did what and when.
  • Could the Media coverage and National chapters section be combined - both are only one paragraph
  • More specific examples would help in Media coverage.
  • In general try to identify who says something or whose opinions or quotations are being provided - there is a large block quote in Olympic Recognition, but it is not attributed (According to Tracy Taylor, author of Netball in Australia: A Social History... Please see WP:MOSQUOTE
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bill william compton's Comments:

  • In the lead, the phrase "but recognition means that it could be included at some point in the future." is POV pushing and argumentative. It should not be in the lead, but if it were to remain, it requires a footnote.
  • Link to "International Olympic Committee (February 2008). "The sports on the Olympic programme". http://www.snoc.org.sg/nsa.php. Retrieved 26 March 2011." is broken.
  • Given the IOC action to limit the number of sports to 28, the sentence "This makes it eligible to be played in future Games.[15][16]" is misleading. Fn 15 is a primary source, you need a secondary source. In fn 16, the only discussion of netball is at page 143, which does not support the statement either. Fn 16 is an analysis of just one news outlet which may not be representative of whether Netball can be included in the Summer Games.
  • For the same reason, please remove the article from the category "Olympic recognised sports"
  • "Parliament of New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity)." is a primary source and an opinion piece. I doubt that it is accurate and there is no reason to believe the person making the speach is particularly knowledgable about the Olympic movement. It must be treated as a self-published source, because there is no peer review of its contents.
  • There is POV pushing in "has moved netball away from a model of women's sport and more towards a male model of competitive sport." What makes one believe that there are separate "male" and "female" models for organizing sports? Do you mean "amateur" and "professional"? The sentence does not fairly summarize the quotation below it, but rather casts a POV spin on the quotation and the issue.
  • I would remove the two quotations in boxes. Again, they come across as POV-pushing.
  • Many sentences could be easily reworded to remove argumentation and POV pushing. For example, "Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports.[2]" could be "Many women's sports are not included in the Summer Olympics.[2]" Or "While primarily a sport for women, netball allows for mixed teams,[3][4]" could be rewritten "Although most netball competitions are for women-only teams, netball allows for mixed teams,[3][4]"
  • Please avoid drawing general conclusions from sources that are based on one person's opinion. For example, Fn 1 which is a BBC report of an interview with one netball player gets transformed into the general statement "The sports Rugby sevens and golf, primarily played men, were chosen for inclusion in the Rio Olympics ahead of netball.[1]" Just because Ms. Mentor views the facts in a particular light does not mean that Wikipedia should report them in that fashion. Rather, the article should let the reader know that the sports for both the 2012 and 2016 Summer Games have been determined, and netball is not one of them.
  • The article is written on the assumption that there should be an equal number of men and women competing at the Olympic Games, but there is no indication as to who has subscribed to that view. What comes first, sponsorship and spectator interest or inclusion in the Olympics? Again, there is a lot of POV in the article's treatment of this dilemma. The article should be rewritten to just say what happened and when without speculating on what should have happened and what will happen.
  • The table is not supported by the fn 5 reference given.

That's it for me, I hope that helps.. --Bill william comptonTalk 11:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherfordium

[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 bringing it to FA standards. I think this GA is in good shape, but I would like more people to take a look at it before I send it to the pit full of hungry lions. I have two major worries: (i) MOS issues and copyediting (should be good, but it can always be better; and (ii) accessibility. The latter means that the article might not be very accessible to the casual reader, so I am interested in what I can improve, or alternatively get rid of without decreasing the informative part too much. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R8R Gtrs' comments

[edit]
  • I'd like to show not all images have alt texts, h letters standing for hours occur (the latter is really better); and "half-life", "half-time" and "half time" all occur, which I believe should be standardized. Also (that's only my way) not everyone would understand what, say, 267Rf is, and probably, scared of things too hard won't read it. Maybe more to come--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yeah, not everyone understands what 267Rf is, and appearing in the lead may be frightening for those who know nothing about these things--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chemical properties of rutherfordium were based on calculation which indicated that the relativistic effects on the electron shell might be strong enough that the p orbitals have a lower energy level than the s orbitals and therefore the element more behaves like lead. With better calculation methods and studies of the chemical properties of rutherfordium compounds it could be shown that rutherfordium behaves according to the rest of the group 4 elements.[10]" Sweet, but why in Naming controversy?
  • "264Rf 1? h unknown —" - reason to include in the isotopes chart?

I'll try to add more later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 242
    94    Pu
     + 22
    10    Ne
     → 264-x
    104    Rf
     + 3 or 5
    n
    . suggest to turn it to 242
    94    Pu
     + 22
    10    Ne
     → 264-x
    104    Rf
     + x
    n
     (x=3, 5)
  • (possibly unnecessary)"Depending on the energies involved, the former are separated into "hot" and "cold". In hot fusion reactions, very light, high-energy projectiles are accelerated toward very heavy targets (actinides), giving rise to compound nuclei at high excitation energy (~40–50 MeV) that may either fission or evaporate several (3 to 5) neutrons.[11] In cold fusion reactions, the produced fused nuclei have a relatively low excitation energy (~10–20 MeV), which decreases the probability that these products will undergo fission reactions. As the fused nuclei cool to the ground state, they require emission of only one or two neutrons, and thus, allows for the generation of more neutron-rich products.[12] The latter is a distinct concept from that of where nuclear fusion claimed to be achieved at room temperature conditions (see cold fusion).[13]"Reading this para, I don't realize why they use hot fusion reaction at all. Maybe a word on it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Family (season 1)

[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 seeing if it is ready to be a featured list

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

Ickenham

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've added a lot to the article recently and hope to nominate it for Good Article status soon. However, I'm not sure about the use of references for schools in particular - should these become in-line external links like the sports clubs are listed?

Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a decent effort to highlight what might be considered a rather anonymous area of outer London. However, I have had some difficulty in getting to grips with this article, which at present has quite a few problems, and I believe that the GA nomination is premature. I have only been able to look closely at the lead and first couple of sections - my comments are below. There does seem to be a general prose weakness; attention from a skilled copyeditor might be called for.

Lead
  • The lead needs to be redrafted to comply with the requirements of WP:LEAD, that it be a concise summary of the whole article, rather than a collection of individual details.
  • Non-neutral statements such as "The area has a rich history..." should be avoided.
  • "14th, 15th and 16th century..." That's "centuries"
  • Prose needs considerale polishing; an example of an awkardly worded sentence: "The sale and development of much of the estate of Swakeleys in 1922 also brought with it many new homes, with the resulting expansion of Ickenham becoming part of what came to be termed 'Metro-land'".
Toponomy
  • Nice Domesday quote. Should be prefaced: "The second entry reads" not "read"
  • It would help if the reader was informed, perhaps by paranthetical note, that "hide" and "virgate" are old land measurements - around 60 and 30 acres respectively I think.
  • "1st and 2nd centuries" (plural)
Early developments
  • Punctuation problems in, for example, "The original lord of the manor of Ickenham was Geoffrey de Mandeville from whom it passed to William de Brock and then to John Charlton in 1334, whose son John owned Swakeleys from 1350." This needs punctuating and rephrasing along the lines: "The original lord of the manor of Ickenham was Geoffrey de Mandeville, from whom it passed to William de Brock and then, in 1334, to John Charlton whose son John owned Swakeleys from 1350." Check for similar instances.
  • Who, or what, are "the Shorediches"?
  • Dodgy grammar, e.g. "The Shorediche family built their manor house on a track off Long Lane, which they originally named Ickenham Hall but subsequently changed to Manor Farm." In this phrasing, "which" refers to Long Lane rather than the manor house.
  • Who are "the Crosier family"?
  • It would be useful to have more date indicators, covering the various transfers after Charlton's widow's life interest expired.
  • There is some confusion in the second paragraph, which seems to be offering a different history of Swakeleys. The use of the house during the Second World War is out of place here, in a section headed "Early developments".
  • Again in the next paragraph, you are mixing early with modern history, by introducing the 1980's covenant with the United Reform Church.
  • What do you mean by "the focus of the area"? Propbably better to say "A significant landmark in the area..."
  • Charlotte Gell donated the pump in 1866 – but she died in 1863. Reword this to avoid puzzlement on the part of readers.
  • There are lots of repetitions in this paragraph's prose that need attention. "Pump" should not be capitalised after first mention. Again, I don't think that 19th century developments, which are relatively recent, properly belong in this section given its title.
Generally
  • I have not looked at the later sections in detail, but there seems to be a rather large number of very short sections. It would be better if some of these were either extended, or merged.
  • I noted a few minor MOS infringements, e.g. use of hyphen rather than ndash, use of bullet-points rather than prose.

There are enough points here to enable you to make some significant progress with the article. As I am not able to watch individual PR pages at present, please contact my talkpage if you wish to raise points from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macomb County Board of Commissioners

[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 think I am almost done for now. Any constructive suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Macomb13 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

  • Does this satisfy WP:NOTABILITY?
  • Topics that could be expanded or elaborated upon:
    • History (Has the county always this form of government? When the county recieved its charter? Changes the board has gone through since being formed?)
    • the powers of the board (what they can and cannot do; Any checks and balances with the county executive or county judicial system?)
  • Sources needed:
    • the Michigan law that gives the board of commissioners its power (most state governments have online copies, so you could cite the law directly)
    • You also could cite the county's charter on matters relating to its structure and operation.
  • You could add an {{Infobox legislature}}
  • A photo of where they meet would be a good idea (either of the chamber or the building it's in)

Interesting article. Don't often see articles on county governments (usually cities). You just need to make it a bit more comprehensive (add background and explain things so that people unfamiliar with Michigan or Macomb County can understand it). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Notability may be an issue, though more trivial topics have been accepted. The main problem here is the article's lack of structure and content. The article needs to conform to the basic WP requiremets of a summary lead and conemt sections. In the references, authors and dates should be given for newspaper sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ring the Alarm

[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 take it to FA later. I know it is far from meeting the required criteria. That's why i am nominating it for a PR.

Thanks, Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • I've done some copy-editing on first half of the article, feel free to revert. I would suggest, however, that you also get someone from WP:GOCE to look it over
  • See list of dead/broken links here
  • "Ring the Alarm" or "Ring The Alarm"? Use consistent capitalization
  • Be consistent in whether you refer to the artist using her first or last name. If you choose the latter, be consistent in whether you use Knowles' or Knowles's for possessives
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms and don't repeat links, particularly not in close proximity
  • File:Ring_the_Alarm_low.jpg and File:Ring_the_Alarm_video.jpg - who owns copyright to these images?
  • Check for consistency in MoS details - whether you use "US" or "U.S.", etc
  • Is Rihanna just a pop star, or an R&B-pop star? You use both
  • "while Irreplaceable (2006) was serviced internationally as the album's second single" - could you clarify this? I'm not sure what it means
  • WP:W2W and WP:NPOV - be sure you're phrasing things as neutrally as possible, and avoid potentially nuanced synonyms for "said"
  • The quote from Matthew Knowles doesn't really seem related to the artwork issue
  • "She also stated that the album was completed in three weeks, and that was the reason most of the record's content sounds aggressive" - not sure I follow this argument. What does the time frame have to do with its emotion?
  • Make sure the text is accessible to non-specialist readers. For example, what is a "neo-warm vibe"?
  • "If you're in a relationship, even if the man's cheating and you end up not wanting him, the thought of another woman benefiting from the lessons you taught him" - this isn't a complete sentence, is there more to the quote?
  • "threatened girlfriend" - this phrasing is a bit ambiguous, as it more often refers to a victim of domestic violence. Can it be made clearer?
  • Be sure to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times, and avoid colloquialisms
  • "she honestly was not aware of the rumors that had been circulating" - what rumors? You're assuming that readers will be familiar with the Rihanna-Brown saga, which especially for non-Americans may not be the case
  • The first few sentences of "Release" need to be clearer - I'm finding it hard to follow what's going on
  • "including the Karmatronic Remix, Migtight Remix, Tranzformas Remix, Pha Remix and Grizz Remix" - are these all titles? If so, they should be in quotation marks
  • "Sarah Rodman complimented...He also commented" - unless Sarah's male, something's missing here
  • ""Ring the Alarm" was received by the public with polarized responses", "Billboard viewed "Ring The Alarm" as another female empowering track of Knowles", etc - phrasing is a bit awkward
  • The part about her falling down the stairs receives a bit too much coverage here
  • Citations needed tags need to be addressed

I didn't check references here, but you should make sure they are all formatted consistently and meet WP:RS. If you have any questions about any of the above, feel free to ask here - I've got this page watchlisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Nikki. I will fixed the things you mentioned soonest possible. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptic gating

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I really liked the diseases section, theories of how synaptic gating can result in ADHD and schizophrenia. I can imagine that sources for such information are hard to find but as the site suggests, more citations and details are encouraged. You have to keep in mind that the general public may read this article as well. I think you can do a better job explaining terms and mechanisms. At least, you can create links for the terms so that people can have direct access when they need to refer to them. I am interested in biochemistry and would like to see specific examples regarding modulations. What is the gating signal and what molecule in the neuron allows it to play the gatekeeper role? Again, I can imagine that information is hard to find but I'm sure there are research on the topic (like the Gate theory of pain) that cover potential molecules that play important role. Maybe you can add a history section that briefly describe past research and what conclusions, if any, each research was able to reach. Also, I don't quite understand the biological AND gate and would like to see an explanation of it. Thanks, Young B. (talk)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but it may be a bit too technical currently for the average reader. Thanks for your work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD better and provide an accessible overview. As WP:LEAD says in part "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
  • 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. As it is though, the NMDA and AMPA glutamate receptors are only in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Schizophrenia and ADHD are not in the lead (though they are two sections)
  • I would avoid saying "see also" in the lead - try to work the link in more naturally. Links can also be piped so that a somewhat different version of the text still leads to the same link- if you are not sure how to do this, please ask on my talk page.
  • The article needs more references. For example, the Modulation of interneurons section has no (zero) refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I would probably include some background information on neurons, how they function, and how they form circuits. This would help to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
  • The headers do not follow WP:HEAD - avoid repeating the name of the article in a header if at all possible. So "Syaptic gating and disease" could just be "Relation to disease" or "Role in disease" - the reader already know this is an article about synaptic gating
  • The Current and future research secion is one sentence that basically says no one knows what causes this (or at least the bistability of neurons). I would combine this with another section - it adds little to the article to have it as its own section.
  • Any chance for some free images - perhaps some of the neuron or neuron circuit images might work? Or even a logical gate diagram?
  • Article is pretty short, so not much else to say - try to find other articles to link it to in order to get rid of the Orphan tag.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Thunder (chocolate bar)

[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 feel that the page has reached FA standards. It was recently promoted to Good Article status and I think it's ready for Featured Article status. It would be great for any editors to make any comments/concerns.

Thanks, Doh5678 Talk 22:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

  • A cookie bar? I have never heard of that term before. Both chocolate bar and candy bar are used far more often in the artichle than cookie bar. I'd try to be consistant with those terms.
    • Wording modified.
  • Move the photo showing the unwrapped bars up to the "Product" section (might as well show the actual product as you describe it).
    • Done.
  • As it has a tendacy to become out of date fast, including a currency conversion for the price usually isn't advisable.
    • Deleted.
    • Also, the retail price is not mentioned anywhere else in the article (anything in lead should be mentioned elsewhere in the article as well)
      • Fixed.
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should also be a summary of the article (mention things like when the bar was first created or became popular)
      • Lead expanded.
  • "...though some of these may be seen in the Gallery section." — This seems like an unnecessary self-reference
      • Is it self-reference if it refers the reader to the same article? Deleted Gallery reference.
    • Actually, I'd remove the gallery altogether and replace it with a {{Commons category}} (I note there is no relevant category on Commons yet, but I could set one up if you'd like)
  • The source you provide for the silver medalist does not mention any corresponding rise in sales of Black Thunder bars
    • Also, there is no source for the company sponsoring the gymnastics team.
      • Additonal references and/or in-line citations provided for following assertions: the athlete and team were sponsored by Yuraku, the athlete stated to the press that he liked the Black Thunder bar, and sales doubled from 2008 to 2009.
  • I'd replace the whole "Nutritional information" section with {{Nutritional value}}
    • Incompatible in this context. Template box states: "Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)". Although I have the information about kcal, fat, etc. per bar, I can't confirm that 1 bar = 100g.
      • Actually, it appears that that can be overridden with |serving_size= 1 bar, but using the template is not a big deal. Also, I note there is no source for the nutritional values, either. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does one cite candy bar wrapper? I'll look on the website, I'm pretty sure I saw the nutrition info on there somewhere. Do you think I should include the ingredients? Boneyard90 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not sure; has that ever been done before? I believe this is website you are looking for [2]. I'd avoid listing the minor ingredients such as preservatives and the like, but I believe already mentioned the most obvious ones (chocolate and crisped rice). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 05:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a photo of a "Tiny Thunder" bar, but no mention of it in the article.
  • "The Golden Chop appears to be an imitation product, though apparently legal." — This reads like original research
    • Deleted.
    • "Since that time, other imitation products have appeared on the market." — A citation for this would be helpful as well.
      • Deleted.
  • Is the second external link necessary?
    • Deleted
      • Reverted. Yes, I felt it necessary. The clothing line is mentioned in the text under Related Products. The images are of course copyrighted, so I can't download and add them to the article, so instead I linked to an image of an example product, one that examplifies the wording, "[sporting] black or gold lightning designs."
  • More citations are needed, in general with "every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph".

This needs a little work before going to FAC, citations, some copyediting as well. I confess, after reading this, I went out and got a candy bar, not a Black Thunder bar, but still... ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you, I'll get to work on your suggestions soon. A couple of points I'd like to address: (1) the candy bar Twix refers to itself as a cookie bar, which seemed an apt description, for it and for Black Thunder. The term "cookie bar" isn't mentioned in the Twix article, but notice the wrapper in the photos. (2) I had a photo of the "Tiny Thunder" bar, but I din't mention it in the text because I didn't have an outside reference; so I thought it "safe" to include in a Gallery, which I didn't think needed references. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What confused me with cookie bar is that its linked to candy bar, which doesn't mention it either, also Black Thunder is disambiged with chocolate bar in the title. It is not so much that you needed references to include a photo of the Tiny Thunder bar, but if it is not mentioned in the article, then one could not consider the article to be comprehensize (one of the criteria for FA). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'll take steps to rectify those issues. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dugong

[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've put a lot of work into it recently, roughly guided by other related FA's such as Killer Whale, and would like to know how it could be further improved (to both GA and maybe FA). Any comments welcome, be it on information you think should be in the article but is missing, or prose problems.

Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Basically this is very interesting stuff, particularly as I know little or nothing of these creatures. However, prose and punctuation are erratic in places, which make the article quite difficult to understand at times. Sometimes an explanation in plain language is necessary, rather than a linked technical term. I have only been able to work through the lead and the first few sections; here are my initial comments, and I will try to provide more a little later.

  • The lead section does not as written seem to comply with WP:LEAD, which requires that the lead be a broad summary of the whole article. At present it is more an assembly of introductory facts, not all of which are reflected in the body of the text.
  • Is there a contradiction here: "four extant species of the Sirenia order" followed shortly by "The two extant families of Sirenians..."
  • "after which the dugong's..." Isn't this a simple plural, therefore no apostrophe? Then there's a clash with "its closest relative".
  • "the population of Southeast Asia are distinct from the others" → "the population of Southeast Asia is distinct from the others.
  • "The word "dugong" derives from the Tagalog term dugong which was in turn adopted from the Malay duyung, both meaning "lady of the sea."[14] Other common local names include "sea cow," "sea pig" and "sea camel." This information should be referenced in the lead, and should appear earlier in the article.
  • What does "fusiform" mean?
  • "to a brownish to dark grey with age". Some hyphens would help to clarify: "to a brownish-to-dark grey with age."
  • "A dugongs brain can reach only 300g..." I'd rephrase this: "A dugong's brain weighs a maximum of 300g..." (note apostrophe) You should also supply an imperial conversion. The word "entire" in the following phrase is unnecessary.
  • Explain momomorphic.
  • Another missing apostrophe: "A males testes..." There are more; this aspect of prose needs thorough attention.
  • "a sharply downturned premaxilla, which are..." "a" cannot be followed by "are"
  • "The dugong has two incisors (tusks) which grow posteriorly until puberty, after which they first erupt in males." What does this mean?
  • The "dental formula" is expressed in terms which are incomprehensible to the general reader.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excitatory synapse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this article had all the necessary information in a nutshell. However, I think it would be better to have more details on all of subheadings. For instance, more of biochemistry and mechanisms involved in the chemical synaptic transmission would better elucidate the article overall. You can mention where electrical synapses are mainly found within our nervous system (to add to the chemical vs electrical synapses heading). You also mentioned that the first electrical synapse was discovered in crayfish and maybe you can add a research section describing the finding and discuss current ongoing related research. Also, I think you can add more links to your article to better accommodate the viewer. (e.g. NMDA receptor, AMPA receptor, G-protein coupled receptor, hypothalmus, etc.) Thanks, Young B. (talk).

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but I wonder how this kind of synapse differs from a regular synapse. There used to be a separate article on inhibitory synapse, but that is now a redirect to Inhibitory postsynaptic potential. Since there is also an article on Excitatory postsynaptic potential, would it make sense for this to merged there too? Or to the regular synapse article? Thanks for your work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD better and provide an accessible 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. As it is though, the "influx of positively charged sodium (Na+) ions" is only ion the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several sections and subsections are not in the lead that I can see - Diseases and most of the neurotransmitters are not explicitly in the lead.
  • Wikilinks are generally at first occurence of a word in the lead - so move the neuron link earlier.
  • Also make sure that abbreviations and names follow the name used in the main article(s) here on Wikipedia so they are consistent. So This phenomenon is known as an excitatory potential (EPSP). should be This phenomenon is known as an excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP).
  • The tag at the top of article says the article needs more references. By the way, such a lack of references tag is enough to disqualify this from PR. There is one "citation needed" tag.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Although this seems to have lots of refs, the one I checked does not back up most of the information in the sentences it is used for. The sentences are Like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s Disease lacks a cure. Therefore, in addition to lifestyle changes and surgery, the goal of pharmaceutical drugs used in the treatment of PD patients is to control symptoms and limit, when possible, the progression of the disease. Levodopa (L-DOPA), the most widely used treatment of PD, is converted to dopamine in the body and helps to relieve the effect of decreased dopaminergic neurons in the central nervous system. Other dopamine agonists have been administered to patients in an effort to mimic dopamine’s affect at excitatory synapses, binding its receptors and causing the desired postsynaptic response.[11] and current ref 11 is to a PubMed Health page on Parkinson's Disease. However this page does not even mention synapses or synaptic response or receptors or the word excitatory.
  • The refs used in the article need more information - for example current ref 11 needs a publisher and access date. In general, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • The toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page shows two dead external links that need to be fixed.
  • I would probably include some more background information on neurons, how they function, and how they form circuits. This would help to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
  • Article is pretty short, so not much else to say - try to find other articles to link it to in order to get rid of the Orphan tag.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

[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 pretty much meets the "The perfect article" criteria. It has recently been promoted to GA status, and I'm wondering what areas the article need to be improved. I think that, with some effort and collaboration, it can achieve FA status quite easily.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 06:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. Thanks for your work on this.

  • The External link checker in the toolbox on this page finds 9 or more ELs that are dead or problematic and will need to be fixed before FAC.
  • The same toolbox has a disambiguation link finder which finds one dab link (may be the dab at the top of the article??)
  • I did some minor copyedits as I read - please revert if I introduced errors or made things worse.
  • Abbreviations like GD need to be spelled out on first use, so "General Dynamics (GD)"
  • I think this needs a ref right after the period per WP:MOSQUOTE: ACF also raised the stakes for GD and Northrop because it brought in further competitors intent on securing the lucrative order that was touted at the time as “the arms deal of the century”.
  • Why does the Overview section have no references? I think it needs them.
  • Operational history, United States needs more refs too.
  • I would combine the two short paragraphs for Pakistan in Operational history. Also not sure if it would be better to have a Pakistan and other nations section here.
  • If Yonatan Begin did not survive the crash (seems like he did not), I would say so explicitly
  • Does the Notable appearances in media really meet WP:Summary style? Why not just make it a See also link instead?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lympne Airport

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get this to FA status. The article has had a copyedit as part of the GA process, and it is now GA rated. The airfield had a strong involvement in the development of aviation navigation and aviation safety during the 1920s and 1930s. It was also involved in the development of package holidays as part of the tourism industry in the 1950s and 1960s. It served in both world wars, basic history in this article, details of units operating from RAF Lympne are in that article.

Thanks, Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. While a lot of work has clearly gone into this and it has a huge amount of information, I worry about its organization and that in some ways it would not meet the comprehensiveness criterion at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

Establishment

  • I think in terms of comprehensiveness that some more material is needed here. Some of it is about the infrastructure of the airport itself - there is a lot of material on uses of the airport, but relatively little on the airport's physical plant - how big was it (area)? How long was the grass landing strip? What sort of hangars and other buildings were there? At least some of this is in one of the current External links (canvas hangers, huts for airmen, other structures added later).
  • I also wonder if there couldn't be a bit more background on the site - why was there a large open area there suitable for an airfield? What is the etymology of Lympne? Even basic descriptions of its geography on the coast and the Channel, between France and London would help the reader understand why it got the traffic and attcks it did.
  • I would also mention the First WOrld War explicitly here. It is in the lead, but needs to be in the body of the article too (and not just a reference to after the end of the war as it is now)
  • Be consistent on little things - so is it "120 Squadron" or "120 squadron"? Both are used...
  • The lead (and article) uses the word Lympne an awful lot - I know some of this is unavoidable, but can other terms be used - the airfield? the airport? the aerodrome? even the facility? You get the idea.

Civil operations 1919–29

  • I understand that each paragraph in this section corresponds to a year, which is one way to organize the material. I have to confess though that it seems pretty choppy and disjointed to do it this way. It is your call, but I wonder if a thematic arrangement would work any better. So, for example, there could be a paragraph or two on customs and overseas commerical flights, while another paragraph could be on the various signals and aerial lighthouses used. Still another could be on its proximity to the Channel and France and all that involved. I am not sure if that would work or not, but it might bear consideration
  • Even if it is not organized in this way, I think there could be more organziation to make things clearer to the reader. So the 191 paragraph could start with something like even though the RAF had left late in the previous year, the ban on civil flying was not lifted until May 1, and Lympne had its first plane fly in that day. Then perhaps talk about customs starting that month.
  • I guess the thing that I am trying to get at here is that the story gets lost to some extent in a strictly year by year recitation of events. I think that the average reader will find a thematic approach, or even one that provides more context easier to follow, than having to remember that this also happened last year and some years before that.

1930-1939

  • I would try to avoid needless repetition wherever possible. For example some variant of No. 601 Squadron RAF had there annual camp there appears 10 times. I do not think the name needs to spelled out each and every time, nor do we need their aircraft spelled out each time. So again if this were organized more thematically, there could be some overarching statement that the RAF began using the airfield for camps in YEAR. Then something like In late August and early September 1926, 601 (County of London) Squadron AuxAF [spell out?] held its inaugural camp at Lympne. The squadron was equipped with Avro 504 and de Havilland DH.9A aircraft.[53] 600 (City of London) Squadron, which flew the same aircraft, joined 601 Squadron for the camp in August in 1927 and 1928. Late in the 1928 camp, Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill and Under Secretary of State for Air Sir Philip Sassoon inspected both squadrons and were entertained at a dinner.[68] 601 Squadron returned to Lympne eash August in 1929, 1930, and 1931. In the August 1933 camp 601 Squadron, now equipped with Hawker Harts, were visited by the Marquess of Londonderry, the Secretary of State for Air.[86][87] etc etc I think this would trim the size a bit and make it flow better.
  • In a similar vein, avoid WP:OVERLINKing. Royal Air Force is linked quite a few times, when the convention is to link once in the lead and perhaps once more in the bosy of the article.

General comments

  • I also wonder if some of the separate sections after History might be better as subsections in History - so for example there is a section on the Cinque Ports Flying Club, but there is more material on the club in the paragraphs on 1928, 1938, during WWII, and also a mention that it was restarted in 1946, foleded in 1948 (these last two are duplicates) and then the history that it was restarted in 1964 and moved in 1984, which is not in the section on the club at all.
  • Seems odd that there is more detail on things in the 1920s and 1930s than on WWII and especially the 1960s, 70s and 80s. How many passengers flew out of here when it was a commercial airport? The FLickr photo (below) gives a passenger number for the new terminal built there in the 1960s.
  • I would consider spinning some of the material off into daughter articles - perhaps a list of accidents, and another on racing?
  • A map showing some of the other airports and places mentioned prominently might help
  • I like the one photo of an aircraft - could more be added?
  • I also note the external link to the Kent County COuncil website has some photos of RAF buildings still standing - could modern photos of these be obtained?
  • There is a great aerial photo of the airport in the 1930s here and here - perhaps fair use?
  • As far as comprehensiveness goes, I expected more on the closure of the airport and on its modern use as an industrial park. The latter is only in the lead really
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Conduit

[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 feel that after years of editing, the page has finally reached FA standards. Unlike most video game related articles seen on the site which focus mostly in in universe aspects, The Conduit article gives a detailed account on the creation of the game, such as the technicals behind the creation of the games engine and audio creation, as well as games marketing and release. As a side bonus, it would be fun if the article was featured in time for the sequels release.

Thanks, Little Jimmy (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seegoon

As someone who knows zip about this game and has never really looked at a video game article in any depth, I will make a great naive reviewer but a useless expert. What the hey.

  • Per WP:LEADCITE, the only things you really need to cite in the lead are assertions which are super contentious or direct quotes. Hopefully anything mentioned in the lead is repeated later in the article, so you should really be able to remove all the references.
  • "In addition, as the player explores the game more subtle clues in the environment, such as a precisely placed object in a certain historical location, can be discovered which are meant to provoke questions about elements of the story." – a big, long, snakey, ugly sentence.
  • I've seen that some video game articles cite the game itself as reference material for the plot section. Yours is entirely unreferenced. I'm not entirely sure what guidelines dictate here, but it's certainly worth taking a look at some recent VG FAs and GAs to check it out.
  • "In early June 2009, the developer announced that The Conduit had gone gold" – although 'gold' is linked here, this is the sort of thing a lay reader wouldn't understand. Could you clarify this, do you think?
  • "supplied motion captured animation for The Conduit" – not sure 'animation' needs linking here.
  • "...recordings from the Wilco album Yankee Hotel Foxtrot taken from the..." – album titles should be italicised.
  • "Dolby Pro Logic II surround sound.[41]." – you have a stray full stop after the citation here.
  • "file through amazon.com. [51][52]" – stray space between full stop and citation.
  • "The Conduit has received mixed to positive reviews." – so many reception sections start with something like this. It's cookie cutter and unimaginative; surely an article as well-written as this one deserves something with a little more flair?
  • "a metascore of 69% at Metacritic based on 79 reviews." – citation needed.
  • Reference-wise, you're in very good shape. Reviewers will be quick to pick up on the paucity of print media and the two glaring deadlinks, as well as a little bit of inconsistency (i.e. ref #76 vs #66).
  • Now that I've reached the end, I can see that there's a little structural deficiency. Much of the release information from the lead isn't replicated in the body, as it realistically should be. The lead is supposed to summarise the important information from the body into a couple of paragraphs, but it feels more like an excerpt from a 'Release' section. I'd say that you need a brief rundown of commercial and critical reception within the lead, and to move some of the detailed release info elsewhere.

You've done a great job here. My limited comments are a testament to that fact. I expect that once my concerns have been addressed, this'd sail through GAC; I'm not so sure about FAC. I hope my comments have been a help! Seegoon (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to incorporate you're advice into the article when I get the time. Plus GA would probably be a better start than FA. Cheers!Little Jimmy (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun Also Rises

[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 soonish. This July is the 50th anniversary of Ernest Hemingway's suicide, and I am hoping to nominate this page for TFA if it is finished in time. Any comments are welcome. Thanks, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry I'm not able to contribute an in-depth review, but a quick glance made me wonder why the publication history section was so low in the article. It seems that a book should be published before it is analyzed, etc. See The Open Boat, for example. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. That section has been bothering me and I didn't know why exactly but probably because it was in the wrong place. I'll work on shifting it around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article briefly (try to make everything more concise):

  • maybe merge Background and Publication history somehow - the article is about the book, not the person so...
  • add info on how widespread the book was if that info is attainable
  • integrate "8 notes" into the article - i don't think most FA have those but you should check
  • "words—if only because there are so few of them—are" -- not sure what grammar rules you're using but it's pretty common to have a space after and before the "--" though i have seem them without the spaces; it's just unusual for me
  • "However Frederic Svoboda writes that, although written in a journalistic style, the striking thing about the novel is "how quickly it moves away" -- ok, this is just awful, in my opinion. it's choppy, with the dependent clause breaking the flow of the sentence. im guessing the rest of the article has phrasing problems; either get rid of the dependent clause if it's trivial and isn't significant, or rework the entire article.

After that last opinionated concern, I just stopped reading.rm2dance (talk)

Ruhrfisch comments: I've read some Hemingway, but not this. Not sure if this makes me a better reviewer, or just a more ignorant one. Anyway, this looks overall pretty good, so here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly language related. Thanks for your work on this!

Lead

  • Would the current first sentence be better as something like The Sun Also Rises, a 1926 novel written by Ernest Hemingway, is considered a treatise on the post-World War I generation, which was dubbed the Lost Generation. Still not perfect, but maybe this gives an idea? I spelled out World War I (instead of WWI). At FAC people might ask who considers it a treatise. I also wonder if "post-World War I generation" is accurate - sounds almost like the people born right after the war. What about something like The Sun Also Rises, a 1926 novel by Ernest Hemingway, is considered by many to be a treatise on the "Lost Generation", those who had lived through World War I. Ehhh - not sure if that is better or not.
  • Again might need attribution for FAC Arguably the best modernist novel of the period by an American...
  • Smoother with "and" instead of (or just after) the second comma? The setting was considered unique and memorable, presenting the seedy café life of Paris, [and] the Pamplona festival, with a middle section devoted to fishing in the Pyrenees.
  • Another one to tweak. First off can something be "equally startling" if nothing has explicitly been startling before? Equally startling was Hemingway's spare writing style, combined with his restrained use of description to convey characterizations and action, which [reflected what later] became known as the [his??] iceberg theory. Second I tried tweaking the iceber theory phrase - did he have the theory fully developed back when he wrote the novel?
  • I thought at first Jonathan Cape was a pseudonym - perhaps The novel was published by Charles Scribner's Sons in the US in October 1926, and by Jonathan Cape in the UK in 1927, as Fiesta. (Perhaps the last phrase could be "in 1927 under the title Fiesta.") Plus this way it is a parallel construction.
  • Lead says Jake is the hero, but plot says he is narrator (hero not mentioned there) and then in Writing style there is a paragraph which seems to say the novel has no hero, or only a weak and negative one.
  • I had to read this several times the first time through to understand it and it still trips me up each time. Perhaps it would be best split up into two sentences on themes? The primary themes are the notion that the post-WWI generation was a 'lost generation', decadent and dissolute, irretrievably damaged by the war; death; renewal in nature; and living life purely, to the best of one's ability in an authentic manner. So split as something like The primary theme is the notion that the post-WWI generation was a 'lost generation', decadent and dissolute, irretrievably damaged by the war. Other themes include death; renewal in nature; and living life purely, to the best of one's ability in an authentic manner.
  • MOS says not to use 'single quotes' unless they are for a quote within a quote - use "double quotes" instead (here and elsewhere in the article).

Background

Publication history

  • Publisher (singular) instead of publishers? Hemingway likely broke the contract with his publishers for the opportunity to have The Sun Also Rises published by Scribner's.
  • Problem sentence A first edition of the first printing, with dust-jacket and inscription by Hemingway, now sells at auction for between $80,000 and $120,000.[19] First off the ref is from 2004, so it is 7 years ago (not now). The ref needs the year added as well. Second the source was written as a preview and says that the book is expected to sell for this amount, but does not say what it actually did sell for. Perhaps something like In 2004 a first edition of the first printing, with dust-jacket and inscription by Hemingway, was expected to sell at auction for between $80,000 and $120,000.[19] Also, should this be its own paragraph or could it be combined with the preceding paragraph?

Plot summary

  • Tighten? In the opening scenes, Jake plays tennis with his college friend Robert Cohn, picks up a prostitute in one scene, and escapes with Brett from a gathering at a nightclub.
  • The MOS says to use full names at first mention, then just last names thereafter unless there are two or more persons or characters with the same last name. The plot summary does not follow this in several places - I am OK with calling Jake and Brett by their first names as this is done pretty consistently, but why are full names repeated in The jealous tension between the men builds; Mike Campbell, Jake, Robert Cohn, and Romero each love Brett. and why are just first names used in Cohn, a champion boxer in college, has fistfights with Jake, Mike, and Romero, whom he injures.? As someone who has not read the book, it is easier to keep track of characters if they are referred to by just one name. I think either first or last os OK as long as it is consistent (and perhaps if it follows the book's preference - i.e. Jake and Brett)

Writing style

  • Will people know that "blue-ink" means to edit?
  • Perhaps a different order would be clearer in Hemingway admitted that he learned from the Kansas City Star style-sheet, where he worked as cub reporter, what he needed as a foundation for his writing.[note 2][36] so something like Hemingway admitted that he learned what he needed as a foundation for his writing from the style-sheet for the Kansas City Star, where he worked as cub reporter.[note 2][36]
  • Assume that recibiendo is allowing the bull to impale itself - can this be made clearer? Perhaps add the name to the earlier description?
  • I would put the Masculinity paragraph and the second paragraph of Anti-semitisim and gender together as they both address similar themes. This would leave a one paragraph Anti-semitism section. If that is too short, maybe have one section for all three paragraphs called "Masculinity, gender, and anti-semitisim"? Not sure these three go together that well.
    • I've switched and will play with it. I've switched the organization a few times, but this seems to work fairly well. Truthkeeper88 (talk)

Reception and Legacy

General

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot - I'll start working my way through these this weekend and post questions and comments here as they come up. Very thorough, very good! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some typos and clarified a bit above. A few more thoughts.
  • Does the ongoing popularity of the running of the bulls stem from this? I once was briefly in Pamplona (not during the festival) and knew of it for this reason only.
  • I think the order of the novels needs to be made clearer - was The Sun also Rises his first novel or was The Torrents of Spring written first?
  • I keep thinking of the episode of the TV show Cheers where Sam the bartender is reading a first edition of this in the tub and comes to the part where he learns of Jake's war wond and drops the book into the tub water in shock. Nothing to do with this article, but just thought I'd mention it.

Ping me on my talk page when you want me to look at this again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by llywrch

Some random thoughts:

  • There's a redlink to "Boni & Liveright". Is this the same publishing house later known as Liveright? Odd that there is no article about this influential publisher.
  • In note 1, you appear to break format by quoting sources without the year -- e.g. "See Mellow 338-340".
  • There's a mention of a 1983 New York Times article which states this is one of the most translated books in publishing history. Any idea of what languages it has been translated into? (A list of selected languages would make the "Legacy & reception" section stronger.)
    • That is a very good question but sadly the source doesn't list the languages. I haven't found another source that lists the languages, but I think this is a good point and will keep digging. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has any secondary source explored a possible relationship between the protagonist of this novel, Jake Barnes, with Nick Adams the protagonist of some of Hemingway's short stories? these studies might deepen this article's coverage.
    • Nothing that I've found. But it's a good question and worth exploring. Jake seems to be very much his own character and at this stage of Hemingway's writing Nick Adams was still a boy, so my sense, and from what I've read, there isn't really a link. Will look into it though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Major themes", I notice that Max Perkins name was not linked. Since he is a notable figure for early 20th century literature, I added a link to his article.
  • In the sub-section "The corrida, nature, and the fiesta", you indirectly quote Harold Bloom about the theme of "escaping into the wilderness". While Bloom is an influential literary critic -- far more than I ever will be -- he still represents one opinion on this work. Any chance you could express some of this in a direct quote from him?
    • I will trawl through the history to see whether I had a quote at one point that I ended up paraphrasing to avoid a quote farm. That nature and wilderness presents a place of escape in Hemingway's writing is widely accepted. I simply chose Bloom to mix things up a bit. Would it be better to quote Bloom or to say "critics" and add multiple cites? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMHO, simply quote Bloom. The sense I would like to see conveyed in this passage is that this is an opinion -- albeit a very expert opinion -- not a fact. Unfortunately, some Wikipedia users don't understand the difference. -- llywrch (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things I like about this include the opinions his family had about the novel, & the fact this article does draw freely on the secondary literature. I suspect that many Wikipedians don't know about such tools as the MLA International Bibiliography; did you happen to know about this reference work?
    • Unfortunately I'm no longer a member of MLA and don't have access, but I do have access to other databases. Because there is simply so much written about this book I decided to lean on essays from compilations edited by well-known Hemingway scholars as well as papers from The Hemingway Review.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the MLA Bibliography only available electronically now? Years ago, it was published annually & available at reference libraries to anyone who knew it existed. (In other words, grad students, present & past MLA members, & a few people like me who'd been told about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The electronic version is here. Apparently they partner with Jstor, to which I do have access, with some of the sources coming from there. I don't know whether they still publish the annual hardcopy (but I do remember it well) and unfortunately am not close to a university library to visit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glia limitans

[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 … our initial work on this page was for a class project, however, we realize there is still a lot more work to do. We would greatly appreciate any suggestions or changes to continue this page's improvement. Any additional references, information or alterations of the current article are welcomed and encouraged.

Thanks, Oconnedp (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Glia limitans working with the BBB is really in the article (the BBB is only mentioned once in the article)
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but FCMD and EAE are not in the lead that I can see. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The lead is also supposed to be the most accessible part of the article to the non-expert, but this seems written at a pretty advanced level.
  • There is one disambiguation link in the article that needs to be fixed, to Microvessel
  • Article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of Location and structure has no refs, and there are several paragraphs with one or more sentences without a ref after the last ref.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Avoid words like "Current" in Current research - the problem is that things can become out of date quickly. It is better to use date specific contstructions like "As of 2011...."
  • The caption of File:Cerebellar cortex - intermed mag.jpg needs to make it clearer how this image relates to the glia
  • Not much else to say - pretty good for a first article - thanks again!
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

[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 much editing since the previous peer review and may be eligible for FA status.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maria

This is such an iconic film, so I'm glad to see that the article is being actively developed. While it's definitely heading in the right direction, I would not suggest nominating for FAC anytime soon. There are issues with the prose, as well as the coverage perhaps being a little too comprehensive. In short, the article is overly long and there are parts that are not well written enough for FA-status. Here are some specific concerns/suggestions for improvement:

  • I've used a bot to fix hopefully all of the dashes per WP:DASH, but be on the lookout for others.
  • I suggest asking for one, if not two, highly thorough and detail-orientated copy-editors for help with the prose. Things don't flow as easily as they should for an FA. For example:
  • The film follows high school senior Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick), who decides to skip school and spend the day in downtown Chicago. -- To avoid some of those pesky, parenthetical asides for the actors, how about: "Mathew Broderick stars as high school senior Ferris Bueller, who skips school to spend a day in downtown Chicago"?
  • The first sentence in the plot section is a run-on and therefore difficult to follow.
  • Another unwieldy sentence from the plot: Ferris even uses his ploys to pretend he is Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago, to dine at an upscale restaurant, Chez Quis, while narrowly avoiding his father, who is on his way to lunch with business associates.
  • Meanwhile, Mr. Rooney has gone off-campus to try to find Ferris -- "goes", not "has gone". Keep the tense active.
  • At the end of the day, Ferris and his friends retrieve the Ferrari... -- another run-on sentence.
  • As he was writing the film in 1985 Hughes kept progress on Ferris Bueller in spiral-bound logbook. -- Ferris Bueller the character, or Ferris Bueller the film? This sentence is also awkwardly constructed; I'm not sure what the point is.
  • The plot is too detailed, and oftentimes gets caught up in the "cute" minutia of the film. Yes, it's funny when Rooney gets stuck in the mud, chased by the dog, and then kicked in the face, but these details aren't necessary to understanding the plot in a succinct, encyclopedic way. See WP:WAF and WP:PLOTSUM for more info on how to write a concise plot summary; in short, it shouldn't simply be a recap of everything the film shows.
  • Because there is a separate "Cast" section, I don't believe cast-members need to be referred to in parentheses in the plot.
  • Be careful about linking obvious terms: kissing really stood out to me, but there may be others.
  • The "Casting section" seems strangely skewed towards Alan Ruck, with three paragraphs dedicated to him, with numerous quotes. I suggest cutting it down to one, since the other actors mentioned only get one paragraph. Can small mentions also be made of Jennifer Gray's casting? The parents?
  • Another point as to the article being too long: why does Grace the secretary get her own subsection under "Production"? Shouldn't this information be under casting?
  • An obvious red-flag in the FA department: the "Home media" section needs sources.
  • Speaking of sources, you may run into concerns from the FA-crowd because of the reliance on non-printed material such as websites and online articles. According to WorldCat, there are numerous books and articles dedicated to Hughes' films and career, some of which will almost certainly mention Ferris. If you have access to a library, you may be able to obtain some of these works via Interlibrary Loan. Some titles that pop out at me:

These are mainly general comments, but like I said I believe the article is headed in the right direction -- it just isn't there yet. My main suggestions would be: obtain a few copy-edits from well-trained eyes, work on the plot section per WP:PLOTSUM, and look into better sources. Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keoladeo National Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if it can make it to the list of featured article. I need your reviews, guidance and feedbacks in order to improve this article if need be, so that it may get the featured article badge.

Thanks, Nikhilchandra81 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

I'll take a look at the article with the idea that you would like to promote it to FAC. I see that you have not run it through the GA process. I recommend that you go there first. It is very valuable to have a GA reviewer stack the article up against the GA criteria. This is a lower bar than the FA criteria but it is a good place to start.

