Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Pr)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
Shortcut:
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
PR icon.png

Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.

Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.

To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.

A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.

Contents

Arts[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

Tony Hawk's Underground[edit]

I think I'd like to take this to FA. Thibbs helpfully added a Famitsu review just tonight, which has encouraged me to take the page further. Might also be interested in more Tony Hawk-related GAs or FAs but hey, one bridge at a time.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 September 2014, 04:35 UTC)----


I'm Not Your Hero[edit]

With a lot of work already done to this for a DYK nomination and given a B-class rating from the DYK reviewer, I think there is a chance that this can be a featured article. With the decent amount notability of the subject (promo single release, charts, live performances and critical reception) and all I research I've been able to do, I feel every bit of important info both major and minor, has been used here, the writing is great, and the images all have fair licenses with correct source information. However, if anyone has any idea of improving the prose or adding any additional information to get this up to FA status, that would be great!

Thank you, 和DITOREtails 20:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 September 2014, 22:23 UTC)----


Lightning (Final Fantasy)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I hope to bring this article to Featured Status, and need input from other editors on it. There are probably multiple things that need addressing before I take it to FAR. If you can think of any constructive edits at once, do them, but if you think discussion is needed, place it here or on the article's talk page if it's rather weighty. I'm grateful for your suggestions.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the prose has some awkward stretches, such as in the third paragraph of the intro. I'm gonna copyedit a bit if you don't mind. Tezero (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Do all you think is needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to reply here. I think I'm done with the glaring stuff, but you can look for more copyeditors if you want. At the least, I don't think anyone's going to oppose the FAC on poor prose (aside from one of JimmyBlackwing's temporary opposes, maybe) as happened with Dota 2; this isn't full of a bunch of redundancies like that was. Tezero (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2014, 17:08 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

General[edit]

Murdering Oscar (And Other Love Songs)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get feedback on what (relatively major) improvements should be done so it can have a better chance of passing a GA nomination.

Thanks, Jinkinson talk to me 23:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 September 2014, 23:05 UTC)----


Nativity (Christus)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review in hopes I might get it done in time for Christmas for a TFA run and a PR seems like a good place to begin to work out potential problems before taking it to FAC. It's been a difficult article to write. Thanks in advance. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 19 September 2014, 23:57 UTC)----


So (album)[edit]


Hello, I am requesting a peer review as I believe that with some work, this article could be a featured article. I would appreciate comments on anything, but especially prose, because I know that when you are absorbed in an article for so long, inevitable redundancies appear! Cheers, —JennKR | 16:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 19 September 2014, 16:05 UTC)----


Thirteen (Megadeth album)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a featured article. Presently, I know the article has potential, but I need some help ironing out the rough edges.

Thanks, L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Lead could use information about the composition process (recording, conception, etc)
Green tickY Added some information about songs, that some of the songs were reworked things from the past and that it was recorded in 2011. Anything else takes away from the rest of the article, in my opinion.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The section #Odd occurrences during recording could be retitled
Green tickY I just removed the header. Isn't really necessary anyway--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The section #Songs looks really choppy when passing through. It could be broken up into subsections
Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • revealed the band had already started "talking about [a new album]" and explained that, although the band was in "tour mode", there were a "couple of ideas" the band was starting to work on. - a little verbose. I think this could probably be cut back a bit without losing any information
Green tickY--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Following the successful European "big four" concerts, Drover stated plans for recording a thirteenth Megadeth album. - What does this add that the preceding sentence doesn't?
Green tickYThis is why PR is such a good thing; other sets of eyes catch things I missed. Removed the offending sentence.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There's actually a lot of that going on. I don't seem to have the time to pick at every sentence, but here are some general hints
  • Rather than phrasing everything as a "revelation" or announcement, instead present it as fact (except where changed subsequently). "In an interview before a show in Auckland, New Zealand, Mustaine noted that the then-upcoming record was the last one on his contract with Roadrunner Records and mentioned that Roadrunner was trying to give the band a "huge new deal". However, Mustaine expressed frustration with the label, saying "The treatment's been terrible over the years, and I just don't want it." He stated that he would prefer to retire than "continue to play like that". Nevertheless, Mustaine exclaimed the band's new record would be "great" and the songs were "really good". for instance, is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too verbose. Something like "Thirteen was the last album completed by Megadeth as part of their (x-album maybe?) contract with Roadrunner Records. Mustained explained that, although the label was trying to give the band a "huge new deal", he (or the band?) had grown tired of the company's poor treatment and would rather retire than "continue to play like that"." The last sentence (about the "great" album) is ultimately just pre-album hype, and not encyclopedic. That he said this in an interview is not necessary to note explicitly if we're not quoting him as much. That would mean turning 91 words into about 52 words... and be a much tighter read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Noted. I don't have time right at this moment, but I will start addressing these critiques shortly. Thanks for your input!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Lede
  • It strikes me that the second and third sentences of the lede paragraph can be combined.
Green tickY--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would date the release of the lead single, since you make reference to that time later on.
  • Is the detail on the Grammy nominations for the singles really necessary, given that none won?
Green tickY I trimmed the fat somewhat, but I feel that it is given due weight in the lead by mentioning them as it's written now. It was a little too detailed before though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Writing, etc.
  • "drummer Shawn Drover revealed the band talking about a followup album " some rephrasing may be needed here.
  • Mustaine should be introduced at first mention, say as "frontman" or "lead singer"
  • "Was it Mustaine's contract about to expire or the band's? " I realize that it can be just about the same thing
  • "but clarified the band would not be hitting the studio until 2011. " Hardly surprising, given it was a December interview.
  • "Ellefson stated the album was ready to be mixed as of July 2011." You should probably lead off with the date "By July 2011, the album was ready to be mixed". I don't know if you really need to source it to Ellefson. Is no detail available on the recording sessions? Even when they were? Do the liner notes say anything on the subject?
  • Countdown to Extinction should be italicized in the quotation.
  • " Ellefson also announced the band has been considering album titles, but no release date was yet planned." Two issues here. First, why the "has been" about past events? And this seems contradictory to Mustaine's statement about the title, although that did say "subsequently". Straighten out, please. Also, you mention the inclusion of "Sudden Death" and "Already Dead" twice each, plus even more info in the "songs" section.
  • The two previous examples of Megadeth songs being contributed to video games can probably be consigned to a footnote.
  • "It was clarified a day later on the band's website to be "Th1rt3en"" Possibly "The band revealed a day later on its website that the title of the album would be rendered, "Th1rt3en"
  • ""À Tout le Monde": What relevance does this have to Thirteen?
Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress tried to make it a little more clear that it is the reason why Mustaine was concerned about the release date being a bad omen--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Release etc.
  • Put footnote strings in numerical order
Green tickY--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! is not only mentioned twice but it is linked twice. Consolidate please.
Green tickY--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Songs
  • The Grammy noms should be sourced and should probably appear under "Reaction" or a similar section
Green tickY--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is Ellefson's comment in the present tense when most other band quotations are in the past?
Green tickY If you are referring to where it said "Ellefson also notes", then that's been fixed.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Reaction
  • Do we really need to hear about Mustaine's "snarling" vocals THREE TIMES? Find some other stuff they said.
Green tickY--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "disappointed of" disappointed by
Green tickYYeah, that must have been edited down from something else and that was overlooked. Fixed now, thanks for catching it!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Did the band tour in support of the album?
My general thought is that greater thought should be given to how information is organized and presented so as to avoid repetitions and what seems sometimes to be somewhat of a random ordering of information.
I'll be happy to follow up and read it again, just drop me a note on my talk. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Noted. I will look over these more carefully and act on them soon. Thanks for your input!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 12 September 2014, 15:31 UTC)----