Lead

  • You link "National Park" to National parks of India. This isn't helpful as you are specifically discussing the Keoladeo National Park. Also it is a bit misleading to say National Park as that implies the Keoladeo National Park, when in reality you are discussing all the national parks in India (at least that's what I infer when you link it to that article). In the second paragraph in the lead you link to the National parks of India again. This is a more appropriate spot for the link and I would remove the earlier link. Also you only need to link the article once in the lead and perhaps once in the body. See WP:LINK for more info.
  • The green location dot is not on the India map, at least not in my Internet Explorer browser. This could just be an issue with my browser but I wanted to at least make you aware of it.
  • When stating measurement it needs to be in both metric and imperical (Km and Miles). You can use a conversion template: {{convert}}. I added one to the lead as an example. See WP:UNIT for MOS guidelines on this and please fix throughout.
  • Watch use of words like "highly" and "signficantly". This is an issue that crops up at FAC. Per the FA Criterion 1a the writing of the article should be at a brilliant and professional standard. Words like "highly" can be seen as peacock words and are not really necessary. I recommend you become familiar with User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. In this article user Tony1 makes the point that it is always best to say what needs to be said using the least amount of words possible. In otherwords don't say in 10 words what you can say in 5. Words like "highly", "very", "significantly" etc. are superfluous and will be identified as poor prose at FAC. This is not an issue you will run into at GAC but since you wish to push this article to FA standing I'm bringing it up here.
  • I have finished reading the lead only and there are prose issues that need to be addressed if you want to satisfy criterion 1a in the FA guidelines. Here are some examples:
  • "...sees (or saw) thousands of rare and highly endangered birds such as..." Does a refuge "see" birds? Perhaps "host". Also use of both present and past-tense is not adviseable. Keep it in the present tense.
  • Remove "mostly" same reason as above.
  • "...are known to have made..." Too wordy, replace with "make" and keep only in present tense. Tense agreement is very important. Give the current # of bird species only.
  • "It is also a major tourist centre with scores of ornithologists arriving here in the hibernal season." Restate: "Scores of amateur and professional ornithologists visit the park each year." Is there one specific hibernal season or do the various species have their own hibernal season making it a year-round destination for ornithologists? Also I'm sure it's a destination not just for professional but also amateur bird lovers right?
  • "It was declared a protected sanctuary in 1971. It is also a declared World Heritage Site." Don't use "declared" twice so close together. You probably want to combine these sentences thus, "It was declared and protected sanctuary in 1971 and made a World Heritage Site in (YEAR)."
  • "Keoladeo Ghana National Park" Remove "Ghana" it's not in the title.
  • "...earlier was primarily used as a waterfowl hunting ground." Remove "primarily" see above, and make its earlier use its own sentence.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article. Therefore it isn't necessary to put the number of every species. Simply state "The diverse habitats are home to several hundred species of plant and animal life."
  • "Every year thousands of migratory waterfowl visit the park for wintering breeding etc." Just say for wintering and breeding, leave the etc. out.
  • You discussed the Siberian Crane in the first paragraph, remove it in the second.
  • "It is known for nesting of its resident birds and visiting migratory birds including water birds. The rarest Siberian cranes arrive here to winter. According to Sir Peter Scott Keoladeo Sanctuary is the world’s best bird area." Already said, remove these sentences.
  • Those are some of the prose issues I've found in the lead. To get it to FAC the article will need to be thoroughly scrubbed with a detailed prose review.
  • The lead also needs to be a summary of all the major points with in the article. It should be a skeletal outline of the article. Please make sure every topic raised in the body is included in the lead. For example I don't see anything about the facilities or constraints or the 2007 crisis or any management issues. Those need to be summarized in the lead.

That's all the time I have right now to review. I'll jump into the body of the article as I have time, but I think I've given you some things to work on. Please apply what I said about the lead to the rest of the article, especially regarding the writing. I welcome comments though I won't watch this Peer Review page so if you have specific questions please leave them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • First off, the sourcing is deficient. Facts need to have in-line sources. I see two in-line sources in the first three sections. I add a [citation needed] template to the end of the first paragraph in the History section. The sections need to be adequately sourced for the article to pass GA and FA.
  • See WP:NBSP and WP:DASH. When giving a number followed by a descriptor, like 250 years you need to put in a non-breaking space. This assures that the descriptor will stay with the number on the same line. Also when indicating a span of time like 1850 – 1900 the "dash" needs to be an "ndash". The whys and hows are in the Manual of Style links.
  • You repeat in the second paragraph that the reserve was a private duck hunting park since 1850, not necessary.
  • "13 March 19S6" - 19S6? What is this?
  • I did some small grammatical clean up. A thorough grammatical edit is in order.

Getting there

  • Per WP:TITLEFORMAT section titles should have the first word capitolized and all subsequent words (except for proper nouns) should be lower case. Please fix throughout. Also no need to use "kms", km is fine and the template will fix that.
  • As above all distances should have the conversion to miles included.
  • I changed "...are most often used" to "can be employed" as it is difficult to source that private taxis are most often used vs. bus or train. Is there a reference to that fact?
  • Capitalization question. You refer to the Park and the Reserve using capitals. I think these should be lower case as these are not proper nouns. One could debate this so I'll simply say that whatever you decide to do make it consistent throughout the article.

Geography

  • Keoladeo (Bharatpur) National Park - I thought it was Keoladeo "Ghana" National Park. Please clarify and be consistent.
  • "...is a World Heritage Site situated..." - already stated that it's a world heritage site, watch duplication.
  • Watch terms like "approx". Abbreviations like this are not encouraged. Write it out completely.
  • "...Keoladeo National Park habitat is wetland systems with varying types of microhabitats having trees, mounds, dykes and open water with or without submerged or emergent plants." Too much information, end the sentence with microhabitats. I don't think the rest is necessary.
  • Link scientific terms like Dicanthium annulatum.
  • "Richness and diversity of plant life inside the Park is remarkable." I see a lot of sentence like this without appropriate articles. This sentence should start with "The".
  • There's a lot of unnecessary (in my opinion) detail in this section. Especially the discussion about water levels. Try to condense into a sentence or two.
  • "Arrangement to pump water from deep tube wells to fill small depressions to save seeds, spores and other aquatic life also exist." This could be said much more simply: "Water can be pumped from deep tube wells to fill small depressions in order to save seeds, spores and other aquatic life."
  • "They are also helpful in extreme years of drought." - "...helpful in years of extreme drought."

That's all I can do today. I probably won't get more reviewed until Monday. Again if you have specific questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

Biology

  • What are kalam or kadam, jamun and babul? It's a good idea to wikilink terms not familiar to readers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Fluid measurements such as liters need to be converted to imperials measurements as well.
  • "Forestly, mostly in the north-east of the park, are dominated kalam or Mitragyna Parvifolia, Jamun Syzygium Cuminii and Babul Acacia Nilotica." Two issues, the first part of this sentence is a repeat of a previous sentence in this section. Second issue is that to my knowledge "Forestly" is not an English word.
  • Again I see more biological terms like "Kandi Prospopis Spicigera and ber Zizyphus" with no links.
  • I think the terms of species like "gadwall, shoveler, common teal, cotton teal...." should be capitalized.
  • In the Waterfowl section is primarily a list of birds. Can this be expanded since the park seems to be very widely known for its birds. More to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to need to do something with the images. See WP:IMAGE and WP:ACCESS for thoughts on image placement. In my browser there is a large space between the title "Other species" and the text in this section. This is a formatting issue and has to do with the images and the text size of the surrounding sections. This will need to be addressed before the article reaches FAC.
  • What is a jungle cat and a fishing cat in the Mammals section? Aren't there more formal names like Puma or Jaguar?
  • Remove mention of bats from the mammals section as they aren't mammals. At least I don't think they are.
  • There is significant repetition between the species listed in the Mammals section and those listed in the "Other species" section. This should be corrected.
  • Watch use of bold text in the article. See MOS:BOLD for when to use boldface and when not to use boldface text.

Management

  • I'm not sure "Issues" is the right title for the section. To me I'm looking for management problems when I read a section entitled Issues. Perhaps "Goals" could be a more appropriate title. I'd have to think about it more though.
  • I thought the park was home to the Siberian Crane, but the Constraints section states that it is now gone. Am I confused? Perhaps this could be better worded.
  • I added a [citation needed] template to the statement about tensions running high. This should be sourced.
  • "Furthermore, recycled nutrients from the large quantity of dung deposited by livestock probably supported considerable numbers of insects." Don't use words like "probably". This indicates speculation, which should be totally absent from an encyclopedia.

Tourism and Visitor facilities

  • I would remove "facilities" from the title of this section. It is not just about the facilities but about the tourist draw of the park. Make it less specific.
  • Be sure to link the first use of the currency: Rs 200.
  • "The cycle rickshaw wallah’s displaying yellow plate meaning authorized double up as guides also carry binoculars." I'm not sure what to do with this sentence. It needs to be rewritten.
  • Change "wallah" to an English term.
  • I would discuss the various facilities open to tourists early in this section. Now you mention them piecemeal, the canteen the Forest Lodge etc. Discuss them all up front and then refer to them as you continue through the section.
  • "An array of 3 star hotels and resorts are also located in the vicinity of the park where visitors can stay cozily." Take out words like "cozily". Not professional and it makes the article sound like a travel guide.
  • I removed references to "in India" as this is obvious and unnecessary.

Scientific Research and Facilities

  • "including the ringing of birds for the last 40 years." Changing "ringing" to something like "tracking". It's unclear what ringing means.
  • "Particular attention will be given to any in dramatic change in the vegetation following the ban on grazing." Why is this in the future tense?

Crisis of 2007

  • Two issues here:
  • It's too technical, for example readers don't need to know exactly how many cubic meters of water the Bund needs to supply the park, or what type of pumps and pipelines are used.
  • The crisis was 4 years ago, what is the result of their work? There should be some results by now right?

References

  • See WP:CITE for information on what how to format your references. You need to use a standard form for all of your references. I recommend {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}. These are good templates that will autoformat your citations. All website references need an accessdate, publisher, and name of the article or website. This is a minimum.
  • Book references should be separate from website references. Also specific information pulled from the books should be cited in the article with the author's last name, year of publication and page number. See Olympic Games, which is an FA. It will give you a format for doing your references. There are a lot of different ways to do them, just make sure you pick one and be consistent.
  • The references you use also need to be credible. See WP:VERIFIABILITY for a good discussion on what makes a reliable source. For example reference 10 is a website to a tourist train company. Which isn't compliant with FA criterion 1c.

External links

  • The WCMC link is dead.
  • No luxury train links necessary. Wikipedia isn't an advertising site.

Overall I'll discuss my overall impression of the article, suggestions for fixes, and what I think you should do to get this article to FA standing:

  1. The foundation of the article is set, a lot of the writing has already been done. In that sense you're well on your way. Much of the heavy lifting is finished.
  2. What has been written needs to be polished. There are a lot of missing article like "the", "a", "and", "or" etc. The article needs a thorough prose and grammar scrubbing. Perhaps someone at WP:INDIA would be willing to help with this. You can also post a request at WP:GOCE or WP:REWARD. People may be willing to help there.
  3. The sourcing is very sparse and needs a lot of attention. The rule of thumb is that if you make an assertion of fact it needs to have a source. As stated above the sources need to be formatted consistently.
  4. I see a lot of references to the 1980's. See Climate, Management Constraints, and Scientific research and facilities. All of these sections discuss information and events in the 1980's. This is very dated. What has happened recently? Why is the information so old?
  5. My recommendation is that you do the work outlined above, then post it at WP:GAC. There you will have an independent reviewer stack the article up against the GA Criteria. This will help you know how the article is fairing against the Manual of Style. After the article passes GA review I would list it here again for another thorough peer review. At that point a lot of the glaring issues will have been addressed and it will be easier for the reviewer to nit pick through the article to pull out things that will need to be fixed in order to get it to FA standards. As it stands now there are too many fundamental things that need to be fixed before the article can be gone through with a fine-tooth comb. It's this very thorough review that will get the article ready for the FAC review process. This concludes my review. I hope it has been helpful to you. If so please consider reviewing someone else's article to keep the backlog down either here or at GAC. Again if you have specific questions please contact me on my talk page as I do not routinely watch this page. Good luck! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleic acid design

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is my first attempt at promoting an article to featured status, and I'm interested in any feedback that will help improve the article. Feedback I'm especially interested in includes: What improvements do the article need to fulfill the Good article/Featured article criteria? Which level do you think it is closer to? Also, is the article comprehensive enough, or does it need to be expanded further?

Of course, any feedback is welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • My guess is that this one won't make it at FAC, not because there's anything wrong with the article, but because it's a bit short and a bit technical. Most of the frequent reviewers probably won't be attracted to it in its current form. Still, when you're finished with this review process, I'll be happy to copyedit it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This article is more technical by its nature, and it would be hard to expand it without including even more technical detail. As it is, I've tried to keep it a succinct overview of the kinds of methods used by the field, but I'd be happy to get suggestions about any other aspects that it could be expanded to cover. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I do not think this owuld have an easy time at WP:FAC because of MOS and other issues. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are two FAs that I found that may be useful model articles: DNA and DNA repair
  • I would make it clear in the lead that the tertiary structure involves the three-dimensional structure of the nucleic acid. The lead is supposed to be an especially accessible overview of the whole article, less technical than the body, so anything like this to make the lead more understandable helps.
  • I think the article needs more references to pass at FAC. For example, in Fundamental concepts the three types of structure and this statement need refs: These goals can be achieved through the use of a number of approaches, including heuristic, thermodynamic, and geometrical ones. Almost all nucleic acid design tasks are aided by computers, and a number of software packages are available for many of these tasks.
  • The first paragraphs of Heuristic methods and Thermodynamic models also need refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Do not have external links in the body of the article - such as Software for thermodynamic modeling of nucleic acids includes Nupack,[6][7] mfold,[8] and Vienna[9]. These should be converted into references.
  • The mfold external link URL is incorrect, by the way.
  • There is a toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page. The disambiguation link finder finds one dab link that needs to be fixed.
  • I would avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs wherever possible - they make the narrative flow choppy.
  • One of the FA crteria is comprehensiveness - when I see four interesting sounding articles listed as Further reading, I worry that the article is not comprehensive. Can these be converted into references and material from them incoproated into the article?
  • In a related vein, the Applications section seems very short. Seems like more could be said there for all the information on approaches given.
  • I also note that there is no historical information given that I noticed. When did this field begin? How? Who? Who are some of the better know names in each of the approaches described?
  • Refs seem to be formatted properly and appear to all be from reliable sources.
  • Images seem to be OK in terms of licenses
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extensive comments. The referencing and style issues can be dealt with fairly easily. Three of the four articles in Further Reading are already used as references, and the fourth isn't just because it is new and I haven't taken a closer look at it yet. I like to use the Further Reading section to highlight reviews and books that a reader would actually want to look at for a deeper understanding of the topic, even those that are already used as references. In other articles Further Reading is often used as a dump for random references that aren't integrated as inline citations, and I seek to avoid that here. I can also fill out the Applications section and add a History section, but that will take a bit more work. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Colors

[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… Sonic Colors was a GAN, but it failed. However, I believe it has potential, and I'm now checking on the article and fixing any problems. Please take your time.

Thanks, Railer-man (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sjones23
  • Link where appropriate, but do not overlink.
  • Make sure that this article undergoes a thorough copyedit.

Other than the issues described above, this article looks good. Please take my comments into consideration. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is not a game I have ever played, so I am not sure if that makes me the best reviewer, but here are some suggestions for improvement. Thanks for your work on this article.

  • Since this had a pretty thourough review when it was at WP:GAN, the first thing I would do is make sure that all of the points in that review have been addressed.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are over 100 FAs in Category:FA-Class video game articles which should include some sueful models.
  • 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. However the release dates are only in the lead and in the infobox. This might just be me, but I think I would say something like it was released worldwide over a one week period in November 2010 in the lead and then but the actual dates in the body of the article.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see any mention of promotional items in the current lead - please see WP:LEAD
  • Agree this could use a copyedit - not sure what "an inconsistent difficulty" really means in Criticism included unresponsive controls and poor level design that led to an inconsistent difficulty. as just one example.
  • In Plot does the plot take place 2 years after the plot of the previous game, or is it just that this game was released in 2010 and the previous game was released in 2008?
  • Speaking of Sonic Unleashed, a) watch WP:OVERLINKing (it is linked twice in two sections - rule of thumb is to link on first mention in the lead and perhaps in the body of the article) and b) is it italicized or not (assume it is, but in Plot it is not italicized)
  • Some of the parts of Gameplay seem to need refs to me (may be a Video Game MOS thing)(I know plots are considered to derive from the work in question and so are usually unsourced).
  • Per the MOS, use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (unless it is for a quote inside a longer quote, then use single quotes there). This means to change several places like The DS version exclusive Wisps include the 'Red Burst', which allows Sonic to burst in midair ...
  • In Gameplay development I owuld identify who Takashi Iizuka is, since this is the first time he is mentioned in the text of the article (is in the infobox)
  • Avoid vague time terms like ...although the European region still has not received the album as of yet.[30] instead use something like ...as of April 2011 the album has not been released in Europe.
  • Needs a ref Another action figure was released by Jazwares that includes a 5-inch Sonic with two Wisps.
  • I do not undertand what the last part of this sentence means For IGN's "Best of E3 2010 awards", Sonic Colors was nominated for "Best Wii game", but lost to Epic Mickey, "Best DS game", and "Best Platformer".[49] Was it also nominated for Best DS Game and Best Platformer (assume so)? Did it win or lose in those categories?
  • Toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page finds one dab link that needs to be fixed.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wyntoon

[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 wrote 99% of this by myself and I wish to have some objective opinions about it, with a view to going to WP:GAN.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off thank you for undertaking the effort to bring this article to GA quality. I will review with the GA Criteria in mind.

  • I would consider renaming the first four sections from the name of the owner to something a little more descriptive. It's just my opinion though. You can use other articles about architecture or building history as examples.
  • There are some tense issues with this sentence, "The photos included ones of Hearst's communications office at Wyntoon, built next to Bear House to keep him abreast of current events." "Ones" and "communications office"? Can this be fixed?
  • I'd remove the "pampered" from "pampered dachshunds". Unnecessary opinionated detail.
  • Who is "Davies"? I don't see reference to this person until it says that W.R. Hearst and Davies stayed at Bear House during WWII.
  • I'm not sure what the death of the two dogs has to do with the house. It seems ancillary to the history. My opinion again.
  • Regarding References
  • From what I can tell ref 16 refers to the Freudenheim book, while ref 17 actually gives the full reference. Shouldn't these be reversed?
  • It appears as though Ref 4 and 24, the American Heritage references, are dead links. These should be fixed.
  • Overall it appears as though the article is in great shape. I would beef up the lead a bit. It's supposed to be a summary of the entire article yet I don't see much about notable visitors or what its status is today. I also think a bit more could be added to the summary, especially of the Hearst ownership, the acrimonious nature of how it was acquired by W.R. Hearst etc.
  • Other than that what I've said above I think you're in good shape and the article should pass GA without a problem. This concludes my review. Please consider reviewing an article here or a WP:GAC to alleviate the ever-present backlog. If you have specific questions please contact me at my talk page as I do not routinely watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Excellent points, all. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to see what's happened to the article since I started it as a stub some 16 months ago. — QuicksilverT @ 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An under-appreciated historic site, that's for sure. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have tackled the described problems, except for the bit about the dachshunds dying at Wyntoon. I left that in because their graves can be seen at Wyntoon, and their presence was an essential part of the stories people tell about the place. Going to WP:GAC! Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Knowles 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 because it failed at it got very negative comments FLC. I really do not understand what is wrong with it. I would really like someone who will help me write a better lead for the article. With very good prose.

Thanks, Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would like to establish that my comments were in no way meant to be offensive. I was trying to give constructive criticism. Anyways, the lead right now is look great. One-hundred times better than before. There is more detail, which is great. But I would like to see the overall sales in the last paragraph. I still have some issues with article though that should help you move along perfectly for FLC.

No hard feeling against you. It's just that everyone has his own opinion. You told me to expand the lead while another editor told me it is huge. There are too many conflicts in opinions. If i listen to you, the other one will tell me i went against him/her. This is the thing i hate here. And yes, the lead has never been huge. It's just that it was divided in six paragraphs which was the main issue. However, while working on it, i had restricted myself to only three paragraphs. Then i was told to separate it. Listen, i swear i do not have anything against you, my problem is that you all have different ways of thinking. While some want me to do x and y, others want the total opposite. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Gaga's discography cites her sales in the first paragraph. And i think this is probably the best introduction of an artist. Imagine people knowing nothing about Beyonce reading the article for the first time. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It works too. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • ""Ring the Alarm" became Knowles biggest debut on the US Billboard Hot 100, opening at number twelve in 2006." Seems trivial compared to other things. Remove.
You were the one to tell me to have a look at Taylor Swift discography. Her page mentions her biggest debut of her career. So why doesn't it have a place here? Please reply. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swift's debut was much higher, at number two and that ties for her best charting effort in the US. And Knowles has accomplished more on the Hot 100 than that. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So can i replace it with ""Beautiful Liar" which jumped 91 positions to land at number three on the Hot 100 chart, setting a record for the largest upward movement in the history of the Hot 100 in early 2007, until it was surpassed by Britney Spears' 2008 single "Womanizer""? Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to be added soon. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean i should use the same ten charts everywhere? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say in every section, whether it is albums, singles, promotional singles? And what if her live albums have not charted on the charts her live albums have charted? Or if they were not release there? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Again see the discographies I used for examples. They only have ten selected charts. If in a table, none of the releases charted, then you should drop the chart from that specific table. Just pick the best ten and you should be good. Anyways, any other peaks are left to the releases' actual articles. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this yesterday itself. Please have a look. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an improvement, but the "Live albums" section and "Remix albums" still add new charts. Also, for the notes in other releases, don't add every song there (add general info that can describe them). For example, in Irreemplazable you can put Spanish versions and remixes of tracks from B'Day. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean i should remove charts i have not used before? Like Portugal and Italy? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the notes, hmmmmmm i did not really understand. How can i replace them? Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am impatiently waiting for more. I am so eager to fix the issues for which so many editors voted oppose. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove music videos field in the infobox if that information is in her videography page. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man - a quick run through the obvious stuff I'd point out at FLC.

[edit]
Yes but can i do? Should I inflate the sales without exasperating or something like that? Please reply. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done yet. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you please tell me where? Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "As featured artist" section; under "Hollywood". Some browsers have a search tool. On Firefox push CTRL + F; at the bottom you will see this tool. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed and thank you for being so helpful. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Soundtrack appearances table formatted so years are repeated every line, and movie is repeated every line, while the singles tables are formatted using all manner of row spans? If this is "discog style" then it needs addressing to be consistent within the article.
Please have a look. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done yet. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting to this later today. Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But i did not do that purposely. The websites have the titles like that. Should it nevertheless be changed? Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire

[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 felling that the article is well written episode and should be ready for FA.

Any comments welcome. Please comment me on my talk page for any concerns. Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 10:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's doable, but right now this will need a lot of work to get to FA. There a numerous sources currently not in use, the article lacks reviews from the time and also lacks analysis. The books by Ortved, Turner and Pinsky have good analysis in them but have yet to be implemented, while I've found numerous potential books on Google Books. There are also hundreds of potential press articles (via Newsbank) many from 1989, which will have some use. Gran2 11:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all the comments above. Thanks for you work on this and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many WP:FAs on episodes of the Simpsons at Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles. The earliest (in terms of seasons of the Simpsons) episode that is a FA is Stark Raving Dad (Season 3) which seems like it would be a good model.
  • There is an external link checker in the tool box on this page and it shows two dead links that will have to be fixed before this would go to FAC.
  • As I read the article, it was not clear to me why they picked this particular episode to air first (since it was 8th made, why not any of the others?)
  • Comparing this with Stark Raving Dad, this article has a Prose size (text only) of 8996 B (1505 words) "readable prose size" and 19 refs. Stark Raving Dad has a Prose size (text only) of 16 kB (2871 words) "readable prose size" (almost twice as big) and 43 refs (over twice as many). I think this shows the article could be expanded quite a bit.
  • The FA crtieria - see WP:WIAFA include "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" This has critical reception from only two sources (both part of IGN) and both several years after it originally aired. To be comprehensive, more reviews and reviews from the time it aired are needed.
  • The other FA crterion this owuld have trouble with is "1(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (for many articles this is the most difficult criterion to meet). One example, from the lead The title of it alludes to "The Christmas Song", also known as "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire".[2] could be tightened to just The title alludes to "The Christmas Song", also known as "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire".[2] and there are several other places that could be polished. I would fix everything else, then get a copyedit.
  • By the way, 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. However the bit about "The CHristmas Song" is only in the lead that I can see. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS JUst saw an article on DYK about a TV episode with a lot more critical reception - Andy and April's Fancy Party May be a model. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your the peer review to Ruhrfisch and Gran2. That was very helpful. Thanks again! :) JJ98 (Talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Alston

[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 been utilizing the Archives of American Art and other resources to expand the original article. I recently completed a vast biography and detailed project the museum I work for regarding Alston's life and work. I've never had a peer review and felt like this was a great article to try it with. Images are hard to come by, that I know, except the illustrations Alston created for the military. Anyway, I'd just love some constructive criticism and thoughts on if I should continue to expand it (I feel like I've reached the limit of information that is worth exploring, honestly), what I should expand on if at all, and what steps I should take next to perhaps consider it for FA. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maria

Hi, Missvain, welcome to Peer Review! This is a very interesting article, and while art isn't exactly my area of expertise (that's putting it lightly), I enjoyed reading about Alston. First, I will suggest that after the PR you perhaps set your sights a little lower than FA; WP:GAC is a great step in the right direction, and doesn't require having to reach the increasingly high demands that FAC does. After that hurdle is jumped, FAC becomes a lot less intimidating! With the GA criteria in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I wouldn't worry about the lack of numerous free images -- most articles about contemporary artists don't even have three!
  • At only one sentence long, the lead does not fulfill WP:LEAD. Be sure that the first few paragraphs summarizes the article, hitting the important points of Alston's life and career. Where was he from? What is he known/remembered for? Keep in mind that many readers don't read beyond the lead/infobox, so make sure it's worth their while!
  • I see several books used as sources, which is awesome, but I don't see any page numbers. Per WP:CITE (specifically WP:Page numbers), "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited". Be specific; the more specific you are, the more helpful this article is to future researchers.
  • There may be some over-citing throughout the article. Are four separate citations needed to prove Alston's family moved to New York during the Great Migration, for example? Do these citations repeat themselves? If so, only one is needed. If one citation says something that the others don't, and that point is mentioned in the article, than list it as well.
  • Wikipedia uses what is called logical punctuation. It's annoying, and I don't know of anyone who actually likes it, but it's something that's always nitpicked by reviewers. I see a few instances in which the article is probably not following this guideline, so you may want to check throughout:
  • ...shows a black man standing against a red sky "looking as frustrated as any individual can look," according to Alston.
  • "...where facial features were suggested rather than fully formulated in three dimensions,".
  • Art critic Emily Genauer stated that Altson "refused to be pigeonholed,"
  • I fixed some dashes throughout per WP:DASH, but be on the lookout for others.
  • The references seem to be inconsistently formatted; are you using APA or something else? Make sure to italicize the title of the work, and decide whether to include the author's full first name, or simply the initials. Editorializing such as "Book that documents the concept of and recipients of Rosenwald Funds" is also frowned upon in high-quality articles; after all, if you include the full bibliographic info, people will be able to research the matter elsewhere.
  • As for the prose, with any editor hoping to make it to GA/FA, I suggest a copy-edit or two from someone with well-trained and detail-orientated eyes. WP:GOCE may be able to help with that, otherwise don't be afraid to ask someone with GA/FA experience to look it over for you. I notice a few things just from my quick read-through:
  • and was the youngest of five children. Only three survived past infancy: Rousmaniere, a daughter, and sons Wendell and Charles. -- This is confusing, so maybe it would help to combine these three thoughts into one cohesive sentence? He was the youngest of five children, of which only three—daughter Rousmaniere and sons Wendell and Charles—survived past infancy?
  • Locals described him in admiration as the “Booker T. Washington of Charlotte”. -- You mention both Alston and his father in the previous sentence, so the "him" here is ambiguous.
  • What does "Spinky" mean? Just curious.
  • His mother was a gifted embroiderer and tool up painting at the age of 75. -- tool up?
  • His father was gifted at drawing as well, wooing Alston's mother with small sketches in the medians of letters he wrote her. -- Because this is mentioned a paragraph after the Reverend's death, it seems very out of place.
  • he decided that math, physics and chemistry “was not just my bag” -- verb-disagreement: WERE. Also, is the quote correct? Should it maybe read "just not my bag"?
  • Be careful with the tone and use of slang. I know how difficult it is to keep an encyclopedic distance while writing a biography -- so often you want to depict that person's style/personality through prose! I see a few instances of "hang/hung out", and there might be others.

I believe those are the main points to consider at this stage. There aren't too many FA-art biographies, but you may want to look at those in order to get a better sense of where you'd like to go with Alston. Best of luck! I hope these comments help. María (habla conmigo) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landless Workers' Movement

[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 deals with multiple issues and has grown in a somewhat haphazardly fashion; it must be divided into sections that make reading easier and informations must be throughly redistributed into the relevant sections

Thanks, Cerme (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. This has two cleanup tags, so it could be denied a peer review, but here are the obvious things to be cleaned up I noticed on a quick look at the article.

  • The External Link checker finds 6 or 7 dead links that need to be fixed - see here
  • The disambiguation link checker also finds some problems - see here
  • The lead is not a summary of the whole article - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and 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 there are several sections that do not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Article needs more references, for example there are whole sections without refs (like Organizational structure and 2005 March for Agrarian Reform)
  • 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
  • There are quite a few direct external links right in the article - these should be converted to inline citations.
  • Make sure the External links follow WP:EL
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing and WP:NPOV
  • THis could also use a copy edit and the issues in the clean up tags at top need to be addressed and resolved.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Francis

[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 deals with someone who spent much of his working life in the USA but is barely known outside his native Brazil. I feel it needs to be put into a more general perspective; also, it must some be "streamlined" to comply with usual standards as far as English grammar and vocabulary are concerned. A list of references perhaps should be provided.

Thanks, Cerme (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Normally the disputed neutrality tag at the top of the article would disqualify it frm having a peer review (fix that first, then work on the rest of the issue). However, a quick look at the article reveals numerous other issues, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The current lead is only two paragraphs, each of one sentence, and needs to be expanded. 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
  • For expansion, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I would also avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they interrupt the flow of the article
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase - so fix things like Developing ambitions of following a career in the stage after that travel, Francis tried his hand as an actor in Rio de Janeiro during he early 1950s, but, although he received an award as a rising star in 1952, he failed to show talent enough to go on[3].
  • Article needs more references, for example the paragraph starting with In 1971, Paulo Francis moved to New York City as an international correspondent, on a Ford Foundation fellowship... has no refs
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some external links in the article need to be converted to inline citations / references. See for example In the wake of the late 1968 "coup inside the coup"—the takeover of the already existing military dictatorship by diehard generals—he was arrested four times, on the slimmest of pretexts.[23]
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure that all references used are from relaible sources
  • I know nothing about this man, but the language is very POV and needs to be WP:NPOV. For example who says this magazine was "legendary"? one of the editors of the legendary culture magazine Senhor...? Or this whole sentence except for the direct quotations Eventually he dropped out from Columbia—or perhaps was simply unable to receive a graduate degree because he had already dropped out from his undergraduate studies in Rio, a subject about which he was always less than candid[4]—showing a trait that was to plague him to the end: the inability to perform sustained intellectual work, and a tendency to bank instead on his flashes of wit and borrowed erudition (the use of incessant quotes and bon mots), something that made him prone to "mistakes,[5][6] imprecision, garbled recollections"[7] - a trait of what was to become his personal "method": "the absence of careful research, established facts, precise information [...] becoming eventually - through excessive generalization and lack of patience [...] - downright bigotry".[8] (and why are there two footnotes / refs inside a direct quotation? - numbers 5 and 6)
  • Any chance for a WP:FAIR USE image of him (hard to get a free image of him now, since he is dead).
  • The article has a large number of typos and grammatical errors (perhaps because English is the second language of some of the editors ??). For example a follower of Trotsky is a Trotskyist or Trotskyite (not a "Trotskyst" as one header uses) and a critique is not the same thing as a critic (the former is what a latter produces). This needs a copyedit, but the other issues need to be addressed first.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • Disambiguation finder tool (on this PR page) finds two dabs - see here

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walkden

[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 looking to see whether any improvements can be made. I'm eventually hoping that it would get to GA status, but I know it will need improvements before it gets to that status. Also please comment on what class you think it is.

Thanks, Doh5678 Talk 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis
  • First of all, the great needs to be greatly expanded.
  • The History section is currently weird, with just the two sections, one called "Early History". Perhaps make "Toponymy" its own level 2 section, and just have a single level two history section.
    • Done
  • Couple of unsourced statements dotted around, but in general quite well sourced. Statements such as "The Duke of Bridgewater was the biggest landowner in 1786, owning over half the land." definitely need a source.
  • Much of the history section seems to be a description of buildings in the town. Perhaps these should go in their own section, maybe merged with the geography section into "Buildings and landscape"? A geography section for a small town seems excessive, and the current one is obviously quite short, possibly reflecting this.
    • Made "Buildings" section, thought I'd keep "Geography" and expand it.
  • On the note of geography (or whatever that section is renamed), include any information about hills lakes and other features. I'd also suggest making the "Blackleach Country Park" section a subsection of this, rather than having it as a standalone level two section.
    • Done.
  • The education section needs more sourced. Be careful of descending into lists, expand more on each school and how education has developed over time.
  • The transport section too needs more references. It would be useful to include figures for the number of cars or other vehicles in the town, if available.
  • The religion section should be expanded, and should include numbers of people in each religion. Are there any religions besides Christianity in the town? Try to keep a similar level of detail for all the churches if possible.
  • Information about population numbers and growth, age breakdown, etc. would be useful.

I'd put this as a C currently. For the information that is there, it is generally all sourced, however it is quite a small article at the moment. To get it to a GA, you should try to expand the sections. Aim for having each section slightly smaller than the current history section; if you don't make it after putting all the information you can then that's fine, but if you're aiming for that length you should hopefully be able to include much more. There are deadlinks and citations needed. It appears that all the references are different styles, so fix them up perhaps using the templates found at WP:CT. Good luck, I'm watching this page if you have questions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll try and fix the article up. Doh5678 Talk 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jigglypuff

[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 interested in getting this article to GA status. It is currently rated either C- or B-class by most WikiProjects, so at the very least I'd like to make it B-class on every WikiProject. The article currently has plenty of information (particularly on reception), and it'd be good to know if any of it needs more verification or whether any parts should be expanded/trimmed. It's also a fairly important Pokémon, so it'd be good to further improve the coverage of Pokémon on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting close to GA in my opinion.

  • References should use a common date format instead of switching between the two. Month, XX, Year looks nice.
  • References should use trans_title for non-english titles.
  • Reference 23, in japanese ---> in Japanese
  • Reference 36, use a cite book template without linking to that book.
  • I don't see a reference for the voice actors nor are they mentioned in the anime section of the article.
  • Same for pokemon live, no source
  • Printed adaptions "PS288", what does this mean?
  • Ref 18, is that from a book? It should have a book reference noted somewhere
    • It's from an old Japanese magazine.
  • Reference 26, WP:CAPS, uncapitalize them

Steinbach, Manitoba

[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 as I would like to know what grade it currently would receive, it is established as B-Class. Secondly and more importantly I would like to know what further additions or edits would be required to receive GA status.

Thanks, Krazytea(talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis
  • In the infobox under the map, perhaps write "Location of Steinbach in Manitoba, Canada", for those who don't recognise the map.
  • The History section is a very nice size. Make sure it's sourced, a couple of paragraphs have sentences at the end without a source.
  • It may be unnecessary to say the Russian settlement was Milk Colony, it has nothing to do with Steinbach
  • Join the paragraph above the windmill with the one after it to prevent short paragraphs from existing.
  • Move the windmill up slightly maybe? It cuts into the next section on my screen.
  • Perhaps information about liquor can go in another section, maybe health, as it doesn't seem quite pertinent to history.
  • The Geography section needs to be sourced. There's only two currently, and one is for the weather box.
  • The Geography section also seems small. Is there any other information that can be found, for example about Geology?
  • The current Climate subsection, just a table, seems like bad formatting. In my opinion, a section needs substantial text to exist. This means it may be worth either removing that subsection and having it part of the main section, or adding a substantial couple of paragraphs of prose.
  • The Economy section could use large expansion. Statistics on jobs in each sector, unemployment, etc. would be useful. An expansion on the activities of each sector also wouldn't go astray.
  • Demographics could use some information about the age of the population.
  • The Ethnic Origins box currently has "Canadian" as an ethnic origin. Does this mean indigenous people? If so, change the wikilink.
  • The Government section needs information about what powers the local government has, vs the provincial government. The names of current politicians also would add to it.
  • The Infrastructure section needs sources. In addition the "Access" subheading seems redundant to infrastructure, and would in my opinion include information about an airport as well (being access). If Health is kept, it needs to be expanded, large hospitals, ambulance fleet if possible.
  • Education needs to be sourced. Figures on literacy etc. would also be helpful, although I assume its somewhere at 99-100%. What school system is taught? Is it a standardised Manitoban/Canadian system or dictated by school?
  • Media needs sourcing, and information about other forms of media should be added. Is Television mostly cable? How many households have television/radio? What are the distribution numbers of the newspaper?
  • Some paragraphs in Sports and Recreation need sources. Information about more recreational activities such as the larger parks in the city would be good.
  • I'm not sure about "the club is now host to over 260 athletes ranging from 7 to 22 year olds", as it seems odd to lump people from ages 7 to 22 together like that.
  • In the notable section, perhaps divide between natives and residents, with sources for each person of course.

These are just my opinions, you are free to agree or disagree, but either way I wish you luck. I have this page watchlisted, if anything I said was unclear. I'd rate this a C at the moment, due to the lack of information and sources in some sections, but it's very close to a B. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde

[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 nominate it at WP:GAN and this is my first attempt to get an architectural article to GA standard. I'm not an architect so any suggestions or criticism of the architecture section would be particularly appreciated.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 12:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llywrth

Just a few questions that I hope this article would answer:

  • The opening section states that this church was "owned" by several different individuals. As someone who lives in a country where churches are legally owned by either their congregations or the denomination, what does "owned" mean? For example, did the owner receive a share of the donations or tithes? (I know that this is an issue that is tangential to the central subject of the article, but a sentence or two about this with a link to the generalized discussion of this phenomena would meet my expectations.)
  • The article mentions that the graveyard was full. Since I suspect this was not a unique situation for, at least Britain, how does it compare to the same problem at other churches & their churchyards?
  • A last question about the graveyard. The article notes that people who are not members of its congregation want to be buried there -- well, at least their ashes interred there. Is there a reason for this? Other than personal or familial ties?

Hope these questions help you. I'm at the first steps of writing articles about the more notable churches of Ethiopia (one example is Wukro Chirkos), & I'm still unclear what I need to include in an article about them to make it useful to the average reader. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for having a look at this! You've raised some interestng points I hadn't thought of. --BelovedFreak 09:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My answers to these points:
  • I'm working on making this clearer with regards to advowsons etc. and I may insert a footnote with a better explanation.
  • You're right that this wasn't a unique situation and I've inserted a footnote that I hope sufficiently deals with this.
  • I can't find anything in my sources about why people from outside the parish would want to be buried there, if I do find anything, I'll add it.
Thanks again! --BelovedFreak 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this in the PR pending list, and will give you my comments in the next day or two if that's all right. At first sight it looks pretty good, but I'll give it proper scrutiny and then comment in detail here. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated! --BelovedFreak 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley

I intended to glance at this today and do a more thorough reading tomorrow, but I found the article irresistible, and have already re-read with much pleasure. I offer these few very minor drafting points.

  • Lead
    • "endowed to" – I have never seen this verb and this preposition together, and the OED cites no examples of that combination. A technical use, perhaps? Do any of your sources so use the phrase?
    • "advowson" – I know you have blue-linked the word here, and later explain it in the main text, but I wonder if a passing explanation might be helpful to your readers at this point in the lead?
    • Though I am conscious of WP:OVERLINK I wonder if you might consider (and then, if you wish, reject) blue-linking Georgian and Jacobean.
  • History
    • "as a cell of the Abbey" – plainly a very technical term, and I am sure used correctly here, but I wonder if a more immediately familiar term, such as "subsidiary" or "offshoot" might be easier for your readers. Your call, naturally.
    • "When Roger was banished from the country…" This comes on the reader somewhat unexpectedly; I wonder if "Roger was banished from the country in [date] and…" might flow better.
    • "In 1196 he quitclaimed his right" – again, skirting round hard words, I wonder if you might perhaps pipe this as [[quitclaimed|relinquished]]
    • "In 1751 the church was significantly renovated" – strange adverb: what did the renovation signify? Perhaps "much" or "thoroughly" or some such.
    • "A round Norman-style apse was added in 1868" – as the immediately preceding information has all been about the graveyard, it might be helpful to give a touch on the tiller by saying "…was added to the church in 1868".
    • "The incumbent, Rev. Thomas Clarke" – this should have the definite article before "Rev."
    • "The advowson to Poulton that had been in the possession of the Fleetwood/Hesketh family for approximately 400 years was sold" – as there was only one such advowson for Poulton, I'd make this a describing rather than what looks like a defining clause, changing it to "The advowson to Poulton, which had been in the possession of the Fleetwood/Hesketh family for approximately 400 years, was sold…"
  • Exterior
    • ""Insignia Rici Fleetwood an hujus eccliae patronis, Anno Dni 1699" – translation, please, even if only in a footnote.
      • I don't have a translation in a source - do you mean just translate it myself? (Not that I really know Latin, but I could figure something out...) Does that not count as WP:OR?BelovedFreak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There are two more restored doorways" – is the previously mentioned doorway restored?
  • Interior and fittings
    • "a cross between a railway carriage and the centre piece of a gondola" – irrelevant comment by TR: I reckon your 1883 commentator had recently seen Gilbert and Sullivan's new opera Iolanthe ("something between a large bathing machine and a very small second class carriage"). But I digress. Pay no attention to this.
    • "diamond-shaped representations of an individual's coat of arms" – one individual or six? I guess the latter, but this reads as though it is the former.
  • Churchyard
  • Present day and assessment
    • Rev. Martin Keighley – two things about this. First, it rather goes against the general presumption against including information liable to get out of date; secondly if you are including it, the Reverend gentleman needs his definite article.
      • Hmm. I'm not sure. I'm inclined to keep him in for the time being, he kept cropping up in sources and I felt I didn't have much on the present day. Would it help to make it an "as of 2011..."? BelovedFreak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's certainly one approach to stable encyclopaedic language; the other is to take refuge in dates of appointment, e.g. "the Rev. X. Y. was appointed in 1999", which will always remain correct even if you vanish from the scene and the article languishes unupdated. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hugely enjoyed this article. You conjure the place up most graphically. I have never seen the church but I feel almost that I have. Bravo! – Tim riley (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind words! And thanks for the helpful suggestions, I'll start working through them.--BelovedFreak 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks a lot - quite a few things there I wouldn't have thought of or noticed myself. BelovedFreak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to come back with a supplementary quibble, but I question the upper case T in "The Fylde". We musn't use WP articles as a source, I know, but the WP article entitled "The Fylde" calls the area "the [lower case] Fylde" in the body of the text. Other than that, I have run out of pernickety comments on this most pleasing article. I am in too deep here to feel entirely at liberty to review it for GA, but if you ever take it on to FAC please do not forget to tell me on my talk page and I will add my support. If nobody else comes forward to do the GA assessment, let me know and I'll check with the authorities if it is okay for me to step in. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've sorted everything now. "The Fylde" is slightly tricky—it's come up before, and I've seen it both ways in sources. I've made it lower-case now, and I think it's looks slightly less jarring. Regarding the vicar, I found out when he appointed vicar of St Chad's, but not over the benefice (and his cv seems to have a bit missing). I've reworded to reflect this, but it doesn't flow quite as well now. I don't know if you have any suggestions for that. I would be very greatful if you would add a translation of the Latin for me. I get the gist of what it's saying, but I'd probably get the syntax wrong. (I also have a feeling hujus might not mean "huge"...) --BelovedFreak 09:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Grainger

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Percy Grainger had an interesting and largely successful career as a composer, pianist and arranger of folk tunes. To the public he was "Mr Country Gardens", but there were darker sides. His pride in his (imagined) Nordic roots turned in time to outright racism; he had a penchant for spanking; suspicions of an incestuous relationship with his mother had tragic consequences. So the dashing good looks and cheerily extrovert image are only part of the story. Developing this article has been pretty much a one-person effort, and some fresh eyes would definitely help to identify repetitions, errors and omissions. All advice is welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1962 National League tie-breaker series

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been writing these tie-breakers for a while and was particularly proud of this one here. Tried an FAC last year with no real success, would love any advice on fixing this up. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I am doing some copyediting on the article, and will list my review comments when this is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboultonomments: I have looked at the previous FAC and read the concerns about the inaccessibilty of the language to all but baseball fans. My take on that is that, since this article is about a series of three specific matches, and not a club history or an article about the game generally, it is inevitable that the some of the language and terms will be unfamiliar to the general reader. However, some effort has to be made to accomodate this tiresome person, who insists on reading baseball articles. I have indicated occasions in which I think rephrasing or a little more explanation is required.

More generally, notwithstanding prolific use of specialist terms, the prose has to be of featured standard, and at present I think it falls some way short. I have done a certain amount of ce to pull it into shape, but more attention is necessary. Punctuation (or lack of it) is a problem, and there are far too many sentences with illogical "and" conjunctions. Someone with a good knowledge of baseball and a feel for good prose needs to go through this text, before you think of bringing this back to FAC. User:Wehwalt has chipped in to this review with some helpful comments and suggestions, which I have incorporated with my own.

Specific concerns
  • "tied records of 101–61" could be written, first time, as "tied records of 101 victories and 61 losses"
  • "The Giants struck first, winning the first game..." This phrasing is more sports journalism than encyclopedia. I suggest you simplify to: "The Giants won the first game..."
  • "breaking their 35-inning scoreless streak". This is difficult to understand without a context. Also, I don't like "their"; I suggest "breaking a 35-inning scoreless streak stretching back through the last x games of the regular season" - or some such explanatory phrasing
  • At end of Backgound section: "and had chosen the same format." What is this referring to?
    Probably playing the first game on the road and the remaining two at home, although in 1959, the Dodgers won the series, two games to none so Game 3 was not played.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First game: It's wrong to say "the Giants were the first to score", since the Dodgers didn't score at all. I'd say "In the game the Giants scored, by striking..." etc
  • Second game:
    • "Giants' starter Jack Sanford then reached based..." Is "based" a typo for "base"?
It's got to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ernie Bowman replaced Nieman at second base for the Giants in the bottom of the inning and no runs scored in the frame." The grammar seems wrong here, but I'm unsure how to put it right, as I have no idea what it means anyway. But maybe a comma after "inning", and "no runs were scored"? Perhaps: "Bowman replaced Nieman at second base for the Giants in the bottom of the inning, in which no runs were scored".
    • "to tie the game at seven runs apiece". It would be better, for consistency, to rephrase this "to tie the game at 7–7", as that is how you have represented scores previously.
  • " and then allowed a game-winning walk-off sacrifice fly to Fairly driving in Wills." Is "walk-off sacrifice fly" a single term? Should there be a comma after "Fairly"?
My larger problem with this is that walk-off was a term not invented until I think the 1990s. ESPN, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I always understood that Dennis Eckersley invented the term in describing the infamous HR he allowed to Kirk Gibson (so 1988). But Wiki articles often use contemporary terms to describe past acts. EG, World War II is described as that throughout despite it not always being known as that. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third game:
    • Punctuation: Earlier in the article I have inserted a number of commas that were necessary for grammar and clarity. The tendency to comma-less sentences seems particularly acute in this third game description. Examples: "Manager Alvin Dark had chosen not to try and hold Wills to the first base bag as Dark did not believe his Giants' defense could stop Wills from stealing regardless of their positioning". Needs two commas, I'd say. And "Roebuck barely managed to knock the ball down to hold Mays to a single and Mays said he was "still mad" after the game because he had expected more off of the hit" needs a semicolon in place of the "and". There is much more of this that needs looking at.
    • Last sentence: "Had the Dodgers not yielded the lead in the final inning they instead would have earned a postseason berth, their first since winning the pennant via a tie-breaker in 1959". You could replace the jargon term "postseason berth" with a clear explanation. Also, 1959 was only three seasons previously, not several decades, so "their first since..." seems a bit overstated.

(comment inserted by User:Wehwalt): I'm not even sure that it's a valid term, since postseason berth is a later term as applied to baseball, as in those days you made the World Series or you didn't. This playoff series was considered a continuation of the regular season and statistics counted towards regulat season, for example Wills' stolen base record got extended.

  • Aftermath: This section needs to be rethought. At present, most of its material is irrelevant to the article, which is about a three-match tiebreaker series.
    • First phrase: "The Giants' win earned the franchise its 17th playoff berth..." There is confusion here between the tiebreaker series, which you refer to in the first sentence of the article as "a three-game playoff series", and the terms "playoff berth" and "postseason birth", which I take it refer to the World Series. Can we please have clarity and uniformity of terms?
    • I don't consider the Giants' appearances in World Series 10, 20 or 40 years after the 1962 series to be part of the aftermath"
  • I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it's a pretty commonly included thing across the project. It shows the path that different franchises take and thus the importance (or lack thereof) of this tie-breaker on the franchise history. Here, for example, the Dodgers kept on winning and won a World Series just 2 years later while the Giants infamously took 50+ years to finally win a title in their new city. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think phrasing such as "swept the Yankees" qualifies as acceptable technical phrasing, however often the term is used in sporting journalism.
    • Attendance records for the season are not part of the aftermath of the tie-breaking series
    • "Game 2 was the longest nine-inning game in MLB history with a time of 4:18" This information has already been given.
    • The second paragraphs seems to be a miscellany of information about the teams' or individuals' performances in the 1962 season.

As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please contact me on my talkpage if you wish to raise issues from this review, or if you wish me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice Brian working on it and offered him some comments. I did not read the complete article, but enough of it to convince me there are problems with overuse of jargon and informality of tone. It is not unsolvable, but it needs very close attention. I'm not available to do the work, by the way! I'm pretty snowed with work, but I will be happy to give specific pieces of advice if you approach me on my talk. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing more. I just ran a search for the date "1951" in the article. I was stunned that it was not found. Brian's British, so he won't necessarily get why this is important at first sight, but the 1951 series utterly hung over this series, especially Game 3, even though no game was played within 2,000 miles of Coogan's Bluff. There is no way you can get away with this at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer 2.0 comments: To echo Brianboulton's comments, some of the terms that have been used may not necessarily be recognized by someone unfamiliar with the sport and this alone can hurt your chances at FAC, just look at my initial nomination of History of the New York Jets. Needless to say, you need to be careful and thorough, though I can sympathize with your frustration at the suggested removal of some terms, Wehwalt and I suffered similar issues but in the end, compromise does pay.

To me, the sentence structure, at times, feels a bit awkward but, all else aside, the article looks in pretty good shape in terms of content and references. You'll find other reviewers who will be more picky but from my point of view, the resolution of the aforementioned issues will certainly make life easier for you when you submit this to FAC.

I'd be more than happy to help spruce up the article and be an extra set of eyes if you wish. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic (song)

[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 planing to take this to GAN, but unfortunately my prose is always pretty bad. Also, the article is supposed to be in Canadian English, but I only know the American and British English. Thank you so much. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seegoon's review
  • In the lead, "Canadian American" should be hyphenated (it's a compound adjective).
  • "He commented "I'm telling you," – I think you need a colon between 'commented' and 'I'm'.
  • I think you can probably delink 'comedian', for concerns of overlinking.
  • "Also satirists Berger and Wyse parodied the song in one segment of their cartoon strip The Pitchers." – a fairly lengthy sentence. I'd restructure this.
  • "Morissette "surprising made [it] worse"." – grammatically this sense makes no. Should it be 'surprisingly'?
  • "reached the number five on the Adult Top 40" – poor grammar.
  • "It was last seen on the chart on July 21, 1996," – makes it sound like a fugitive. "Last appeared" instead?
    lol Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To date, "Ironic" is her biggest hit on the country." – bizarre grammar.
  • "In European countries the song was well-received." – again, weird construction. "The song was generally well-received throughout Europe", perhaps?
  • "At the Norwegian Singles Charts," – in the Norwegian...
  • "In Belgium, it reached the sixth place on the Ultratop 50 (Flanders region), and the ninth place on the Ultratop 40 (Wallonia zone)." – this 'the ninth place' thing is a little weird; just 'ninth place' without the article (the) will do just fine. Same applies for 'the sixth place'.
  • ""Ironic" music video was directed by Stéphane Sednaoui." – strange construction. "The music video for 'Ironic'..." would work better.
  • "On it, Morissette features driving a dark blue 1977 Lincoln Mark V through a winter landscape." – In it. 'Features' is a little jarring too; 'appears' might be easier to instantly parse. The same applies for the image caption – which could do with some context (i.e. make it clear that the photo isn't a screenshot from the video).
  • "VH1's 100 Greatest Videos [41]" – errant space between text and ref. I'd move this to the end of the sentence anyway; mid-sentence refs are ugly and unnecessary.
  • "was included on Morissette's CD/DVD" – I think you can unlink these terms. The article's already extremely blue and some may say this borders on overlinking.
  • ""It's meeting the man of my dreams /And then meeting his beautiful husband".[48][49][50][51]" – do we need four references? I highly doubt it.
  • "as well for the compilation album Cities 97 Sampler," – delink compilation album here.
  • "Since then, "Ironic" was included in her albums MTV Unplugged (1999),[57] Feast on Scraps (2002),[58] Live in the Navajo Nation (2002),[59] and The Collection;[60] as well as 1997 Grammys and the MTV Unplugged compilation albums." – this is a giant, snakey sentence. For one, I'd change 'was' to 'has been', and for what it's worth, the semicolon doesn't really work in this context.

There you have it – my two cents. A great article, really nicely referenced. The grammar gets a bit funky from time to time, but there's nothing here which can't be rectified. Congratulations and good luck. Seegoon (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning from Space

[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 like this movie and I want it to be a good article. I'm sort of new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do. I've tried to research it as thoroughly as possible. Thanks, --Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruby2010

[edit]
Since you're sort of new, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Just by briefly looking at the article, I'd say it needs a reception section (what people thought of it at the time or today), and its production section could be expanded further. I recommend taking a look at other similar articles (like on Japanese films) for basic layout/content ideas. Good luck! Ruby2010 comment! 04:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! This is a really obscure film, and no matter where I looked, I couldn't really find any information on the production than what I have now. However, I will create a reception section later.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reception section!--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

[edit]

I echo Ruby2010's welcome to the project.

  • Watch overlinking in the article. See WP:LINK for thoughts on wikilinking. As a rule of thumb words in common English useage like rocket, Earth, lake, and human should not be linked. Also country names do not need to be linked. On the other hand linking the word "object" to UFO is fine as you are specifying what object the context is referring to.
  • I made a copyedit to one of the paragraphs in the lead section. My aim was to try and fix the flow and readability of the section. Please review to see if it corretly follows the film's plot.
  • Take care with using terms like "speculated". Information in a wikipedia article should not be based on speculation.
  • See WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the entire article and touch briefly on every subject raised in the article. Your lead nearly meets this requirement. You need something on the legacy and you would need to add something about reception when this section is written.
  • Regarding references be sure you are using a consistent format throughout. Each website reference should have the title, publisher and accessdate.
  • You have a nice little article here. Well done and keep up the good work. If you have specific questions about this review please contact me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commend you for work on obscure articles and information. All corners of the project deserve the light of day. The linking has been diminished and you've beefed up the lead. I had a couple more comments:
  • I'm not sure Legacy should be a sub-section under Reception. They seem to be mutually exclusive. I would recommend making Legacy its own section.
  • "However, the film may have influenced other Japanese science fiction films, notably Gorath, Gamera vs. Guiron and Gamera: Super Monster." I don't like the wording in this sentence. The film may have influenced other Japanese science fiction films. Either it has or it hasn't. Keeping it vague like this doesn't say anything. I haven't reviewed the references for this statement so perhaps they are vague. In which case I would either find firm evidence one way or the other, or leave it out.
  • Is there an article title for ref 10?
  • If you use a book be sure to put the page number of where you found the information. This helps researchers quickly locate the reference within the book.
  • Not to get nit picky but usually book references contain the location of the publisher. Probably not a big deal at WP:GAC but it would be noticed at WP:FAC should you wish to move the article along.
  • What is important is if you're using Google Books be sure to put the URL into the reference. That way others can easily link to it.
  • Those star fish costumes are classic, I'll be seeing them in my dreams tonight. :)
Thanks for your help. It will take me a while to go through and find the page numbers for each book, but I think I can manage it. Also, for ref 10, that was there before I rewrote the article, and I could not find any online sources for the information. I will contact the editor who added that later to see if I can get any more information from that source.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Looking on Google books I found a few more references to the film which might be worth including:

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Winter Olympics

[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 move this to FAC and need a fresh set of eyes to give input on content and prose. It follows the format of the 1956 Winter Olympics, which is FA. Another question I had was regarding a clean up tag on the image at the top of the article. It recommends uploading the image as an SVG file. Unfortunately image issues are not my strong suit and the image in question had to be modified to address a spelling error. I cannot find a correct alternative to upload in the smaller file format. Do you think this issue would disqualify it from FA consideration? Any thoughts on how to rectify it?

Thanks, H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu
  • "Discussions about Oslo hosting a the Winter Olympic Games..."
  • "... were held at Norefjell; a 113 km..." – Replace the semicolon with a comma.
  • There are six instances of "Oslo" in the intro's first paragraph only. Too many, in my opinion. Also, some short sentences that kind of cut the reading flow.
  • The infobox shows the participation of 694 athletes yet the intro says only 693. Which is true? Also, there is no reference to source this number.
  • Shouldn't it be Bislett Stadion (capital s)?
  • You've linked the names of some participating countries to their performance pages (Japan, Portugal, Germany, etc.), but you forgot to do that to the host nation.
  • The "Host city selection" paragraph has too many "Oslo" again. Try to take a few out.
  • In this section, you don't say anything about the competing cities, apart from listing them in the bidding results table. They were mentioned in the intro, but this is THE section to talk about them.
  • "London, host of the 1948 Summer Olympics..." – Add a comma after Olympics.
  • "A majority of the ice hockey tournament matches took place at..."
  • "... placed second to Anderson in every race." – Andersen
  • Holland → Netherlands
  • 4x10 → 4 × 10
  • "Norwegian athletes won the aki jumping gold medal in each Olympics from 1924 to 1952" – Fix typo (in bold), and I'd replace "each" with "every".
  • "The sport would leave them behind after 1952..." – Who's "them"? I don't feel it's clear.
  • "The stadium was called Jordal Amfi. It was built in a residential part of eastern Oslo." – These could (and should) be clauses of the same sentence.
  • "Australia, Germany, and Japan returned, after having missed the..." – Words missing at the end of this sentence.
  • The medal table shows the top 10 medalist nations, but there's only three more medal-winning nations that are not listed. Perhaps you could include them (even if this means that the separate medal table page is redundant).

Concerning the image tag issue, it would be preferable that the image has the best quality. I saw that the typo is present in the image provided by the IOC itself, so the mistake is in the source. Should we be worried about fixing it? Any correction would be a unfaithful derivative work of that logo; the solution would be to put an image of the correct logo taken from official documents... even if the quality is not the best. — Parutakupiu (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all fixes have been made save the image issue. I'll see if there is an available image from the source material. If not do you think this issue would kill any FA bid? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can go ahead with what the image you have now. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh I didn't know that existed. I've replaced it with a very crude rendering, but perhaps I should explore the image lab. Thank you for the tip! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to be a contributor there, I even made some SVG versions of Olympic logos (not to brag about, but they were good), but then I was told that those images wouldn't be acceptable because they'd always have some minor imperfections and wouldn't be a faithful carbon-copy reproduction of the original. Just telling... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this and your other PR contributions. It looks pretty good to me, here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • In Host city selection, would it make sense to say that in 1936 the summer and winter games were in Berlin and Garmisch? Perhaps in a note, if not in the text iteself?
  • Should there also be a mention or note that the tradition of having the summer and winter games in the same country ended with the 1936 games (at least as far as actual games)?
  • Missing word? Support [for?] a Winter Olympics in Norway was mixed.[4]
  • Since the order in the lead and previously has been Cortina d'Ampezzo, then Lake Placid, would it make sense to do that again here? Also mention that Lake Placid had previously hosted? So perhaps something like Cortina d'Ampezzo was selected as the host of the 1956 Games, and Lake Placid, which had hosted in 1932, would host the 1980 Winter Olympics.
  • Combine these sentences to be less choppy? So something like The 1952 Winter Games were the first to be held in a nation's capital,[1] and Norway was the first Scandanavian country to host a Winter Olympics.[2]
  • Tighten in Organisation? ...and four representatives from the municipality of Oslo, including the mayor Brynjulf Bull.[8] ?
  • Lead says buildings were converted to house athletes, but here it says Three new facilities (forerunners to the athlete's villages of later Games) were built... - which was it?
  • Missing words? The city of Oslo undertook the construction of a new hotel, the Viking, which was used for IOC delegates, out-of-town dignitaries, [and as?] the communication hub of the Games.[12][13]
  • Would "reluctant" be a better word than "reticent" in Norway was reticent to welcome German athletes and Nazi sympathizers back into the Olympic fold.[17] I think of reticent as reluctant to speak or communicate, not reluctant in general
  • The preceding paragraph already described the German team, so not needed in Despite its concerns Norway agreed to allow both German (represented only by West German athletes), and Japanese athletes to compete.[17]
  • Would it make sense to move the image of Bislett Stadion from Venues up to Opening ceremony? There are three sections without images here, and Venues has two images currently
  • Tighten? The final torch bearer, Eigil Nansen, received the Olympic flame and skied to a set of stairs where he removed his skis, ascended the stairs, and ignited the flame.[27]
  • In Ice hockey, since modern readers are used to national teams I would explain the Edmonton Mercurys in a sentence or two (I know they are mentioned in the caption, but I expected there to be some explanation in the body of the article)
  • In Speed skating, the sentence Dutch skaters Wim van der Voort and Kees Broekman placed second to Andersen in every race.[37] is confusing and false (since Andersen did not place first in one race, where an American won gold). Perhaps something like Dutch skaters Kees Broekman and Wim van der Voort won two and one silver medals, respectively, behind Andersen.[37] If the silver medalists are mentioned, would it make sense to mention the other gold medalist?
  • In Alpine skiing make Schneider's nationality clearer, perhaps by Austrian skiers dominated the competition winning seven out of a possible eighteen medals, including Othmar Schneider's gold and silver in the men's slalom and downhill. Norwegian Stein Eriksen won gold in the men's giant slalom and silver in the slalom.
  • MOS says to give both metric and English units, so give distances in km and miles in Cross-country skiing. {{convert}} works nicely for this.
  • Perhaps add to the caption Nils Karlsson skiing at the 1952 Winter Games mention something like he did not repeat his gold medal from 1948
  • Avoid overlinking - Holmenkollbakken is linked twice in two consecutive section
  • Did computers really "judge" or did they just do the math based on human judges' scores? This marked the first time computers were used to judge the competition and tabulate scores instantly.[1]
  • Crop File:Dick Button gold medal.jpg to foucs more on the medal? Also is the medal a copyrighted work (of art)?
  • Has Bandy ever been played again at the Olympics? Might be worth mentioning if it has or has not.
  • Say when the last athletic event was too? They took place on Monday evening, 25 February, in Bislett Stadion.[66]
  • Spelling? Enticed? Also is enticed the best word here? Perhaps "encouraged" or even just "asked"? The organising committee inticed the city of Oslo to provide a similar flag in order to establish the same tradition for the Winter Games.
  • I made a few copyedits too
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Spanish Grand Prix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wrote the bulk of this article some two and half years ago, and gave it a second push just over a year ago. I've had another read through it recently, and I'm a bit stuck on how to proceed, although I think it would make a nice featured article.

To me, I feel there's still a little something lacking in terms of content. I think the post-race section is probably the weakest part, so any suggestions on relevant information to go here would be especially appreciated. Even if you could just say "I'd like to know more about x" then I can do some research and flesh out that part a little.

Of course, all and any comments on prose quality, clarity/wording, things that you feel are missing, lack of (quality) citations or anything else that would improve the article (no matter how small) would be great. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midgrid

Well, first of all, it's nice to see an F1 race report not from the 1995 or 2008 seasons going through a peer review! ;)

The article looks good so far, but I think it has quite a long way to go to reach FA, or even GA standard.

  • The information in the infobox should be cited using the "Details ref" parameter (which is a relatively recent addition to the template.
  • The co-ordinates of the Jarama circuit should be added, using the relevant template.
  • Team names should be linked throughout the infobox and results tables.
  • The full names of FISA and FOCA should probably be spelt out when they are first introduced.
  • There are only two inline citation for the entire race section, which isn't enough.
  • Regarding the short post-race section, perhaps it could be filled out with quotations from Alan Jones and other leading drivers on their race? I have the Autocourse and Motor Sport reports, which should contain suitable material if needed.
  • The external link to the Autosport article just redirects to the website's main page.
  • A good thing for you to do would be to look at a race report article which has recently been promoted to FA status, and check it against this one in terms of formatting, as they all follow certain conventions with have been tried and tested through multiple FACs.

I hope these suggestions are useful for you!--Midgrid(talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'll try and implement your suggestions as soon as I can. On the subject of quotes (which now you mention it is blindingly obvious!), if you were able to find something appropriate in either of the sources you quote, that would be great. Otherwise I'll see what I can find, although I've yet to come across anything in the sources I'm using. Also regarding the Autosport article - is that the one which I've provided the archive link for? If so, the cite template autolinks the original URL, which is a required field for the thing to display, so I'm not sure what to do about that. AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same link but in the external links section instead of the references section, so you could just add the archived URL there as well.--Midgrid(talk) 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it! I think the external links is a relic from before I started adding the inline citations, so I've removed the whole section as none of the articles were entirely about the event. AlexJ (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Trekphiler

This page may not be the place to address it, but one thing puzzles me: how does FISA impose a fine for drivers not doing something that isn't required in the rules? How does FIA fine drivers for legal racing? Or is there somewhere that explains? If so, I'd suggest linking it in. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right place, and I'll try and explain in the article a little more about why the fines happened & why the race was declared illegal. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from QueenCake

Midgrid summed it up pretty well there, more inline citations are required, especially for the race section as it is the focus of the article. Some fleshing out of each section, where possible of course, together with more references is the chief concern of this article. One thing I noticed was in the Background section. You have got these lines The Spanish Grand Prix was originally scheduled to be the seventh round of the 1980 World Championship. Disputes between motorsports' governing body, the FISA, and the body representing the chassis builders (constructors) competing in the championship, the FOCA. and apart from being grammatically incorrect, there is no explanation of the FISA-FOCA dispute. A bit more background information of the events leading up to the race, as they did directly affect it, would certainly help the reader understand why there was an argument to begin with.

Some images would also be good to have. I know it may be rather hard to find any free to use pictures of the race itself, but some images of the drivers or cars involved would do.

Also, I took the time to link teams through the article.

Hope I helped! QueenCake (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read through and making the links. I've read through the article many times and completely missed that fragment of a sentence! I'll get that fixed and try and expand on the build-up a bit more. Regarding images, I'll have a look through the commons and see what I can come up with. AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Apterygial

Midgrid essentially summarised the key points here as far as I can see it. A few things:

  • The article could use a bit more background regarding the racing itself during the 1980 season. E.g., was Ferrari doing well that season, to the point that their absence significantly devalued the race? Was Jones' victory consistent with his form in the other races?
  • Flags could potentially become an issue. MOS:FLAG suggests that you "[a]ccompany flags with country names", which I conformed to in 1906 French Grand Prix with the addition of the {{cc3}} template next to flags and names. This wasn't an issue at 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, but it did become one at 2008 Monaco Grand Prix (it would be easier to solve if WPF1 got over its intransigence on following the MOS).
  • "Osella believed that this would mean no penalties were issued against his constructor's licence." Awkward tense with the use of "were".
  • Teams should be linked at first mention.
  • "Piquet's led for seven laps until on lap 42 his Brabham's gearbox failed, and he was unable to continue." Stray possessive.
  • I suppose Jones would have been pretty pissed off when the results were discounted?

Prose is awkward in places, although I appreciate this remains a work in progress. I can review again or copyedit when you feel you're closer to FAC. Apterygial talk 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. supporters

[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 looking for more information to add to the page. Hopefully I can get it to GA status with some more references. Constructive feedback will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Stevo1000 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

Simply by the nature of its subject, this will be a very difficult article to get to GA. Its scope is completely different to any of the existing football GAs. Essentially a lot of what we're dealing with is folklore, the kind of thing that gets discussed in pubs but rarely in what Wikipedia views as reliable sources. Breaking new ground by getting the first article of its type to a standard such as GA or FA is very tough but if achieved it is most rewarding, so I wish you luck.

  • As the song City supporters are best known for, Blue Moon deserves more coverage.
  • Worth explaining that Boys In Blue was recorded by the 1972 squad, written by members of 10cc etc.
  • The thing to get hold of to give historical context to terrace songs would be the programme for the last match before the Kippax terracing was demolished, as it devoted several pages to this.
  • I wouldn't say there's any rivalry with Spurs. A number of memorable matches down the years, but not a rivalry between supporters.
  • Helen "The Bell" Turner needs mentioning.
  • A lot of the famous supporters list looks dubious. Put it this way, I wouldn't expect to bump into Princess Beatrice at Mary D's any time soon. The likes of the Sun and Star should not be used for references. Rather than listing footballers who may or may not have a affinity for the club, why not write a bit about the club's Former Players Association?
  • The Junior Blues, or live4city as they call it these days, definitely needs a couple of paragraphs - it was the first organisation of its type in the country.
  • In my opinion, the City Humour section should go. All of them are trivial incidents, and none has been reported by organisations independent of the club. All of them also happened in the last year or two. In a few years it'll look like writing about a dog running on the pitch in the 70s.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list of the World Heritage Sites in Madagascar is admittedly short, but it's comprehensive. It could nonetheless benefit from a review by a second pair of fresh eyes. I used the List of World Heritage Sites in Spain as my model in the interest of hopefully seeing it reach Featured List status despite being brief... the little engine that could. :) -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Nice job basing off a current FA, excellent idea. However, everything can be improved! Anyway, I too hope length won't matter so much, but I suppose you'll see in FLC.
Lead

  • "In 2011" would be better written "As of 2011" or something similar. Even better would be removing it. Just say "There are three blablabla", current time is implied.
  • "comprising one cultural site and two natural sites" Instead of simply saying this I'd recommend giving a slightly more informative explanation. "Comprising one site chosen for its cultural value and two sites chosen for their unique biodiversity" or something. Just to explain the meaning of the words, if you get what I'm saying.
  • I'd reverse the order of the second sentence. "The first site to get the status was X in 1990" instead of the current set up.
  • "Five sites added to the tentative list in 1997 include" You've listed all five sites, so a sentence with the word include is wrong. "In 1997, five sites were added to the tentative list, these were ABCDandE" or a similar structure would be better.
  • Perhaps a short halfsentence description of the tentative list could also be given.
  • I'd recommend moving the last sentence about the Rova of Antananarivo to the first paragraph. It deals with a site that was more than tentative (so I assume) and is also out of place chronologically.
  • Perhaps include some more information about Madagascar and UNESCO, such as when they ratified the UNESCO convention etc.

List of sites

  • I suggest improving the description of the criteria slightly. "Name: as listed by the World Heritage Committee" would probably be written as "Name: Name as listed by the World Heritage Committee", even though that sounds redundant, due to the colon. Just my opinion.
  • You current describe Location as the city or province of site. Yet in the table you have neither, just co-ordinates. In addition, Madagascar no longer has provinces, so that's outdated.
  • The Region description should be written similarly to the location one currently is. Eg. "Region: The region (faritra) of Madagascar that the site is located in."
  • The period explanation should be written out as a full sentence. Eg. "The time period in which the site was considered significant."
  • Expand the year inscribed description too. Inscribed is perhaps a bit WP:JARGONy, change to "Year added to UNESCO World Heritage Site list" or something.
  • The UNESCO Data column confuses me. The description says it includes year inscribed, yet you already have that as a separate column. It may be worth splitting this column up into a separate column for each criteria you've combined there, for ease of reading. In addition, somewhere a brief explanation of the criteria that the sites have been listed under would be useful, whether in the tables or beneath it as notes.
  • Clarify that the description column is the UNESCO description, noting somehow it is a direct verbatim copying of their description. Perhaps retitle the column "UNESCO description"?
  • If you need space, you can probably just add the references to the name column or something rather than have them as their own column. You can also get rid of the (s) if Ref(s) if you keep the column, as you'll only need one (the UNESCO one) for each site.

Tentative list

  • The tentative list is where I think this can be most improved. Instead of just listing the name of each site and the date it was added to the tentative list, give more information to each similar to the information given for the actual sites. Information such as criteria they were submitted under, for example, is probably extremely important for this article.
  • Once again, the "as of 2008" note is probably unnecessary. It may be worth moving the prose about the tentative list to the lead instead, and just leaving a list here. Source it of course.
  • How does the picture relate? I can't tell.

Final notes I'm having trouble accessing your sources, but this is probably an issue with either my computer or the archiving tools than a problem with the sources. I can see why you'd make sure that the sources are always accessible, but a link to the current site if it's available would still be very useful. I feel that if you fill out the tentative list, you should be able to skirt around any length issues raised. Good luck! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scream (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've overhauled it from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scream_(film)&diff=423380818&oldid=423378618

I've rewritten the plot, got rid of the trivia section, styled everything, done some aesthetic stuff, added the entire development section plus some really illustrative images, added citations and mulitiple sources, corrected incorrect information and generally I believe this has gone from an overall bad article to a very good one. I'd like to think that with some small input this can be ready for a GAN soon so I appreciate any input.

Thanks for reading, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - this currently has 7 fair use images - how does that comply with WP:NFCC? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying but I believe that the images used are important to illustrate the areas they exist in. As with previous peer review suggestiosn from you, in this case I used Alien (film) as an example, which contains 11 images and is a GA. In this article I firmly believe that the images I have included are important to the completeness of the article, the visual effect ones in particular which explain far better what is going on than prose is capable of and are not simply for decorative purposes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it, and Aliens (film) has only 7 fair use images, the same as this. In each case there, the image is near the text discussing it and is discussued in some detail in the article. In four of seven cases (all but the poster, cast photo, and model) the fair use images in Alien are from the film itself - here none of the fair use images seem to be from the film itself. Here is a review of each image in this article. One of the things to think about is this "Does the image increase the reader's understanding in a way that just the text alone does not?". You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches on image licenses.
  1. File:Scream (1996 film) poster.jpg - an image of the theatrical poster for the film is pretty standard in articles on films, so this is OK.
  2. File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg - I will note that there are free images of each actor or actress listed as starring in the infobox (and in this image) except for Skeet Ullrich. This does not appear to be a scene from the movie (it is labeled a promotional photo) and the individual images of the actors are almost all replacable with free images. In Aliens the cast photo shows them in more readily identifiable costumes with weapons, so it seems more justifiable as fair use to me.
  3. File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg - how does seeing this image help the reader understand the article any better than the text (which is in the next section and is just one sentence)? While location scouting, Maddalena discovered the Ghostface mask hanging from a post inside the house previously used for the film Shadow of a Doubt (1943).[5] Please note that since the Ghostface mask is iconic and not easily described in words (and is discussed in some detail in the article) I think a fair use image of the mask is justified, but am not sure this is the best one that could be chosen.
  4. File:Maskmouldmsall.jpg - it is not clear to me what this is a mould for - is it for the mask used in the movie or is it for an earlier version trying to look like the one ultimatley used, but not exactly like it for copyright reasons? The caption needs to be clearer if the image is used. If it is for the mask used in the movie, wouldn't a fair use image of the mask itself be better (and if there is one image of the mask itself, two are almost certainly not justified). If it is for the mask design used before the final mask chosen, I am not sure. Does a mould for a mask not used in the film really help the reader's understanding?
    By the way, the images above and below this comment sandwich the text, which is something you are not supposed to do under WP:MOSIMAGE.
  5. File:Visualeffectsscream1.jpg - please note that this counts as two images (even though it is one file). I think these both have a pretty good case for fair use. The chair is probably the stronger of the two (it really increased my understanding of how the effect was done), but the Barrymore mask is also helpful (and creepy).
  6. File:Screamsoundtrack.jpg - while images of album cover art are standard in articles on albums, I note that this is basically just a crop of the movie poster image (so does the article need a second fair use image that is essentially a duplicate of the first?). I also note that Template:Infobox_album#Cover says in part The width of the image should ideally be no less than 220px (the default value of the "Thumbnail size" parameter), and it should be no more than 300px on at least one side (the maximum value of the "Thumbnail size" parameter) to satisfy fair use criteria. but this image is 350 px wide.

Finally, please note that the image review at GAN is generally less stringent than at FAC, so even though this may pass with 7 fair use images at GAN, I doubt it would at FAC. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the difference with Alien (film) that some of the images have creative commons license?
Yes, creative commons or any free licenses are not a problem, only the fair use images are of concern (so the image of Neve Campbell in this article is fine, as it has a free license). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg - Well it's taken at a scene from the film (I don't know if you have seen it), but it is them out of character but in costume and position during that particular scene so I don't know if that would make a difference. Would it better if I screencap'd them IN character from that scene?
  2. File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg - You make a fair point, I felt it was important because as you mention, the mask is iconic and I thought seeing the exact mask that was found (its a photo of it as it was found) that basically was the origin for the iconic image we have today would be notable. I guess that is debatable.
  3. File:Maskmouldmsall.jpg - Fair point, its a mold for a mask they used to copy the original design but avoid copyright, I will clarify it.
  4. File:Screamsoundtrack.jpg - Just to be clear I didn't crop it, that's the actual album art. I have considered breaking this section off into its own article so maybe that would deal with that particular image. I will also resize it, I was told 350 was fine for fair use purposes.
Thanks for the feedback
EDIT: I read the image tutorial but without more text I can't see a reasonable solution to the "sandwich" effect in the Visual Effects section that wouldn't lead to the images bleeding heavily into lower sections. Do you have any suggestions for that?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, while this may be OK at GAN with the current images (depends on who the reviewer is there), it would not be OK at FAC. I have not seen the film. To me the two weakest fair use images are File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg and File:Maskmouldmsall.jpg. Neither is taken from the film itself, neither really helped me understand the topic better than the descriptions already in the article, and the mould is for a mask that does not appear in the film. I would suggest replacing both of these with one fair use image of the Ghostface character from the film, where the discovery image now is (which would reduce the number of fair use images to 6, and solve the sandwich problem). I know you did not crop the album cover, my point is the album cover and movie poster are basically two versions of the same fair use image. This is just my suggestion, feel free to see what the GAN reviewer says. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.

  • First sentence of the lead is pretty long and comples and may be better split into two. I would also take out "created and" as a) this is not repeated in the article and b) the creator of a film is not usually a single person (the actors and writer and director and technical people all create it together). Scream is a 1996 American slasher film created and written by Kevin Williamson and directed by Wes Craven, starring Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Drew Barrymore and David Arquette, released on December 20, 1996 as the first installment in the Scream film series.
  • Direct quotes in the lead are usually cited per WP:MOSQUOTE
  • MOS says to spell out 1970s and 1980s in numerous sequels to established horror franchises of the 70s and 80s which were drawing both decreasing financial and critical success
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - usually links are only provided for things directly related to the article or for unfamiliar terms to most readers. This also makes the links provided more noticable and thus useful. So, for example, in plot does the average reader really need a link to Journalism to explain "news reporter"?
  • Prose is decent but could use a copyedit in places to polish things. I think "producers" is often meant where "production" is used. One example (can also be tightened) is However, young actress Drew Barrymore read the script for the film and became interested in being involved, approaching the production herself to request a role.
  • Watch language too - dynasty? acclaimed? famous? Barrymore, a member of the Barrymore family dynasty and granddaughter of acclaimed American actor John Barrymore, had become a famous star in her own right starring in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and the production were quick to take advantage of her unexpected interest, signing her to play the lead role of Sidney Prescott.[2][3] Are there non-famous stars?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Halloween (1978 film) is a FA and may be a good model.
  • I question the current organization. Parts of the cast section are out of chronological order (we are told Craven reconsidered directing there before knowing he rejected the film). Again following Halloween (1978 film), I think I would put the Plot first, then the creative process in order (Writing, Development, Casting (current Cast section), Filming and then the same order.
  • Cinematography is only one paragraph - could it be combined with Filming?
  • More Overlinking - why is Marco Beltrami linked 15 times in the Score table (and once more in the section)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • First sentence of the lead is pretty long and comples and may be better split into two. I would also take out "created and" as a) this is not repeated in the article and b) the creator of a film is not usually a single person (the actors and writer and director and technical people all create it together). Scream is a 1996 American slasher film created and written by Kevin Williamson and directed by Wes Craven, starring Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Drew Barrymore and David Arquette, released on December 20, 1996 as the first installment in the Scream film series.
  • Direct quotes in the lead are usually cited per WP:MOSQUOTE
  • MOS says to spell out 1970s and 1980s in numerous sequels to established horror franchises of the 70s and 80s which were drawing both decreasing financial and critical success

*Watch WP:OVERLINKing - usually links are only provided for things directly related to the article or for unfamiliar terms to most readers. This also makes the links provided more noticable and thus useful. So, for example, in plot does the average reader really need a link to Journalism to explain "news reporter"?

  • Prose is decent but could use a copyedit in places to polish things. I think "producers" is often meant where "production" is used. One example (can also be tightened) is However, young actress Drew Barrymore read the script for the film and became interested in being involved, approaching the production herself to request a role.
  • Watch language too - dynasty? acclaimed? famous? Barrymore, a member of the Barrymore family dynasty and granddaughter of acclaimed American actor John Barrymore, had become a famous star in her own right starring in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and the production were quick to take advantage of her unexpected interest, signing her to play the lead role of Sidney Prescott.[2][3] Are there non-famous stars?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Halloween (1978 film) is a FA and may be a good model.
  • *I question the current organization. Parts of the cast section are out of chronological order (we are told Craven reconsidered directing there before knowing he rejected the film). Again following Halloween (1978 film), I think I would put the Plot first, then the creative process in order (Writing, Development, Casting (current Cast section), Filming and then the same order.
  • Cinematography is only one paragraph - could it be combined with Filming?
  • More Overlinking - why is Marco Beltrami linked 15 times in the Score table (and once more in the section)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please seeWikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch, Halloween doesn't appear to be a FAC, just so you're aware for the future.

Ron Hextall

[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 good article, and maybe even featured article status. Although I've done a fair bit of work on sports biographies, this have previously been focussed on cricket, and given the pretty major differences, I would definitely like some North American eyes on this before I take it much further. That said, the viewpoint of someone without any hockey knowledge would also be extremely valuable.

Thanks, Harrias talk 10:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Resolute

I have to admit, I'm curious how one moves from cricket to hockey! The article looks quite good, only a few issues jump out at me:

  • As Hextall is Canadian, the article should be in Canadian English. Right now you have a mixture, i.e.: defenceman and defenseman are both used.
  • Also, some of your terms are European in nature rather than North American. "Match" would not be ccommon terminology for North American hockey. I would probably replace most uses with "game/games", using "match" where necessary to avoid redundancy. Also "nil" is not typically used out here. The Brandon Wheat Kings would have been swept four games to none.
  • "he was traded on three occasions between the off-seasons of..." - should be "during the off-seasons...", as the playing season is what would be between off-seasons.
  • Avoid overlinking - you have Bryan Hextall, Jr. linked twice in close succession in the early life section.
  • I'm terrible for this myself, but watch for overuse of commas. I saw several instances, including: "opposition side during a single, bench-clearing brawl." No comma is needed there.

Overall though, I think the article is very well done, and you should have relatively little difficulty reaching GA status, at least. Cheers! Resolute 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments: most of your comments were things I was fully expecting, but I was always going to have a problem with the terminology. With your help, that's hopefully sorted now, and similar for the spelling. Addressed your other issues too, although I didn't comb too tightly over the commas! Harrias talk 11:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Maxim

Overall, the article's OK but I don't it's "there" just yet.

  • In terms of prose quality, it's very good, but there are the occasional European terms. I've fixed the ones that jumped out at me. A few quibbles, however:
    • "Calder Memorial Trophy, for the "player selected as the most proficient in his first year of competition",[21]" perhaps change to "... Calder Memorial Trophy, given to the top rookie". The latter seems to be much more succinct to me.
    • "...as "probably the best goaltender I've ever played against in the N.H.L."" it's a quote, but perhaps change the N.H.L to just NHL or [NHL]? It looks so weird to me with the dots...
    • The Flyers suffered a difficult start to the 1987–88 season, which Keenan put down in part to the absence of Hextall; "he's a piece of the Flyer puzzle that's been missing, and one we need."[32]; Keenan's quote is presented somewhat awkwardly. Perhaps it's the semi-colon; maybe put a colon instead?
  • You're not consistent in linking the New York Times in the refs -- part of the time it's linked, part of the time it isn't.
  • For the crux of my review: there's somewhat of a balance problem. Hextall, IMHO, was especially noted for three things: playoffs, fighting, and puckhandling. At least, they're the big things. You've covered the Conn Smythe et cetera well, but I don't think a paragraph each for the fighting and puckhandling does him justice. I recall reading about how his puckhandling skills were noticed when he was in junior, for example. Some of the stuff on the fighting that's outside the Playing style section might be put in the section itself. I think the concentration of New York Times articles as sources might be somewhat to blame here. I think books will cover his playing style, and if not, I think there would be a considerable amount of analysis available in articles online. I think the goal of the article should not only be to cover his career -- which is done -- but to capture the portrait of the man behind the mask, and I don't think the article is there yet, in that regard.

Hope this helps. Maxim(talk) 01:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the final point. The problem is, it is tricky for me to find sources with a quantity of information. Being in the UK, I can't really get hold of too many written sources, and online I've found lots of sources which praise his puck-handling, and mention his fighting and aggression, but don't really go into much detail about the specifics. I'm certainly going to keep looking though! As for your other points, I'll go through and clean those up, thanks. Harrias talk 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Averroes

[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 hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Also so we can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Literature! Spell it with me!

  • Okay, first of all, decide what he is called. The article is title Averroes, no doubt because in literature that is his common name, I suggest you stick with that primarily, and offer his name as Ibn Rushd as his Islamic or native name.
  • The current lead is basically a list. While obviously there is going to have to be some lists in the lead, I suggest adding much more context, giving summaries of his views and thoughts. Per WP:LEAD you can have up to four paragraphs; I suggest you use them to the maximum effect.
  • Also immediately notable is the TOC, which is not only long for any article, but long for this very short article. However, that's an easy fix that can be taken per section.
  • In the name section, it would be useful to have an understanding of what the word Ibn Rushd has, if any. Also, explain why he has all these alternate names, don't just list them.
  • Watch for overlinking. Almoravids is linked twice in two consecutive sections.
  • "Averroes’s education followed a traditional path" Islamic tradition? Almoravid tradition?
  • "It is generally believed that he was perhaps once" The amount of qualifiers that have been managed to put here is amazing. Just say some think he did etc. or something similar.
  • "Throughout his life he wrote extensively on Philosophy and Religion, attributes of God, origin of the universe, Metaphysics and Psychology." This sounds like a sentence for the lead, not something that should come up near the beginning of what I assume should be a narrative section.
  • Where was Averroes banished to? Source the entire last paragraph.
  • As a whole, the biography section could probably be expanded, with a nice chronological description of his life events, and perhaps the different periods he worked on different subjects if applicable.
  • The Works section needs some referencing. There's only one reference used throughout the entire thing, and used only a few times.
  • Works has some duplication, Aristotle and Plato are discussed in the main body and in a subsection. Combine. Same with the Incoherence of the Philosophers information, and any other instances.
  • Perhaps rename "System of philosophy" just "Philosophy". It needs to be sourced, and could use expansion with detail of his beliefs about different topics.
  • Significance again needs to be sourced. There's one external link there, which I assume is meant to be a reference. Watch for overlinking, I don't think linking 1150 adds anything.
  • The Jurisprudence and Law section seems to add nothing that couldn't be included in Biography, Works, or Beliefs. It;s unsourced anyway, so if it's not useful remove it.
  • Cultural influences needs sourcing, and at any rate should be under the Significance section.
  • Okay, the List of Works is currently just subsectioned out, which really bloats the TOC. I suggest just limiting the subsections to the current level two subsections, ie Logic, Philosophy of Nature, Psychology, Metaphysics, Practical Philosophy, and Mathematics. Replace the lower sections with bold text, placing a semicolon (;) before the title (as I did to head these comments). As Questions has subsections, perhaps make it a level two subsection as well.
  • The Notes section should be called References.

Basically, while there is plenty of content here, it stands absolutely no chance of making it to a GA without some serious sourcing. Perhaps use the Further Reading's as sources if you have them on hand, and make sure that all the sources are formatted the same, no plain urls etc. Use WP:CT for templates if needed. Good luck, if you have questions I'm watching this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus cloud

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking this article to FA. I've gotten it from a little poorly-sourced article to DYK and to GA, and now want to take it on. I'd appreciate any comments on anything that needs improvement. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJHall:

  • The paragraph that begins "Scientists discovered cirrus cloud characteristics from..." seems out of place for the Description section; almost like an interlude. I think you could move that to a section about Observation and expand it a little.
  • "Cirrus cloud cover varies by time of day and by season. The researchers who studied this via satellite data only looked at the data for the United States. They found that in the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus clouds." Mention of the researchers and their location in the US seems a little diverting here. You could say, for example, "Based upon satellite observations for the United States, cirrus cloud cover varies by time of day and by season. In the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus clouds."
  • There is information about cirrus cloud cover in the Formation section. This could be combined with the above.
  • In the Formation section, cirrus cloud formation by aircraft is mentioned in two different paragraphs. These can be combined for flow.
  • "In addition", "have also been", "can also be", "There are other" and "also occur" are additive terms. Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
  • There are some inconsistencies with the bibliography citations. Author names should be presented the same way, but the article has "Minnis, Patrick", "Ryo Miyazaki", "Sheets, Robert C." and "Kenneth Sassen". Please pick one approach and stick with it.

I hope these observations helped a little. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but due to homework I haven't been able to edit as much as usual. I'll get on these now! :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks. RJH (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potcake dog

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the only article I've written so far, so I'm looking for feedback. Please, rip it apart if you feel the need: I'm not particularly thin-skinned and am always looking for ways to improve.

I'm particularly concerned about the prose quality, although I believe I've improved it since putting the article up for GA. Flow is my bugbear.

Thanks in advance. – anna 06:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The flow seems fine to me. A concern is the number of brief paragraphs, which are generally discouraged per WP:Paragraph. You might want to develop those a little more, or else merge them.—RJH (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've merged short paragraphs where possible. I left those in the lead and appearance section since I feel they look better and are helpful in terms of organization; if others disagree I'll condense them as well. I'd expand the sections if I could, but there's a dearth of reliable information on the type's traits. – anna 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I think some subjects are just doomed to remain relatively brief. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Chipmunkdavis
  • No comment on the lead right now specifically, only noting you should try to expand it. It's been said elsewhere that information from each subheader should be included, and this is a good standard to follow.
  • "Later, because of the role The Bahamas played in maritime commerce, terriers protected supplies from rats and mice on ships, arriving in Eleuthera, New Providence, and the Abaco Islands." The grammar here is off. Reword to note that the terriers arrived and interbred with the local population.
  • Is North Carolina Dogs a breed, or just dogs from North Carolina?
  • Give more context about the revolutionary war etc. It might be obvious what is being talked about to Americans, but may be less obvious for others.
  • Similarly, give context to Nassua and similar places, just say what it is (a city for example).
  • "it is accepted by the Bahamas Kennel Club as part of Group 9 – Non-Registered, along with other mixed-breed dogs" This be doggy terminology I don't fully understand, sorry. Can it be reworded so that dog-deficient people such as myself can understand the significance of this?
  • The description problem still has an issue with paragraphing, especially with the one paragraph subsection. I personally don't like subsections with less than two paragraphs, so one line is really pushing it and it probably best removed. If there's not a lot of information in description, just keep it as one chunk of text.
  • What are the misconceptions about spraying and neutering in the Bahamas?
  • It states that people have been attacked by stray dogs. Perhaps information on this can be added to the description section.
  • "adopt out" seems like jargon to me. More academic wording will go far towards a GA.
  • Move the second picture left so even out the infobox.

Overall, it is a well sourced little article. As the reviewer above said, sometimes articles just remain short, but short articles can hit GA. I suggest squeezing every drop of information possible out of your references. Good luck, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll work on these later today; it's almost through GA review but I'm looking to polish it as much as possible. Much appreciated. – anna 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wavering Radiant

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to push this article to Good Article status, and would be grateful for any criticism you may be able to offer. As such, please bear the GA goal in mind – what needs alteration to meet that mark? Thanks a million, Seegoon (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this and your recent peer reviews, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN. I think this looks pretty good already.

  • Unclear sentence Produced by "Evil" Joe Barresi after having previously worked with Matt Bayles for years, it stands as Isis' last full-length as the band split just over a year after its release. The phrase "after having previously worked with Matt Bayles for years" has no clear subject - I am pretty sure it means Isis had worked Bayles before, but this needs to be clearer. So perhaps something like Isis, which had worked with producer Matt Bayles for years, chose "Evil" Joe Barresi as producer; this was Isis' last full-length album, as the band split just over a year after its release. would be clearer. Could also just split it into two sentences.
    • Yep, fair. Rushed and ugly. I've changed this.
  • Also Bayles is only mentioned twice in the article after the lead - is he important enough to be in the lead? So perhaps "This was "Evil" Joe Barresi first time to produce an album for Isis, but it was the band's last full-length album as they split up just over a year after its release.
    • I've just pared the whole thing down.
  • The lead seems a bit sparse to me. 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've expanded this a little with detail re: touring and theme.
  • Add the year of release here? From conception to final release [in 2009], drummer Aaron Harris estimates that the creation and execution of Wavering Radiant took about two and a half years.[2]
    • Yep, cool.
  • I expected there to be more detail about how they were living for their previous album. Also just having "full-length" by itself seems odd During the writing of the record, all of Isis' members were residing permanently within Los Angeles; a situation in contrast to previous full-length [album? record?], 2006's In the Absence of Truth.
    • Added some more info and reworded.
  • Can you abandon something "more freely"? would something like "allowing them more freedom to abandon failed avenuies" work better? ...allowing them to abandon failed avenues more freely and gives ideas time to evolve
    • Reworded.
  • Why is Barresi called "Evil" in the lead but not in the body of the article?
    • This is just a weird quirk of his, and I don't really know where it applies and where it doesn't. I've removed it altogether.
  • Is there a link for drum tracking? Also missing "the" in The drum tracking took place over three and a half days at Sound City in Van Nuys; the same studio in which [the?] seminal Nirvana record Nevermind was tracked.
  • Third paragraph of Writing and recording at the end has a sentence on drum tracking, then on Hammond B3, then on drum tech. Any reason not to put the drum sentences together?
    • Tried to rework this entire section (I knew it was sloppy even before this PR) and I'm still not insanely happy with the outcome.
  • I would recast this sentence to give the date of the official announcement first, then talk about the Tool guest artist The album's official announcement was on {22 January 2009?]; Tool's Adam Jones involvement as a guest musician was revealed at the same time.[8]
    • Well, the issue here is that I'm trying to focus on his involvement over and above the release, which is mentioned in the next section.
  • Problem sentence The former made it onto the Japanese edition, while "The Pliable Foe" was a part of the Metal Swim compilation released by Adult Swim,[12] as well as Isis' split with Melvins, both released in 2010. The split EP needs a ref, and more importantly the article on it says that both songs were on the split EP (not just one song)
    • You're entirely right. Rehashed it completely.
  • Date formats need to be consistent - some are date month year, others are month date year.
    • Yup. Good spot.
  • Is using the number sign OK with the WP:MOS or should it be spelled out? On May 13 the album entered the Billboard 200 at #98 ...
    • You're right, they aren't keen on this.
  • Are rough dates for the tour legs known / if so could they be added?
    • Yeah, they are. I've added a little info.
  • Dissects seems like an odd word choice in Isis releases have always had a thematic basis; as Andrew Rennie dissects, ... Maybe notes or comments?
    • I use 'notes' and 'comments' every other sentence throughout, it seems. Maybe dissects isn't right either. I'll think on this.
  • Add score is out of a possible 100 to Its score of 79 – or 'generally favorable' – on Metacritic attests to decent reception.[60] ?
    • Sure; can't hurt.
  • No dab links, one dead external link by the EL checker on this PR page.
    • Fortunately, I could just cut that one with no negative repercussions.
  • Refs and images look OK to me
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this. I'm working my way through gradually. Seegoon (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand I'm spent. You're a star! I'll send this on its merry way to GAC once this PR has been closed. Then I'll cross my fingers and toes and keep 'em that way. Seegoon (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct lobbying in the United States

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be ready for a good article nomination.

Thanks, Bejinhan talks 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I forgot to say that this article was created as part of a university course scope and the students will be making any article changes. I will just be guiding them in the editing process. Bejinhan talks 10:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are a number of WP:GAs at Category:GA-Class United States Public Policy articles that may be useful models for this article.
  • Two dab links that need to be fixed are to be found here  Done
  • One dead external link found here  Done
  • It would be good to have a picture in the lead - how about one of the US Capitol with a caption something like "Washington DC is home to 535 members of Congress and about 13,000 lobbyists."  Done
  • The current lead is too short and does not summarize the article completely. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD  Done
  • The current first sentence does not follow WP:BEGINNING which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. (Current first sentence does not even mention the US, which is in the title)  Done
  • 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. However, the facts that more than 12,986 lobbyists are in DC and that in 2010, the total amount spent on lobbying in the United States was $3.49 billion seem to only be in the lead.  Done
  • For ideas on expanding the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several sections do not seem to be even mentioned in the lead, including Lobbying laws, Revolving door, and Corporate media lobby  Done
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the narrative flow and make it a choppy read. Wherever possible, these should be combioned with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Make sure the references contain all pertinent infroamtion. For example the current first ref is just "'Direct' and 'Grass Roots' Lobbying Defined", IRS, accessed March 20, 2010." I would spell out IRS and probably link it in the ref, and I would also include the date the ref was last updated (July 16, 2010)  Done
  • Make sure that refs used meet WP:RS and are reliable sources - for example in current ref 2 (which is also missing the date given on the web page), what makes the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network a reliable source on lobbying? Are there no political science textbooks or jornal articles that could be cited here instead? Or even newspaper stories on lobbying?
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.  Done
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example why do Jeff Chester and Center for Digital Democracy need to be (red-)linked three times in one section?  Done
  • Examples are all focused on the FCC and the most recent one cited is almost 35 years old (since he left as chair).
  • A GA criterion is broad coverage, but this does not even mention the 50 state governments that I saw
  • Another criterion is good English, but this is pretty rough in spots and needs a copyedit. One example: A U.S. Congress member has a limited amount of serving time, and has the possibility of not being re-elected, or stepping down. [31]During the 2010 elections there was an increase in Congress members leaving Capitol Hill. [31] Out of the 120 previous members, 72 have found employment. 21.8% employed at lobbying firm, while 11.5% became a lobbying client. [31] First sentence is just clunky. There should be no space between the first sentence and its ref, and a space is needed after the ref. Second sentence needs some sort of comparison - is this relative to the previous election cycle or an average or what? "leaving Capitol Hill" is also not very encylcopedic in tone (sounds like they have gone home for the night). Third sentence needs a time qualification - 72 found jobs as of when? Fourth "sentence" is a fragment, and the last phrase does not make sense to me - what does "while 11.5% became a lobbying client" mean? Also since numbers were used in previous sentences, why not use them (and %) here too?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frost Bank Tower

[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 although the page soon matched up to its Featured Article reviewer comments, it still eventually failed. As such, I'm looking for someone who can give suggestions and provide fixes.

Thanks, TheAustinMan (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Not much work seems to have been done on the article since the FAC was archived in March. There are numerous prose matters requiring attention, and also some unresolved reference issues.

Prose issues
  • "...it is the third tallest building in Austin, behind the 360 Condominiums". Behind the Condominiums and...?
  • "Cousins sold the building in 2006 to Equity Office Properties Trust for $188 million before they sold the building to Thomas Properties". Reword to remove ambiguity: "Cousins sold the building in 2006 for $188 million to Equity Office Properties Trust, who in turn sold the building to Thomas Properties". Do we have a year for this latter sale?
  • "In 1998, T. Stacy & Associates consolidated tracts of land at the building site..." Some amplification is requires of what you mean by "the building site", e.g. its geographical location in the city. What was originally on the site? Was it a vacant lot, etc?
  • Unnecessary sentence: "Cousins Properties soon developed the plans for the Frost Bank Tower." Delete and begin next: "Their original plans..." (plural)
  • The word "tall" need not be used. Hence "a 352 ft (107 m) building" etc
  • "As the building commenced on November 27, 2001, it became the tallest building in the United States of America to be constructed after the September 11 attacks." Surely, "As the building neared completion", not as building commenced.
  • "It officially became the tallest building..." What does "officially" mean here?
  • "137 million U.S. dollars" should be written as $137 million (as you do elsewhere)
  • Technical expressions should be explained. For example, what is "blue low-e glass"?
  • "The folded panes of the building step back to create a segmented pyramidal form." This is architect-speak, and needs a clearer explanation.
  • What does "150 feet of lighting" mean? Height, length?
  • "The tower used massive amounts of glass in its construction." The tower did not construct itself. Also, vague terms like "massive amounts" are non-encyclopedic. Suggest you delete this sentence.
  • "45,000 ft (13,716 m) feet was used for the crown." Is this still referring to glass, and shouldn't these be square feet and square metres?
  • I don't think the "Critics' responses" section should lead off with a facetious comment - put it in later.
  • An explanation of "Keep Austin Wierd" should be given, rather than just a link.
  • The very long, convoluted sentence that begins "The tower was awarded..." needs reconstruction
  • "The Frost Bank Tower contains a wide variety of amenities, most of which are located in the tower." My emphasis: I imagine they all are. Can you explain what you mean?
  • What is this "tin cross" tradition?
References issues
  • Whenever possible, with websites list the organisation responsible for the site as publisher rather than the web address. For example (ref 1) the publisher is Skyscraper Source Media
  • Journal and nespaper names should be italicised
  • Ref 9 is a dead link
  • Ref 11: Highbeam is not the publisher. The report comes from Business Wire
  • Ref 17: Who are "Elliptipar"?

On a more general point, the article does not compare well in terms of comprehensiveness and presentation with existing building FAs such as Chicago Board of Trade Building and Monadnock Building, and a lot more work will be necessary if it is to make the grade at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Pinter

[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 feel that it is time to move on to featured article status. The article is probably a little too long and has suffered from ownership issues by a now banned editor. Any useful criticism much appreciated.

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim Riley I was one of the Wiki-colleagues who spent a little time a year or so back trying to lend a hand with cleaning this article up. I'd be happy to make detailed comments here, if that is a proper course of action, but I don't want to stick my oar in if I am ineligible by reason of my earlier contributions. Advice, please! Tim riley (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, no I would welcome a fresh review as I do intend to take this to FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Right ho! Then here goes. The ingredients of this article are excellent, and it is much more like a top-class article than it was a year or two ago. Nevertheless, it has, I think, some way to go before it meets the FAC criterion that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". The pseudo-academic pretensions of earlier versions have not yet all been expunged, though you have certainly done wonders. It will take me several goes to complete my comments. Here is the first batch.

  • Lead: no suggestions. A good length and judicious balance.
  • Early life and education
    • "native-English parents of Eastern-European" – there are two more hyphens here than Fowler would have us use; a legacy of an earlier, American, editor, perhaps.
Done
    • Short quotations, such as "good cook" and "a solid, red-brick….": I think you'll come under some pressure at FAC to attribute within the text any quotations you include. Thus "described by Pinter as 'a good cook'" etc. Some cases are more intrusive than others, no doubt.
Done
    • "Pinter's official authorised biographer" – tautology? Can one be an official biographer without being authorised, or vice versa?
Done
    • "Spring 1947" – two things here. Wikipedia house style is not to capitalise the seasons; and to appease those in the Antipodes, WP recommends avoiding using, e.g., "spring" if one could as well write "April" or whatever the month was.
Done, left it as spring, I take the point about the Antipodes but I think the issue was entitled Spring.
  • Sport and friendship
    • Gratuitous comment by TR (to be ignored) – what in God's name was a good London lad doing supporting that shower from Headingley?
Indeed!
    • "Testosterone" quote – that one really does need attributing in-line.
Done
    • "After his death, several of his school contemporaries recalled his achievements in sports, especially cricket and running" – does this sentence add anything to the six previous ones?
Hmm, I'll think about that.
    • "Platonic ideal of male friendship" – that's a lot of blue for one link; could the blue reasonably be confined to "Platonic" or some such?
Done
    • "he worked for the Donald Wolfit Company, King's Theatre, Hammersmith" – "at the" before "King's", perhaps?
Done
    • "In all, Pinter played nearly 25 roles" – a lot of "Pinter"s hereabouts; would "he" flow better here and in the next sentence?
Changed to over 20
      • Afterthought: Is "nearly 25" a good enough measure? I might go for 23 (or whatever it was) or else "more than 20". Just a thought.
    • "as he did later as well" – stylistically a bit limp? Stronger as something like "as he continued to do throughout his career"?
Done
  • Marriages and family life
    • "most notably The Homecoming" – very likely, but it's too firm an opinion to stand without a citation
Done, notably removed
    • "on-off affair" – unclear whether the quotation marks indicate an unattributed quotation or an apology for using a slangy phrase.
Sorted
    • "seeing an American socialite" – "seeing" is a bit vague in this context (possibly an American euphemism?)
Sorted by rewrite
    • "whom he nicknamed 'Cleopatra', another secret he kept" – it was presumably the seeing not the nickname that he kept secret – the text could be misunderstood by those determined to spot ambiguities
Rewritten
    • "five days after Hall's première of No Man's Land":
      • this is the first mention of Hall. I don't think his name adds anything to this sentence, and I'd delete it, but if you prefer to keep it you need to blue-link it and give him his first name.
Deleted
      • WP prefers Anglicised versions of foreign words that are in common use, so you should lose the accent on première.
Him, this is the correct British English spelling.
    • "For all concerned" – this orphaned quote really needs to be fostered by someone. One can often guess who said some of the other unattributed quotes, but this one defeats me.
Removed
    • "after Pinter and Lady Antonia Fraser" – at her last mention she was just "Fraser" tout court. Does it help to expand her name again this time?
Done
    • He "re-drafted" and "polished" it "off" – oh, come on! Is there a special offer on quotation marks at Ryman's this week?
Done
    • "Pinter 'did everything possible to support' her" – says who? The citation at the end of the sentence is a long way away, and your reader should not be required to go to it and thence to the notes at the end of the article. I'd paraphrase this, "Pinter believed/maintained/contended that he had done everything possible to support her…"
Done
    • "she says that she 'could'" More gratuitous quotes. No rational person could maintain that omitting the quotation marks here would be tantamount to plagiarism. The source of the statement is perfectly plain without them.
Done
    • "Did Billington really write "the break-up … and the new life … was"? If his grammar was thus faulty, so be it, but it might be worth checking.
Yes he did, but he is only a journalist
    • "the new life with Antonia" – yet another way of referring to the lady. I think you should strive for consistency throughout. (I've just been pressed into doing the same for Elizabeth David at peer review and so I'm boxing about.)
It is a quote from Billington
    • "did not 'claim' to have 'some influence over' Pinter" – more otiose quotation marks
Done

That's all for now. I'll gather my strength and return with more a.s.a.p. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, excellent stuff so far, i will start looking at it tonight. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have made a first pass at these comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ssilvers: Congratulations on your progress with the article. My main thought is that it is over-referenced. We don't need three refs for the first sentence of the Lead, and there are often two or even three refs for simple propositions in the article. Also, the "Works cited and further reading" section seems to cite too many works that are never used in the text. We are still citing 8 pieces by Susan Hollis Merritt [. . .]. But I have no idea which ones are unnecessary. Hope this helps. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I will look at this, but will try and get the prose into shape first. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on the Works cited section and good tweaks throughout. Your hard work on this is much appreciated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of comments from Tim riley:

  • Civic activities and political activism
    • "essays, interviews, and public appearances" – is the Oxford comma needed before "and" here?
Done
    • Third para – begins with a pronoun, which I think FAC inquisitors will want to see rendered as a name.
Done
    • "Acceptance Speech"– why the inverted commas?
Done
  • As actor
    • "Mike Nichols'" – American form of possessive. English usage would be Nichols's.
The artcile uses British English
  • As playwright
    • "Pinter is the author of 29 plays" – ought this to be "was"? I'm not sure what the consensus is on referring to dead writers in the present tense.
Done
    • "a staggeringly confident debut" – this quote really needs an attribution in the text, I think, not just a citation in a footnote.
Done
    • "despite a rave review" – slightly slangy phrase for an encyclopaedia article, perhaps?
Done
    • The Hobson review of The Birthday Party could do with a citation
Done
    • "It was not produced very often thereafter" – a rather woolly phrase; could we know, e.g., how often it was produced in London?
Reworded
    • Memory plays – this section, containing some of Pinter's greatest plays, seems to me rather perfunctory in comparison with the more detailed (and most welcome) treatment of the earlier plays. Extensive discussion of the individual plays themselves is not wanted here, but a few production details or reviews would bring this sub-section up to fighting weight. I'd be happy to dig them up if you would like them.
That would be a help. I will start drafting something tomorrow.
    • The Hothouse – "it is also highly comic" – says who?
Mmmm, can't find a precise source for this so have rewritten
    • …presented "metaphors" for "power and powerlessness," the later ones present literal "realities" of power… – all these quotation marks could be lost without for a moment obscuring the fact that the words are Pinter's.
Done
    • "a gathering place for the theatre crowd" – another slightly slangy construction?
Rephrased
    • "The ritzy loudmouths in 'Celebration' ... and the quieter working-class mumblers of 'The Room' ... have everything in common beneath the surface" – as I read the MoS, you are permitted (and if so, I think ought) silently to change the single quotes into italics.
I am not clear about what you mean here
    • "harkening back" – harking back?
British English verb form of hearken.
    • The waiter's last speech doesn't work on the page in the current formatting. I think you might try a blockquote. [Later: I've done so, but if you think it doesn't work, revert it, of course. Tim riley (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]
Done

More anon. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be away for a week, with little online access, so my next batch of comments probably won't be till the middle of next week. Tim riley (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Tim, Thanks for all your help. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back. Will resume review over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, look forward to it. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Round three
  • As screenwriter
    • Only two comments on this section. First, a general one: there are rather a lot of actors listed against the film titles, and this somewhat clogs up the page with blue links. I wonder if you need the cast members at all? I might be inclined to give title and director and leave it at that. But if you disagree with that, you might still take the pruning shears to the cast of e.g. The Last Tycoon, where you surely don't need seven names?
Agreed, all "stars" removed, not relevant here, the details are in the articles on the original films. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other point on this section is that Pinter's screenwriting career ended with Sleuth, but it is rather tendentious (and in my view inaccurate) to say this was the culmination of that career. The OED defines "culminate" as "To reach its acme, or highest development", which if applied to Sleuth is pushing things more than somewhat and is POV in any case. And what relevance is it to this article that Olivier played Wyke in an earlier film of the play in which Pinter had no hand?
Agreed, rephrased with culmination removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2001-2008
    • Homage – is the link helpful?
No, removed per WP:OVERLINKING Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second para of this section contains a contender for Longest Sentence in Wikipedia. I'd drop the padding "As chronicled on his official website and in the subsequent editions of the "Harold Pinter Bibliography" in volumes of The Pinter Review" and chop the remainder into two or preferably three shorter sentences.
Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "otherwise-retrospective" – otiose hyphen. Americans seem addicted to this sort of thing but I have just checked against Fowler, who will have none of it.
Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS gives instructions about where to hyphenate and where not to in all WP articles (It is the same for US and UK). See WP:HYPHEN. This is not a simple series of rules to apply consistently, and I agree with Tim that the ones he has identified are unneeded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "over a 130" – intrusive article here
Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "dozen … dozen" – rather a jingle, or is it deliberate for rhetorical effect?
Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Productions during the Festival" – lower case festival?
Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "activism" – another link of (meseems) doubtful help to the reader
Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some of this later poetry …." Is a reference called for at the end of this sentence? Not sure.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "adapting such selected works by Pinter" – unclear what the "such" refers to here
Removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "premièred" – though I personally prefer to use the grave accent in this word, Wikipedia doesn't (see MoS)
My reading is that is by no means forbidden Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In an interview of Pinter" – is "of" the natural preposition here? It reads slightly awkwardly to me. Might "with" flow better? Not certain.
Yes, "with". Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cultural Programme" – definitely need to blitz this link; it would be unnecessary in any case, and it links to an article about printed theatre booklets.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his friend, playwright David Hare" – this is one of many such instances of an American/journalese construction that I detest. The Guardian's style guide recommends the construction "his friend, the playwright David Hare". I know that others regard this view as very English and old-fashioned, however.
Yes, this is a difference between UK and US usage: I believe that proper UK usage is to include the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "motorized" – the normal UK English form "—ised" is used elsewhere, and I think you might adopt it here
Yes, although ized is fine in English, consistency is important. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it was one of the most sought-after tickets" – confusion in construction here: a show can't be a ticket, even figuratively, can it? This sentence would be shorter and do the job perfectly well if, after the semi-colon you had " it sold out within minutes…"
    • "scalpers" – ? an Americanism for "touts" I assume. Some wording in neutral English needs to be found here, though I confess nothing leaps to mind.
How about "on the illegal resale market" or "from illegal resellers"? Not very elegant, but avoids colloquialisms. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It featured selected productions" – Query: does this mean that the productions were selected (whose, if so?) rather than the plays?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "2 February through 24 March 2007" – this really must be translated into English.
    • Celebration – another mammoth cast list that could be pruned, and so could the one for Radio 3's Homecoming, below it.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "40th anniverary" – typo
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a limited engagement through 13 April 2008" – in America, undeniably, but let's have the sentence in English.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "during the play's break" – do you think this perhaps reads a bit oddly?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Man's Land quote – are the three references necessary? A touch of overkill, possibly.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funeral
    • "Pinter's tearful widow, Antonia Fraser" – I question whether the adjective is either tasteful or helpful here
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the death of Prince Hamlet – might be easier on the reader's eye if you piped this as [[Prince Hamlet|Hamlet]]
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memorial tributes
    • "to support residents' campaign" – missing an article?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "most-accomplished " – another howler with hyphens
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the year that he" – would "the year in which he" read more smoothly?
  • Being Harold Pinter
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph fails to tell the reader the name of the country and city where this event took place. The blue links point to New York venues, but the location should be in the text too.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "public media" – blue link of doubtful usefulness
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "due to a government crackdown" – "owing to a government crackdown" in good UK English
Too idiomatic, IMO. How about "because of a gov..."?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Public Theatre" – the article to which the blue link points is entitled "Public Theater". I know not which is correct, but there is an inconsistency here.
I think it should be "The Public Theater", since it is describing a performance at the venue of that name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come in due season. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, will check these out this evening. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
    • individual identity oppressed by..." Is "oppressed" being used correctly? Not sure. "subjected to"? Or maybe "being oppressed"?
I think that is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try that. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph, we mention his Tony Award, but not his Olivier Award. I would add Olivier. Indeed, the infobox mentions some awards not mentioned in the Lead. I think the infobox should either match, or list a subset of the awards mentioned in the Lead; please consider.
I agree, will look at this later. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We progress! I'll carry on reviewing tomorrow and post another batch in the next day or so. This is going to be a top notch article. Tim riley (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last batch from Tim riley
  • Honours
    • "In 1995 and 1996…" – the "respectively" at the end of the sentence is a long way from these dates and one has to go back and refresh the memory on reaching it. Easier on your readers' eyes if you redraw, perhaps.
    • "critic Michael Billington" – as before, good UK English requires the definite article here. (Billington's own paper agrees: this is from The Guardian's style guide: "Avoid the 'chancellor Gordon Brown' syndrome: do not use constructions, beloved of the tabloids, such as 'chancellor Gordon Brown said'.")
  • Nobel Prize and Nobel Lecture
    • "Pinter joked" – I think it possible that readers may realise, without being told, that Pinter was joking.
  • Scholarly response
    • "results from this astute scrutiny" – the adjective looks a touch POV unless specifically taken from the cited source.
    • "…Jones and Henry Woolf would remind analytically inclined scholars…" does the subjunctive add anything here?
    • "The trap with Harold's work…" It is confusing here, after the introductory sentence on the line above seems to promise a quotation from joint authors, to read "I have always tried…"
  • Notes and references
    • There seems no obvious rationale for the listing of online sources. Some are listed only in the Notes section as and when they appear, but others are also listed again in the "Works cited" section. For example, the source at note 2 is not listed again under "Works cited" but those for notes 5 and 6 are. I wondered if it might be that works cited more than once are listed under "Works cited" and works cited only once are not, but no, that doesn't apply to notes 192 and 208. I ask because I can think of one (excellent) FA reviewer who is habitually very hot on consistency of style and format in referencing, and has put me through the wringer good and proper on the subject.
    • Note 81 – Mbeki, but no first name for the author.
  • Works cited
    • I can't recall seeing elsewhere in WP the long dashes used here for repetitions of authors' names in a list. It's familiar from printed books, of course, and it doesn't bother me here, but don't be surprised if you get some flak at FAC.
    • This is an unusually long list of sources, but I did a ten per cent check and all the works listed do indeed seem to be cited somewhere in the course of the article.

That's my lot. There was always a fine article in here waiting to be rescued from the impenetrable fog of academe, and you have done wonders in revealing it. To my mind, the almost certain circumstance that a previous editor did a fair bit of self-quotation throughout the article is not a problem. The content of the article was never a difficulty – just the presentation.

At 16,700 words, this is on the long side for a WP featured article, but I think you can point to the existence of no fewer than six sub-articles to demonstrate that only the essentials have been kept in the main article, and I'm blest if I know what you could prune from it as it stands.

I have not forgotten my promise to dig out some details to flesh out the "Memory plays" sub-section (further swelling your word count) and will go away and do so now. I'll post them to the article talk page, rather than here. Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, will look at this during the week. You are right about the references, i plan to address the consistency there when the prose is in better shape. I shall be travelling a lot during May so progress will be steady but slow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – The dates in the web citations are a bit ambigious: How can the reader know what is the retrieval date and what is the publication date in, e.g. ":–––. "Passionate Pinter's Devastating Assault On US Foreign Policy". Guardian.co.uk, UK News. Guardian Media Group, 8 December 2005. Web. 1 February 2011. ("Shades of Beckett as ailing playwright delivers powerful Nobel lecture".)", without clicking on the link? Of course this is only nitpicking, but it would perhaps do with a "accessed" or "retrieved" note in front of the retrieval date. --Eisfbnore talk 21:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenox Square

[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 looking for other opinion as to any improves I need to make on this article. I would like to nominate it for GA status soon, and although it has some ways to go, I think I'll be able to do it.

Thanks, DAP388 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, but the article needs a lot of work before it would have a chance at GAN. In its current state it would be a quick fail, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 5 good articles at Category:GA-Class Shopping center articles which would be useful models.
  • There is a toolbox on this page in the upper right corner. It shows that there are three disambiguation links that need to be resolved - see here
  • The toolbox also shows that there is one dead external link that needs to be fixed - see here
  • The references are the biggest problem with the article as it now stands. The first problem is that the article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of Renovations has no refs, and the last sentence of the third paragraph there also needs a ref.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The current references do not provide the information needed to check the sources. For example one ref is just shown as www.time.com and is a link to the cover of an issue - which article in that issue is cited?
  • 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 references cited do not back up the information provided in some cases. I checked these two sentences: Visited by more than 35 million people a year, Lenox Square is one of the most popular and profitable retail centers in the United States.[16] Together with Phipps Plaza, an estimated $1 billion was pumped into the local economy in 2007.[17]
    • Current ref 16 makes no mention of Lenox Square and a map of malls served by this shopping mall add business does not show any locations in Georgia. So even though there is a ref, it does not back up the extraordinary statement made.
      • I also do not see what makes this ref (assuming somehow mentions Lenox Square and I missed it) as reliable source.
    • Current ref 17 is to a book (Frommer's Guide to Atlanta) but the page shown does not mention Phipps Plaza at all, and though it mentions Lenox Square, it is only to locate bookstores in relation to it.
  • Even where the ref does back up the material in the article, it is not necessarily accurate. For example the article says Several items were proposed on the site, including three statues, a pedestrian bridge linking Lenox Square with neighboring shopping center Phipps Plaza, and a discothèque.[1] These plans, however, would never materialize. The property was bought and acquired by Noble Properties in 1956.[2] This makes it sounds lkike these were plans for the land BEFORE Lenox Square was built and that the mall took the place of these plans. However, checking ref 1, the three statues were there for the opening of the mall, and one of them still exists. The other attractions seem to be things planned for the mall itself.
  • There is no background on what was at the site before the mall, but ref 1 does list some of this information.
  • There is no date for the first major exapansion / rewnovation (enclosing the mall).
  • Language is pretty rough in spots and needs a copyedit, though fix the other problems first.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movie production incentives in the United States

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was created as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy. I've listed this article for peer review because we'd like to receive community feedback. As new creators, we'd like feedback on content, tone, style, and any other aspects deemed noteworthy by readers.

Thanks, Dglasser13 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, which looks pretty good, especially for an initial effort; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several GAs at Category:GA-Class United States Public Policy articles which may be good models.
  • There are two dead external links - see here. These appear to be newspapers, so the link can just be to the newspaper (does not have to be a working web link if it is in print too)
  • The lead seems like it could be expanded 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, but History and Types do not seem to be in the lead as it currently stands.
  • I think that the History section could have a bit more about the esptablishment of the US film industry in Hollywood as background. I would then think about putting the section in more chronological order. It just seems odd to have the earliest incentives (LA in 1991) in the very last paragraph. See provide context to the reader
  • The WP:MOS says to avoid bullet point lists wherever possible (convert them to straight prose instead). This does not mean to have no such lists in the article, but the only one I would think about keeping is the one in Types (and even then I am not sure)
  • Make sure the use of bold type follows WP:ITALIC
  • Make sure that section and sub-section headers follow WP:HEAD which says not to repeat the title of the article or section headers in a section or subsection. So "Arguments supporting incentives" and "Arguments against incentives" could just be "Pro" and "Con" (the article is about incentives, and the header is already "Arguments"
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they break up the flow of the narrative. WHerever possible combine these paragraphs with others or perhaps expand them.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • Could some examples of films made with such incentives be added? I know that The Road (film) was filmed at least partly in Pennsylvania, 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No me queda más

[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 it to be a good article. However, since I haven't been successful in my nominations I am coming here first for comments.

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 46 WP:FA articles on songs at Category:FA-Class song articles, and several of them seem like they would be good models for this.
  • The article has a large amount of coverage on its video compared to the material on the song in the article, which might be a WP:WEIGHT issue. For an example of a FA on a single with a well known video see Under the Bridge
  • The biggest problem with the article is the language, which has numerous errors and problems. This is in serious need of a copyedit to have any chance of passing at GAN.
  • I do not have time to do a copyedit myself, but here are a few sentences from just the lead It was released in the United States for the Tejano and rhythmic contemporary radios. The song describes an emotional destruct women who had recently fell in love with a man, and later finds out he is getting married. The women then fells like "There's nothing left" to live for, without being with him. I think this means something like It was released in the United States for Tejano and rhythmic contemporary radio stations [but wasn't it released as a single for sale too??]. The song describes an emotional distraught woman who had recently fallen in love with a man, but later finds out he is getting married. The women then feels like "There's nothing left" to live for[, without being with him - I am not sure what this means].
  • 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, but The songs, "Amor Prohibido" and "No Me Queda Más", became the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995.[1][2] seems to only be in the lead.
  • As written The songs, "Amor Prohibido" and "No Me Queda Más", became the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995.[1][2] is vague and needs to be clarified - most successful in the whole world? in the US? in the Latin music markets?
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but critical reception and covers do not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The organization of the article is odd, though it may be from the ongoing merger of the video and music articles. Again I would look at some model articles
  • Most of the references are to amazon.com - not sure that is the best, mosst reliable source.
  • What makes covers notable?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The merger between the music video and article has been complete. Adabow hasn't remove the tag ever since s/he had tag the two articles. The reason why there might be a weight issue with a more coverage on the music video then the song is because, I have found numerous articles and video specials on the music video itself rather then the song. I only found a little less then a handful of articles pertaining the song itself. I have fixed the lead and added in the music video and a little bit of everything else on the article. The reference for "No Me Queda Mas" and "Amor Prohibido" being the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, doesn't specify the country or genre that it was most successful in. I decided to say in "United States Latino community and Mexico" as the song only charted in music charts pertaining to Latin music and not to mainstream American charts. The only references that are from Amazon.com is the covers and release dates. The covers are other Latin American artists who included the song in their albums, however, none ever peaked in a music chart that's why I used a table to add all the covers, since a lot of artists recorded the song. All other songs include covers from artists, why exclude it here? If there are any other problems please tell me so I can fix them. I'm not good with prose and all that other stuff but I did re-read the article and found minor errors, which I fixed. Also, if you can, re-name the article back to "No Me Queda Mas", some other editor decided to lower-case each other letter, however, as you can see, the cover is in upper case. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1931 Constitution of Ethiopia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
While this is admittedly an esoteric subject which is likely to scare off anyone without a serious interest in constitutional law &/or Ethiopian history (i.e., almost everyone), I'd like some feedback on this article as to coverage ("Does it answer every reasonable question a non-expert might have on the subject? Okay then, how about most of them?"), coherence, & if it at least meets the unspecified standard for a B-category article in the categories it might fall into. Simply stated, I've accumulated more information on this subject than I thought I ever could, & want to know if I have succeeded in presenting that material in a useful manner. If not, then tell me what needs fixing.

Thanks, llywrch (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

Oh hey, fancy meeting you here! I usually focus on the details when I'm peer reviewing, but here I will make a rare exception and try to avoid nitpicking altogether until we've evaluated the article as a whole. My thoughts:

  • "Regent Haile Selassie had wanted Empress Zawditu to proclaim such a document" Why? It would be beneficial to elaborate on Selassie's thoughts behind the constitution.
  • "Unlike its Japanese model, the Ethiopian Constitution was a simple document of 55 articles arranged in seven chapters." In order for this comparison to be helpful, more needs to be said about the Japanese constitution. How many articles?
    • Um, those are more or less Keller's words. Until a month ago, I didn't even have access to a copy of the 1931 constitution, & comparing it to the Meji Constitution I see a number of points where the Ethiopian constitution drew on it (e.g., both have a chapter on the "rights & duties of its subjects" -- an unusual concept in constitutional law). -- llywrch (talk)
  • "Twelve articles setting forth the powers of the Emperor." Which are...?
  • "Article 54 establishes Special Courts, required by the Klobukowski agreement of 1906, which had exempted foreigners from both Ethiopian law and her justice system." Who is she?
    • Klobukowski was a he. A French diplomat, to be precise -- or do you mean the possessive adjective in the phrase "her justice system"? Isn't it accepted practice to refer to a country as a "she"? -- llywrch (talk)
      • I had assumed that "she" referred to Klobukowski. I have never seen countries referred to as "she" in encyclopedic writing, but that may be for the simple reason that I don't work on country-related articles very often. Regardless of what the accepted practice is, I think in this case it would make sense to change "she" to "its". Better yet, we could change "both Ethiopian law and her justice system" to "the Ethiopian legal system". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the restoration of Haile Selassie in 1941, Emperor Haile Selassie re-established the 1931 constitution, convening the parliament 2 November 1942. This body included a chamber of deputies which was double its pre-war size..." There's some sort of conflict being hinted at here, but it's not clear what's going on.
    • By conflict, do you mean the Second Italo-Abyssinian War? Or are you referring to the increased size of the Chamber of Deputies? -- llywrch (talk)
      • I suppose I might be referring to the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, though I wouldn't really know. The phrases that stuck out to me as being mysterious were "restoration of Haile Selassie", whose link target is not at all clear from the anchor text, and "pre-war" because it hasn't been made clear what war is being referred to. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Constitution of 1931 was superseded at the time of Emperor Haile Selassie's silver jubilee, when a new constitution was promulgated." When was this and why was it superseded? And what the f*ck is a silver jubilee???
    • Wouldn't that be better explained in the article on the 1955 constitution? Just asking. And would it help if Silver Jubilee were linked? -- llywrch (talk)
      • Well, why was the 1955 constitution instated? The obvious generic answer is that the 1931 was not effective or not well-supported. That should be explained here. And yes, it would help if silver jubilee were linked. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. This is the sort of thing I was looking for. -- llywrch (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DSi

[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 submitting this one for prose comments, considerations, any possible issues, et al. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 04:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. It seems to have all the information needed, but the prose could use a copyedit before FAC (assume that is the next stop as it is already a GA). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • In the lead I would say something like "in 2008 and 2009" or perhaps "in late 2008 and late 2009" in The Nintendo DSi (ニンテンドーDSi, Nintendō DSi?)[1] is a handheld game system created by Nintendo and released between 2008 and 2009 in Japan, Australasia, Europe, North America, China and other regions through various distributors. I am also not sure that "through various distributors" is needed in the lead - seems a bit too detailed for an overview
  • Whatever you do there, I would do something very similar for A larger model, entitled Nintendo DSi XL, was released between 2009 and 2010 in Japan, Europe, North America and other regions through various distributors.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - does it really enhance the reader's understanding to have a link to common words like Household?
  • Awkward phrase ... its added functionality caused many to recommend it to non-owners of prior DS models. non-owners??

History

  • Would it make sense to add a little bit of background about the two previous DS prodects here, to start? Perhaps a sentence or two on the DS and DS lite either at the beginning of the current first paragraph or as its own paragraph to provide context to the reader
  • In History, "Conception" seems like the wrong word - perhaps "Development"? Conception of the Nintendo DSi began at the end of 2006, around the time of the Wii's release.[2]
  • I do not understand the word "marketing" in Kuwahara reported that his team had difficulty marketing the handheld during production; he said of their goal, "We have to be able to sell the console on its own. It also has to be able to meld into the already-existing DS market."[2] How can you market something that does not yet exist? Also production to me sounds like it is being manufactured already (fake quote "Our state of the art production facility can produce N million DSi units a year.") Does it mean something like "Kuwahara reported tht his team had difficulty determining the potential market for the handheld during the design process;..."
  • Also do not understand this ...as their circular perforations were redundant with the rest of the handheld's interface. By the way, mentioning the features of the original DS and DS lite in a background paragraph (does not have to be its own section) would probably help here too (since this refers to the touchscreen and microphone too)
  • Really long sentence - split in two? So something like He believed that this alteration also signaled a clearer distinction between the DSi and its predecessors while keeping the unit "neat" and "simple". Ehara hoped the DSi's added features would not interfere with his desired iconic image of the Nintendo DS product line: two rectangles, one on top of the other, with each half containing another rectangle, the sceen, inside.[2]
  • Awkward, suggest something like However, Kuwahara said of the console's in-company unveiling in October 2007 that "the response wasn’t that great, and, ... we’d sort of been expecting that." Consequently, the second game card slot was removed, which made the handheld approximately 3 millimetres (0.12 in) slimmer.[2] This model was publicly revealed at the October 2008 Nintendo Conference in Tokyo, along with its Japanese price and release date.[3]
  • I assume this is going to be the DSi XL, but needs to be made clearer. Perhaps add something like "Devolpment of the DSi XL began" to the front of In 2007, [when] Nintendo had designed a large DS Lite model with 3.8-inch screens, compared to the standard 3-inch screens; development of this new handheld advanced far enough that it could have begun mass production. Also need metric equivalents (and units have to be consistent, assume metric fist as Japan is a SI country).

Launch

  • Pounds are currency only in the UK, what was the price in Euros for European sales? Its European and United States list prices were £149.99 and US$169.99, respectively.[15]
  • Could this be a bit simpler? Nintendo had shipped 200,000 units for the DSi's Japanese launch and during its first two days on sale, 170,779 units were sold according to sales tracking service Enterbrain;[17] or 171,925 units according to Media Create[18]—the remaining units were either unclaimed pre-orders or preserved for Culture Day.[17] Perhaps something like "...during its first two days on sale, over 170,000 units were sold[17][18]— ..." with the exact figures and sources in a note or in the two refs? I am also not sure what "preserved for Culture Day" means. Were they reserved for sale on Culture Day?
  • watch verb tenses in the Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun reported that this model features [featured?] improved security, in order to combat piracy.[28] On April 15, 2010, the DSi was launched in South Korea in white, black, blue and pink, alongside the game MapleStory DS. MapleStory DS will also be [was also?] bundled with a red limited edition DSi, which will have [had?] characters from the game printed around its external camera.[29]
  • Need to include the Japanese name of the XL at the end of the previous section where names are discussed. Can also tighten this The Nintendo DSi XL (Nintendo DSi LL in Japan) was released in Japan on November 21, 2009 with three available colors: [in] dark brown (bronze), wine red (burgundy), and natural white.[33]
  • Watch tense throughout the fourth paragraph - usually things are described in the past, but some are present tense. This also seems like it could be tightened more, but I do not have time to point out every place (I did make some minor copyedits in this section to correct obvious errors).
  • How about for In Europe, Nintendo sells the console to retailers for a higher price than the original DSi, but lets them decide on the consumer sale price.[37] instead having something like In Europe, the wholesale price of DSi XL was higher than that of the DSi, but Nintendo allowed retailers to set their price to consumers.

Demographic and sales

  • Nothing horrible here, but I think this would do better at FAC if it had a copy edit to smooth and tighten the prose here (and throughout). WP:WIAFA criterion 1a is the most difficult to achieve for the majority of articles at FAC.

'Hardware

  • Need metric units here too - {{convert}} works nicely
  • One example of tightening possible: The lower screen is touch sensitive: it accepts input from the included stylus. could be something like The touch sensitive lower screen accepts input from the included stylus.
  • Reads oddly to talk about size then weight then size again, so how about The DSi weighs 214 grams (7.5 oz), and when closed is 74.9 mm long × 137 mm wide × 18.9-mm tall (give inches), which is approximately 12% shorter (2.6 mm or inches) than the Nintendo DS Lite, but slightly wider and lighter.[54][55][57]
  • "was expanded" (not "was raised") in ...the CPU was also relocated, and the battery housing raised to fill the unused space.[2]
  • I would move the Japanses version of the DSi LL name to the last paragraph of History (right before Launch) where names for this version are discussed. Avoid needless repetition, so if it is already mentioned before here it could be just The Nintendo DSi XL, (DSi LL in Japan)
  • When a person's name is used the first time, spell it out in full. Afterwards just use the last name (unless there are more than one persons with the same last name). So Satoru Iwata is given three times and should be just Iwata after the first use according to the MOS.

Features and Software library and Reception and legacy

  • Why is " Nintendo DSi Camera" in quotes the first time in this section, but not in the Menu description?
  • I expected there to be some sort of statement as to the number of games available for the DSi as of some date in this section.
  • In Reception and legacy, I would go from general comments about the DSi as a whole to more specific comments about parts of it.
  • I am note sure why there are reviews of the 3DS in this article - not clear why the last paragraph is included.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Holloway

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article about the much-loved singer and actor (Doolittle in My Fair Lady) and monologist is mostly the work of User:Cassianto, with whose approval I am putting it forward for peer review. Cassianto has researched the subject widely, and, following some recent editing and additions by me and a very thorough copy editing by User:Ssilvers, the comments of Wiki-colleagues are sought, with a view to Cassianto's putting the article forward for promotion to GA in due course. Tim riley (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article. I'm a bit busy, so my detailed review will have to be in instalments. Here is he first tranche:-

  • "He made early stage appearances before infantry service in the First World War, but his career took off after the war, as a member of a concert party, The Co-Optimists. The name of the concert party should be in quotes, not italicised. The sentence itself is awkwardly phrased, with a dubious "but"; "took off" is perhaps a little informal. I would suggest: "He made early stage appearances before infantry service in the First World War; after the war he joined a concert party, "The Co-Optimists", and his career began to flourish".
  • "in plays and on film" → "in plays and films"
  • Another sentence needing attention: "He appeared successfully in Shakespeare and in a series of films for Ealing Studios." Probaly "well-received" would be a better term than the subjective "successfully". The link t the biographical Shakespeare article is not appropriate here. I would reorder the sentence as: "He made well-received stage and film appearances in Shakespeare, and in a series of films for Ealing Studios."
  • "bringing him international fame" → "...and brought him international fame".
Early life
  • As much of the content is about family background, I recommend extending the section title to "Family background and early life"
  • Images should not be positioned opposite each other, thus squeezing the text. The picture of Millie is hardly relevantto this article and should be dropped. Personally, I don't think File:Stanley Holloway aged 10.JPG will be accepted ad PD in the US, unless you can show that it was first published before 1923.
  • "Maria C., Charles T. and George A" is an odd format for indicating names, at least in the UK. I'd drop the initials.
  • "George left Florence in 1905 and was never seen or heard of again by his family". I think "heard from" rather than "heard of". The sources give a date for his death, and I imagine family members became aware of that. Comma necessary after "1905".
  • Last paragraph: four sentences begin with "He..." which does not read well. The last sentence is a puzzle: it sounds as though he left his job to join the army, yet the next section indicates otherwise. Can you clarify? If possible the two very short sentences should be combined.
Early career & WW1
  • "with whom Holloway later starred with..."? One "with" too many. Also itaicisation ("The Co-optimists" again)
  • Was his stage career full time at this point? What was he "returning to the capital" for?
  • No need to specify that Milan is in Italy
  • "The war took him to France, where he fought in the trenches and helped bring down an enemy plane and capture the crew". This sounds a little glib, magaziney. Be a bit more precise about his role in "bringing down" an enemy aircraft, putting this incident into some sort of context, thus: "He fought in the trenches in France, on one occasion..."etc

Good! Thank you very much for these. I'll consult the editor chiefly responsible for the article and report back soonest. No rush for second tranche. Tim riley (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited all of the points kindly raised by Brianboulton to the best of my ability and I have deleted the sentences "Dividing his time between Clacton on sea and the Capital" and "Bringing down the enemy plane and capturing the crew" as i cannot specify further. Both of these sentences are in the autobiography but SH did not elaborate further than that so I have removed them all together. Incidentally, the picture of SH aged 10 does have a line written directly underneath the photo stating "Here I am aged ten, the solemn, Eton collared Boy Soprano. The first rung..." If he was ten at this point then this would have been taken c. 1900/ 1901 well before 1923, this would be the only proof in order to date the photo. Cassianto (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tranmere Rovers 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 listed this article for peer review because I've recently undertaken a major rewrite of the page. This is my first step into the world of peer review, so any pointers will be gratefully received.

Thanks! U+003F? 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso
  • Looking at how the article was before you started your rewrite, it appears to have been a copy-paste of [3], and was thus a copyright violation at the time. While your rewrite has improved matters in this regard, there are still significant portions of the text which have not been rewritten sufficiently to stop them being violations of copyright and/or plagiarism. For example, the paragraph starting "Not satisfied with playing friendlies against local opposition" is virtually identical to that in the reference.  Done
  • There are many unsourced statements that require references. Any statement that a sceptical reader could question needs a reference. In practice this means more or less anything that would not be common knowledge to a reader unfamiliar with the topic.  Done
  • Unfortunately, for a club of Tranmere's size, using only web sources for references will only get you so far. To reach the standard I think you are aiming for, print sources will be needed, as those will be the best sources of information about Tranmere's history. Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs here.  Done
  • It is unusual to see a list of managers in a history subarticle. Usually these are either part of the main club article, or if they have outgrown it, in a separate article of the form List of X F.C. managers. Some of those have become featured lists, so looking there would give the best examples.  Done
  • Could do with a more explicit explanation that Tranmere's entry into the Football League was part of the creation of the new Third Division.  Done
  • The aggregate of 17 goals in one game remains a league record[6] (see English football records). Instead of the section in brackets, it is more readable to put a piped link at the end of the sentence; [[English football records|league record]].  Done
  • Tranmere beat First Division superstars Arsenal 1–0 at Arsenal's former Highbury home. Be wary of peacock terms such as "superstars". The close repetition of "Arsenal" is a little jarring.  Done
  • I'm not quite sure where it would fit, but the article seems incomplete without some mention of how Tranmere have largely lived in the shadow of the more illustrious clubs the other side of the Mersey. In places it is assumed that the reader already knows about this.  Done
  • What makes tranmere-rovers.co.uk a reliable source?  Done
  • A couple of bits of pedantry: dashes in scorelines should be endashes (WP:DASH), articles in British English tend to use " First / Second World War" instead of "World War I / II".  Done

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude
  • Tranmere Rovers F.C. is an is an  Done
  • The currently play in League One.  Done
  • the team won its first recorded match [....] and lost just one of their - singular and plural referring to the same thing in the same sentence - pick one or other and be consistent  Done
  • a record unlikely ever to be broken - says who? it's probably true, but smacks of POV as an unsupported statement Done
  • an incredible 57 goals - avoid POV terms such as "incredible"  Done
  • and a place in the Division Two - we don't normally say "the Division Two" Done
  • The Club brought in - why the capital C?  Done
  • coming from a goal down to equalize - UK subject, so don't use US spellings  Done
  • 2003 saw the appointment - a year does not have eyes, therefore it cannot see  Done
  • and bizarrely replaced - who says it was bizarre?  Done
Are there no images available from the club's history other than drawings of kits........?  Done

Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response by U+003F

Many thanks to Oldelpaso and ChrisTheDude for their massively in-depth comments. I've tried to address your concerns, though there remain a few things outstanding

I've rewritten bits of the article at random. Are there any tools to see if any similar chunks of text remain?
Edit: I found a tool that allowed me to locate copied parts of the article. These have now been rewritten or removed
  • Print sources will be needed
I stumbled across the goldmine at RSSSF which has allowed me to reference almost all the result-related statements. Do you still feel that a print source is needed?
Edit: found a print source to help out
  • Images available other than drawings of kits?
No. At least I couldn't find anything old other than this grainy and probably copyrighted picture. Is one needed?
Edit: found a newer image from the 2000 Football League Cup Final
Edit: uploaded an image from 1921

Having now read other requests, I realise that you should specify at peer-review what standard you are aiming for; in this case, I'd like the article to get to a good standard. Is much more work needed? Thanks again! U+003F? 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience of this type of article, web-based sources supplemented with occasional print ones will usually be good enough for GA. If you wanted to subsequently go all the way to make it a featured article eligible to appear on the main page, then what I said about print sources might return, as the featured article criteria call for a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". My following additional comments are almost certainly pickier than the average GA reviewer.

  • they won their first game against Brunswick Rovers 4–0, and lost only one of their fifteen matches makes it sound like the first of several against Brunswick, not the first of any type.  Done
  • Second paragraph is still a bit too close to the source. I'd remove the sentence about gate money.  Done
  • Steeles Field in Birkenhead, in a kit of blue shorts, white shirts and blue socks - citation needed for the kit.  Done
  • They continued their rise up the league pyramid - there was no pyramid system below the Football League at this time, the various leagues were independent of one another.  Done
  • shown through their becoming a limited company and moving to the present Prenton Park site still very close to the cowsheds source, which isn't cited anywhere in the paragraph. A rough paraphrase is no longer a copyright violation, but it can still be plagiarism.  Done
  • WFDA source verifies that Rowlands played that match, but not that he was Tranmere's first international.  Done
  • Tranmere were promoted to the Central League would this have been a promotion?  Done
  • I understand the mentions of Dean and Waring, as they became all time greats, but Ridding seems an odd one as his player career was pretty undistinguished.  Done
  • Rovers claimed their first ever Championship in the Football League in 1938 when a tally of 56 points was enough to capture the Division Three North title and a place in Division Two for the first time - Granted, there's only so many ways to write it, but this is word for word the same as on [4].  Done

Let me know when you're done and I'll run through the rest of the article. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and done. Thanks again for the continued, detailed feedback. U+003F? 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

[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 need help working out what else needs to be done to attain FAC status. I've made some changes since its FAC nomination and will be making further improvements. What I'm asking for from the reviewer is what deficiencies might there in the current text so I can fix it.

A caveat, though, if you're thinking of reviewing this page, please elaborate on each issue. List every sentence or prose that need copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. List every structural flaw, etc. Some people who have reviewed this in the past refused to do so, as a result I had no idea what they still had a problem with.

I DO NOT want to deal with that aggravation again. I need reviewers willing to wade through the mud with me, not snipers. If you're not willing to do that, I request you pass from touching this review. If you are, I will be most grateful.

Thanks to the reviewer/s interested in being helpful, Red marquis (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recognise your frustration, but peer reviewing is a voluntary activity carried out by editors prepared to sacrifice time and effort to helping other editors improve their articles. It is not a service that editors can take for granted, and frankly, the demanding way in which you have expressed your requirements makes it unlikely that anyone will bother to help you. The article received a lengthy review from Jappalang last December, which you do not seem to have acknowledged; have you taken action on the many points that he raised? If not I suggest you work through those points, and those raised in a sources review carried out by Ealdgyth in November before seeking further help, hopefully in a rather more agreeable manner. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did rework the article to address all of the issues they raised because they took the time to explain to me my faults. As far as Jappalang's review, I admit that I missed that since I disappeared from Wikipedia for awhile but I have since fixed the problems he raised.-Red marquis (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No offense, but a little patience will help - this is the third time this article has been nominated at peer review recently. There is a backlog, but we get to all articles within 2 weeks (so if you had waited the first time, this would already have received a review, though I am not sure if it would have been up to your criteria). If you want help with copyediting, have you tried asking at WP:GOCE or one of the volunteers listed as willing to do copyedits at WP:PR/V? Finally, I note that FAC and PR are much more places where problems are pointed out, but not necessarily fixed. The assumption is that if you can write an article, you can read policy and guidelines and try to fix things on your own. So this exchange from the recent FAC is a bit odd:

MOS date violations, use 2000-12-01 or Dec 15 1999, not both, choose one; YYYY-MM-DD or the written form. (from (CK)Lakeshade)
Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How hard is it to pick one date format (your choice) and then go through the article and make sure that all dates follow the format you chose? Try things and if you are still not sure, ask - can someone check to make sure it is not still overlinked (or whatever). By the way, I will review this in a few days (if no one else beats me to it). I will point out what i see as problems, but will assume that you can take my examples and work from there to look for other similar problems to fix. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "How hard is it to pick one date format (your choice) and then go through the article and make sure that all dates follow the format you chose? Try things and if you are still not sure, ask - can someone check to make sure it is not still overlinked (or whatever)." I did do my best to address that particular issue but I don't know if I missed any. I was asking Lakeshade to double check so I could fix each issue but got no response there. It's that lack of follow-up (from any reviewer) of what else I screwed up that is the source of my frustration. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I can certainly understand your frustration, might I suggest communicating things a little more clearly? Saying something like "I did do my best to address that particular issue but I don't know if I missed any." and then asking if someone could double check your work is a lot different than what you wrote in FAC "Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem." The first approach makes it clear that you have done much or even all of the work. The second seems almost like asking someone else to do the work for you. While reviewers are glad to point out issues, unless someone is also doing a copyedit, almost all reviews do not point out every single grammar issue or every example of any type of problem. As I said I should review this in several days. Off to review others which have been on the PR backlog much longer than this article has. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone through vast changes since we last talked and it will go through further ones in the near future. -Red marquis (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, would you like me to wait until it is stable to review it?
    • You can go ahead now (save for the issue on the Concept and Themes section I noted below). Thanks.
  • Also, from my initial quick read I think it would help to add a bit on the band and their career before this album. Imagine a person who was not very familiar with the band - if there were a few sentences on the previous album that would help to provide context to the reader (why did people blame Columbine on Marilyn Manson?)
    • I've been looking at ways of incorporating this after you suggested it and I can't help but feel that the article would sound biased against the band's detractors if I did. -Red marquis (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still quite busy IRL, but here's a quick reply. A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. Kid A is a FA and is about the fourth studio album from Radiohead (I know that musically it is quite different). Look how it talks about the background for Kid A, which also followed the band's best selling album to date. I don't know a lot about the band Marilyn Manson, but I think the background should mention their previous album (which I see from the band's article deuted at No. 1 in the US). I also think it would help to mention the band's style, perhaps the original members' stage names (glamour + murderer), and the fact that Sen. Lieberman had already held Senate hearings about the band and the effects its "violent lyrics" had on young listeners. Again, all of this is very clear to you or anyone familiar with the band, but there are many who will not know this and providing context to the reader in the background is good. Since an FAC criterion is comprehensiveness, I also think it would be needed for this to become an FA. The material on Columbine only makes sense if you explain at least a bit of the band's history. I think MM got a bum rap, but then again no one blamed Pat Boone for Columbine ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again for the completely ignorant, it would probably help to in some way differentiate between Marilyn Manson the band and Marilyn Manson the lead singer / frontman. So just adding frontman here It was written in [frontman] Marilyn Manson's former home in the Hollywood Hills and recorded in several "undisclosed" locations, including Death Valley and Laurel Canyon.
    • I'll swiftly address this.
  • FInally, I think WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE would be in favor citing the Kerang! (sp?) quote in the last paragraph of the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would be or wouldn't be?
      • I replaced it with a more complete version. Is it passable?
        • WP:LEADCITE says in part The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. so I would include an inline ref for the direct quote (although it is not an absolute requirement). My personal preference is to have the lead be less detailed (as an overview) and the body of the article have more detail, so I thought the shorter version of the quote was fine before. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm confused. I was told the lede should have as little citation in it as possible because it is supposed to be a summary of the article. I took the Kerrang quote from the "Legacy" subsection of the "Reception" section (where it is properly cited). -Red marquis (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry to be unclear - as little citation as possible doesn't mean zero refs in the lead, if the lead has direct quotes or extraordinary claims. Most editors will cite a direct quote in the lead. If the lead said something like this is best selling album of all time (or even its release year) then that would likely need a cite too. Please note that there are a few editors who read WP:LEAD as allowing no cites ever in the lead, but I think most FAC reviewers prefer them for direct quotes and extraordianry claims. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable now. However, I will still need to rewrite the Concept and Themes section which is, for want of a better word, lacking compared to the rest. What do you think? I fear, the changes I just finished making on "background and development" might be straying a bit off-topic in terms of cohesion with the rest of the article. -Red marquis (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement. I will go section by section.

  • I will come back to the lead after I have read the whole article to make sure it follows WP:LEAD
  • As it is the Background section starts with the following sentence: In the aftermath of the Columbine tragedy, Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat".[4][5][1][6] I think this assumes that the reader knows more than can safely be assumed. I would still start the background section with a few sentences giving some basic background information on the band and at least its previous album.
    • I agree. I will address it but I'm still working on refining the themes section.
  • I think it would also be useful to describe the Columbine Massacre in a sentence or two. As it is, the article assumes the reader knows the background, but one of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, so how does the article meet this as it is?
    • Agree
      • Done.
  • Minor point, but the refs are typically given in numerical order (so fix ...Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat".[4][5][1][6] to ...Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat".[1][4][5][6]
    • I was hoping one of Wikipedia's bots would fix it themselves.
  • very long, complex and clunky sentence. COuld probably be split in two and needs to be cleaned up Their music and imagery, among those of other bands as well as other forms of popular entertainment such as movies and videogames, were alleged by news media outlets to have driven Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to kill their classmates,[1][7][8][9] despite later conflicting reports—that the two were not fans and considered them "a joke".[1][10][11][12]
      • I've rewritten the ones I could find.
  • What does "swiftly received" mean? I think the intent is that the criticism was swift (i.e. very soon after the massacre people already criticized the band) In spite of this, the group swiftly received vehement public criticism from numerous religious and political figures.[13][14][6] It is also muddled as to time - in spite of this (the later reports that K and H did not like the band), people were swift to criticize them in the immediate aftermath of Columbine?
    • I'll replace it with "immediately" for clarity.
  • I know news stories identify politicians by state and party all the time, but I am not sure the way this article does it follows the WP:MOS. Another question is does it help the reader's understanding to know the political party of the politician? So The day after the shooting, State Senator Dale Shugars (R-Mich.) attended the band's concert at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan to conduct research for a proposed bill which would require parental warnings on concert tickets and promotional material for any performer that had released a record bearing the Parental Advisory sticker in the last five years.[15] I think identifying the state here helps, but would probably say something like "The day after the shootings, [plural, more than one person shot] Michigan State Senator Dale Shugars attended the the band's concert at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Shugars attended to conduct research for a proposed bill which would require parental warnings on concert tickets and promotional material for any performer that had released a record bearing the Parental Advisory sticker in the last five years.[15]" [split a long sentence into two]
    • Good point. Good suggestion too. I will use it.
      • I've adopted the suggestions you pointed out here.
  • In the text box, did Marilyn Manson really include the parenthetical statements explaining the rapes at Woodstock 99 and killing at Altamont? Or are they added by someone else? Insertions in a quote are usually identified by use of [square brackets]
    • They were added by the magazine who interviewed him for clarification.
  • I think it would help to not look at the article for several days and then read it out loud slowly. For example, did you spot the missing word in On April 25, 1999, conservative pundit William Bennett and longtime Manson critic[16] US Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) pointed [to] the group as a contributing factor to the massacre during their appearance on Meet the Press.[8] Again, context and background help here - I had to click the Columbine link to see that the massacre took place on April 20 (5 days prior), but this would be cear if there were a sentence or two on what happened as part of the background here. There is already some background snuck in - the Columbine story is presented piecemeal (shootings mentioned in one place, names of the killers in another, Lieberman's past criticism of the band here) so why not make it clearer?
    • Ok. Will do.
      • I've changed the opening paragraph to help better explain the Columbine massacre. I've been meaning to do it anyway since you mentioned it a few days ago.
  • Watch tense "have been postponed" does not fit with the rest of this section (I think that "had been postponed" would work) The band also announced that the last five North American dates of their then-ongoing Rock Is Dead Tour have been postponed out of respect for the victims of the massacre.[18]
    • I've rewritten the sentence.

Break

  • Looks much better - I would still have some sort of background on the band and their previous album.
  • I would move the ref after Lieberman's name in On April 25, 1999, conservative pundit William Bennett and longtime Manson critic[16] US Senator...
  • Problem sentence The following day, ten US Senators, spearheaded by US Senator for Kansas Sam Brownback, signed and sent a letter to Edgar Bronfman Jr., president of Interscope Records-owner Seagrams, requesting the voluntary cesation of his company's distribution of "music that glorifies violence" to children.[19] First off, we already know he's a senator, so why not something like The following day, ten US Senators, spearheaded by Sam Brownback of Kansas, signed and sent a letter to Edgar Bronfman Jr...? Second, why not say something like "president of Seagrams, which owned Intterscope Records,"? Third, I am pretty sure it is "cessation" (not one s, but two). Fourth, is the phrase "to children" modifiying ditribution (in which case "his company's distribution to children of "music that glorifies violence".would be clearer) or is it violence specifically to children?
  • The word "also" can usually be cut (The band also issued a statement later in the day...)
  • Problem sentence (second one - including preceding sentence for context): On May 4, 1999, a hearing on the marketing and distribution practices of violent content to minors by the television, music, film and video game industries was conducted before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.[21] It was chaired by U.S. Senator Sam Brownback and comprised of eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, including US Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch and US Senator Joseph Lieberman as well as cultural observers, professors and mental-health professionals that included William Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Reverend Charles J. Chaput.[21]
    • Identifying the committee as a US Senate committee means the article does not have to repeat that its members are US Senators. Also the MOS says once an article has identified someone by their full name, the article should just use the last name thereafter (unless there are two people with the same last name, to avoid confusion). So The committee was chaired by Brownback and comprised of eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, including Lieberman and Utah's Orrin Hatch. I also changed "It" to "The committee" - It has an unclear antecedent (is it the committee or the hearing).
    • I would also split the sentence into one that focuses on the senators and one that mentions the people who testified. So The committee heard testimony from cultural observers, professors and mental-health professionals that included Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Reverend Charles J. Chaput.[21]
  • Avoid passive voice where possible, so The band was among those criticized by the participants, besides fellow label-mate Nine Inch Nails and the 1999 Wachowski brothers film The Matrix, for their alleged contribution to the environment that made tragedies like Columbine possible.[21] could be something like Participants criticized the band, its label-mate Nine Inch Nails, and the 1999 Wachowski brothers film The Matrix for their alleged contribution to the environment that made tragedies like Columbine possible.[21]
  • Another problem Senators Brownback, Hatch and Lieberman concluded the proceedings by requesting an investigation from the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice on marketing practices of the entertainment industry to minors.[21][26] I am OK with repeating Sentaors here, but again this could be tightened and needs to be clarified. Perhaps something like Senators Brownback, Hatch and Lieberman concluded by requesting that the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice investigate the entertainment industry's marketing practices to minors.[21][26]
  • In Following the conclusion of the European/Japan Festival leg of the tour ... avoid "/" and make things consistent (either European and Japanese Festival leg OR perhaps Europe and Japan leg..)(first one sounds better). If the official name was "European/Japan Festival" (which is not grammatical) and you want to use that, then put it in quotes.
  • Is "then" necessary in he album's early development would be marked by the singer's three month seclusion at his then home in the Hollywood Hills.[2] I understand it means that he later moved, but does the reader need to know that at this point in the article (reads smoother without it).
  • I am not sure what a "knowing threat" is He would later tell Alternative Press that he also felt a knowing threat to his safety and ...
  • Tighten and clarify It was after he determined that it was less prudent for a controversial artist like himself to allow his detractors to use entertainment as a scapegoat, including his, that he decided to move forward with creating the new album as an extensive counterattack to these accusations.[1][9] to something like After Manson determined that it was less prudent for a controversial artist to allow his detractors to use his work (and entertainment in general) as a scapegoat, he decided to move forward by creating a new album as a counterattack [to these accusations - not sure this phrase is needed].[1][9]

OK, that is all I have to say on the Background section. I am not sure I can review the rest at this level of detail (much oif what I pointed out is copyediting). I also have other peer reviews to do, but I will make comments on the other sections over the next several days (try for at least a section a day).

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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media

  • One general concern I have about the article is the number of fair use images and sound files, which may well be a problem under WP:NFCC. There are 5 fair use images and 2 fair use sound files. The cover art in the lead inforbox and two sound files both seem fine and are pretty standard in album articles. It is worth noting though that all fair use media have to be discussed in the article and can't just be used for mere decoration.
    • There are other FAC articles with more. Kid A for example has 6 images and 2 sound files. A couple of those images have captions that contribute far less to the understanding of the article than what I have here.
      • Huh? Kid A has three fair use images - the album cover (infobox), and two examples of art. Both examples of art are extensively discussed in the article. It does have two fair use sound samples, but three of its images are freely licensed. As I pointed out already, none of this articles images are freely licensed. That really doen't matter for PR, but at FAC there will be an image review and my guess is that this may well be a problem there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With images, the two questions I like to ask are "Does this image increase the reader's understanding in ways that a text description alone does not?" and "Is there a free use replacement which would convey much (or all) of the same information?". The other thing to keep in mind is that a fair use image must meet all of the criteria listed in WP:NFCC. Here are my thoughts on the remaining images (not the cover art or the sound files)
    • File:Holy Wood logo.jpg - the use of this symbol is discussed in three places in the article, but there could be more discussion of the symbol itself. There are certainly free versions of the alchemy symbol for Mercury, so some image reviewers at FAC might argue this could be replaced.
      • This version is the highly stylized reinterpretation used by the band which is very distinct from the usual variation found in Wikipedia's image archives.
    • File:Marilyn Manson in Bishop regalia.jpg - there is very little discussion of this in the article. There are free images of Manson the person available.
      • The point was not to depict Manson but to depict his imagery during this era. As an artist that reinvents his sound and appearance with every album (like Madonna and David Bowie), presenting him in the attires and makeup that he wears for each album is very significant.
    • File:Marilyn Manson tarot cards.png - there is a lot of discussion of these cards in the article, which is good. The problems are that 10 of the cards are shown (so there are image reviewers who would count these as 10 separate works of art, which is much more problematic) and the Hanged Man is the same image as the album cover. See NFCC criterion 3a and 3b:
3.a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
3b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
  • The final concern I have is that there are free images of the band members and of the band in concert, so it seems odd to not have any free images in the article at all (though be careful, some of the band member images look like they may be copyvios)
      • Problem here is that none of those free images were from this period. They are all from the Mechanical Animals era (1998), the Eat Me, Drink Me (2007) era or the High End of Low (2009) era. In fact, besides the album cover, there weren't any images related to the Holy Wood album or the Guns, God & Govt. Tour before I uploaded the four in question.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

  • I did a light copyedit of the first two paragraphs and will try to do more. Please revert if I make things worse or introduce errors.
  • The text box with the quote on the film seems out of place in the first section, since the film is not even mentioned here. I would move it to the Book and film subsection.
    • The key phrase here is and I'm [also] making this new record. I took it to mean it was referring to the whole Holy Wood project not just the book/film. So I think that justifies its placement.
  • A general observation is that this article tweaks its quotations a lot. I worry about this because the WP:MOSQUOTE says to make "Minimal change: Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." Adding words like "also" in the text box or changing "media" to "[news] media" seem to me to be violations of this part of the MOS.
    • Good point.
  • I am a little confused by recording in "undisclosed locations" followed by a discussion of the places where the recording were made. Is the quote needed?
    • Death Valley and The Mansion were the only "undisclosed locations" that were disclosed. Reading the interviews implied there were others but they chose not to discuss them.
  • I do not understand this sentence The album was meant to be electronic in its nature, albeit executed in an acoustic fashion by recording live instruments as opposed to using acoustic guitars.[31] The phrase "executed in an acoustic fashion" is awkward, and seems to be contradicted by the last part of the sentence.
    • That was actually a quote from Manson that I paraphrased to cut down on the use of "overlong quotations" as a previous peer reviewer complained.

All for now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to go through the rest of the article and point out problems I see. Unless I cannot understand something, I will not point out grammar issues. I assume you will get a copyedit. COncept

  • MOS says to use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (unless it is a quote within a quote), so fix: Its literary foil is 'Death Valley', which is used as "a metaphor for the outcast and the imperfect of the world."[29][53][34] There are other examples of inappropriate single quotes later in this section too.
    • PS I also wondered why three refs are needed for this - how does the reader know which one the quotation is from?
  • The last sentence in this paragraph seems out of place - the previous paragraphs and the first sentence in this paragraph have all been about the Concept (I felt it was the "plot") of the album, now this sentence switches to the tour in support of the album: This religion is called 'Celebritarianism'[54] and is a deliberate parallel of Christianity to critique both the 'Dead Rock Star' martyr/celebrity phenomenon in American celebrity culture and the role that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ plays as its very blueprint.[55][29][23][2][57][31][3] The worldwide Guns, God and Government Tour that supported the album expanded on this with the tour's logo—a rifle and handguns arranged to resemble the Christian cross.[58] Maybe just change the start of the second sentence to something like This concept was extended to the worldwide Guns, God and Government Tour that supported the album; the tour's logo was a rifle and handguns arranged to resemble the Christian cross.[58]
  • The section title "Composition" seems to have the wrong section title - I think of Composition as being about composing the album, but this is more about musical style. Also it makes no sense that composing the songs comes after recording them.
  • Watch out for logical quotation issues in quotes like Disposable Teens" is a "signature Marilyn Manson song."[53] (the period should be outside the end quotation mark)
  • In the Promotion section, the tenses seem odd in places - all are past events. This continues in the Release section By August 2, the singer had announced on the group's website that the album is scheduled for release on October 24 on Nothing/Interscope Records." shouldn't it be "was scheduled"? Just one example of several.
  • I don't understand this - what are the two [different?] physical formats? In the following weeks, the single was pressed and released in two standalone physical formats. The first, titled "Disposable Teens Pt.1", was released on November 6, 2000 in the UK.[74] ...
  • What does the song cycle structure of the album have to do with Cover and packaging?
  • Oh man, this is a long article. I am calling it a night. Hope to make some final comments tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

  • The Crtitcal reception section is a bit of a quote farm. My general impression of the article is that it uses a lot of direct quotations. I think with quotes, less is often more. If there are too many quotes, the really good ones can get lost in the noise, as it were. There are FAC reviewers who see the use of too many quotes as a WP:NFCC issue.
  • It is not clear who Warner is (Isn't that lead singer Manson's real last name?)
  • More verb tense and single quote issues
  • The tour section uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • I did not check references closely - they look OK in general
  • My overall impressions -
    • Still needs some sort of brief background on the band and its previous album. The 1997 New York Times article seems like a nice summary of what reactions to the band and its music and attitiude were before Columbine.
    • Article is pretty long and seems like it could be tightened with a good copyedit. There are also places where the detail may be excessive - does the reader need to know which songs are on which concert DVDs? Or that the Rolling Stones used the same house as Manson used for this album to write one of their albums?
    • Too many fair use images, no free images
    • Concerns about too many quotations, too many alterations to the quotes that are there (beyond allowed minor corrections - changing "media" to "[news] media" seems like it is changing the meaning of the original quote (as one example)
    • Language is decent but not great - needs a copy edit. Lots of places seem like they take 20 words to say what 15 or even 10 words could express. Also worries like odd verb tenses
    • Lots of little MOS concerns as noted
    • Seems like it has all the information needed for comprehensiveness (except for the bit of background).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've been busy IRL so I haven't been able to address the new ones but I'll make time soon enough. -Red marquis (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Floor

[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… because it has a good wealth of information. Jennifer Lopez has not had a single this successful since 2006, and she's nothad as much press attention or coverage since then either. While there is an abundance of sources, I've tried my best to use what's available to make a detailed and coherent article that reflects all aspects of the song. However, its evident that the information is perhaps a little messy and I'm aware that the prose quality is not great. I've had a go at copy ediitng the music video and chart performance sections in addition to the introduction. The other sections have been looked at but its difficult to notice errors in something you have written. Would be appreciated if people could point out suggested improvements before the article is readied for GA.

Thanks, — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The song served as one of two promotional singles for Love? --> Not clear which song you are referring to.
  • It also interpolates elements... --> "On the Floor" doesnot interpolate, it incorporates
  • is a song by American recording artist Jennifer Lopez and Latino rapper Pitbull --> You have to make clear that Pitbull is in featured credit, otherwise it will contradict with the infobox as a duet.
  • and deciding that after more than ten years, a new label was required --> Seems unnecessary fro lead
  • In the second para there is quite a bit of repetition of the phrase "the/a song". Try to replace them at some places with the actual song name.
  • the millennium hit --> no need for hit, POV pushing case.
  • on the tenth season of hit U.S. reality show, American Idol --> again, no "hit" please
  • You need some reshuffling in the second para. First talk about the release, then move on to critical and reception. At present its "fan reception - release - critical reception", which is untrue.
  • Critics agreed that the song was a welcome comeback for Lopez, combining the best elements of her previous songs with exotic flavors to make a current-sounding single --> This is already mentioned in terms of "If You Had My Love" and "Waiting for Tonight"
  • to make an impact on the Pop Airplay chart --> Wikilink to the correct chart (Mainstream Top 40)
  • and became her first song from Love? to receive airplay recognition after neither "Fresh Out the Oven" or "Louboutins" (2009), the previous lead single, were recognized by U.S. radio --> Redundant when you say its her first single since 2007 to receive airplay love.
  • As a result, Kaoma's single "Lambada" charted at number two on the Billboard World Digital Chart, over two decade after its release --> Rephrase, at present it implies as if OTF's certifications led to the Kaoma song's popularity
  • final ending from a choice of three alternative endings --> Consecutive usage of ending..
  • and in general commenting that the video was a homage to the earlier career of Lopez. --> Again a repetition.
  • Overall, tone down the usage of words like "critical, critics" etc to eliminate the constant scrutinizing feel of the lead.
  • Completed all, bar the comment about failing to receive recognition from US radios... the sources later on specify that neither "Louboutins" or "Fresh Out the Oven" received interest from any radio format, whereas the billboard/about.com sources speaking of Pop Airplay are specifically referring to the last time Lopez appeared on the Pop 100. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come...

Percy Grainger

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Percy Grainger had an interesting and largely successful career as a composer, pianist and arranger of folk tunes. To the public he was "Mr Country Gardens", but there were darker sides. His pride in his (imagined) Nordic roots turned in time to outright racism; he had a penchant for spanking; suspicions of an incestuous relationship with his mother had tragic consequences. So the dashing good looks and cheerily extrovert image are only part of the story. Developing this article has been pretty much a one-person effort, and some fresh eyes would definitely help to identify repetitions, errors and omissions. All advice is welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley

After a momentary pause to wonder why you have put a picture of Harpo Marx at the head of the article I offer these few comments and suggestions.

  • General
    • The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: this is from The Guardian's style guide: "Avoid the 'prime minister Gordon Brown' syndrome: do not use constructions, beloved of the tabloids, such as 'prime minister Gordon Brown said'. …Where it is thought necessary to explain who someone is, write 'Bryan Robson, the Sheffield United manager, said' or 'the Sheffield United manager, Bryan Robson, said'." I so agree. I think "Biographer John Bird", "Band conductor Timothy Reynish" etc are too tabloid in tone for Wikipedia, but nobody else seems to agree. I merely mention it.
You and the Guardian are right. I have got into bad habits over this style. I have corrected Bird and Gillies; if you can spot any other instances of tabloidism, please notify. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tabloiderie: In the Emergent composer section: "London financier Sir Edgar Speyer" and "from folk music specialist Cecil Sharp"; in Traveller: "Historian David Pear" and "Although biographer John Bird"; in Legacy: "Band conductor Timothy Reynish"; and in Assessment: "Former Grainger Museum curator Brian Allison". Tim riley (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. These are all de-tabloided now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • "Hometown" – the OED doesn't admit this without a hyphen.
  • Family background
    • "whose daughter Helen would become the famous soprano" – does the subjunctive add anything here?
  • Childhood
    • "supervised his music and literature studies, while other tutors taught in languages" – simultaneously? "and", rather than "while" perhaps, or maybe a semicolon. And "taught in" looks a bit odd.
    • "emigré" – I have always spelled this "émigré", but I see the OED admits (indeed, favours) the one-accent version; by all means ignore.
  • Frankfurt
    • "Heine & Schumann" – I know we are enjoined to use links sparingly in quotations, but perhaps you might consider doing so here.
    • "aside from a brief though ardent love affair" – unexpected Americanism here: "apart from" would be the British equivalent.
    • "The harsh discipline … had resulted in a fascination" – How can Bird be so certain of the cause? Distinctly probable, no doubt, but to be stated sans phrase?
  • Concert pianist
  • Emergent composer
    • "From 1906 Grainger began to use a phonograph" – either "From 1906 Grainger used" or "In 1906 Grainger began to use…"
    • "The two would remain" – another subjunctive that doesn't seem to add anything.
  • Departure for America
  • Traveller
    • "{sic}" – curly brackets? Usually square ones, I think.
  • Innovator
    • "and would spend" – and spent?
  • Second World War
    • "Pearl Harbour" – Harbor.
    • "calculates that he" – theoretically ambiguous – "Grainger" would nail the ambiguity.
  • Music
    • "many settings of other composers' works" – refs 8 and 7 in wrong order here.
  • Recordings
    • The Gramophone Company and HMV were one and the same: perhaps the blue link should come at the first mention?
    • "(1944–45) and 1957" – strange formatting" – either all in brackets or none, I'd say.
  • References
    • Ref 103 has an unexpected > in it.

A most instructive and interesting article. I learned much. I have a dim memory from my teens of an arrangement by Grainger of "Camptown Races" which was performed on the television, with the choir running their fingers round the tops of drinking-glasses to make a weird moaning effect. A very strange man, our Percy. With the keys "c" and "v" next to each other on the keyboard you did nobly to refrain from misspelling his name.Tim riley (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Harpo question, I see what you mean...Of the PD left-facing photographs, an alternative is File:Percy Grainger by Dupont (1915, 8, big, bw).jpg but would that be much of an improvement? On the pervy/Percy theme, I did take particular care here; thought I might slip in a deliberate typo to see if anyone noticed, but refrained. Your review comments are much appreciated, and I have adopted just about all of your suggestions. I've only commented, above, when it seemed necessary. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additions on "tabloidese" and "introduced/presented, above. To my eye, the Dupont 1915 image is more flattering. Better to be mistaken for Ivor Novello than Harpo Marx, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will ponder the image question. I'm not at all sure that I would rather be mistaken for Novello (or Davy as his friends call him), than the estimable Arthur Adolph. It is a moot point. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It comes to this: would you sooner hear Grainger's arrangement of "We'll Gather Lilacs" or "Lydia the Tattooed Lady"? Tim riley (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Sarastro1

This one is a little outside my usual scope, and so I apologise for any ham-fisted misunderstanding! A very interesting read about a very odd chap. And it may be my imagination, but he looks worryingly like Boris Johnson... There were a few parts I struggled to follow, although that may be my ignorance, and a few other points.

  • "He also made many settings and adaptations of other composers' works": While this is probably completely correct in a musical sense, "made many settings" sounds a little odd to the non-specialist.
    "setting" is a normal word to describe what composers do. But in this context, "settings" and "adaptations" mean the same thing, so I have removed "settings". Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forming important friendships": For him, for them, or for music in general?
    I'd say for music in general. I think "important" is a reasonable summary of the nature of his friendships with Delius and Grieg, which are further explored in the text. "Significant" would be an alternative word, but I used that in the previous sentence.Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...who emigrated to Australia in 1877 where, in 1879, he...": The close proximity of the dates makes this a little awkward, but I'm not sure I can see a better way of doing it.
  • "After a fund-raising benefit concert in Melbourne and a final recital in Adelaide..." Presumably the fund raising was for his benefit? Was the final recital a kind of farewell performance, or just a recital which happened to be his last one? I suppose I'm also wondering how well known he was at this point.
  • In the Frankfurt section: the opening paragraph begins "In Frankfurt Rose", the final paragraph begins "In Frankfurt, Grainger..." Personally I prefer the use of the comma in this case so that no-one is looking for a lady called "Frankfurt Rose". Overall, there seems to be some minor inconsistency throughout over these commas, particularly after dates (i.e. In [year], Grainger...).
    I have resolved the issues in this section, though I'll check through the article for comma consistency such as you mention. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a late autobiographical essay": Would a date be better here than "late"?
  • "that he was working his "Marching Song of Democracy"": Is "working his" a technical term; to the casual reader it sounds like it should be "working on", but I may be displaying my artistic and grammatical ignorance here!
  • "Grainger was receiving increasing recognition as a composer, as leading musicians..." Close repetition of "as". Also, Tony1 has, rightly or wrongly, hauled me over the coals for using "as", on the grounds that it be "causal or simultaneous".
  • "However, his decision to leave England for America in early September 1914, after the outbreak of the First World War, damaged his reputation among his patriotically-minded British friends." This begs the question: was his visit planned well in advance, or was he actually leaving to escape the war?
    I have added a coiuple of sentences of explanation for the abrupt departure. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 3 June 1918 he became a naturalised American citizen." Again, this prompts questions. Why did he wish to do so, and how was he able to after just under four years?
    No reasons given. I imagine that he had decided to settle there and that citiznship seemed the logical thing to seek. He was serving in the US army at he time, which I should think went down well on his citizenship application. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also began to develop the technique of elastic scoring, "a radical experimentation with orchestral and chamber music blends"[62] which enabled works to be performed by any numbers of players and instrument types, from tiny groups of two or three up to full orchestral strength." This loses me a little, as I cannot see (even after following the link) how the same works could be easily performed by such different numbers of players. Could this be explained a little more here? (And elastic scoring makes me think of instruments connected by elastic bands!)
    I have simplified the explanation a little. I hope this helps. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Away from music, Grainger's interest in Nordic culture led him to develop a form of "Blue-eyed" English reflecting, he maintained, the "Nordic" character of the language before the Norman conquest.": What does "blue-eyed" mean in this instance? If the three examples in the following sentence are to show this way of speaking, I think it needs to be stressed how this manner of speech was Nordic, rather than just eccentric.
    I have reworded this paragraph, hopefully making things clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...with which it had been programmed." Shared a programme may be better to prevent readers thinking he was using machines again.
  • "To much of the public, Grainger is permanently associated with popular pieces such as "Country Gardens" and other light potboilers, though in his long career he created a varied body of works, many of great originality and ingenuity." This is quite POV-ish.
    You are right. Removed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " his colourful, "muscular" pianism was not widely imitated, and in time its increasing eccentricity often elicited hostile reviews." Could it be explained what was so eccentric about his playing? And I'm not too sure what "muscular" piano playing is like.
    Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • His racist views are alluded to, and the article says these were "expressed with increasing stridency", but this passes without further comment apart from the examples in note 5. Did his views escalate beyond this? Were these public comments, or privately expressed views. Perhaps a little more detail; the lead states he said this "privately" but the main body does not.
    His racial bigotry was, so far as I can tell, only overtly expressed privately. He did not address meetings, or join racist sects, or write inflammatory pamphlets—I have clarified this by redrafting the appropriate text. I don't want to excuse him, nor do I really want to add more detail; Pear's comment is, I think, sufficient condemnation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only part I felt unable to keep up with as a non-musician was the "free music" part. I'm not quite sure what it is or was supposed to be, but that may be beyond the scope of this article. I think I followed it enough to know roughly what was going on.
    I'm not sure I can simplify things much further here, but if you could follow it roughly, that's something. I suppose people reading cricket articles often feel the same! Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. I am working on them and will post my responses tomorrow (Sunday). Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all your comments. Where I have not written anything, that means I have simply followed your suggestion. I'm much happier with the article now, after the helpful observations of you & Tim. As to "Boris Johnson", Tim has said Grainger looks like Harpo Marx and/or Ivor Novello. Heaven help us. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wehwalt.

Another sparkling article about someone I've never heard of, and I consider myself stuffed with useless facts. It's a lengthy article so I'll be doing this piecemeal, I am afraid.

Lede
  • "where he established himself, first as a society pianist and later" Is this comma really necessary?
  • "the remainder of his life in America," If it was only the United States, I would say so lest you be haunted by the ghost of Beckenbauer.
  • "home town of Melbourne". This gives me pause. It was certainly his home town at one time, is it still properly described as such after he's shifted bases a few times? I would evade the issue and say "birthplace".
Early life
  • " design of the new Princes Bridge" I do not have an ideal way of stating this phrase. I simply note that "new" is surely redundant.
  • "whose daughter Helen later became the famous soprano Nellie Melba" I don't like this. There was no transformation, simply a change of name. I suggest a rephrase, perhaps saying that Helen gained prominence as an operatic soprano under the name Nellie Melba?
  • "although he may have offered encouragement." Perhaps a "her" if appropriate after "offered"?
  • "John thereafter" After the return to Oz or after Percy was raised? The text supports either interpretation. Similarly, earlier in the paragraph, there is a similar lack of clarity about "Rose soon learned". I assume after the marriage, but as the marriage occurred two paragraphs ago, I could be wrong!
Childhood
  • "considered to be Melbourne's leading piano teacher." I think you need to limit this with a "at the time". As it stands, the man is the best piano teacher Melbourne has ever known.
  • "Germany". Consider a pipe to German Empire.
Frankfurt
  • "Rose became incapacitated" A little vague? For some reason that seems to demand an explanation. If sources are vague, consider "fell ill".

More later--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done to this point. Much thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
London years
  • "at-homes". Is there some helpful link for those unfamiliar with the practices of the Edwardian gentry?
  • "After one such appearance The Times critic recorded that Grainger's playing". Now I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is a bit awkward. Perhaps begin with "The Times critic recorded after one ..." ?
  • " In October that year he toured Britain" I would write this with an "of" before "that", but it may be a quirk of Britlish I'm unfamiliar with.
  • I find myself unenlightened in wondering how Grainger resisted Busoni. This is Grainger's article but the light seems exclusively on Busoni right here.
  • "Before coming to London Grainger had composed numerous Kipling settings, and his first mature orchestral pieces." Is the comma necessary?
  • "more than 200 Edison cylinder recordings" I think you have to be a little more specific of what was on them. Obviously folk music, but is Grainger singing, or performing, or both?
  • "had several Grieg pieces in his concert repertoire—including the piano concerto" I suspect you've thought about this, but I would change "the" to "his".
  • "concert engagements in Britain and Europe," The rest of the world persists in viewing Britain as part of Europe. Suggest adding "continental".
  • "at the Queen's Hall, in March 1912, London, five of Grainger's works " There may be an uncompleted thought here.
  • "On 21 May 1912 he " The last male person to be a subject of a sentence is Gardiner. Suggest mild rephrase.
Maturity
  • "and in April 1921 broke new ground by performing in a cinema, New York's Capitol Theatre." Broke new ground for who? This is a bit unclear.
  • "pianism" I suggest the reader might wish a little help with this, a link perhaps or context.
Inter war years
  • Is there anything to be said about Grainger's reception on return to England?
  • Nothing in the sources. I would guess that he had been forgiven, partly because he had served in the US army, then through sympathy over his mother's suicide, but this is speculation. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these included works" perhaps better "including works"
  • I appreciate your careful work with the racial matters, but right now, before looking at the footnote and being somewhat enlightened, the way you have it a casual American reader like myself concluded you were talking about races as in black, white, rather than anti-semitic views. Perhaps some slight rephrase to clue the reader in more accurately?
  • I have rephrased, and drawn attention to the antisemitic aspect of Grainger's racism. This is a difficult issue; I don't want to defend Grainger in any way, but he did not publicly parade his obnoxious views; their expression is limited to private letters to a fairly small circle of friends. For that reason I have not expanded on examples, and have left Pear's judgement to speak for itself. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Bird aware of this letter, or did it subsequently come to light?
  • Bird does not comment on the Feb 39 letter (which was to Quilter, not Gardiner; I have corrected), though he acknowledges this unsavoury side of Grainger's character.
Later career
  • "army and air force". Perhaps capitalize and link to the appropriate branches of service.
  • It might be worth mentioning if Grainger went to any pains to avoid his previous Nordic views, which were certainly not in demand just then.
  • It is hard to say when or if he moderated his views. There is certainly no retraction on record. In his published letters, there are few if any antisemitic references after the early 1940s; this may be due to Grainger's increased sensitivity, or to the selections of letters chosen by Gillies and Pear or publication. Posibly both, I don't know. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St Peter". In the American practice, rendered "St. Peter", I believe. I take it a ref for this sentence is forthcoming?
Done to here Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming

Music
  • "Grainger's works fall into two categories: original compositions and folk music arrangements. He also wrote many settings of other composers' works." This passage gave me a headache (a virtual one, happily). I am unable to figure out if the settings of other composers' works is intended as the second category, part of the second, or outside of both.
  • "regard the Norwegian as a paragon of Nordic beauty and greatness" The man? his music? both?
  • The source says that Grainger "held up Grieg as an uncontested model of 'Nordic beauty', hence Nordic greatness", so I reckon he was referring to the man, odd though this seems. The context is an assertion that Nordic composers, since the thirteenth century, had "out-soared all others in the purity, grandeur, complexity and compassionate emotionality of their musical speech". Typical Grainger extravagant overstatement. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "had been scornfully rejected." By whom?
  • " 7 Cromwell Place" if this is an address (I think it is, I checked Google maps and there is such an address), I would precede with "located at".
Assessment
  • "However, the early enthusiasm " You have consecutive "However" sentences.
Recordings
  • "recorded for, Decca" I was not certain whether this comma was a stray.

That's all I've got. Excellent job as usual Brian.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments, all addressed now.. Grainger is certainly a difficult person to like, and after my recent immersions in Nixon, Tom Driberg and Delius, I'm definitely going to do someone nice next. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me that this review is now complete, so I shall close it later today. Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Gibbet

[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 become obsessed by it (now, now, no tittering at the back), and I want it to be the best that it can be. I don't think I've ever asked for a peer review before, which perhaps shows the extent of my obsession and my nervousness about taking this to FAC.

Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 18 May 2011 (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 article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
    • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is incredibly long. Suggest perhaps breaking down to "Ancient custom and law, perhaps dating back to Anglo-Saxon times, gave the Lord of the Manor of Wakefield – which included the town of Halifax – the authority to try and summarily execute thieves caught in his jurisdiction. The thief would be decapitated, and the only limitation was that if the value of the goods that the thief was either caught with or confessed to having had to be under the value of 13½ pence, equivalent to about £5.40 as of 2008" Just a suggestion, however. (I tried to keep the commas out!)
    • "Almost 100 felons were beheaded between the time of the first recorded execution in 1286 and the last in 1650." Okay, I'm confused - you say 1286 here, but the gibbet is from the 16th through 1650 in the first sentence??? Logical inconsistency here.
    • "The punishment could only be meted out to those within the confines of the Forest of Hardwick, of which Halifax was a part, and the boundary of which was about 500 yards (460 m) from one side of the gibbet." seems awkward to me, perhaps rephrase?
      • Rewritten as: "The punishment could only be meted out to those within the confines of the Forest of Hardwick, of which Halifax was a part. The gibbet was about 500 yards (460 m) from the boundary of the area, and if the condemned person succeeded in escaping from the forest then he could not legally be brought back to face his punishment." Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Defoe wrote a detailed account of what he had been..." I assume Daniel Defoe? Link?
    • "Early historians argued that the area's prosperity attracted..." let's give a time frame rather than "early"... that could mean Tacitus, after all.
    • "Robert Holt on the other hand..." Robert? It's James, not Robert!!!
    • Who said "the Party injured to have his Goods restored to him again, with as little loss and damage, as can be contrived; to the great Encouragement of the Honest and Industrious, and as great Terror to the Wicked and Evil-doers."? I doubt, given that capitilzation, that it was HOlt...
    • There are two curly brackets hanging out in the next to last paragraph of History... not sure how to fix them or where they should be.
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.) 21:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you got everything I noticed. Of course, I'm sure there is stuff I didn't notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall

[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 close to FA status. I would particularly appreciate language ce, but any comments are welcome!

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty good, but the lead is rather short and I think (having recently read Mortimer on Mortimer) that more, and earlier emphasis should be placed on his arrogance and rudeness. Whether or not he was gay, grasping or smothering other access, he evidently saw little need to cultivate good relations with anyone except the king & was just really rude to the magnates, who were easily offended. A bit might be added on the expectations of the magnates. Otherwise should be ok at FA on a broad view. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley

Very little I can see that would benefit from revision. This is a fine article, and looks to me to be ready for FAC. My meagre gleaning of quibbles:

  • Family background and early life
    • king (lower case) of England but Duke (upper case) of Aquitaine in the same line – looks odd
  • Ordinances and final exile
    • Double, rather than single, quotation marks would be the Wikipedia norm here, I think.
    • The political climate became so hateful – the adjective is a tricky one: I take it to mean here "full of hate", but it is generally used as a synonym of "odious". It might be safer to rephrase.
  • Aftermath
    • "extralegal" – the OED hyphenates this word and defines it as "beyond the province of law; not regulated by law". From what you say, it seems to me that the killing of Gaveston was not extra-legal, but illegal – the article includes "People murdered in England" as one of its categories.
  • Historical assessment
    • Philip – another place where the WP norm is double quotes rather than (as here) single.
  • Notes
    • Note 52 – unexpected semicolon towards the end.

Please let me know when this article is at FAC. I will be pleased to add my voice in support. – Tim riley (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2011 (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. (As well as the rest of the article...)
    • Agree with Johnbod about the lead and more needed on his arrogance (although relying on Mortimer ... blech.)
    • Lead: "...and was assigned to the household of the king's son, Edward of Carnarvon." Suggest amending to "Carnarvon, the future Edward II." to make it clear to those who won't know that Ed of Carnie is actually Eddie II.
    • Lead: For parity - give Thomas of Lancaster's title to balance Beauchamp.
    • Family background: Gaston VII was viscount of bearn, right? Give his title.
    • Family background: "...he became a member of the household of the young Prince Edward – the future Edward II." this is weird to have the aside that Prince Edward became Edward II here, as we've already mentioned Prince Edward earlier. Better to mention the "later King Edward II" at the first mention of Prince Edward.
    • Family background: "Though the two were reconciled at a later point... " - which two? King and Prince? King and Piers? Piers and Prince? Unclear and needs clarity here.
    • First exile: "...and £260 of money."? Awkward. Suggest cutting "of money" as it's unneeded.
    • Earl: You mention in the lead that Margaret de Clare was Edward's neice, but not in the body.
    • Ireland: You never mention exactly when Piers left for Ireland or arrived. Is this known?
    • Ireland: "...he won over several of the earls who had previously been of a hostile disposition." awkward - suggest " ...he won over several of the earls who had previously been hostile to Gaveston."
    • Ordinances: Might be nice to give a list of all the ordainers in a footnote/explanatory note.
    • Ordinances: "Edward II had, almost immediately after his accession, abandoned the relentless Scottish campaigns of his father." I don't think it needs the commas.
    • Return: Link for Flanders?
    • Return: "At the same meeting the barons – under the leadership of Lancaster..." What meeting? This is the first mention of a meeting.
    • Aftermath: "...and ordered them to bring it back outside his jurisdiction." "bring it back outside" is awkward - suggest "return it outside"?
    • Question: Are the Annales Paulini and Lanercost contemporary records? Suggest giving some small note if they are or not
    • Question: "The portrayal of Gaveston as homosexual continued in fictional portrayals.." can we eliminate one of these portrayals?
    • Question: "This same view is also expressed by..." I assume it's the same view as by Hamilton, but better to be clear here.
    • Historical assessment: You've got some duplicate links in here - Lanercost Chronicle, Tout, etc.
    • Historical: "This was the impression that lived on in the popular imagination." Uncited. Needs citing.
    • You need to consult Phillips' new biography of Edward II (which I'm still reading so I cant help here) for his views on Gaveston.
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.) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (Glee)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently been promoted to GA status, and I feel like it could meet the criteria for FA quality. I would like some opinions on the article in regards to its shortcomings, its positives, and the improvement that should be suggested. I'd like to nominate it to FA status someday.

Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 07:42, May 2011

Maud Gage Baum

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Maud Gage Baum is the wife of L. Frank Baum, the author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. A strong-willed woman, she once forced her husband to eat stale doughnuts because he did not consult with her before buying them.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the article's prose, structure, and depth. I plan to take the article to WP:GAN.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

I don't have time for a full indepth review but I do see a few things in a flyover read that should be addressed prior to nomination at WP:GAC

  • Do you have her maiden name? Usually this goes in the first line of the lead.
  • Why are the first three sentences a separate paragraph from the next paragraph in the lead? Consider combining.
  • I separated the first three sentences so that the reader can easily determine who Maud is before plunging into a lengthy paragraph about her life. Combining the paragraphs would overwhelm the reader with detail. Cunard (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the lead and look for information that is too detailed for a summary of the article. For example, the money she made from teaching allowed her to buy a new rug and furniture. Perhaps a bit too detailed for a summary?
  • You have a lot of detail in the article. Make sure not to bog down in minutiae. For example the dormitory costs, annual costs and savings if two girls stayed together. I understand the point is that her attendance in college was very costly and put a strain on the family finances. But I think this can be communicated without having to give every single detail of every possible cost. Just my opinion of course.
  • Check for formatting of the last picture - tombstone of Maud and Frank - in my browser it spills into the references section. Can it be moved up or perhaps the library image can be deleted or moved and replaced with the tombstone. You have a lot of great images here.
  • Is there any other information about her life post her husband's death? You have amazing detail of her life up to her husband's death and then the last 34 years of her life are summed up in five sentences. Seems a bit unbalanced.
  • The sources mostly concentrate on Maud's life with L. Frank Baum. After his death, there has been much less coverage of her. However, I am certain there is more information. I have read from unreliable sources about her winning a lawsuit about Frank's books against one of her sons. When I find reliable sources for that and other information about her life after Baum's death, I will augment the "Later years" section. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have more time to go through the article thoroughly. I hope this helps get the review started and another editor can come in and give a more indepth review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! I will address your points over the upcoming days. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhabdomyolysis

[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 think it is an important step in the process towards FA candidacy. I have been the article's principal editor for some time, and it achieved GA status on 24 February 2008. I have now included material from several more recent sources, and the article has become much more comprehensive. In the process of doing this I have attempted to make it as accessible as possible for the general reader. It is of significant worldwide relevance, as many people who survive earthquakes and bombings latter succumb to this complication unless adequate support is provided.

Thanks, JFW | T@lk 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two "muscles" in the first sentence. I'm racking my brains how we can remove one but it isn't easy.....
    • Actually, what about "...is a condition in which damaged skeletal muscle (Ancient Greek: rhabdomyo-) tissue breaks down rapidly (Greek -lysis)"
    • I recall it being a phenomenon talked about when ecstasy dance parties were first in vogue in hte late 80s/early 90s (overheating and dehydration etc. leading to it) - would be worth looking in to.
  • Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Since 1999, relief efforts in areas struck by earthquakes have included medical teams with skills and equipment for treatment of survivors with rhabdomyolysis." Prior to 1999, relief efforts didn't include medical skills/equipment for the treatment of rhabdomyolysis?
    • From "Signs and symptoms": "The urine may be dark, often described as "tea-colored"." I think that it's worth mentioning the specific component of the urine that causes this discoloration.
    • From "Causes", I am a little surprised that the table shows "Medications" and "Genetic" types as separate from "Non-physical". Aren't they sub-types of "Non-physical"? I appreciate that it might be useful to classify them separately because of the frequency and variety of the sub-causes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were so many non-physical causes that I had to split two categories off: medication and muscle metabolism disorders. Suggestions for other names are welcome. JFW | T@lk 23:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different sources have different groupings. CritCare2005 uses physical/non-physical, NEJM and Elsayed use a surgical sieve, Warren uses a hybrid of surgical sieve and pathophysiological mechanism. I understand your concern, and am open to suggestions on how to group the causes in a better way. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Causes", the table describes coturnism as rhabdomyolysis due to consumption of quails that have eaten hemlock. However hemlock (conium) itself contains coniine and I expect that it can cause rhabdomyolysis. How common is coturnism? It may be amusing trivia but it is receiving undue weight. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • People eat quail, they generally don't eat hemlock. Hard to say how common it is; this has been reported repeatedly in a number of papers, mostly from the Middle East. It needs addressing somewhere. JFW | T@lk 23:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the sources only mention it in the historial section. Warren (which has the most comprehensive list) lists "hemlock (?quail eaters)" as well as Haff disease. There is a good secondary source for Haff disease, but I will slash the quail content to remain compliant with WP:WEIGHT. The main reason I expanded on it was because all the secondary sources attach a lot of importance to the historical aspects. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" The main reason I expanded on it was because all the secondary sources attach a lot of importance to the historical aspects. "

— Jfdwolff
Then put it in the "History" section. In my opinion, the table in the "Causes" section should follow one of the secondary sources. (I have looked in a few sources. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine does not have a single table about rhabdomyolysis. Neither does Kumar & Clark. However the Oxford Textbook of Medicine does have such a table.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it is in the "History" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the same sentence, "sodium" links to a description of the metal. The muscle tissue doesn't fill with the metal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't really help the fact that we don't have a separate article on sodium ions or sodium in biology (we do have Calcium in biology for some reason). What alternative would you propose? JFW | T@lk 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The chloride ions aren't relevant to the following text. How about: "When damaged, muscle tissue rapidly fills with fluid from the bloodstream, including sodium ions. The swelling itself may lead to destruction of muscle cells, but those cells that survive react by pumping sodium ions out of the cells in exchange for calcium ions (through the sodium-calcium exchanger)." Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds great. Changed as suggested. JFW | T@lk 09:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unhappy with the layout of the "Causes" table. Here is the table from Oxford Textbook of Medicine, chapter 33:- 1. Focal muscle damage

a. Obvious, e.g. crush injury, electrical injury
b. Not so obvious, e.g. ischaemic injury following arterial embolus to leg

2. Generalised muscle damage

a. Excessive muscular activity
i. Severe exercise, e.g. marathon running
ii. Prolonged epileptic fitting
iii. Status asthmaticus
iv. Severe dystonia
v. Acute psychosis

3. Infections

a. Septicaemia
b. Viral myositis, e.g. influenza

4. Toxins

a. Prescribed drugs, e.g. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors
b. Substance abuse, e.g. alcohol, barbiturates, opioids …
c. Other, e.g. snake bite, spider (black widow) … hemlock (quail that have eaten hemlock)

5. Heatstroke

6. Malignant hyperpyrexia

7. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome

8. Myopathies

9. Metabolic/endocrine

a. Hypothyroidism
b. Electrolyte disturbance, e.g. hypokalaemia in diabetic ketoacidosis

Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Textbook does include the quail/hemlock cause in its table. Therefore I am going to backtrack and support the inclusion of this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Different sources have different groupings. CritCare2005 uses physical/non-physical, NEJM and Elsayed use a surgical sieve, Warren uses a hybrid of surgical sieve and pathophysiological mechanism. "

— JFW
I would like to see a single secondary source used as the reference for the whole table. I have suggested the Oxford Textbook's format above. However if you think that one of the other sources provides a better table, more suited to a general encyclopedia while remaining equally reliable & authoritative, I would be happy with that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personally convinced that the table of causes definitely needs to be built on a single secondary source. All the reviews I have cited provide different lists, mostly collated from 100s of case reports. Warren contains the longest list by far, and attempts to organise them by the suspected mechanism at myocyte level. I have attempted to strike a balance by including the causes that are consistently reported in practically all the sources, or are otherwise important for the flow of the article. The lists of medications in Warren and Elsayed are extremely long and unhelpful. The Oxford Textbook of Medicine list you kindly provided follows a "surgical sieve" kind of approach. We already follow its distinction between focal and generalised rhabdomyolysis.
For the average reader, I remain unsure whether a surgical sieve is a particularly accessible way of listing the causes. I faced a similar dilemma on hypopituitarism, where I eventually settled for a surgical sieve. I'm actually going to take this one to WT:MEDMOS,[6] because it is something that affects other articles also. JFW | T@lk 09:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Pathophysiology", paragraph 3: "Finally, destroyed muscle cells release potassium ions, phosphate ions, myoglobin (a heme and therefore iron-containing protein), creatine kinase (an enzyme) and uric acid (a breakdown product of purines from DNA) into the blood." Is it relevant that myoglobin contains heme and iron? Perhaps change to: "'Finally, destroyed muscle cells release potassium ions, phosphate ions, myoglobin (a protein), creatine kinase (an enzyme) and uric acid (a breakdown product of purines from DNA) into the blood." Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of heme in that context is the putative importance of heme in renal damage that results from rhabdomyolysis. I think we could drop the "and iron" there, then in the following paragraph replace "Iron released from the myoglobin..." with "Iron released from the heme... ". -- Scray (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left the heme but removed the iron (seemed unnecessary). JFW | T@lk 03:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Mechanism", paragraph 4: "low blood pressure leads to constriction of the blood vessels and therefore a relative lack of blood flow to the kidney." This implies that low blood pressure leads to vasoconstriction, and vasoconstriction leads to a lack of blood flow. Low blood pressure certainly leads to a lack of blood flow. But does reactive vasoconstriction like this lead to a lack of blood flow? Of course, when pathological vasoconstriction is the primary problem, blood flow is reduced, such as fibromuscular dysplasia. I have never seen a good explanation of "physiological" reactive vasoconstriction in a textbook. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the secondary sources refer to this concept. I suspect that it has to do with autoregulation to preserve flow with lower pressure. The same happens in other organs. Renal vasoconstriction is the principal mechanism behind disease states like hepatorenal syndrome (the kidney remains morphologically unaffected). JFW | T@lk 18:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" I suspect that it has to do with autoregulation to preserve flow with lower pressure. "

— JFW
Exactly! It preserves flow; it doesn't reduce flow. I'll do some more digging around. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Diagnosis", subsection "General investigations", paragraph 1: "Depending on the extent of the rhabdomyolysis, levels up to 100,000 units are not unusual." Shouldn't this be a concentration (per litre)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William de Chesney

[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 possibly take it to FAC at some point, and would like advice on comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and prose from folks not conversant with the subject matter.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A warm welcome to another shadowy figure from the past, who but for Ealdgyth's delvings would probably be quite unremembered. A few issues (with assistance from my history books):-

  • Avoid "...as well. As well..."
  • "The elder Chesney probably originated near Quesney-Guesnon in the Calvados region of Normandy, and was a tenant of Robert d'Oilly at the time of the Domesday Survey". This is a little telescopic, and could perhaps be expanded. In my view, families rather than individuals "originate". Where was Roger a tenant of d'Oilly at the time of the Domesday survey? Do we know, even roughly, when Roger or his family came to England? Was it with the Conquest?
  • "the others" rather than "the rest", I think (people, not objects)
  • "King Henry's only legitimate son, William, had died in 1120." Henry of Huntingdon refers to "the king's two sons, William and Richard", in relation to the sinking of The White Ship. Was Richard not legit?
  • The sentence beginning "Matilda, though..." is long and convoluted, and could do with a split somewhere. The "though" has the faintest tang of POV.
  • "which he acquired at least by 1157" → "which he had acquired at least by 1157"
  • "Some historians have seen this holding of the lands as Stephen actually giving Chesney the d'Oilly barony, but the evidence for this is the fact that Chesney eventually owned a manor that had previously been owned by d'Oilly, which does not necessarily mean that Chesney received the whole barony." I find this sentence a bit repetitive and with unnecessary verbiage, e.g. "actually", "the fact", etc. I would try something like "Some historians have seen this holding of the lands as Stephen giving Chesney the d'Oilly barony, but the evidence for this is merely that Chesney eventually owned a manor previously belonging to d'Oilly, rather than that he received the whole barony."
  • "Far more likely is that..." → "It is far more likely that..."
  • "are known to have been owned Chesney..." Presumably, "by Chesney"? And can we avoid the close repetition of "held" immediately thereafter?
  • "Some historians hold that Chesney held the office of Sheriff of Oxfordshire,[4] but others do not."[14] Surely, if only "some" historians believe he held this office it is implicit that some believe otherwise? To avoid this kind of awkwardness, it may be wise to rephrase the whole thing: "Historians are divided in their views as to whether Chesney held the office of Sheriff of Oxfordshire", followed by both refs.
  • "...and may have been a brother of William's." I'd say simply "brother of William" as the more usual form. Lose the comma afer "Robert de Chesney"
  • "Part of the Treaty of Wallingford, the peace settlement between Stephen and Henry that gave Henry the English throne after Stephen's death, concerned who would control Oxford Castle, which by the terms of the treaty was entrusted to Roger de Bussy." A little too much information for a single sentence, and again, somewhat repetitious phrasing. I would suggest something along the lines: "The subsequent peace settlement, the Treaty of Wallingford, gave Henry the English throne after Stephen's death. A part of the treaty awarded control of Oxford Castle to Roger de Bussy".
  • "He continued to receive favours from the king, such as the exemption he received for payment of danegeld..." Suggest: "such as exemption for payment..." etc
  • Nothing about his death, although you give a date in the lead. You need a sentence, even if it only says something like: "Chesney is believed to have died in 1161, [cite source] though the circumstances are not known".

That's it. As I am unable to watch individual peer review pages, please ping my talkpage if you have problems arising from this review, or if you want me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley

I fulfil your requirement for someone "not conversant with the subject matter". All I know of this period is from 1066 and All That and Brother Cadfael. These few comments are made in all due ignorance, therefore.

  • "originated" – not clear what this means. A family can originate, but for a person might "was born" be clearer?
  • "which he acquired at least by 1157" – at the latest, rather than least?
  • This is probably a silly question, but does a name (d'Oilly) beginning with a lower case letter still stay lower cased when it opens a sentence? I don't think I'd start a sentence with "de Gaulle" rather than "De Gaulle". I merely ask, having really no notion of the correct form in mediaeval cases.
  • "as Stephen actually giving Chesney" – a gerund, "Stephen's", would be preferable here.
  • "before such honorific" – this looks odd, to my eye, without an indefinite article
  • "behavior" – in an otherwise UK English article this ought to be "behaviour" (to match "favour" just below it)
  • "son Henry's cause.." – duplicated full stop
  • "After Henry's ascension to the throne" – in genuine ignorance, I find this an odd word; "ascent" would seem more natural to me, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
  • "his niece Matilda, who King Henry II married" – "whom" rather than "who"

I enjoyed this article, and though as a complete layman I cannot comment on its comprehensiveness, I must say that it looks pretty comprehensive to me, except, as Brianboulton says above, that we don't get anything much about Chesney's death, though I'm sure you'd have added it were it known. — Tim riley (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. I should be able to get to these this week, I hope. Very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists whose names are used as SI units

[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 thankful to those scientists who had contributed much to our lives. Since I am not in a position to judge who contributed more, I chose those scientists whose names are used in SI units to represent the whole scientific community.

Thanks, Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: What a great idea for a list - thanks for your work on it. With some work I think this could be WP:FL, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem with the current list are the references. They do not include all the information needed, 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
  • Many of the references appear to not be from the highest quality sources. At least one (to Citizendium) is not to a reliable source.
  • I also note that the references do not confirm in many cases that the unit is named for the person in question. So for example, I checked the ref for the Kelvin - it is http://www.convertunits.com/info/degrees+kelvin but it seems to be a questionable source at best (where is there any indication of editorial oversight to make it a RS?) and it does not mention the connection to Lord Kelvin.
  • I do not have a copy of the Asimov book but it seems like it would be an excellent general ref for the overall article, with perhaps some individuals (who are not in Asimov's book) requiring their own refs.
  • A good general ref for the units themselves would be the NIST - see here
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so this one is too short. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I would include the other base units in the note
  • I think the use of just colors for base vs derived units does not seem to meet WP:ACCESS
  • I am not sure the section headers follow WP:HEAD (try to avoid repeating all or part of the name of the article in headers if at all possible)
  • Could the images be included in the table itself? For an example of a recent fully illustrated FL see List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I did my best to improve the article.
  1. My main sources are the written materials, especially Asimov. I also included web sources for the readers. Upon your warning I changed some of the web sources.But unfortunately usually the web authors are impossible to find.
  2. Previosly only the units were sourced. Now I also sourced the scientists.
  3. I extended the introduction.
  4. I included the other base units in the note. (But the template already contains the other base units as well as the other derived units.)
  5. I have used the color just to mark the two base units. Now the two bases units are also marked by a note (Base unit). It is also possible to use two separate tables. But I think the note is enough.
  6. The reason for using the image gallery instead of image-in-the-table method was that I couldn't find the photos of Sievert and Gray. I found Sievert's photo in Swedish Wikipedia and used it. But Gray's photo is still missing. But anyway the images are now replaced in the table.
Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. It looks better, but I still have some concerns.

  • The lead still does not really follow WP:LEAD. For example WP:BEGINNING says in part "The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject." but the current first sentence does not even mention the scientists.
  • The references still need to provide more information. For example current ref 1 is listed twice, but is not complete in either place. The full title at the top of the web page is "Essentials of the SI: Base & derived units" but it is lised as "Esentials of the SI" once and as "Essential of the SI" once, but in neither is "Essentials" spelled correctly, and the part after the colon is not included in either. Also neither lists the publisher (NIST) which needs to be included.
  • I am also still concerned that some of the reference do not seem to be reliable sources - for example the ref on Ampere is cited to "Wordig" when it is actually "Wordiq" (WORDIQ, not WORDIG). This is a website which has a large notice that it has copied parts of the public domain 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica but a smaller notice that it takes its content from Wikipedia - see http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Andre_Marie_Ampere. Wikipedia is not a RS. I would use Physics textbooks.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koninginnedag

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nom it for FA in due course, I want to ensure it meets the criteria, and two words: ORANGE BEER!!! I need say no more.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

What a delightful article! I had no idea. A few very minor points:

  • General
    • Capitalisation of royal ranks – you sometimes write (e.g.) "On the princess's 1890 accession", and "the new queen decided", and sometimes "the Queen's son", and "an opportunity for the Queen". Consistency wanted.
For a monarch or head of state or government, I will capitalize when it refers to the incumbent at the time, and it is unmodified. That's my rule of thumb. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • "the final day of school summer vacation … popular among children" – how odd! I seem to recall dreading the last day of the summer vac when I was a lad.
I was puzzled by this too. Labor Day was always either the last day or next to last day of summer vacation, and I do not regard it fondly.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the normally staid Dutch" – if you don't put a cite there you'll get a complaint from the Netherlands Staid Association or some such.
Yeah, you caught me. I was hoping to get away with a little characterization there. I will either cite that or put it in the body. Is there objection to the entire sentence, or just to the staid bit?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think just saying that the Dutch let their hair down (orange dye and all) would be unobjectionable, surely? Tim riley (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilhelmina
    • "mussed" – I see the article is otherwise written in British English, in which the word "mussed" is unknown ("dishevelled" or some such would fit).
    • "her silver jubilee in 1923, which saw massive celebrations" – some pedantic souls (not me) get exercised about this construction, observing that years (or jubilees) cannot see. There's another such "saw" in the Juliana section, too. Be prepared for sniping at FAC.
  • Beatrix
    • "dampened by an alcohol ban" – a surprising verb for a dry event.
It's a joke. The article is written in a lighthearted way, and there are a couple of mildly humourous notes in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be. But beware of "normally staid" FAC reviewers! Tim riley (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "canceled" – "cancelled" if this is in UK English.
  • Festivities
    • "A major concert" – never in B minor or F sharp major? A different adjective might avoid the musical ambiguity.

That's my lot. I should think this article will please a good many people when it makes it to the front page. – Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Thanks for the comments. I'll work through them. It's going to FAC as soon as Jefferson nickel clears the page. Glad you enjoyed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What will the day be called when the Prince of Orange succeeds to the throne (which may be quite soon as Beatrix is over 70 and Dutch monarchs have a habit of abdicating around that age)? Just wondering. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't said, but that's why I included his birthday. King's Day would be Koningsdag. But Willem-Alexander could keep it as Queen's Day in honor of his mother, who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset

[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 been extensively revised by a team of editors, and I feel it is approaching the point where we can nominate it at FLC. Any advice on areas which need to be changed to meet the criteria or otherwise improve the article would be appreciated. Thanks, — Rod talk 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

Lead

  • "Deposits of iron ore were located in different places to the sources of tin and copper ore necessary to make bronze..." Consider rewording thus: "Deposits of iron ore were separated from the sources of tin and copper necessary to make bronze..." It's a little cleaner and makes more grammatical sense.
  • Done
  • "Consequently, power passed into the hands of a new group of people." Who? I don't see this spelled out in the article.
  • I have removed this sentence
  • I think a reference or two are needed for the last paragraph in the lead. The iron age tribes of Sommerset and also the determination that certain settlements were pre-Roman should be referenced.
  • Ref added
  • I can't seem to get the article to save to I'll tell you here there is a superfluous "on" in this sentence portion: "...'Lake Villages' at Meare and Glastonbury which were built on on a morass..."
  • Done
  • "Scheduled Monuments are defined in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which defines a monument as..." Two uses of the word "define" perhaps the first one could be "listed"?
  • Done
  • "...and any works taking place within one require Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State." I think this portion of the sentence needs a little tweaking for readability: "...and any work taking place at one of these sites requires Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State." Just a suggestion.
  • Done

List

  • In the Bury Castle entry you indicate that it is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Why this detail? Aren't all the scheduled forts in this list Scheduled Ancient Monuments? I could be reading too much into this but I'm confused why this particular entry is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Am I missing something?
  • I've chjanged this one others may need checking
  • Why is Cadbury Castle called South Cadbury Camp in the description?
  • Changed
  • You always link the name of the site in the title column and sometimes it is linked in the description column but not always. This should be consistent. See Cambria Farms as unlinked and Cannington Camp as linked for examples.
  • Many changed but may need checking
  • Can the first instances of univallate and multivallate be linked? Those are terms I'm not familiar with and they are used multiple times in the list.
  • I can't find suitable articles to link to - I may add a sentence on this in the lead
  • In Dolebury camp you have 22.3 acres (90,000 m2). Throughout it has been metric first, why the change here?
  • Changed
  • Ham Hill fort has an area of 200 acres with no metric conversion.
  • Done
  • Maesbury castle has imperical 1 foot (30 cm) first and then metric, this should be switched for consistency.
  • Done
  • Same with Maes Knoll. I won't bring this up any more but I do see inconsistency throughout with the order, metric first and then imperial or vice versa.
  • Done - but any further checking appeciated
  • No conversion for Mounsey Castle for the 1.75 ha measurement.
  • Done
  • In Ruborough Camp the HA for hectacre is linked. This should be done in the first instance of the word per WP:LINK.
  • I've remove the link - in a suitable list defining 1st usage is difficult
  • "An Iron Age hill fort or enclosure on the north-facing slope of Dunkery Hill." I know you're talking about Sweetworthy but it is a sentence fragment nonetheless.
  • Done
  • Look at spacing issues and metric conversion at Tedbury Camp.
  • Done
  • "Comprises the slight earthwork remains of a univallate Iron Age hill fort, now nearly ploughed down." This is a sentence frament, it needs a subject.
  • Changed
  • The images are small and at the bottom of the list. Can they be placed alongside the list near their descriptions?
  • Is there a distinct difference between suspected and confirmed forts/settlements? Is there some missing piece of information that makes it suspected rather than confirmed? I'm just wondering why certain sites are suspected as being forts.
  • Refs look good, links are good and credible.
  • Overall it's a fine list, the above suggestions are nit picky to help polish it up for FLC. This concludes my review if you found it helpful please consider reviewing an article at WP:PR or at WP:GAC to help alleviate the ever-present backlog. If you have specific questions or comments please leave them on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your really helpful comments - I have dealt with many of them, but will take others (eg images & suspected v confirmed) to the articles talk page.— Rod talk 13:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by llywrch

I have two unfavorable initial impressions of this list, One is easily fixable, the other may not be.

  • Most of the content, on a regular basis, appears to be in the "Description" column. Any chance you could make this column wider?
  • I like that there is a box for plans of every hill fort. Unfortunately, the entries which lack plans are far more numerous; only 28 of the 60 entries have plans. I think this would pass FL -- & our readers agree it belonged to that level of quality -- if a clear majority of the entries had plans. I don't know how hard it is to create these plans, but if the list is going to offer this feature, it needs to be available for more hillforts.

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I have started playing with column widths, but still need to check this in different browsers and screen resolutions etc. The comment about plans is, as you expected, a bit more difficult. These were uploaded to wikicommons in 2006 by User:Mikhailfranco (see contribs) who doesn't appear to have done anything else & doesn't appear to be contactable. The source given is The Victoria History of the Counties of England, A History Of Somerset, Volume 2. which is available online at Vol2 however I can't find these images & it seems to be about the religious houses. It seems more likely to me they relate to Vol 1 but again I can't find the images - I have access to a paper copy which I will check. If no more plans are suitably licenced and in the public domain ( CC or PD-old licenced) do you think that would be a major hurdle at FLC?— Rod talk 09:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea if this would be a problem; having given up reasoning with the politically correct over using fair-use images in Wikipedia, I try to stay away from licensing issues. One idea which has occurred to me, though, is this: if a skilled draftsman were to redraw the plans encumbered with the wrong license, then release the result under the proper license, then as long as the source is given credit (e.g., "Plans after Example (1980)"), I believe that should solve the licensing issues. -- llywrch (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you happen to know a "skilled draftsman" might be able to take this on? It would have to be creation from scratch as I'm not aware of any plans (however licenced) existing for the others.— Rod talk 08:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum Since writing the above, I found that I happened to own a copy of Ian Burrow's Hillfort and Hill-top Settlement in Somerset in the First to Eighth Centuries A.D., BAR British Series 91 (Oxford, 1981). It contains a list of 89 hillforts in Somerset which varies at several points with this list; some of his are included in the "Suspected hill forts and settlements" section. Was there a criteria for compiling this list? No sense listing the places Burrows includes if they don't meet the criteria. Or would you be interested in knowing which items Burrow has that are not in this list? -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be great, although I'm aware that some things have moved on in the last 30 years it would be really great to highlight any others. On the talk page we debated inclusion criteria. We've also had long debates about sites such as Duncorn Hill which was thought to be an Iron Age hillfort & then shown not to be. Personally I would not include those in "suspected" but other editors have moved these into "suspected" on the grounds that stronger evidence may still be found.— Rod talk 08:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll put the list of the hillforts Burrow lists that aren't on this list on the Talk page to this article, & let everyone else figure out which ones should be added. FWIW, Duncorn Hill isn't one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota state parks

[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 nominate it to be a FL and I wanted to get opinions from others. Thanks for any feedback!

Thanks, Theking17825 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As you probably know, I was one of the editors who helped get List of Pennsylvania state parks to FL status. This looks pretty good overall, but I have some questions and some suggestions for improvement.

  • Featured lists don't start with "This is a list..." any more
  • One dead external link - see link checker in tool boix on this PR page.
  • My biggest concern is the inclusion criteria. The lead says in part The Minnesota State Park system consists of 66 state parks, six state recreation areas, eight state waysides, nineteen state trails, and 54 state forest campgrounds and day use areas,... and the state parks, state recreation areas, and state waysides are all listed, but the state trails and state forest campgrounds are not. Why?
  • WP:WIAFL says 2. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. so what is and is not included in the list seems to need to be better defined.
  • Similarly I wondered about the waysides that are former state parks, but are not listed explicitly in the former parks section. I think here that modifying the sentence Some of these units were redesignated as state waysides. to include the specific number and to add "and have already been listed above" would work.
  • Why are the 23 state monuments that were once state parks not listed here?
  • Also the MOS says not to start a sentence with numbers as numbers ("23 state monuments...")
  • Since wayside is not a familiar term for most people, I owuld probably briefly define it in the lead.
  • Make sure to use "double quotes" and not 'single quotes' - example Also spelled 'Kadunce'. Formerly Kodunce River State Park. (By the way that entry spells the name three different ways: Kodonce, Kadunce, and Kodunce. Are they all spelled correctly?)
  • I was surprised that the Overview section did not summarize more of the details from the table. For example, how many counties have state parks? Or there are 27 parks which have NRHP listings mentioned in the table, but no mention of NRHP is made in the lead or overview. Also no mention of the two NNLs.
  • By the way the article needs to spell terms out the first time and then introduce the abbreviation. So, for example: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
  • Needs a ref "In 1971 the department became the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources."
  • No developments in history since 1971? Only one noteworthy thing since 1935?
  • I found this official website for the waysides http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_parks/waysides/index.html which does not seem to be used in the article.
  • It also says that 4 of 8 do not have picnic facilities and 5 of 8 do not have toilets, so I would change the general statement Generally development is limited to a parking area, picnic tables, outhouses, and a short trail.[4] in the intro.
  • I am surprised that there is nothing like {{Protected Areas of Pennsylvania}} (not a requirement for FL, just useful)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skull and Bones members

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've completed the bulk of the work on a major cleanup of this list, substituting reliable sources for conspiracy webpages, adding names, taking out dubious ones. I'd like some suggestions as to what else I can do to further improve this list beyond this, and ideally bring this list closer to featured list status. More pictures? Text? Different organization of the names?

Thanks, Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found5dollar comments: This is one of my first peer reviews, but I saw that the list is similar to various lists I have worked on and thought I could help. First off, wow, that is an amazing amount of information you have in the article and the sheer amount of referencing is awe inspiring. here are some suggestions on how to make this list better:

  • As the list currently stands, it would be tough to find out if a specific person was in the society unless you knew the time period in which they attended. My big suggestion to solve this would be to switch the bulleted list you currently have to a sortable table. This way people could be searched by name, date in the club, perhaps birth and death dates, or even position held. An article I have been working on with a similar structure to what I am suggesting is United States Congress members killed or wounded in office.
  • Along the same vein as my last suggestion, I think the organization of the list might work better if it was something along the lines of "Founding Members," "Known members," and "Supposed Members" to greater differentiate when the roster of membership stopped being published.
  • There is so much more you can, and should, add to the introduction of the article. This paragraph or two should sum up the entire list. How many members have there been in total? How many were women? How many became President? Congressmen? Supreme Court Justices? Governors? You may also wan tot quickly explain what Skull and Bones is.
  • I would add a small section explaining the history of Skull and Bones, so that someone who stumbles across this page can learn the basics of the society.
  • When someone is listed as a congressman or senator it may be nice to wikilink to the district or list of senators from that district that they represented.
  • It should also be stated the number of peopel inducted each year (roughly) or how many people ar ein the society at anyone time. The high and lows of this could be included in the introduction.
    • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps! --Found5dollar (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensworth

[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 substantial improvements to it and I'd like an independent opinion and ideas for where to go next. Source material is my major problem, with a village of 200 people.

Cheers, Farrtj (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

I can see you've added quite a lot of material to this article, and a lot of references, so good work with that. I don't know if you intend on getting this to GA standard or not; if you continue to struggle to find sources, that could be a problem, but that's no reason not to keep improving it anyway of course! If you live anywhere near the local area, I'd strongly recommend going to a library and checking their local history section as that's your best bet for finding good sources. Even if there's nothing dedicated to the village, you may find some good books that are on the general area and have a chapter or few pages about Ravensworth. I don't know if you've seen WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, but that's the guideline for how to structure UK settlement articles and is very useful to have on hand as you're writing. It will give you a good idea of what other sections to include. I also really recommend comparing the article to other settlement articles that are already GA or FA: check out Category:FA-Class UK geography articles and Category:GA-Class UK geography articles and read as many of those as you can. That's my general advice. I'll now go through each section and point out any issues or suggestions I have.

Infobox *That's a nice image in the infobox, it could do with an image caption saying what it's of.

  • The map label "Ravensworth" is slightly obscured by the lines on the map. It will be easier to read if you shift the label to either the top or bottom position. You can do this by editing the | label_position = parameter of the infobox and adding "top" or "bottom". (I tried it in preview, and I don't think "left" was much of an improvement)

Lead

  • To meet the good article criteria, the lead would need to be expanded. Try not to think of it as an introduction to the article, but as a summary of everything else in the article (see WP:LEAD). Eventually, you're probably looking for at least two paragraphs, maybe three. It may be easier to leave this to the end though, if you're going to be expanding the whole article. When you get to that point, check to make sure there's nothing in the lead that isn't also covered (and usually expanded on) in other sections.
  • You shouldn't need any citations in the lead (other than for particularly contentious statements, quotes or statistics) as everything in the lead should be repeated & cited elsewhere.
  • Is wapentake a current term? I'd say it's fine to use in the lead, but you might want to make it clear that it's a former subdivision. You could also give the term hundred at the same time, as that might be more familiar to some readers.
  • "J M W Turner made several sketches of the castle." - this is a bit random; as yet I have know knowledge of a castle in the village, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps mention the castle first and then say that Turner made sketches. (This is an example of something that should be mentioned later on!)

History

  • In general, it'd be nice if this section was expanded and more detailed, but this will of course depend on what sources you can find.
  • Domesday book should have a capital "B" and be in italics. I would suggest putting the year it was published too, to give context. Not everyone will know what it is. (For example, the Domesday Book of 1086)
  • "The Lord in 1066..." - I presume you're not referring to The Lord, so lower case L? As you mention lord of the manor further down, I'd put it in full and link it on its first occurrence. Remember, not all readers, especially in other countries, will really know what a lord is in this context.
  • Is Thorfin any of the Thorfinns we have articles for? If so, link. What about Bordin or Bardulf? It might help to have a bit more context in terms of the Norman Conquest and how that affected the area, if at all.

No they're not the same. I've added "a" before their names to show that they are not otherwise notable figures. User:Farrtj|Farrtj talk 14:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "King John is known to have stayed there..." - keep it simple: "King John stayed there..."
  • When you mention lords of the manor, does this refer to the castle? Or some other manor house/estate?
  • "The village is notable for the remains..." - again, this is a bit wordy, try to simplify
  • link listed rather than Grade I, so readers know what to expect when they click on the link.
  • Any idea why the castle was abandoned?
  • Does the castle have a name?
  • Oh look! Oh no... different castle. Anyway, I'm sure a little stub on the relevant castle could be whipped up, I might even do that. I've started a stub on Ravensworth Castle. BelovedFreak 11:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • "In 1779 it belonged to the Legard Baronets" - what did? Village? Estate? Castle?
  • "The village hall dates from 1841, when it was built as a public elementary school." - the source doesn't seem to say that the school became the village hall.
  • "the village was described as "exceedingly neat"" - by whom?
  • Is the church of St Peter & St Felix in the village, or is the village church newer? Even if it's elsewhere, it should probably be mentioned as the old parish church, it would have been the one that villagers attended for many years.

Demographics

  • Can you find out any info from the 2001 census? Even if not at village level, there might be something worth including. It's all at ward level Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a non-scientific article, "per cent" is generally preferred to "%" (WP:PERCENT)
  • Any information on what kind of industry the villagers work in, even if outside the village?
  • The ONS can be a great source for 2001 census info. It can be tricky navigating & finding the place you want, but have a look. You may need to search by ward or another subdivision.
  • A Vision of Britain Through Time is another good source: Ravensworth. Click on the various links, it might take you to a wider area (like Richmondshire) but you might still get some good general info about the area that you can include.

Amenities

  • It's subjective, but I'm not hugely keen on the heading "amenities". It sounds a bit like a guide for people moving to the area rather than an encyclopaedic topic. Yes but "facilities" sounds worse Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ravensworth boasts..." - not sure "boasts" is 100% neutral or encyclopaedic in tone
  • Any info on the church, even who it is dedicated to? Info on the Church will be put in the Kirby Hill page, as that's where it is Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think you need to mention pubs not in the village (as we're not a pub guide), although if they are within the civil parish, that'd be ok. They are within the civil parish of kirkby ravensworth Farrtj (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That image could use a caption to tell us what it's of. Also, it'd probably look better to the right, so tat it's not pushing a header out of the way. Don't worry about it dangling under the infobox, because expansion of the lead and other sections will put it in the right place.
  • Watch out for overlinking of common terms. Make sure each wikilink is going to help a reader, either by explaining something unfamiliar, or leading them further into a topic. Things like "British" and "gift shop" probably don't need to be linked.

Notable people

  • Generally, it's best to include any notable people in the prose rather than as a list. Also, try to only include who has been a notable part on the village, rather than just people who have lived there. It's a fine line, and different editors may judge it differently, but try to look at some FA articles and see how it's been done. Make sure each one is referenced, too.
  • "Local and national media refer to him (ironically)..." - deciding that news reporters are being ironic is original research. Readers will probably realise it's ironic anyway, but it's not up to us to make interpretations.

References

  • Right. There are a few issues with sourcing. I can see you've relied on online sources, which is inevitable if you can't get hold of books, but try to make sure each one meets the guideline at WP:RS. Some here look a bit dubious to me. For example, what makes these reliable (not saying they're not, but you need to be able to justify them):
    • members.fortunecity.com/hburdon/ryder.html
    • yorkshire.com
    • Domesdaymap.co.uk
    • CommuniGate
  • This may be a better source for the place name in the Domesday book (that actual page, not the PDFs linked from it)
  • As far as formatting goes, the references need a bit of work. Some of it cosmetic, to make it look consistent and professional, but some need more info to meet WP:V
    • Try to keep date formats consistent. Eg. you have 2011-05-07 and 16 July 1992. Pick one way and use it for all of them. Personally (just my opinion) I would pick the day month year format as ISO dates (yyyy-mm-dd) can be a bit tricky to understand for those of us that aren't sure which number is the day and which is the year. Up to you though.
    • None of the references should have any mention of google books; google hasn't published any of these sources. You don't even need to provide a link (and many editors actually frown on it) but that's up to you. You don't need retrieval dates for books, even if you found them online. You do need ISBNs where available and page numbers. here's an example.
      • "The Shell book of English villages - Google Books". Books.google.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-05-07. ... should be something more like:
      • Hadfield, John; Willmore Barley, Maurice (1980), The Shell Book of English Villages, Joseph, p. 333, ISBN 0718119002
    • You don't have to use citation templates, but it makes it easier (I think). You do need to include the full book title, author, date isbn if there is one and page number. If it's an old book, Worldcat may have more info than google.
    • The "British History Online" link is actually from A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1.
    • Newspaper titles shoud be in italics.
    • Titles in citations shouldn't be in block capitals, even if they are in the original
    • Bare urls need full details added
  • You can find more info at Wikipedia:Citing sources and the other guides linked in the "see also" section of that one

What else to include

  • It'd be nice to have a section on the geography of the area - any notable physical geography, the nearest larger settlements and how far away they are etc.
  • the religion of the village - historical as well as present day. There's a C of E church and a Methodist church, so some more on those would be good. I'm not sure what more you want? Info on the church is under Kirby Hill Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a small place probably won't have its own media or sports teams, but anything like that should be included.
  • There should be something on the governance & how the village fits into the larger area in terms of local government - look at other artices for ideas on how to do this.
  • Landmarks - there are quite a few listed buildings in the village, some of which could be mentioned.

I know there's quite a lot here, but hopefully this will give you somthing to get stuck into. I don't usually watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Hope this has helped. --BelovedFreak 21:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, this was constructive and very helpful. I feel that the article is much better for your input. I will endeavour to get down to t'local museum, library and archives, and I can go geography and governance. Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Si Una Vez

[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 turned this stub article into a B-Class and would like it to be a GA article

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this and all the Selena articles. Sorry to be slow in reviewing this, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. One FA on a song is 4 Minutes (Madonna song) - I note that the first sentence in that FA mentions the album the song was part of (which is not mentioned here until the second sentence). See Category:FA-Class song articles for all the song FAs.
  • As with the other Selena song article I peer reviewed, the biggest problem is the language. I would suggest getting a copy edit either from a member of WP:GOCE or from one of the volunteers listed under copyediting at WP:PR/V
  • The article is very short - one of the GA criteria is that the article is broad in its coverage - see WP:WIAGA. Although the language is a problem, this could well be a an issue at GAN too.
  • As one example of this lack of coverage, the "Background and composition" section really does not give much background and only has two sentences on composition, one of which is pretty much the info you could find from the album credits (who wrote it).
  • There is also material in the "Background and composition" section on the performance history and themes. While this material is good and should be included in the article, it doesn't really fit in a background and composition section (since it is neither).
  • Similarly, the Critical reception and chart performance section starts with what a band that covered the song, which does not seem like a regular critic. Should the first paragraph be in the covers section instead?
  • Once again, the COvers section lists a large number of bands, most of which are red links. While there is no problem with a red link, and I do not doubt that these are real groups and albums and covers, is there any sort of notability standard for covers? Does the band have to notable to be listed for its cover? I just wonder if all the covers listed here are notable / should be included.
  • The Covers section is followed by the Release history section - this was confusing as I think that Release history was for the original Selena resease and not any of the covers.
  • Current ref 36 is broken
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have looked over the mentioned article and researched more information behind the song from a book and the 20 Years of Music collection series.
    I also fixed the lead per WP:Lead
    I also expanded the article further by adding a section and splitting up a section, which I added more content in.
    The covers are all covered by different artists and are cover versions of Si Una Vez. I took my time, before adding the table, to search for cover versions. If you feel as though they aren't covers please view them (at the bottom) where the source is. However, I did went over each one carefully to make sure that they are indeed covers.
    I didn't find any broken references, but I did added a few more.
    I placed Release history above the Covers section.
    I've been asking people to copy-edit articles I have expanded, but not even one editor has replied nor commented on any article, that I have asked for. There was one editor who fixed prose errors on Dreaming of You (album), without me asking him/her to do it. I don't feel like wasting my time to go on those provided links to ask people who really aren't willing to help out, but to just have their names associated with that group. I also don't work well with others anyways, I prefer to work alone and get advice.

If there is anything else I can or need to do, please address so. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick replies

  • My suggestion was to follow the model article and include the album (Amor prohibido) the single is from in the first sentence in the lead. I just checked and that has not been done.
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader - Quintanilla III (sp?) is Selena's brother, but the article does not state that (or his relation to her) that I can see. I am sure Selena fans already know this, but the average reader probably does not know it. See WP:PCR
  • Thanks for the link, I understand what a cover is. My point about the covers is that I am not sure that all of them meet notability to be included in this article. For example, articles about a town will list notable residents, but not all residents. As another example, there are many books and records for sale on Amazon.com which do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So just finding something listed on Amazon (which is also used as the source for almost all the covers) does not necessarily mean it is notable for inclusion in an article. There are about 25 covers listed but only 5 of them (20%) are from artists which are not red links. To me that means it is likely that many of the artists / bands who have recorded covers might not be notable, and if the artists are not notable, then I doubt that their covers are. I have asked about this on the WikiProject Songs talk page - seeWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#What_makes_cover_versions_notable_.28worth_including_in_an_article.29.3F
  • I do a lot of peer reviews and do not have time to copyedit - sorry. I am also sorry that you have not had better luck asking people. Unfortuately there are so many grammar and other language problems with this and the other article I peer reviewed that I do not see either passing WP:GAN without a copyedit. I also know it is difficult for me (asm I assume for most people) to see all the errors in my own writing as it becomes too familiar and I know what I was trying to say, even if I am not saying it as clearly as possible.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still do not understand what your trying to say? It says in the article that Si Una Vez is the fifth single released from Amor Prohibido.
    I didn't mean to say that you don't know what a "cover version" is - however, I was trying to tell you that I carefully went over each of the covers to make sure they are indeed the same version as Selena.
    I understand that you can't, I can try and ask my ex-mentor to help me out, if he's not too busy this week. AJona1992 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born This Way (song)

[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 recently expanded it for GA and future FA, and would like to know from a different perspective, how the article fares before I take it to the next level. Things I'm looking most to are the prose structure and the commentary. So anyone not remotely associated with the article, please join on board.

Thanks, — Legolas (talk2me) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review from — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] (in-progress)

[edit]
Infobox
  • No issues
Introduction
Background
Artwork and release
Composition
Remixes
Critical reception
Chart performance
  • debuted at the number one position → debuted at number one? (more succinct)
  • The song became the 1000th number one single in the chart's history, and the nineteenth song to debut at number one. It was also Gaga's third number one single → suggestion as well as becoming Gaga's third number one single, "Born This Way" becam the nineteenth song to debut at number one on the Hot 100, and the 1000th number one single in the chart's history.
  • The song sold 448,000 digital downloads in three days, the most downloads in a first week by a female artist. The record was previously held by Britney Spears' "Hold It Against Me".[56] → "the most downloads in a first week by a female artist, beating the previous record held by Britney Spears' "Hold It Against Me"."
  • Three sentences start with "the song" change to some other form as it gets boring.
  • thus tying her with Pink and Rihanna → for what?
  • "Born This Way" took the number one position in its debut week also in Canada, by topping the Canadian Hot 100. Since then, "Born This Way" have been atop of the chart for seven weeks, to date. → singles take the top of the charts do they? How bout... "in Canada, the single debuted at number one in its opening week and as of [date], has been at number one for seven weeks."
Music video
  • The video → The music video
  • and was described to be a "profound, so inspiring and so incredibly beautiful" music video. → who described it? how bout changing to and was described by ABC as an "inspiring and so incredibly beautiful" video.
  • The music video took more than four days to shoot in New York → how bout adding this information to the first sentence....
  • and there were reports about Gaga approaching herself as Jo Calderone → what do you mean? Do you mean there were reports that in the video... Gaga would approach herself as Jo Calderone? Its not entirely clear...
  • Garibay → Fernando Garibay as its a new section and the first mention of him a link to his full name would be appreciated. if someone's reading the whole article they could easily forget who he is by now.
  • The rest of the devlopment section is fine, but the first half does sound like "Gaga Said, Garibay Said, Gibson said". It feels like a WP:QUOTEFARM instead of coherent reporting.
  • In the video's conclusion, a person's silhouette dances and struts in an alley, a tribute to Michael Jackson's "The Way You Make Me Feel" video → source?
  • The first paragraph from the reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM in its purest form.
Live performances
  • She later emerged from another bigger egg on stage, dressed in a high ponytail, gold bra top and long skirt, her makeup all black and gold, and with pointed shoulders and horns protruding from her face → who emerged from the egg? Gaga or Nicola from Haus of Gaga?
  • Her dancers wore similar yolk-colored tunics → link to previous sentence with the word 'while'.
  • Link Billboard.
  • With Billboard she explained that she was in Amsterdam on her tour bus and was thinking about birth and embryos → this sentence seems orphaned with no context. What is the relevance of this sentence? Is this an explanation of the video/peformance? Was it the inspiration?
  • In fact that whole paragraph needs reviewing. There isn't enough explanation. It seems like a direct quote but hasn't attributed as once so I'm confused whether its your interpretation of the sources or whether its something directly said by Billboard magazine or by Gaga for that matter. Break it down... what did Gaga say? What did Billboard report?
Other versions
  • "On March 3, 2011, during her concert in Toronto, Canada, Gaga performed a capella version of the song along with ten year old Maria Aragon.[121] Gaga had first noticed Aragon singing "Born This Way" on YouTube, and was impressed. Hence she called her to join her on stage" (needs reviewing, it sounds a bit plotline-ish and story-like rather than professional reporting. try something like On March 3, 2011, during her concert in Toronto (Canada), Gaga performed an a capella version of the song with ten-year old Maria Aaragon. Gaga had been impressed by Aaragon's singing abilities when the ten-year old uploaded her own version of "Born This Way" to YouTube. Aaragon was subsequently invited on stage to sing with Gaga."
  • "then did a soul inspired" → before preceeding to sing a soul-inspired (sounds incredibly colloqial)
  • Later, she was invited at Radio Hot 103 → who was invited? Gaga or Aaragon?
  • The song was performed on The Ellen DeGeneres Show not Ellen (TV series). there's a difference.
  • The song was also covered by fellow singer Katy Perry, on the March 7, 2011, date of her California Dreams Tour, in Paris. Perry performed a stripped down version of the song, accompanied by two guitarists playing acoustic guitars → this is not linked to all the previous stuff about Aaragon and so it needs to be in a new paragraph. It also needs to be started in a way that doesn't follow on from the previous sentence. e.g. Fellow American singer Katy Perry performed a stripped version of the song on the March 7, 2011 date of her California Dreams Tour, in Paris. The performance was accompanied by accoustic guitars.
  • The Glee cast announced that they will cover the song during a thematic episode of their second season → What is the relevance of this sentence if the next few sentences go on to explain that the cover actually happened, the song was released and it charted? How bout just skipping straight into saying, the Glee Cast themed episode 18 of season 2 around the song, with the cast singing and released Born This Way. etc.
  • Too much information has been provided about "Perform This Way"... the song now has its own article thus reduce the fat here. Also why is there a link at the top of this section saying See also... "Perform This Way" when this entire section is about ALL notable covers? It gives the impression that if i clicked on the link there will be lots of covers not just one in particular.
Track listings and formats
  • Track listings and formats → Track listings (there has been some confusion about the distinction of formats and track listings. formats = CD, Digital, 12". track listings = Single, Remixes etc. As there is no consistancy here... e.g. it says Remixes Part 1 (a tracklisting) but doesn't give the format (e.g. digital). the title of this section is innappropriate).
Credits and personnel
  • would consider changing songwriting → songwriter. (in some of the listings, you've listed the profession e.g. sound recording but then in others you've listed the job e.g. producer. some consistancy might be required).
Charts
  • No issues with charts.
  • No issues with certificates.
Radio and release history
  • Radio and release history → Radio adds and release history (presently the consensus is that a radio add date is not a release date as the industry doesn't use the term 'release' when describing radio adds).
See also, references and external links
  • Nothing of major concern
Comments by Tbhotch* ۩ ۞

These are a quick comments only about the introduction. The main problem as now is the vocabulary. Here they are:

  • Infobox
"Greyscale image of a young, nude woman, with unkempt blond hair" -> Probable ENGVAR; two things: she was not naked, she was wearing trousers when they took the photo and something is missed: how is her position? is it a full-frontal nude?
  • Lead
"from her second studio album of the same name." -> Gramatically correct, but it may refers that her album is called "Lady Gaga"
"Written and produced by Gaga, Fernando Garibay, Jeppe Laursen and DJ White Shadow," why the passive voice and where is Blair?
"gay community" -> link it
"It features the names of communities like the gay, lesbian as well as transgender". -> In resume, the LGBT community.
"early release of the lyrics [10 words later] that the lyrics'" -> use synonyms or avoid redundancies
"Asian and Hispanic communities, [10 wors later] describe Latino and Asian communities" -> same error
"The song has been remixed by different remixers," -> ¬¬
""Born This Way" received mixed to positive reception from critics." -> What is "mixed to positives", Are they mixed or positives? It cannot be both, and definitely there are negative reviews, so it can(not) be "negative to mixed to positive" chose either or use an adverb
"being described as a "club-ready anthem"," _> Is this positive or negative?
"Hot 100 chart ... on the Hot 100 ... atop the Hot 100." -> as before
in iTunes -> on the iTunes Store
It premiered on Monday -> Is the Monday needed?
their surrealistic images -> their surrealistic works
and Madonna -> overlinked
surrealism -> the word "surrealistic" is used before, link it there
"sensation" -> reduce the POV.
  • Background
"Throughout 2010, Lady Gaga was touring for her Monster Ball tour. It was then that she started developing ideas for her second studio album, Born This Way." -> This is very floppy. I suggest a copy-edit, perhaps: "In 2010, Lady Gaga (never linked beyond the lead) was touring for her second world tour The Monster Ball. At that time, she started..." or something similar
"which she wrote in ten minutes. She explained: "I wrote it in ten fucking minutes" -> Why we have to read twice that she wrote it in ten minutes?
"she was on tour in 2010" -> redundant as well
"relate to everyone, [t]o all of" -> why the [t]o? Eve it starts with "T" it is not incorrectly wrote
"Harkening back to the early '90s, when Madonna, En Vogue, Whitney Houston and TLC" -> link them all
gay community -> link it
"Gaga was askeed" -> typo
  • Artwork and release
tweeted -> link it
"think Missing Persons, Roxy Music or Duran Duran" -> if they have articles, link them
"after Perez" -> overlinked
Gaga released the full set of lyrics of the song[19] before -> why the reference there w/o any punctuation?
  • Composition
File:Lady Gaga Born This Way sample.ogg: Songwriter(s): Stefani Germanotta -> and the other three?
"containing the chorus and" -> why chorus effect is linked?
Born This Way is copyrighted, as you know, so reduce the use of lyrics the most you can
"lyrics talking about making no apologies and being who you are" -> I read exactly the same in the lead
"It features the names of communities like the gay, lesbian as well as transgender" -> "It features the names of the LGBT community"
  • Remixes
CD single and digital download -> link them
Another set of remixes were done by Michael Woods, Grum, Dada Life, Zedd, Bimbo Jones, and Twin Shadow. It was released on March 29, 2011 -> Merge them, and which was the name of this EP?
"Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)." -> "Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)."
The paragraph which starts with "A Bollywood version of the song" contains many irrelevances such as "Since Desi Hits! is a part of Interscope Records, which is again a part of Universal Music—Gaga’s label—". The para should be cut.
"Indian music producer duo Salim and Sulaiman Merchant said that not much planning went into their remix of "Born This Way". It was spontaneous.[36]" -> merge them
  • Critical reception
The main problem here is the excessive use of quotes, remember that most of them (if not all) are copyrighted by their respective authors, note that "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them"
"After its release, "Born This Way" received mixed to positive response from music critics". -> Citation needed, especially the "mixed to positive" part
"between "Born This Way" and Madonna's "Express Yourself"." -> overlinked
"the Beatles' 'A Day in the Life' or Queen's" -> link the bands.
  • Chart performance
"song sold 448,000 digital downloads in three days, the most downloads in a first week by a female artist" -> where?
"The record was previously held by Britney Spears' "Hold It Against Me"." -> overlinked and merge it with the previous sentence
"The song's CD single" -> overlinked
"and 40,000 copies to date" -> So, it sales stopped at 40,000? Still no selling singles?
"Born This Way" also reached number 11 on Billboard's Adult Top 40, number 11 on Adult Contemporary chart, number one on Hot Dance Club Songs, number ten on Latin Pop Airplay, and number one on Japan Hot 100.[67][68]" -> "Born This Way" topped the Japan Hot 100 and Hot Dance Club Songs charts, reached number ten on Latin Pop Airplay and number 11 on Billboard's Adult Top 40, and Adult Contemporary charts.[67][68]
"It became the highest selling number one single there.[70]" -> merge it with the previous sentence
"New Zealand RIANZ charts, ... the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) for shipment -> copyedit needed
[75][76][77][78] ... [79][80][81][82][83][84] ... [86][87][88] -> Why you don't kill them?
  • Music video
"The video" -> as Lil' said
incredibly beautiful" music video -> incredibly beautiful" video
It . . . -> It ...
experience, You can -> typo
initially told MTV News -> overlinked
the male model [character] she portrayed -> why the "[character]"
"bullied" -> link it
surrealistic -> link it
Gibsonsaid -> typo
Gibsonsaid [sic] that Gaga chose New York to shoot the video because "This was the place that we started. This was the place that birthed her. This was the place that birthed my dance. New York just has something so real about birthing something specific." -> you can short this as simple as a "is the place where she born".
How File:Bornthiswaymusicvideo.jpg passes WP:NFCC#1, as a living person free images of Rico exist and this image can be replaced by one of them. You are trying to use a non-free image to assert a point that free content can do.
"Bernard Herrmann’s prelude to the movie Vertigo plays while Gaga declares," -> citation needed, WP:Ffilmplot "protects" you from sourcing videos' synopsis, in other words, what we are seeing, but no what's behind it
"model Rick Genest are" -> overlinked, and you called him "Rico" before
"a tribute to Michael Jackson's "The Way You Make Me Feel" video" -> I, as many know that, but not all, a source would help
distinct Madonna-esque -> overlinked again
"chewing bubble gum and blowing a bubble" -> as far as I can remember this is because Rico likes to chew gum, if you could source it, do it
Reception section, we returned to the quote farm
Los Angeles Times, Michael Jackson and Madonna are, again, overlinked
File:Janus-Vatican.JPG -> ALT needed for consistency
  • Live performances
On the February 9, 2011, episode of The Ellen DeGeneres Show, DeGeneres, alongside ... telephone with Ellen DeGeneres -> This needs a copyedit
that she will perform "Born This Way" on February 13, 2011, at the 53rd Grammy Awards -> update it
"Gaga's Twitter followers" -> only they?
"intro of the song ("It doesn't matter if you love Him, or capital H-I-M")," -> you already marked this
was a Gregorian Alvin Ailey, -> already linked
"She added that Willow Smith" -> already linked
With Billboard she explained that -> With Billboard, she explained that
"Even my hair color was a washed-out rose color . . . It was meant to be a hair expression, an afterbirth" -> if this is a quote, quote it
rose color . . . It was -> rose color ... It was
"With shades of the Queen of Pop's Blonde Ambition tour," -> We are not refering to MJ as the "King of Pop", are we?
from Billboard described -> overlinked
from Entertainment Weekly praised -> id.
Matthew Perpetua from Rolling Stone -> id.
At the February 19, 2011 -> ?
set-list -> link it
Laura Nyro -> link her
  • Other version
"Gaga had first noticed Aragon singing "Born This Way" on YouTube, and was impressed. Hence she called her to join her on stage" -> merge them
"song on Ellen with Ellen DeGeneres," -> both overlinked
"The Glee cast announced that they will cover the song" -> update it
  • Credits and personnel
Where is Paul Blair?
  • Category
Eurodance songs -> never metioned
  • References
I recommend you to archive all the possible links, as a recent song links are OK now, but like in a year-and-a-half they would become dead.

In general this is a good article and it can be used as an example for future generation—but I am not saying it in a positive way. The article is the perfect example of what you musn't do, and how have Wikipedia sued by the respective authors. It contains many quotes, as much as I think that like 40% of it was not written by you—or other authors—it was written by media. As you know Wikipedia is not a quotation farm, and unless you have an OTRS ticket, such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes, you must remove most of those and keep them short. Also, it has some typographical errors, overlinking and underlinking, which I'd like to correct but I have an awful lag on Wikipedia (that's why I'm not working now). The article deserves the B-class, but not the GA-class yet, and I suggest you to request for copyedits. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's Brewery

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten the article from scratch and I'd like an external perspective

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

  • What is a "tied house"? I'm not familiar with that term and you may want to explain this in the history section.
  • I see a {{dead link}} tag next to ref 6, that'll need to be fixed.
  • "Watney Mann were motivated by an increase to their pub estate." Change "were" to "was" for tense agreement.
  • "1988 perhaps saw the company at the height of its powers...." Consider removing "perhaps" as this weakens the statement, perhaps rephrase as, "The brewery reached the zenith of its power in 1988...."
  • "As of 2011, Heineken are the brand owners." Heineken is the brand owner.
  • "Webster's two main brands from 1982 onwards were Green Label...." "Are" Green Label rather than "were" Green Label. Since the two main brands continue to be the main brands it is appropriate to use the present tense.
  • In the first sentence in the Brands section you have an open parenthesis with no close.
  • "At this time Webster's biggest brand was Green Label Best...." At which time?
  • What does 1037.5 OG mean? When using an abbreviation like "OG" you need to spell it out first then put the abbreviation in parentheses, like Great Britain (GB).
  • You have several unnecessary words in your writing. I removed the word "generally" as an example. When writing it is best to say what you're trying to say in the least amount of words. Usually you can remove words like "also" and "very" as redundant and unnecessary. This tightens up the prose and makes it more readable, compact and to the point. Here's an example:
  • "The Green Label mild was so popular in Halifax that it wasn't until the 1970s that Pennine Bitter began to be made available to the area." I would take out "began to be" and replace with "was". Simpler and to the point.
  • The wikilink of Courage in the History section is to Scottish & Newcastle, in the Brand section it's to Courage-the ability to control fear. You don't need to link Courage in two successive sections, one link - the one in the History section - is fine.
  • "television adverts" Watch use of slang words like "adverts".
  • This quote, "'at best, safe and boring and, at worst, offensive'" needs to be attributed. See WP:QUOTE for thoughts and requirements on inserting quotes in an article.
  • Is there a picture of one of the brewerys that can be added to the top of the article?
  • I'm not sure the formatting for ref 3 is correct, also you need a "subscription required" tag on that reference.
  • Overall you have a nice little article here. There are some prose issues that I've raised but adherence to the Manual of Style is pretty good. I'm not sure what your future aspirations are, if GA nomination is in the future I'd say you're well on your way. This concludes my review, if you found it helpful please consider reviewing an article either here or at GAC to reduce the ever-present backlog. If you have specific questions regarding the review please contact me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin half dollar

[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 be grateful for comments on it. It's a short article, don't worry.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis
[edit]

You said short article, so here I am.

Lead
  • The "("Mint")" and "("Commission")" should be removed. I can see what they're for, but I'm not sure they are helpful or clear.
  • "pictures patriot Benjamin Franklin" I suggest changing "patriot" to something else. It seems overly emotive for an encyclopaedia and isn't descriptive at all. Maybe say he's a founding father or something.
  • "(a small eagle was placed to the right of the bell to fulfill legal requirements)" This should be rewritten, taken out of brackets and added properly to the sentence or removed. Currently it feels like bad prose, and also leaves me wondering what the legal requirements are.
  • "for a Franklin half." "Franklin half" sounds like a shortcut to me, but if it's not, ignore this comment.
  • I've seen it suggested by others that the lead has information from every section. It would be well worth adding to the lead you have, there's a whole paragraph left to fill!
Background and selection
  • "Franklin had opposed putting portraits on coins; in a 1948 interview, Ross noted that Franklin only knew of royalty on coins, and presumably would have no great objection to the republic he helped found honoring him in this way." This prima facie seems contradictory. Did Franklin change his mind later in life? I assume the 1948 interview definitely wasn't with him.
True. Apparently Franklin said that he preferred proverbs to appear on coins, and this was discovered by the press in 1948. Ross was ducking and covering.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph doesn't flow well to me, consider removing "Sinnock" once or twice or combining sentences.
  • When did the eagle coinage laws come about?
  • What is the Commission of Fine Arts and is it usually asked for coinage advice?
  • Wililink to Roosevelt Dime when it appears here.
  • I suggest moving the picture down a couple of paragraphs, where it is better related.
Release and Production
  • John W. Snyder is not mentioned before. When did it get his approval?
  • "Franklin became the fifth person to be honored by the issuance of a regular-issue US coin, after Lincoln, Roosevelt, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and the first non-President." Perhaps move the fragment about first non president to the start of this sentence?
  • Flesh out "small "o" in "of" was an error," not immediately clear it refers to the United States of America on the reverse.
  • I'm not sure the Ross photo adds, especially as it looks like a coin itself.
Collecting
  • "No Franklin half dollar is rare today" - Clarify this is no date of Franklin half dollar, otherwise it implies (to me) multiple types of Franklin half dollars.
  • "the key dates in this series are the 1948, 1949-S, 1953 and 1955" What makes these key dates?
  • "during when sliver prices reached record levels in 1979–1980." Fix grammar.
  • "Today, the 1962 half in MS-65 condition sells for about $145, second only to the 1953-S in price in that grade." Why are just these two mentioned? In addition, try to explain MS and grade, numismatic terminology may not be understood be many.
  • Make the bibliography section a subsection of references, just for clarity.

I liked this article, and was surprised by the fact halfdollars were once in demand. Anyway, hope my comments helped, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you liked it. I will work to implement these changes. Thank you for the careful work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2011 (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. (Well, okay, you didn't SAY it was going to FAC, but we know you...)
    • Decide on either giving the state abbreviations or not in the bibliography - you currently have New York, N.Y. for one source, but just New York for another.
    • What makes http://www.coincommunity.com/coin_histories/half_dollar_1948_franklin.asp a high quality reliable source?
    • Lead: "reeded edge"? Jargon?
    • Lead: "...to prepare designs for a Franklin half." Franklin half WHAT?
    • Lead: Okay, so they got complaints about the initials, but did they do anything about them?
    • Background: You already linked Ross in the lead, and you're not linking anything else linked in the lead, so it shouldn't be linked here
    • Background: I generally prefer "after 1940" to the slightly stilted "from 1940"
    • Background: Suggest replacing the second usage of "cent" in the last sentence of the second paragraph with "penny"
    • When did Ross first think about putting Franklin on a coin?
    • Background: Third paragraph, the prose flow here is very choppy, suggest some rewriting, including trying to eliminate the "Sinnock..." "Sinnock..." sentence starts in the middle.
    • Background: Suggest jsut a tad more on the coinage laws that required the eagle - either a link or a sentence.
    • You repeat the "numismatic writer" description for Taxay in the third AND fourth paragraphs. You only need one.
    • Release: Link for "savings bonds"?
    • Release: Suggest rewriting the last sentence of the first paragraph to "Franklin became the first non-President honored by placement on a regular-issue US coin, and only the fifth person in total, after Lincoln, Roosevelt, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson."
    • Linking: YOu've got links for things in the lead that are repeated in the body of the article. THis article isn't so long that you need to repeat the links from the lead into the body of the article.
    • Collecting: "great coin shortage of 1964" - link to article?
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.) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paying For It

[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 so far I've gone at this article alone and I'd like to get some input on how to make it better. It's got a lot of citations (it's been in the press a lot lately and is a book that's been anticipated for years).

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 08:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a few quick comments:
  1. You seem to be overquoting here. I count at least 20 different quotes, which makes for very little original content.
  2. You should probably include more footnotes. For example,

"After then-girlfriend Sook-Yin Lee broke up with him in 1996, Brown spent a celibate three years mulling over what he saw as the negative aspects of romantic love in the modern world. He works up the courage to see a prostitute, and therefore decides never to pursue a relationship with any one woman again (a condition he calls "possessive monogamy")."

just screams Citation needed to me. (Although to be honest, part of that is because I doubt many men could go three years celibate, myself included).
  1. There may need to be more Wikification here. There are large stretches of text that seem to be unlinked.
  2. There are some minor Manual of Style things that may or may not be from you. For example, in the second paragraph you have not all-caps.
I hope this can help you out. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback.
About the one paragraph you point out, I'm wondering how I should go about citing it. Everything in that paragraph is in the book itself (in fact, would be the "inciting incident" of the book), and pretty much every article I've read has summed it up similarly. Which reference should I point to? Should I just throw in a bunch randomly, or is there some guideline for choosing?
For the three years of celibacy, I've found a quote about him being to shy too pick up women that I'll try to incorporate.
As for "not" being in all caps, the original quote has the word both bold and in all-caps, so I preserved that, as I wasn't sure what the best alternative would be. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 23:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is in the original, then you could keep it and add hidden text saying that it is in the original; you can also paraphrase it. As for the citation, perhaps you could just cite the book itself. The other sources probably get their information from the book. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Stones Ltd

[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 overhauled it completely and would like a second perspective.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cunard on the 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC) revision

  • "William Stones Ltd was a brewing company founded in 1865 by William Stones and was based at the Cannon Brewery in Sheffield, England. The brand is currently owned by Molson Coors..."
  • Perhaps the following would be better: "William Stones Ltd was a brewing company founded in 1865. Originally based at the Cannon Brewery in Sheffield, England, the brand is currently owned by Molson Coors..."
  • "...the brand is currently owned by Molson Coors who brew the pasteurised Stones Bitter (3.7% ABV) at their Burton upon Trent brewery and contract the production of the cask conditioned Stones Bitter (4.1% ABV) to Everards of Leicester."
  • To "...the brand is currently owned by Molson Coors. They brew the pasteurised Stones Bitter (3.7% ABV) at their Burton upon Trent brewery and contract the production of the cask conditioned Stones Bitter (4.1% ABV) to Everards of Leicester."
  • Wikilink ABV as a layperson probably wouldn't know to what it refers.
  • "It is available across the United Kingdom, and it is one of the country's top twenty ale brands."
  • To "Available across the United Kingdom, it is one of the country's top twenty ale brands."
  • Bitter to Bitter (beer)
  • "In the 1860s William Stones started brewing at premises in Acorn Street, off Shalesmoor, where the brewery took up all the western side of the street, except for the Shalesmoor corner where the Red Lion was situated."
  • This sentence is very long. Perhaps you can break it up into shorter sentences for easier reading?
  • "In 1865 he formed a partnership with a Mr. Watts" – omit "a Mr."
  • 1954 should be delinked per WP:OVERLINK.
  • "local rivals" – should it be "local rival"?
  • 1999 should also be delinked.
  • "The brand continues however, the keg beer being brewed by Molson Coors at their Burton upon Trent brewery, and the cask version is contract brewed by Everards."
  • To "...the cask version being contract brewed by Everards" to maintain parallel sentence structure
  • "In the early 1940s Stones first produced their famous, refreshing, golden/straw coloured beer called Stones Bitter."
  • This sentence appears to be editorializing the quality of the beer. Perhaps you could say Author X of Book Y praised the beer for being "refreshing".
  • "10 hours or so a day" to "about 10 hours"
  • "At 4.1%, it was strong for a draught beer at the time, and earned the moniker of 'Jungle Juice' in the Sheffield area."
  • To what does 4.1% refer? If it refers to ABV, maybe you can mention ABV here.
  • For Jungle Juice, I think double quotes, not single quotes, should be used.
  • "Yorkshire Gold" should be enclosed in double quotes. Several other quotes in this paragraph and the preceding one should also be enclosed in double quotes, not single quotes.
  • "Since 1997, the marketing budget seems to have been slashed to almost nothing." – do you have a source for this. It appears to be original research.
  • "In the media" – this appears to be a trivia section, which is discouraged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections).
  • As movie titles, When Saturday Comes and The Full Monty should be italicized.
  • The link to film is overlinking.
  • See also the dablinks on the sidebar of this peer review. Four links to disambiguation pages need to be fixed.
  • File:Stones.jpg – when was this logo first published? It might fall under the public domain.
  • Most of the references are bare urls. An easy way to fix them would be to use Template:Cite news and Template:Cite book, though you could also manually format them.

Thank you for your hard work on this article. This was an instructive, enjoyable read. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Cunard, I've taken your advice on board Farrtj (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've also run WP:REFLINKS on the article to remove the bare urls. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you grade the article? I'm worried I may be biased. Farrtj (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have rated the article as C class. The references are not fully formatted (i.e. with the authors, publishers, and dates) and contains some problems. For example, the sentence "Since 1997, the marketing budget would appear to have been slashed to almost nothing" is unsourced and appears to be original research. Cunard (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed what was indeed a piece of original research. Can I rephrase it along the lines of 'marketing support has not been readily evident since 1997'...? Farrtj (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be fine. Cunard (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nthep on the 16:13, 15 May 2011 revision

  • Lead paragraph I'm confused reading this - are you talking about the company or the brand or both? There is one sentence on the company then the rest of the paragraph is about the brand(s). I don't think there is a problem in dealing with both but perhaps it needs to be separated out more?
    • What happened to the company? The first sentence says 'Wm Stones Ltd was (my emphasis) a brewing company ...' but then there is no mention of what happened to the company. I understand the brands were bought by Coors (directly or did they go through other hands first and end up with Coors as a result of other takeovers?) but what happened to the company? If 'was' is correct then the company no longer exists and the date it vanished needs to be identified.
  • History Perhaps a map of Sheffield showing where the premises were would help? Acorn Street and the famed Cannon brewery are unlikely to mean much to most readers unless they are very familiar with Sheffield. If a map isn't appropriate then use of {{coord}} might help.
    • There is a big gap in the history between foundation, Stone dying and then a jump to the 1950s - did nothing of note really happen for 50 years?
  • Stone's bitter You're right it's the company's most famous product but if it wasn't introduced until the 1940s what was the brewery producing beforehand? And after 1940 was bitter the only product. Certainly the bitter merits a separate section for the comprehensive reasons you've given but perhaps another section on Beers produced at various times would be helpful - even if it's only a bullet point list.
    • There are some additonal citations needed for this section as well e.g. the origin of the name "Jungle Juice" and why it is no surprise that it features heavily in WSC and The Full Monty.

This is an interesting article that leaves me with more knowledge than I had before but it also left me asking a lot of questions which sadly it doesn't (yet) answer. I'd agree with Cunard's C rating for the time being. If you need any help or want me to explain things more please leave a not on my talk page. NtheP (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boddingtons

[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 done a fair amount of work on it and would like an external opinion.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Could you be a little more specific about the purpose of this review. You say you would "like an external opinion" – with what in mind? Are you, for example, thinking of a future nomination at GAN, or FAC? For the present I can offer a few general suggestions as to how the article might be improved, whatever your future intentions may be:-

  • Without commenting on he prose in detail, I'd say there is a big problem in the History section, where a brief opening paragraph covering just over 100 years up to 1883 is followed by a 99-year gap to 1982. The rest of the section (about 80%) is all recent history.
  • The "Advertising" section seems disproportionate and overdetailed., and only deals with the brewery's most recent advertising history.
  • Sections should be written in prose, not bullet points
  • The citations need a lot of attention. Many are unformatted urls. Others are unexplained , e.g. "Euromonitor, 2011" and "Marketing (00253650), July 30, 2008". Some references, e.g. 16, 20 and 21, are identical and can be combined under a reference name. Newspaper and journal titles should be italicised. Etc, etc; perhaps some study of Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style would be appropriate.
  • A couple of your wikilinks go to disambiguation pages: Magor AND Widget. In each case, you should pipe-link to the page you want.
  • Bolding should not be used in the text for emphasis, except in the initiating sentence of the lead.
  • Italics should not be used to represent quotations. Use quotation marks
  • Date ranges, e.g. "1990–1999" need ndashes, not hyphens.

Attention to these points would be a good starting point for improving the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laevistrombus canarium

[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 prepare it for a future FA candidacy. A broader scrutiny is needed to determine what needs to be changed, improved or expanded; The article covers up most of the topics about this species, but I am sure there is much to improve. A MoS review would be very welcome as well.

Thanks, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments: For the most part the article looks to be in good condition and it reads well. Here are a few comments that I hope are helpful as you go forward:

  • If strombus canarium is the more common synonym, why isn't it used as the name of the article? Perhaps the article could explain why laevistrombus canarium is the preferred name, especially in light of the "Phylogeny" section content.
  • There are multiple, possibly unnecessary uses of the additive term "also", plus an "Additionally". Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy, for example.
  • "...burrowing behavior of S. canarium consists of a series of behaviors..." A behavior consisting of behaviors? Perhaps you could use a second term here.
  • There are multiple brief paragraphs. Please see Wikipedia:Paragraphs#Paragraphs.
  • "Recent studies indicate..." is a time-dependent statement that lacks a date. Please see Wikipedia:MoS#Chronological items.
  • Some curiosity questions that didn't appear to be answered by the article:
    • What is their average expected life span after they reach adulthood?
    • Is there a range of environments that they can tolerate? (Temperature, depth, salinity, &c.)
  • In cases where the article is using web-based references, the cites don't seem properly developed. If possible it should show author, date, work and publisher information. Examples: "Wordinfo.com" and "Online guide to Check Jawa: Gong-gong".
  • The "External links" section should go at the end, per WP:ELPOINTS.

Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RJH! Your suggestions are very helpful. I shall see to it that each comment receives proper attention. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lego

[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 nominated it for FAC, and it was said that there were not enough references, and the article should be put under Peer Review before it becomes an FA. The whole article could use a "PR wipedown".

Thanks, JoshE3 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this. I love Lego and would like to see this get to FA, but agree that there are serious problems with this before it could become GA, let along FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • References are the biggest problem. The article needs more references, for example there are 29 "citation needed" tags, pretty much all of which need refs.
  • There are whole sections without refs - for example the Video games and Official website sections have no refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and at least the end of every paragraph need a ref.
  • The references that are there are incompelte in some cases. 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
  • As one examples of a problem ref, current ref 4 is just "Lego Specifications" linked to the website http://orionrobots.co.uk/Lego+Specifications - no publisher is given, and the date of the webpage needs to be included.
  • An even greater concern is that some of the sources used are not reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. What makes orionrobots.co.uk a reliable source, for example? Is there any indication of editorial oversight or sources for the material?
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the current lead is not a sufficient overview and needs to be expanded.
  • 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. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article is WP:OVERLINKed - do readers really need a link to castle or train or pirate to better understand the Lego article?
  • There are also quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt the flow of the article. These should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded.
  • I worry that the images of creative works like the Lego T. Rex sculpture are copyrighted and thus not free images (not only does the photo have to be free, but if it is of an art work, the art has to be freely licenesed too).
  • Use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (unless it is a quote within a quote)
  • The header "Today" is not a good choice - first off, avoid vague time terms (as they can quickly become out of date). Second the "Today" section has sentences on things in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, which is hardly today.
  • The prose is decent bu not great - look at WP:WIAFA for the FA criteria. The most difficult criteria for most articles at FA to meet is a professional level of English.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are no FAs under WikiProject Toys, but there are several WP:GAs at Category:GA-Class Toys articles which may be good models for getting this to GA (it would be a quick fail at WP:GAN now - lack of refs). For WP:FA models, perhaps Chess or Dungeons & Dragons or History of the board game Monopoly would be useful models. With all models, be aware that standrds have gotten tighter with time and more recent GAs or FAs would be more useful as model articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Family (season 1)

[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 hope it can reach good article status or featured list. Please tell me which choice would be the best choice

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have seen this show a few times and enjoyed it - thanks for your work on this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I looked and there are GAs, FAs and FLs about seasons of television shows. My personal preference is to go GA / FA, but it is your call. Parks and Recreation (season 1) is a fairly recent FA that might be a good model article for ideas and examples to follow.
  • There is a toolbox on this PR page which finds two disambiguation links (click "disambig links")
  • The last sentence of paragraph two of the lead seems like it does not fit there - seems like a better fit at the end of the lead's first paragraph to me.
  • The episode summaries are a bit short compared to the Parks and Rec summaries (on my monitor P&R are all three lines long or one just over 3 lines, these are often only 1 line long.
  • I also like how Parks and Rec's summaries give the names of actors on first mention of the character
  • These summaries are written from an in-universe point of view and need to be written so as to better explain things to someone who is not familiar with the series. For example, although I know who Manny is (and he is mentioned in the lead), who is Luke? So "Manny and Luke get into a fight a school" makes no sense to me even though I have seen several episodes. Reading further, it seems he is Claire's son, so explain that somehow. See WP:IN-U and WP:PCR
  • One more example - I have not seen the episode "Hawaii" but I would imagine that some of them go there on vacation. It is not clear which of the three families do go there from the summary. Probably should also make it clearer that there are two related episodes (I had to read the article on the Hawaii episode to make sure)
  • The prose is still kind of rough. For example the first sentence of Conception begins While working in the office Lloyd and Levitan were telling stories about their family and they thought that could be a show idea, and started working around the idea of a families being observed in a mockumentary style show. This made me assume that Lloyd and Levitan had one family together and were life partners as well as business partners. Then I looked at their articles here and they each have a spouse and family. Then I read the first peer review and this very point was raised there.
  • I also worry because this starts without much background. Lloyd and Levitan have both been involved in some pretty well known and popular shows and it might be useful to give a few sentences of background on them.
  • As I said I have only seen the show a few times - is it really a mockumentary? I did not recall that (it is also late and I am tired)
  • The WP:MOS says to use someone's full name the first time you mention them and then use just their last name after that. I think it is OK to use full name for the first time in the lead and the first time in the body of the article. Here though, Conception refers to Lloyd and Levitan and then Crew spells out their full names again. If more than one person has the same last name, then using the full name throughout id fine to avoid confusion.
  • WP:OVERLINK also says to link on first mention in the lead, and it is OK to also link on first mention in the body of the article. The above example also violates this. Or Julie Bowen is linked twice in just the Cast section.
  • Sentences on directors in Crew needs a ref or two. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and at least the end of every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some refs are incomplete. For example current ref 31 is just "From Variety (May 8, 2009)" with a link to http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003355?refCatId=14 but the link shows this has a title and an author and the date is incorrect (it is May 7, 2009 on the Variety page). 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 {{Cite news}} could work here too, since Variety is a trade paper.
  • Avoid words like "currently" and vague time terms as they can quickly become outdated. So The season is currently nominated for Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series for series co-creator Steven Levitan's work on the penultimate episode, "Hawaii".[79] would be better by giving the date (year? month and year?) of the nomination. Then I would update this once the award is given (the award it is nominated for is not clear either - the ref is for the DGA, but when you click on the ref it mentions that the show won for the episode Halloween, not Hawaii. Something weird is goin on here.
  • Any free pictures of any of the major cast or creators or directors or writers to use here?
  • SOrry this took so long to review. I think it is close to GA once these points are addressed.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dislocation of hip

[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 sure that my group and I are completing this correctly. We want to make sure that we have cited the sources correctly. We also want to make sure that the order of the sections are correctly labeled and formatted to fit the page.

Thanks, Rmb 0508 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, which needs a fair amount of work to better conform with the WP:MOS. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The current lead is only two sentences and needs to be expanded to conform to 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
  • For ideas on how to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Another idea is to imagine someone could not read the article but could only read the lead - how would the lead do in concisely summarizing the article?
  • WP:LEAD says not to both bold and link terms in the first sentence.
  • Why is the article called "Dislocation of hip" and not "Hip dislocation"?
  • The section headers do not follow WP:HEAD - fix the capitalization
  • Also do not repeat the name of the article in the headers - so "Hip Dislocation Exercises used for Rehabilitation" could just be "Exercises used for Rehabilitation"
  • Language is not great in spots. One example There are many movements that are associated with the hip, making it an important necessity. [1] What is "it" here? The hip? The movements? I do not understand "Important necessity" - are all necessities already important? Is the hip really a necessity? (since there are amputees who live without a hip)(not easy) A copyedit would help
  • The article has a lot of short (one or two sentences) paragraphs (and some sections) which interupt the flow of the narrative. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded wherever possible.
  • Also try to avoid bullet lists where possible, convert to text if at all possible.
  • Per WP:CITE references come directly AFTER punctuation without a space between the punctuation and the ref, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Article needs more references, for example the two sentences in the Posterior vs. anterior section need refs. This is also an example of a section that is too short and two paragraphs in that section that are too short. 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
  • Duplicate refs can be combined - I did this for one as an example.
  • The article has about 10 disambiguation links that need to be fixed - see here
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This request is somewhat unorthodox -- this list is already featured. I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a very substantial amount of editing since it was promoted: the promoted version was 9140 bytes, and the current is at 17,015. The feedback I'm look is firstly in terms of the writing quality and the clarity of the prose. I've added a very substantial amount of prose and I want to be especially sure that it is (reasonably?) understable by someone without considerable prior knowledge of the subject, as well as it being well-written. Another issue on which feedback would be appreciated would be whether this can be called a list or whether it is more an article (in terms of FL vs FA distinction), because of the amount of prose as compared to the list itself.

Thanks, Maxim(talk) 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

"The first goaltender to score a goal by intentionally shooting the puck into the opponent's net was the Philadelphia Flyers' Ron Hextall, who on December 8, 1987, scored in an empty net after Boston pulled their goaltender, Rejean Lemelin, for a sixth attacker late in the third period.[14] This was the case for the most recent instance of goaltender scoring, when Chris Mason was credited with a goal in 2006. The most recent goaltender to have scored a goal by deliberately shooting the puck into his opponents' net was Evgeni Nabokov, in 2002."

This paragraph doesn't make sense for me. Forgive me if I'm being stupid (which is possible): but from what I am reading, you say that Hextall intentionally shot the puck in the opponents net (with the goaltender pulled). You then say that this was the case for the most recent instance, in 2006. But you then say that the most recent goaltender to have scored by deliberately shooting the puck into the goal was in 2002. But following what is stated here, surely the 2006 goal was also intentional? Am I missing something? Harrias talk 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being stupid, and you're perfectly right about the paragraph not making sense. I think it was a result of moving blocks of text around when re-writing the prose part of article. Nabokov was a shot on goal, Mason was an own goal. I've fixed this in the article. Thanks for noticing it. Maxim(talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little wordy in places. Things like "(it is very dangerous if the goalkeeper turns the puck over to opposing team)" could probably be cut, with "practical considerations" before it changed to "to avoid giving the opponents a chance to score" or something. Also, there are some weasel words, like

"Though both Ron Hextall and Martin Brodeur have scored twice, Hextall is the only goaltender to score twice by directly shooting the puck into the opponent's net. Martin Brodeur's second goal was an own goal by the other team, where Brodeur received credit for touching the puck last. Interestingly, it is the only game-winning goal scored by a goaltender. Hextall and Brodeur both scored in a playoff game as well as a regular season game. Hextall's second goal is the only goal scored by a goaltender while his team was short handed, and Evgeni Nabokov's goal is the only one that was scored on a power play.

Hopefully that helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It helped. I've fixed the problematic statements you pointed out, and I've given it somewhat of a copyedit. Thanks. Maxim(talk) 21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

  • The main issue with this "list" is that it has, effectively, ceased to be a list in WP terms. See WP:LIST: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)." We have here a lead followed by two substantial prose sections, after which is a very short list (11 items). With lists, the substance of the information should be in the list rather than the text; the format we have here is much more that of an article than a list. If it were to be submitted to WP:FLC in its present form, I doubt that it would succeeed; most likely the nominator would be referred to FAC.
  • Another issue that arises from the expansion of the prose is that the lead no longer fulfils the requirements of WP:LEAD – to be a concise summary of the article's content. If the page is to be reincarnated as an article, the lead would need to be expanded to summarise all the information in the article.
  • I haven't worked through the prose in detail, but it seems to need some attention. The first sentence: "Eleven goals have been scored by nine separate goaltenders in a National Hockey League (NHL) game" is ambiguously stated. There are unnecessary repetitons, e.g. "Ron Hextall of the Philadelphia Flyers was second goaltender to score a goal, and the first goaltender to score by taking a shot" (the word "goaltender" occurs five times in this short paragraph). Assertive statements such as "Scoring a goal into the opposing team's net is challenging for goaltenders" are POV and should be omitted. These are just a few prose issues I've identified at a glance.

I believe that the correct sequence of events to follow should be:-

  1. Removal of featured list status as inappropriate
  2. Retitle the article by removal of the words "List of"
  3. Work on the prose
  4. Possibly seek a further peer review when these are done
  5. Submit to FAC for featured status as an article.

Please note that these are my personal views. They are offered as suggestions, carry no particular weight, and others may disagree. Whatever you decide to do, good luck. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the prose a bit, but any serious copyedit would have to be done by some removed from the text, as I've worked with it too much. I've expanded the lead. Now, for the more difficult part... with regards to the list part, what would the FAC people say to an article with three sections, of which one is a lead? I guess the "better" way to phrase the question would be "is it possible that this page would end up in the middle, not really a list but not really an article?" I'm also concerned about spending what could be months in the processes of FLRC followed by FAC. If, for example, I submitted it straight to FAC, would that be problematic? I'm asking because you have tonnes of FA experience as both an author and reviewer.
I was also interested in your opinion on the sourcing of the first paragraph for Technique. Some of the claims there are very straightforward for someone with some experience with ice hockey (e.g. to score into a empty net from your own end, the shot must be very accurately placed throught its trajectory) or, in the case of something like "All NHL goaltenders who have scored a goal by shooting the puck have done so with an empty net" is verifiable if a report for each of the goals of checked (I'm reluctant to flood the article with as much as 11 references for one sentence). Thanks so much. Maxim(talk) 21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of township-level divisions of Hebei

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would rather you disregard the fact that the vast majority of the links here have no articles, and instead consider this list and the others as a starting point to sow the seeds of better coverage on China-related topics. Also, the comments here will apply to List of township-level divisions of Liaoning and List of township-level divisions of Jilin, which are both complete and of comparable quality. Hopefully a review done here can be applied to those two lists.

Otherwise, the initial review of all three (or one) should be a quick task to execute.

Thanks much, –HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These lists are crucial for building a better coverage of China on here. Townships and Towns are very notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this commitment. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for you work on these lists. At first I was not sure how to improve or change the article, but the more I thought about it, I eventually came up with some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would mention the 11 prefectures in the lead.
  • WP:HEAD says in part Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked
  • I think I would try to have a brief introduction for each prefecture level section - the reference link could be there too. Maybe a sentence or two on the prefecture - where is it, what is it known for, perhaps the rough poulation? Or also summarize the section there - so something like "Shijiazhuang has 23 county level districts..."
  • I like the map for each section - could there be a few pictures for each too?
  • Why is there an External links section when there are none?
  • This is more related to possible future expansion, but it seems to me that if you want to do anything beyond the current format, this will be too impossibly big and will need to be split up. So this article already has 2195 township levle divisions listed in it. There is no way it could become a sortable list with coordinates and population and area (or whatever) listed for each - it already takes a fairly long time to load.
  • So I was thinking that list of townships in the US by state are not this detailed either - they have to be lists at the county level to have any detail. I know I am one of the two main authors on the FL List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, which may be a model for eventual sub-lists. Iam not sure what kind of data is avaialble.
  • I also wondered if there were any sources besides xzqh.org available? Seems odd to use the same source for all of these - are there books, for example?
  • Not much else that I could think of - hope this helps. I will keep mulling this over and if anything else comes to mind will post it here or on the talk page.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Force

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article can hopefully become a good article and then be featured one day. For now, I'd like some suggestions on where the make the necessary improvements to help things along.

Many thanks in advance, Harrison49 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't given this a full review, but there are some things you could get on and sort out before that point.
    • Single-sentence paragraphs are generally a no-no. They're prevalent throughout.
    • Related to the above, the article feels a little... listy. There's very little in the way of flowing prose; some parts of the article may be better presented that way.
    • It's quite under-referenced. Pretty much every assertion could do with a citation. There must be dozens of print sources dedicated to this topic; I'd try to get my hands on some if I were you.

There ya go. Seegoon (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

  • First off I commend you for your work on this worthy subject. It's a key foundational article for the British Military and I think you're off to a good start. I'll make comments in conjunction with the GA Criteria.
  • See WP:LEAD for requirements regarding the lead. The lead is a summary of the entire article and an article of this length should have a 3 to 4 paragraph lead. You'll want to beef up the lead a little bit.
  • Two (early 2011) references in one sentence is duplicative. Once is enough.

History

  • I agree with the previous reviewer that there is a paucity of in-line citations. You will need to add references to all assertions in order to get it passed GAC.
  • The quote, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" is linked in its entirety. See WP:LINK. Entire sentences are not usually linked. The article is topical though so perhaps linking the preceding "say" instead.
  • Is there a more specific article(s) related to RAF involvement in WWII that could be put as a {{main}} or {{see also}}.
  • This section seems a bit sparce. You cover major engagements like the Gulf War, Iraq War, Kosovo and Afghanistan in one sentence. You also do not touch on the Falklands War, I'm sure the RAF played a role in that war as well. I think this section could be enhanced and a summary of major all the engagements of the RAF should be included.

Structure

  • The Commands section is a little confusing. There's one command yet it says, "Authority is delegated from the Air Force Board to the RAF's commands." Why is "commands" in the quote plural? I don't think it's necessary to put the one command as a bullet, simply combine it with the paragraph. Also this section needs a reference.
  • I put a [citation needed] template on one portion just to give you an idea of where a reference is needed. This is just an example of the greater need.
  • Again "commands" is plural in the Groups section, I thought there was only one command. Am I missing something here?
  • See WP:LIST for thoughts on using lists in articles. To summarize, lists should be used sparcely as prose is preferred. You have three lists (not including the one item list in the Commands section). This should probably be reduced if possible.
  • There's no reference in the Groups section either. I'll leave the reference issue with saying every section needs references.
  • Can the station section be combined with the Group section? A two-sentence section is a bit short.
  • I agree with the previous reviewer that one sentence paragraphs are frowned upon and should be either expanded or combined with other paras.
  • I made some minor prose edits to the Wing section. There are a few prose issues but overall the writing is sufficient for GA standards. To move this to FA standards is going to take more work but that is for another day.

Personnel

  • Watch use of acronyms like SDSR. You need to spell this out first then put the acronym in parentheses before using the acronym by itself. This is especially evident in the Branches and trades section.
  • The reference for the intro para in the Personnel section is for RAF's oldest man, but the other assertions need to be referenced as well.

Aircraft

  • This section needs to be reworked so that the one and two sentence paragraphs are condensed into larger paragraphs. It is very choppy and "listy". This reduces the readability and flow of the article.
  • Good use of pictures.

Overall

  • Your writing is good, I made a few edits along the way but nothing major.
  • Lack of references is a main issue right now.
  • Condense lists and one/two sentence paragraphs. Make the article flow better.
  • Watch duplicative linking. Per WP:LINK a term can be linked once, perhaps twice in a long article. Check for this.
  • The history section should be enhanced, keeping in mind that it is a summary of the History of the RAF article. Still I think more could be added to this section.
  • Ok this completes my review. If you have specific questions please contact me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. If you found this helpful please consider reviewing an article here or at WP:GAC to reduce the ever-present backlog. Best of luck. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaji Ganesan

[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 been well expanded and cleaned up before few months. Thanks, Thalapathi (Ping Back) 11:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't given the article a real review (just clicked it open basically), but I can see that the citation style isn't completely consistent. Any web citation needs the following basic information: date retrieved, author, publisher/work, url and title. The best way to consistently achieve that is by using a template such as {{cite web}}, which I'd recommend strongly. Thanks. Seegoon (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, will improve the citations style. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. Although you do not say what your goal for the article is, I will assume it is GA at least. Unfortunatley this would be a quick fail at WP:GAN in its current state, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem with the article is the references. Article needs more references, for example the whole "Matured roles: 1980-1992" section has zero references, and the last paragraph of the preceding section Donning versatile roles: 1960-1979 also has no refs and needs them. Also, since has last film was in 1999, whiy does the section end in 1992 according to the title?
  • Passages like Owing to the fact that, the actors who are well trained in classical dance could effectively showcase different expressions called "Nava Ras" on their face, Ganesan went on to become one of the popular actors in Tamil cinema in the 1950s itself. His unique voice had a greater appeal. He adopted his own style of dialogue delivery with a long spell of dialogues like a poetry recitation with much clarity earned him critical recognition. also need references
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Or this needs a ref Ganesan has remained as one of the popular Tamil actors with a large fan base. This was evident in a survey conducted by Kumudham magazine, in 1990, where Ganesan was voted as the most popular actor with 35% of the votes. Also the phrase "has remained as one of the popular Tamil actors" makes it sound like he is popular today, but 1990 is now 21 years ago...
  • Some of the exisiting refs do not have sufficient information as required. 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
  • As an example, see current ref 2, which is only "Autobiography of Actor" right now, and a link to http://www.sangam.org/2008/11/Sivaji_Ganesan.php?uid=3155. However, when you look at the link, the title given is not the complete title "Book Review: Autobiography of Actor-Politician Sivaji Ganesan", the author is omitted (should include by Sachi Sri Kantha), and the date is missing: November 9, 2008.
  • Another ref problem is that some of the sources do not seem to meet WP:RS - what makes www.sangam.org a reliable source, for example?
  • There is a toolbox on the upper right corner of this peer review page which has an external links checker - this finds two dead external links, which need to be fixed.
  • The same toolbox has a disambiguation link checker which finds quite a few dab links.
  • The language needs to follow WP:NPOV better. Please see WP:PEACOCK
  • There are two fair use images and File:Smgrmhgrrt.jpg looks like it is a violation of copyright - no indication that the person who uploaded it actually holds the copyright.
  • Watch short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they impede the narrative flow - where possible combine short paragraphs or perhaps expand them
  • The language is rough in places and could use a copyedit - I would fix all the other issues first before getting a copyedit.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courage the Cowardly Dog

[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 may be reach to Good article standards. I've almost written about 80% of the article's contents including the citations. Any comments are welcome here. If have any concerns, please contact on my talk page. The things I do for love!

Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 04:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow what a nice article, very informative. As a self-confessed citation nut, all I can say is that I'd like to see a citation for:
  • "As of 2011, all 52 episodes are in reruns on Cartoon Network and Boomerang." in the lead,
  • At least one citation in the Overview section,
  • "A total of fifty-two episodes were produced in four seasons. The series originally ran from November 12, 1999 and ended on November 22, 2002." in the broadcast section
  • citations for the statements in the broadcast history,
  • Citations for the other releases section
All this information had to have come from somewhere LOL, Cheers and great work! Keetanii (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. At least someday I should get into GA or FA standards for one day. :) JJ98 (Talk) 05:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General
WP:ALT may be added to images.
  • Lead
"The segment was nominated for an Academy Award[1]" -> no citation in the lead, the information is supposed to be below
"The series premiered on November 12, 1999, ran for four seasons, and ended on November 22, 2002." -> Personal comment: I'd reworded it as "The series, which premiered on November 12, 1999, ran for four seasons, ending on November 22, 2002." or something similar
"As of 2011, all 52 episodes are in reruns on Cartoon Network and Boomerang." -> too short for an own paragraph
I feel that it is too short, it summarize its content?
  • Overview
This section is extremely similar to this, especially "Courage the Cowardly Dog revolves around the exploits of Courage, a small, fuchsia dog who, despite his name, is afraid of the most mundane things". I recommend you to use your own words and avoid this because it can be seen as a copyright violation.
"greedy farmer who harasses Courage. He usually harasses Courage" -> redundant
  • Production
Courage the Cowardly Dog began -> since, as far as I know, it was not intended to be a series, another verb would be better, such as "created" or "intended"
a de facto pilot -> a de facto pilot
"(in a still-later episode, the single-bodied, triple-headed sons of the alien chicken attempt revenge, but only because their mother won't let them in the house until they kill Courage[4])." does not reads encyclopedic.
"the short was nominated for an Academy Award.[1]" -> which award?
"The studio produced 4 seasons with 13 episodes in each season until the last original airing on November 22, 2002." -> unsourced
"Original music featured in Courage the Cowardly Dog...several weeks to compose.[7]" -> This paragraph is apparently based in one source. Two things a) is this source reliable? I believe it is not, and b) are this paragraph sourcing all the paragraph?
  • Broadcast history
Unsourced section
  • Episodes
"A total of fifty-two episodes were produced in four seasons. The series originally ran from November 12, 1999 and ended on November 22, 2002." -> already mentioned and unsourced here as well
  • References to Dilworth
Dilworth -> overlinked
a delivery truck -> unsourced unlike the others
which references him.[11] -> redundant
"Often a caricature of himself (named Dilly) can be seen in the background, e.g. a portrait of himself hangs on the Bagges' wall by the stairs and on a milk container with the missing person's question "Have you seen me?" written underneath" -> unsourced
  • Reception
imaginative - they -> imaginative—they
CGI -> link it
  • References
Reference 4 needs more information per {{cite episode}}
Reference 7 is incomplete
Reference 8, 20, 21, 22 are unreliable sources
  • External links
Courage the Cowardly Dog Wiki, hosted by Wikia -> WP:ELNO

This is one of my favourite animated shows, ans unfortunately, its main problem is sourcing. There are many unsourced statements, and some unreliable references. Also, it does not meet the WP:GA?´points 2 and 3. An example of an animated TV show which is a GA is South Park. Use this articl as an example of the work missed. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your concern Tbhotch, I will began remove shortly. JJ98 (Talk) 05:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

83rd Academy Awards

[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 list could be a FL and I and User: Tbhotch want to know what is wrong.

Thanks, Birdienest81 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: First thoughts: you say: "this list could be a FL", but I wonder if in WP terms it really can be termed a "list". With over 2,000 words of text, it is more an account of the 2011 ceremony, including its critical reception, than a list of the nominees and award winners. It is something of a hybrid at present, part article and part list. Perhaps the first thing to do is to decide what you want it to be. In the meantime, here are some issues that need fixing:-

  • The toolbox on the right of this review page indicates one link to a disambiguation page.
  • The same tool indicates that one of your external links ("Winners and History") is dead
  • Reference formats need attention:-
    • Italicization: only print sources (journals, magazines, newspapers) should be italicized
    • Where the "work" and the "publisher" are one and the same (e.g. "AMPAS") it is not necessary to include both
    • Nor is it necessry to add a separate publisher field for well-known publications such as The Los Angeles Times.
    • Be consistent as between "AMPAS" and the name in full
    • Some formats are incomplete: 16, 17, 42, 43, 44, 45
    • Use a consistent format for retrieval dates
    • Ensure that all online sources have retrieval dates
  • Section headings should not be wikilinked
  • It would be useful to have an explanation of "Honorary Academy Awards"
  • "Controversies" section: Do these snippets really justify being called "controversies"? They read more like bits of trivia, such as are always likely to happen at occasions such as this. An actress's bleeped f-word, two blokes kissing? This is not 1955, after all.
  • Prose:
    • I have not been able to check out the prose fully. It seems generally readable, though a little longwinded in places. For example, we have "The 83rd ceremony marked the first time since 1957 that an Academy Awards ceremony was co-hosted by a male-female duo. It was also the first time in the history of the awards broadcasts that a male-female duo physically shared the same stage in their hosting duties." I wonder if the latter information is really worth a whole extra sentence."
    • I found the information in the "Voting trends and summary" a bit hard to follow.
    • In the lead, "beginning at 5:30 p.m. PST / 8:30 p.m. EST (01:30 UTC, February 28)" is overdetailing.
  • General presentation: the main list looks very good, the minor lists a little scrappy.

That's all I can offer for the moment. I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rova of Antananarivo

[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 make it the first article related to the people of Madagascar (not the wildlife) to make it to FA. I've put a lot of work into making it complete but can't be entirely objective so welcome any and all comments to make the article stronger. Thank you! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • More specifically, I invite anyone to share their opinion on the use of italics to denote the names of buildings on the Rova compound. The advantage here is that it would help readers to distinguish between the names of people and buildings which may be otherwise difficult to tell apart. Drawbacks are the frequent use of italics could be an eyesore or distraction. Normally italics for foreign words would either be used on the first appearance only or for every use thereafter. I'm not following any particular standard yet but this article should conform to some consistent style standard before it makes it to FA. Comments? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems in pretty good shape to me - thanks for your work on it and other articles related to Madagascar. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • I read WP:ITALIC and the practice of italicizing the names of buildings within the article seems to be OK under that (to me at least - they are works of artifice and are foreign words not common in English (where the names of royal people and places are the English names)). I would make sure it is done consistently throughout the article though (so is Rova italicized or not (it is not in the first sentence of the lead)? Or why aren't the building names in headers italicized?
  • Upon reflection, where rova is the name of the complex, I don't think it should be italicized because it is commonly referred to by Malagasy and foreigners alike by that name, whereas the names of other buildings are arguably less likely to be called by their Malagasy names (with the exception perhaps of Manjakamiadana, Tranovola and Manampisoa). But in the interest of consistency I'll leave all building names italicized and the name of the compound non-italicized. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would also help to put a note in the article explaining this, and probably a hidden comment at the top of the article or in the edit notice (so other editors would see it if they edited the article).
  • If the goal is to use italics only for building names (and the Rova itself), why is andriana italicized in the lead (but not later in the Besakana and other houses)? It is OK to italicize foreign words in general
  • At FAC reviewers will expect better consistency in usages - for example sometimes the names are translated on first use, but other times they are not - the untranslated names are usually French, but I am not sure what the translation of "Mahitsielafanjaka" is, though the article notes is also called "Mahitsy ("Straight" or "Upright")".
  • I would also be consistent on order - is it native name first or English name first (so "noble class (andriana)" in the lead but "nobles (andriana)" later in the article. See this example sentence Andrianjaka's army then cleared the forest covering the hill's summit and constructed a rova or enclosure to serve as an initial garrison, as well as a simple wooden house within it as a royal residence (lapa) for the king.[4] So rova first, lapa second; translation or rova without parentheses, lapa in parentheses.
  • Why do most names start with "the" or are at least preceded by the, but Fiangonana does not in the lead?
  • I think I would give some idea in the first paragraph of the lead when the active period of construction and reconstruction within the Rova was ("originally built and rebuilt between 1610 and 1867")
  • Would the header "Prior to 1792" be better as "1610 to 1792"?
  • Could a map showing the location of Antananarivo within Madagascar be added? Perhaps in the first History section (which has no images)?
  • Language is very good, but this is a bit rough The site retained this role until Antananarivo was captured in 1794 when it was reincorporated into the unified Kingdom of Imerina by King Andrianampoinimerina (1787–1810) as its capital.[10] Perhaps split into two sentences like The site retained this role until Antananarivo was captured in 1794. King Andrianampoinimerina (1787–1810) then reincorporated it [the city?] into the unified Kingdom of Imerina as its capital.[10]
  • 1792–1810 section says the capital was shifted to Antananarivo in 1792, but the previous section says the king did not capture Antananarivo until 1794. Which is it?
  • Sampy names inconsistently italicized in 1792-1810 section (first italicized, three others not)
  • Why are the last two rulers in 1810–1896 not idetified as either King or Queen (as the earlier ones in this section were)?
  • Perhaps use "renamed" instead of "known as" in Completed in 1819, the resulting wooden palace, known as Tranovola ("Silver House"), ...?
  • In 1896–present I would link the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Republics
  • Those are articles that haven't been written yet - the post-independence period is neglected in the existing History of Madagascar article. I've been chipping away at that one for a while... it's definitely on my To Do list. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also give some idea of the distance from ABohiminga to the Rova (movement of the tombs)
  • WP:HEAD says to avoid repeating the name of the article in headers if at all possible. Could Buildings of the Rova compound just be Buildings? The reader already knows the article is about the Rova
  • two acres needs to be in hectares (or other metric units). The article also uses metric first throughout

More to come - stopping for now

  • Organization of the last paragraph of Manjakamiadana is a bit odd - description of two ground floor rooms (is Malagasy astrology really concerned with furniture and not stars?), then the building not being occupied, then back to use of one of the ground floor rooms (for treaties)
  • L'Ecole le Myre de Vilers or Ecole le Myre de Vilers? Both are used.
  • Not a grammatical sentence A small villa in the form of a Greek cross designed by James Cameron for Queen Rasoherina,[19] construction of Manampisoa ("Adding What is Pleasant"), also called Lapasoa ("Beautiful Palace"), was overseen by William Pool.[24] Perhaps something like Manampisoa ("Adding What is Pleasant"), a small villa in the form of a Greek cross, was designed by James Cameron for Queen Rasoherina;[19] construction of Manampisoa, also called Lapasoa ("Beautiful Palace"), was overseen by William Pool.[24] wouild be clearer.
  • A Greek cross has arms that all the same length, but the dimensions given for Manampisoa do not seem to be those of a Greek cross.
  • Besakana to the west is believed to be the first residence of a Merina sovereign on the Rova site. to the west of what? The other driections in this section are also unclear (in relation to what?)
  • Mahitsielafanjaka is the only structure whose reconstruction is described here - for all the others the description is only of the sturucture in the era of the kings and queens and how it was used in colonial times. If there is any description from the fire, it is in relation to the original structure (liek the fact that the enormous central pillar was a composite, not made of one tree).
  • In Besakana and other houses, there is nothing else on Masoandrotsiroa - is it the oldest original building? I think so, but this needs to be made clearer.
  • In Royal tombs, I would try to give some indication of the dates of the tombs to provide context to the reader. It would also help to give the death dates of the named kings in the tombs.
  • What is Mahitsy - only used once in the article (now at least)? Reconstruction work on Mahitsy began in 2001 and saw completion in January 2003..
  • Error - The original exterior of Manjakamiadana comprised over 70,000 granite stones weighing a total of 700 kilograms. 700 kg is way too little for the total weight. Is it the weight of each stone? Also needs pounds to go with kg.
  • Reinstatement seems like the wrong word - reinsertion? Every stone was removed and numbered to facilitate the reinstatement of each one in its original place ...
  • Are they rebuilding the Tranovola?
  • Caption addition "Location of the Rova of Antananarivo [in Madagascar]"?
  • For the images, I would add the date taken if known in the caption (so the lead image is from 2010)
  • There are some structure names on the maps that are not discussed in the article that I could see - for example Soamiadanana is not otherwise mentioned.
  • Within the article (not counting the gallery) there are a lot of images of the Manjakamiadana, but only one of the tombs. There is a nice color image of the tombs in the gallery - could it be placed in the article itself somewhere?
  • Looking at the two maps, the Manjakamiadana was right beside the Fitomiandalana (before it was moved). Since the anjakamiadana was built before the French moved the Fitomiandalana, were they really that close?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking to take this to FAC. I brought it to GAN a few months ago, and have since copyedited the article and heavily expanded its Development section. I haven't nominated an article at FAC in two years, so I'd greatly appreciate any commentary on the sources, prose and image rationales, which may not be up to today's standards. However, if you notice problems with anything else, feel free to point those out as well. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{doing}} Yell at me if I don't have something by tomorrow night EST :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okey dokey, some starter comments:
    • "Terra Nova has been cited as one of the first three-dimensional (3D) games with squad-oriented gameplay;" - you should probably clarify "3D" as "3D graphics". Same thing in the gameplay section.
    • In the gameplay section you use lots of grouped terms like "the latter", "the first" and "the last" where just explaining which specific nouns you're referring to would probably be simpler.
    • A little more disambig for some bluelinks would be nice, for example, saying "As with (Looking Glass' previous game) System Shock", "(novels) Starship Troopers and The Forever War", "(Game designer) Paul Nuerath..., etc.
    • "did not break even" --> Might be too informal for an encyclopedia article? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some scattered comments:

  • Redirect checker is telling me that you have a few- PC Gamer UK/US don't have their own articles; single-player in the infobox; computer game in the lead, Solar System is capitalized, and bipedal is redirecting to bipedalism.
  • The Computer Shopper link in the references is to a disambiguation page (though the one in the article text isn't).
  • The external link checker is throwing a 404 for this, which isn't true, but combined with the half-broken nature of the page is a reminder that you might want to go through and find webarchive/webcite links for everything, as links from 1996 tend to vanish without warning. --PresN 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote a script that would automatically archive everything, only to realize that you already have it all archived. So, ignore that last one there. --PresN 17:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving comments and suggestions as I read through the article. Note that I never played the game, but if you are the primary editor of the article, there should be no problems with factual accuracy.

  • "the player is often assisted by artificial intelligence-controlled teammates"
    • The AI bit sounds a bit weird there, possibly rephrase
      • "Computer-controlled", maybe? I'm not sure that's better. I originally settled on "artificial intelligence-controlled" after several attempts to find a good description. It isn't great, admittedly, but I don't know how I could improve it. Any suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many noted the game's steep system requirements"
  • "Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss", "MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat"
  • "can process 3D outdoor environments and a simulation of physics"
  • "enables procedural animation and other effects"
  • "from a character's eye view"
    • Common phrase? Maybe something like "takes place in a three-dimensional (3D) graphical environment seen from the perspective of a playable character"
  • "three-dimensional (3D)"
    • abbreviation is introduced twice in the article
      • It's always been my practice to introduce abbreviations in both the lead and in the body. In the days of ye olde MOS, I think this may have been standard. Maybe I'm a little out-of-date. Any idea? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's great that you re-use wikilinks immediately after the lead, I can imagine many people skipping the first section. I guess the bigger problem I have with the double introduction is that it's such a common expression, basically everybody should know it (will definitely bring 2D/3D up at MOS to be added to the WP:ABBR list). Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, that'd be great. I've always written it as plain-old "3D", but, over the last year or so, a lot of people have started asking for it to be clarified. David's comment above is an example. I don't have a problem with it either way, but I think it'd be a good addition to ABBR. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player character wears"
    • Word "character" used in the previous sentence, "player" in the next sentence; maybe use "protagonist"
      • Fixed. Since that sentence was used to introduce the term "player character" into the article, removing it kind of threw off the rest of its uses. I changed them all to "protagonist" for good measure. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "features jumpjets, lock-on targeting, infrared and zoomed vision, and regenerating shields"
  • "among other things"
  • "up to three artificial intelligence-controlled squadmates"
  • "from holding a position, to taking cover, to rushing enemies"
  • "half of a squad may be used to distract enemies while the other attacks an objective"
  • The word "squadmate" is used often in this paragraph, any synonyms?
  • "the right depicts weapons, suit status, drones and ASFs"
    • Don't know what drones and ASFs are (if important, mention in prose)
      • Drones are somewhat important to the gameplay, but Terra Nova is one of the most ridiculously over-complex games I've ever played; an in-depth description of its gameplay would be a cruft disaster. Removed them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that describes such things as objectives, squad size and enemies"
  • "Each may be equipped with such things as"
  • "Auxiliary Suit Function"
  • "increased jumpjet power"
  • "assessed it as "Aliens-esque""
  • "In charge of the squad is commander Arlen MacPherson"
    • This is a bit unclear, I thought Nikola ap Io was in charge, maybe use "overall charge" or something
  • "Project Leader Dan Schmidt later described these scenes as "cheesier than most" of those in other games, and said that "I wince a lot looking back on [them]"."
    • Should be "Project leader Dan Schmidt"; sentence might fit the development section (end of third paragraph) better as the cheesiness of the cutscenes is not really a part of the setting
      • That's true. Fixed.
  • "A reconnaissance mission by Nikola identifies them at a heavily defended pirate base"
  • "a minor previous information leak was in fact the work of a Hegemony spy"
    • Should be explained more if it is an important plot point
  • "Nikola's dropship is ambushed and shot down"
    • Don't know what a dropship is
  • "At his funeral, Ashford accuses Nikola of being the traitor."
    • Might be a minor qualm, but how do they know that there is a traitor if Pentheus only told Nikola?
      • I think the squad might have guessed something along those lines before that point, but it's not really put in concrete terms until the whole Pentheus thing. I tried to keep the plot section as small as possible; it doesn't mention a few of the more minor plot threads, and several less-important characters got the axe. There's actually a huge cast (20-some characters, including 8-9 squadmates), but only the ones with central roles in the main story arc got mentioned. Like with the gameplay section, I summarized stuff as briefly as possible to avoid cruft. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It soon becomes clear that MacPherson is being poisoned"
    • Continuously?
      • Yeah, I think so. That's how they make it sound, in any case. I think someone says, "Someone is poisoning Mac", or somesuch. I always thought it was a bit odd that they never tried to stop him from being regularly poisoned. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Company co-founder Paul Neurath"
  • "It was originally titled Freefall, due to the way soldiers in the game enter combat by dropping from aircraft"
    • "The game was originally titled Freefall, due to the way the soldiers enter combat by dropping from aircraft"
  • "led the game's development"
  • "Then-Tribe members"
  • "didn't have any it would look second-rate"
  • "So now we have this game that's already late, and half of our resources are being poured into doing the full motion video"
    • Development uses many direct quotes such as that one, the less significant of which could be rephrased to normal prose
      • Another bad habit of mine. However, I tried my best to cut down on the amount of quotes before I nominated it for PR. The issue really needs a clean pair of eyes. Do you have any specific suggestions? It'll make fixing the problem much easier. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of the 30 direct quotes in the main development section, I think the ones that could be reworked are "got the team underway", "staying out of your way", "fixed end date", "still inherited that vision and never thought to change it", "was very difficult", "became the lead programmer just because there was a void to fill and I bubbled up to it", "So now we have this game that's already late, and half of our resources are being poured into doing the full motion video", "probably a business mistake", "ended up just costing us more and delaying the game even more than it already was", "had to ship or the company was going to go under or we were going to cancel it", "made the game way more fun", "the team finally came together near the end of the project". Prime Blue (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game's lateness"
  • "needed to achieve break-even"
  • "that the game's already-lengthy"
  • "much more arcadey"
  • "fully 3D outdoor environments"
  • "moves characters' models"
  • "designer Richard Wyckoff later compared them to those of "a marble""
    • Possibly put this at the end of the sentence, or in another
      • I'm not sure what you mean. The Wyckoff comment relates to the "basic physics" used to propel characters, and they aren't mentioned again after that sentence. It seems like it would be non-sequitur if placed elsewhere. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, though. Could you clarify? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just seemed a bit intrusive to me there. Possibly "Designer Richard Wyckoff later compared the physics to those of a marble". In any case, the "them" should be replaced to identify it as the physics. Prime Blue (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and did not break even"
  • "Despite this, it was acclaimed by critics"
  • "more fun than a barrelful of"
  • "and described performance issues"
  • "He finished"
  • "Schmidt later said that he had"
  • "While Dan Schmidt said before the game's release"
    • "While Schmidt said before the game's release"
    • More reception: There's a GameRankings entry for the game, and the awards in the review box can be mentioned in prose
      • I don't think that a GameRankings entry based on 3 reviews is particularly critical to the article. However, if you think more coverage of the game's reception is necessary, I have access to a few more print reviews that I could include. They'd probably add up to another paragraph or so. Oh, and could you clarify what you mean about the awards? I'm not that clear on how they're supposed to be used; the last time I discussed it with someone was, I believe, in 2009. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Didn't pay attention to the number of reviews – yup, that's not really helpful. I think the reception section is good to go (didn't read the awards properly either, those are not really significant enough to mention in prose). Prime Blue (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just realized that "Multi-Function Displays" is in quotation marks, while other game-specific terms ("Random Scenario Builder") are not. Prime Blue (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, non-judgmental single words ("simulation", "a marble") are not put between quotation marks. Prime Blue (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in a hamster ball" is very similar to this and sounds strange if quoted solely. Depending on what Schmidt said, I'd either extend the quote to "putting each character in a hamster ball" (or whichever his quote was), or remove the quotation marks altogether. Prime Blue (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Shpadoinkle. Prime Blue (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review:

  • For manuals, there's {{Cite manual}}; I'm not sure if it's a deal-breaker, but I would welcome the manual source to be split into individual sections with page numbers (even if it's annoying to change this now, it's just more thorough as far as sourcing goes)
    • I really, really hate citing specific pages. I tried that once while working on another article, and the soul-destroying tedium of it nearly drove me insane. If you think it'll make a difference at FAC, I'll do it; but if not, I'd like to avoid it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • If ref. 2 is a press release, there's {{Cite press release}}; is there a URL?

Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the article. used green for remaining qualms and suggestions. Again, good work with the fixes. I don't regularly check the FA nominations, so it would be nice of you to give me a heads-up so I can support it as one of its peer reviewers. Prime Blue (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Connelly

[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 after a peer review and some extensive work in the article, it was failed. The article needs a general check to see what's wrong or to improve. The FAC must be a good way to start off.

Thanks, GDuwenTell me! 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your hard work on this - agree it is close to but not quite at FA, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

Repaired. Done--GDuwenTell me! 01:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • In the lead I think having the years of films helps give a sense of career over time. This is done for some films, but not all
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add something about her personal life - her marriage and children - to the lead as well
Early life
  • I made some copy edits as I read - please revert if I introduced errors or made things worse.
  • Is it known where in the Catskills she was born? I kind of expected something like "... was born in Podunk in New York's Catskill Mountains..."
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea when the family moved to Woodstock (or about how old she was when she lived there)?
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give the years she was at Yale and/or Stanford
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • Why is "World of Goblins" capitalized that way?
Because it's a place--GDuwenTell me! 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link her film Étoile (Ballet)
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anytime she is in a film in a new year, I would give the year
I improved the movies' chronology throughout the article. Done --Gunt50 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come - I am still working ion this, just busy IRL Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I finished a light copyedit - I just tried to fix the most obvious rough spots and if you can get another person to look this over, that would probably help.
  • One thing to look for is consistency in tenses - usually things are described in the past tense, but then some sentences or phrases are in the present tense, which seems odd.
 Done--GDuwenTell me! 18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also watch WP:OVERLINKing - the rule of thumb is to link once in the lead, and once in the body of the article, both on the first use. Revlon is linked twice in two sections, for examples
    • It's not the first time a reviewer points out overlinking on the article. I tried to reduce it . You should read the article again to make sure I did it alright this time. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of expected there to be some mention of her meeting Bettany in the Beautiful Mind paragraph (although it is in Personal life)
    • We didn't mention him since we tried to avoid mixing the sections. (I mean, the section career concerns her professional background, and that's why we omitted him on the Beautiful Mind tex)--Gunt50 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TriBeCa garage lawsuit paragraph seems like it is too big - see WP:WEIGHT I think the first sentence is OK, but the rest of the paragraph could probably be boiled down to just one more sentence that although a city judge initially issued an injuction, the state appeals court eventually allowed construction to proceed.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle United 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 listed this article for peer review because I have recently undertaken a major overhaul of the page. This included adding extra information such as club emblem and kit history, ownership history and fixing recentism in the main article. I have also included new photography and graphs I made myself as well as improved the general layout of the page. Sub pages such as the Brunton Park page have been improved also and other details which deserved their own page have received one.

Thanks, If5tatement (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: It would help if the reason for requesting the review was stated. Do you have, for an example, a future GA nomination in mind? Without this information I am not sure how to focus my comments, but here are some general observations on the article, which might help improve it.

  • The tool to the left of this PR page indicates four links to disambiguation pages. Check the tool, then use pipes to link to the pages you want.
  • The article is seriously under-cited. Whole paragraphs have no citations. The general rules of thumb you should observe, particularly if you are considering, say, a GA nomination are:-
  1. Every significant statement should be cited to a reliable source
  2. Every paragraph should have at least one citation
  3. Every paragraph should end with a citation
  4. Every direct quotation should be cited.
  • Sources should be "reliable" within the WP definition of reliability. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I haven't checked out all yours, but I would query 12 ("The Beautiful History"), 19 ("UFOs over America") and 22 ("Football Fans Census")
  • There are several formatting issues in the citations, in particular:
  1. Inconsistency, e.g. "Carlisle United" and "Carlisle united"
  2. The names of all print sources (newspapers, magazines etc) should be italicized.
  3. If ref 8 is to a book, page numbers need to be indicated
  4. The information under ref 1 needs attention. Is this part of a citation? Incidentally, it spells Accrington wrongly.
  • General style and presentation:
    • The lead is far too short to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD. It should be expanded into a summary of the whole article
    • Do not use contractions, e.g. "04–28" for date ranges. These ranges require dashes, not hyphens
    • Do not use "The" in section headings
    • Do not use bolding in the text (vote results at end of Early years section)
    • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns (they, he etc)
  • Prose issues: The prose needs a lot of attention. Here are just a few examples:-
    • "Carlisle is the smallest location, by population, to have had a resident top flight English football club since 1906". Reorganise and repunctuate: "Carlisle is the smallest location by population since 1906 to have had a resident top flight English football club".
    • "The badge takes elements from the cities coat of arms including two Wyverns which are the regent of Cumbria." You need "city's" not "cities"; "including" should read "and includes"; why is "wyverns" capitalised? What does "regent" mean in this context?
    • Break up convoluted sentences such as "After the league reorganised four years later the board at United decided it did not suit the club's best interests to be there any longer and the club entered the North Eastern League in place of their reserve team who had previously played in the league and been a founding member".
    • I see at least one "it's" that should be "its"
    • Avoid verbosities; "a full 10 points" should be "10 points"; "and still stands to this day" → "and still stands". There are lots of similar instances
    • "Bill Shankly, an FA Cup and League Championship winning manager by that time, branded Carlisle's climb to the top as "the greatest feat in the history of the game." What do you mean "by that time"? The only date in the paragraph is 1906. And - are we really to suppose that Bill said and meant such a ridiculous thing? I know the source says he did, but it provides no details or context for what was said, or when. If he said it, it would I am sure have been tongue in cheek, along the lines of his famous claim about football being much more than a life-or-death matter. If I were you, I would qualify by rewording: "Bill Shankly reportedly called Carlisle's climb to the top division as "the greatest feat in the history of the game."
    • By "the likes of Chris Balderstone" do you mean "Chris Balderstone"?
    • That's just a few instances from near the top of the article. The whole thing needs a thorough copyedit; perhaps another football-minded editor will oblige.
  • General: The article is packed with detail, and is a great tribute to your obvious enthusiasm for this club. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to do the necessary work to make this into one of the few really good football articles on Wikipedia. But it will mean a lot of effort.

As I am not able to watch individual PR pages, please ping my talkpage if you want to discuss issues relating to this review, or if you would like me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Constant

[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 considered by many as the best Lost episode, and while it's already in good shape, I've recently considered pushing the article to FA status. I added new data, replaced some dead links and fixing some parts of the reception section. It would be widely appreciated more input on what the article needs.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 02:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the intro, it says "Desmond Hume (played by Henry Ian Cusick) and Sayid Jarrah (Naveen Andrews) are on their way...", if I remember correctly Frank Lapidus is flying, so he should be included in this too.
  • "which causes Desmond's 1996 consciousness to take over his 2004 body and switch uncontrollably between 1996 and 2004" Oof that's confusing even to me, more so to someone new to the show. Also seems a little off grammar-wise.
  • "back to 1996 when..." could be: "back to 1996 where"
  • "is tied to a bed..." could be: "is strapped to a bed"
  • "believes that he is in 1996 when he is serving for the Royal Scots" could be: "in 1996 and is serving..."
  • "device with the new number settings which Desmond has just given him" could be: "settings that Desmond gives him" present tense.
  • "in a kind of time warp" Seems vague, try just "in a time warp".
    — That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy Wood (novel)

[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 some advise on what needs to be done to improve this page. This is the first time I'm handling an article for a novel.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some quick thoughts:
  1. Plot generally covers the plot from an in-universe perspective. For example, The Hobbit gives a rough outline of the story. The ability to keep a real-world perspective is generally a criteria for notability (from what I've seen) but in-universe elements should be described in-universe. In other words, perhaps writing it in-universe in the article with footnotes to show Manson's original quotes would be better.
  2. You could use some more categories, I think.
  3. External links do not go in the body of text.
  4. Parts like "Although praised by critics, when Holy Wood the album was finally released it was met with disappointing sales (it had taken almost a year for the album to reach gold in the US) and talk of the aforementioned film and novel had slowly died down in the press." could use wikifying and style rewrite.
Hope this helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Just a few additional thoughts:

  • I agree with Crisco 1492's suggestions about the "Plot" section. In addition, although the quotations will disappear anyway if you rewrite this section from an in-universe perspective, it's generally better not to depend so heavily on direct quotations. The first quote of Manson is especially long. Paraphrasing to get at the essence is usually better. It might be impossible, though, to recount the plot of an unpublished novel. Perhaps it would be better to compress the plot material to a couple of sentences and to merge it with "Early talk of the book and film project".
  • It might be good to add something about Manson's career to the "Early talk" section. You might say who he is, briefly recount his accomplishments, and say what else he has written. I see from the infobox that he has written a published autobiography. Anything else?
  • To outsiders, it might not be clear what "the band" refers to in the third sentence of the "Early talk" section. Would it be helpful to add something about the band?
  • "Central to the idea was a starring role for Manson's then-fiancée Rose McGowan." - Needs a source.
  • The entire "Cover art and Chapter 10" section needs inline citations to reliable sources.
  • It's not clear why the Church of Scientology would have any say in the matter of Manson's project. Could this be explained?
  • The Cody quotation in the last section should appear in regular type rather than italics. The quotation in fancy quotes is too short for a blockquote and appears to be part of the first Cody quotation. It might be better to join them as a single quotation connected by an ellipsis.
  • MansonWiki (citations 1, 10 and 12) is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Its main page says that it's "written for the fans by fans."
  • The link to Jack Parsons goes to a disambiguation page. The link needs to be more specific.
  • The license page for the lead image does not identify a source. Since the book has not been published, how can we be sure this is really the cover art? Where did it come from? Who created it?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Ryan

[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 quite a bit of renovating and I would like any feedback so I can correct any other blemishes and take the article to FAC.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this. One thing we might as well face off the bat, there may well be adverse comment about the heavy reliance on the subject's autobiography. I forget who it was, it may have been Heinlein, who said that autobiography is sometimes truthful but rarely honest. Thoughts? I'll be back to you with prose comments in a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some to get you started:

Lede
  • I'd like to find some way of avoiding the double use of "football" in the opening sentence but don't really see how to avoid it.
  • I don't see any reason not to have a second paragraph talking about what makes Ryan notable, so to speak, his success with the Jets, his outspokenness, that sort of thing.
Early life
  • "Ardmore Oklahoma". The usual practice is to have a comma between the city and state name. Unless it is a very famous city (New York, Chicago), you must link, thus: Ardmore, Oklahoma. Many people do thus [[Ardmore, Oklahoma|Ardmore]], [[Oklahoma]]. Personally, I'm lazy.
  • "when Ryan was two." I think at this point, call him Rex. Better yet, this time, say "when the boys were aged two" (to forstall a nickpick) and thereafter call him Rex until he graduates high school. It's unnatural to call a toddler by a last name.
  • "defensive pioneer". I agree, but you need to establish him in the body as a coach. The body should not depend on the lede for facts.
  • "Ryan and brother" both boys
  • I suggest the reversal of the last two lines in the first paragraph.
  • "In 1978, when Buddy was hired by the Chicago Bears, " since we must write for the not yet clued in, suggest adding "as head coach" (if that is when he was made head coach, if not somewhere establish his becoming head coach and winning the Super Bowl (I remember that defense holding the Jets to almost nothing on a cold December day), after all, that is what his son has been looking up to all these years.
  • Continue to refer to Rex Ryan as "Rex" through college, actually, since there is the both of them going to the same school.

--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to relying upon the book, I do see your point however, most of the information cited can be confirmed online and I believe a good portion of his days prior to the Jets did come out in the New York Times' rather large (no pun intended) spread they did over the summer, all ten pages of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12ryan-t.html. But, if need be, I could obtain more outside references (though I'd just like to point out that many of the references are used to cite games throughout his career with the exception of his "Early Life" and his "Personal Life" which do rely upon the book heavily). -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it is brought up say that you wil gladly do an extra cite for any points deemed contentious, do they think any of them are?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I have been told thus far. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bunch more. I think it looks pretty good. You have to watch a tendency to wax poetic.

College
  • "with the help of his father" Does this refer to what comes before or what comes after?
  • I-AA and FCS could probably use links.
  • "twice in the two" Delete word "twice"
  • "Additionally", perhaps instead "in addition to coaching".
  • " Master's degree " Certainly capitalize, better to say Master of Arts (or of Science)
  • "during which the Cowboys" You may get complaints that you haven't established the Cowboys with New Mexico Highlands. Arguable.
  • "amongst" considered a dirty word at FAC, use "among" instead, please. Nation is lower case.
  • "After a brief two-year stint with the Arizona Cardinals in the National Football League" Two things. Omit "brief". Second, by this point, you do not need to spell out National Football League, just NFL it. I would shorten to "the NFL's Arizona Cardinals".
  • You don't need an "assistant coach" subsection, you're going down two levels, if you understand.
  • "Bowl" is lower case. You can't just leave a "Sooner" out there like that.
  • "had failed" Perhaps just "failed"
  • You know, I think you would do better keeping the sotry chronological.

NFL:

  • "Ryan accepted." Last action was an interview, so it's a minor continuity glitch here. Job offer wasn't mentioned. "When offered the job, Ryan accepted."
  • " Ryan earning a Super Bowl XXXV ring." Well, they won the game. Perhaps "a Super Bowl victory; Ryan's only Super Bowl ring." Or something like that.
  • "in recognition of his efforts" cut, adds nothing.
  • " In his final year with the team," Arguably it might be better to change "his" to "Ryan's" as "his" could be misinterpreted as "Harbaugh's".
  • I think you should be a little less dramatic about how you end the section.
Jets
  • "a plethora" Perhaps too strong a word, and also perhaps too artsy (can't you hear the Patriots fans jeering "A pweth-or-a"!)
  • the way you phrase it makes it uncertain if the $11.5 million figure is for the life of the contract, or each year
  • It is not explained why moving training camp to SUNY Cortland (should be linked) advanced Ryan's goals.
  • I would mention the Jets traded up to get Sanchez
  • I would combine the first two sentences about the Jets-Texans.
  • "shutout their opponents offense." "shut out their opponents' offense".
  • The defense no doubt kept New England out of the end zone. However they did not shut them out.
  • " the first home victory" The Jets' first, etc.
  • "save for" Winning only?
  • "Indianapolis Colts which was not without controversy" Perhaps "Indianapolis Colts—a game not without controversy" And I think you have to explain why the starters were pulled. I think you can simply say they had nothing to play for.
  • "wild card contender" wild card team.
  • "thus," omit, comma and all. You are waxing poetic again and FAC doesn't appreciate it.
  • "Ryan continued to boast about the Jets' abilities" Have you previously established that he boasted about the Jets?
  • "His words were nearly immortalized " Perhaps a little too poetic again. Maybe he lived up to his words? I'm sure there's a better phrasing.
  • "set by Bill Parcells in 1998 (the Jets finished the 1998 season with a record of 12–4)" Perhaps an unnecessary parenthetical. Also, I don't think coaches win games, teams win games.
  • I feel like this area of the article is a bit too trivia-stuffed.
  • "first seeded" Hyphen?
  • The repetition of "actions" in the first paragraph of the controversies section is unpleasing. Then in the next, criticism/criticize so close together.
  • Is it not fairer to say "refused to confirm or deny"? I think that is more neutral.

--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit (film project)

[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 this article to be promoted to Good Article status. Please list any criticisms or suggestions that you may have in order for it to meet the requirements of Good Article status quality.

Thanks, TheLastAmigo (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you look at WP:GAN#FILM, you can see in big bold letters that you should NOT NOMINATE FILMS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN RELEASED AS DETAILS WITHIN THE ARTICLE MAY CHANGE AND IT *WILL* BE FAILED. Unfortunately, that seems pretty final. Seegoon (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know what the authority is for the bolded statement, above. It seems to me that, in some circumstances, the making of a film could be considered a separate topic from the film itself, and could justify a separate article which could meet the GA criteria. I have, for instance, often seen documentaries called "The Making of XYZ" etc. There could be specific issues of interest during the planning and production periods; I haven't read this article yet, so I can't say whether this applies here, but maybe the article is worth considering from that perspective. This is peer review, a non-judgmental process. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I like Tolkien very much and am a fan of Jackson's LOTR movies. I have also followed some of the convoluted history of the film to date and thought this article covered that nicely. While I agree that if this is an article on the two films, it is not yet ready for GAN or FAC, there are still area where it can be improved. Here are some comments on its prospects at GAN, followed by some suggestions for improvement and .

GAN

  • First off, I agree that if this is the only article about the two films, it is not ready for GAN (where one of the criteria is broad coverage - how can the coverage be broad when the films are still shooting?). If the article is about both films, then I can't see it being ready until a short time after the release of the second film (to get some time for initial reviews and box office figures, etc.).
  • That said, I can see there being articles about each of the two films, and a separate article about the two films overall (just as there are 4 articles on the 3 LOTR films). Since the history leading up to the start of filming has been so involved, I could even see there being a fifth article (this article) on the development history of The Hobbit films. This is what Brian argued above.
  • If that were the route taken here, then this article (under a better / more applicable title) might well be ready for GAN soon (if the start of filming is the end of the end of the article about the "Development history of the Hobbit films" or whatever title works). To my thinking, the current level of detail is likely to be too much for any eventual article on the completed movie or movies, so this could be a separate article and then WP:Summary style used in the film articles.
  • In any case, I would ask at WT:GAN or WT:GA and see what the GA regulars think about this. If they think something along these lines would work, then try it (if you think it would also work / be feasible).
  • I also think that even if it were on a topic where it was OK to submit now, this article still needs some work before it would be ready for GAN. Those comments will follow shortly.

Review

  • The external link checker shows 5 dead links
  • Please see WP:LEAD - 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. However the tv shows The Office and Spooks and the year of the book The Hobbit are only in the lead and should be in the body of the article too.
  • The lead needs to be expanded so it is an accurate summary. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but nothing on del Toro is mentioned in the lead.
  • Avoid words like currently and vague time expressions as they can become quickly outdated - so The two parts are currently in production, and are being filmed back to back in New Zealand; principal photography began on 21 March 2011.[5].. Could be something like As of May 2011 the two parts are in production...
  • The Premise section is written from an in-universe perspective - imagine someone who has no idea what the book is about reading this.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy is a GA and seems like a pretty good model here. I note that Production design of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and other similar articles exist and may give some ideas if this is to be focused only on development.
  • The Cast section seems too long - I think much of it could be split off into a Casting section.
  • The MOS Says not to both link and use boldface for something
  • Needs a ref A member of the Company of Dwarves and brother of Dori and Ori. Brophy has collaborated with Jackson on several films, including Braindead, Heavenly Creatures, and all three Lord of the Rings films as various creatures.
  • I was also surprised that the Background section did not mention Tolkien writing the book and publishing it in 1937. Also expected at least a mention of the Rankin-Bass Hobbit film.
  • Not sure that the Video games belong in this article (especially if it focuses just on development).
  • Make sure references include complete information - so one example I checked was current ref 23 an there is an author listed (Eddie van der Walt) in the article, but not in the ref (but should be)
  • I would bet there are free images of some more of the people involved that could be used here)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Now that this article has survived a deletion debate, and has been rigourously edited by a variety of contributors, I'd like to see what further input we can get from the peer review community, to polish this article further, get it up to at least GA status eventually. Many thanks, Zanimum (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I remember reading this when it was on DYK, nice job and thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nit-picks.

  • I realize at this point it seems like everyone on the world knows who Kate Middleton is, but since the article title is about "Kate Middleton", and the article refers to her as Middleton most of the time, then the article and lead should probably explicitly say who she is.
  • I am not sure where to put this, but the lead also needs to be expanded some, so the identification could be in a new sentence. One thing would be to use something like the article on her does. So perhaps "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (born Catherine Middleton, popularly known as "Kate") helped to design the dress." or something similar.
  • I think current lead is too short 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. If you are looking for ways to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Another way to think about the lead is to imagine someone can read only the lead (not the whole article). What would you want in the lead then? Please see WP:LEAD
  • In "Pre-wedding speculation" I would add the word wedding to this sentence somewhere: Before the [wedding?] day, there was much speculation as to what Catherine Middleton would choose for her [wedding?] dress.
  • I think I would clarify this a bit Also suggested were Victoria Beckham,[5] Sophie Cranston's Libelula,[6][7] Jasper Conran,[8][9] ... So perhaps Other designers whose names were suggested included ... or even just Other designers suggested were ..
  • Did any commentators followup on the "Alexander McQueen is owned by Gucci" concerns expressed before the wedding?
  • Needs a ref It has a lace applique bodice with detailing symbolising the nations of the United Kingdom.
  • Missing word? The lace bodice design was hand-made using a technique that originated in Ireland in the 1820s called Carrickmacross, which involved cutting out the detailings of roses (symbolising England), thistles (Scotland), daffodils (Wales), and shamrocks (Ireland),[14][15] [and?] applying them to the ivory silk tulle individually.[16]
  • MOS says to use just the last name once the article has introduced someone with their full name - so fix things like The whole process was overseen and put together by hand by Ms Burton and her team. and ...using UK fabrics which had been specially sourced by Sarah Burton.... Do not change direct quotations like Sarah Burton channelled a new take on classicism for a modern-day bride who will one day be queen. though.
  • I would add the date to this caption A replica of the dress outside a shop in Belfast [on 1 May, two days after the wedding]
  • If a change is made to a quotation, the MOS says to use [square brackets] for the change. So I think Karl Lagerfeld wrote "The dress is classic and goes very well in the Westminster decor. It almost reminds me of Elizabeth's wedding, the royal weddings in the (19)50s. ... should be ...the royal weddings in the [19]50s. ...
  • Missing word? Mark Badgley, [of?] Badgley Mischka wrote that "It's the kind of gown that will stand the test of time.
  • References need to be consistent - is is "first name then last name", or "Last name, first name"? Both are used
  • I also checked one ref - the Toronto Sun, current ref 30, see here. The author is given as "Rebecca Zamon" but for some reason the article ref lists it as by "nurun.com"
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/May_2011&oldid=704356073"