Lorde[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring this article to GA status. As I am familiar with American English, I would like someone to check if this article was done in New Zealand English or not (as Lorde is a New Zealander).

Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Before taking this to GAN, here's some comments.....

Lead
  • Her musical content doesn't really need to be described here, should just be in body.
  • I think that the musical content is needed. Simon (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lorde's music are styled in the subgenres of"..... reads awkwardly, try "Lorde's music consists of"
  • There you go. Simon (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "typical teen" seems rather biased
  • How about "familiar"? Simon (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Life and career
Early life and career beginnings
  • Include her siblings' names
  • Aside from the use of "Ella Marija Lani Yelich-O'Connor", she should be referred to as "Lorde" as opposed to "Yelich-O'Connor"
  • Alright. Simon (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Artistry
Musical style
  • "The critic Paul Lester from The Guardian"..... reads awkwardly
  • Removed "the critic". Simon (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Personal life and Image
  • The first paragraph contains so little detail that it's probably best incorporated into her "life and career" section, and rename this section "Public Image".
  • "From late 2013"..... In
  • Since this does not mention or even make references to Rihanna explictly, you should include the referral link as well if giving detail on her.
  • "She explains her disdain towards women wearing sexy lingerie and opining that"..... has expressed disdain, replace "and" with a comma, "sexy" is POV
  • "despite the fact she is too young to vote" → "despite not being eligible to vote"
  • "The American singer" is unneeded in "The American singer Britney Spears named Lorde"
Awards and nominations
  • This section right now is entirely blank aside from a referral link. Write a paragraph or two talking about her major achievements like Grammy Awards and MTV Video Music Awards, perhaps some detail on her commercial success as well.

Overall, not a bad article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments. I have done all (except the "awards" part). Simon (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy to help, though you still haven't fixed up the section for public image. Her school life belongs in career section, and her dating life as well since there's not enough information on that to have its own section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 September 2014, 14:39 UTC)----


Mami Kawada[edit]

Previous peer review

It's been two years since the last peer review, and since then, the article finally reached B-class. Given that Kawada is my favorite J-Pop singer, I have worked hard on the article through the years, and now I'm planning on revising the article more and eventually nominating it for Good Article status, but first I'm seeking suggestions on precisely how the article can be improved. Here are some of my concerns about coverage:

  • Reliable Japanese reviews for music are pretty rare, and this problem is particularly acute for non-mainstream artists. Kawada is an anison artist, which, with a few exceptions, are generally not considered mainstream, and thus, coverage for them is inherently harder to find. Unfortunately, this pretty much means that no reviews or comments on Kawada's singles and albums appear to exist. While there are a number of interviews with her, I'm not sure how to incorporate their material into the article, particularly if it has to do with Kawada's style and influences, and it would probably be easier to incorporate them into the articles on her singles and albums rather than in her article.
  • Like a number of non-mainstream Japanese entertainers, Kawada is a relatively private person. For one thing, her age is unknown, and other than her birthplace (Sapporo), and members of her family (a younger brother), little of her personal life is known.
  • I feel that the prose needs a lot of work, particularly when it comes to content and structure.

Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Also, everyone is free to make necessary improvements/changes to the article if necessary.

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Noswall59

This genre of music is not an area I know very much about; however, I do have one suggestion for improving the article: an area for expansion would probably be her early life - when was she born, who were her parents, where did she grow up and go to school, do we know anything about her early musical influences or any musical education she received? Of course, I appreciate the obvious problems with her being private, but GA criteria states that an article should address the "main aspects" of a topic - information on the formative years (and certainly on year facts like the birth year) of a person seems to me to be an important aspect of any encyclopaedic biography (as long as it can be reliably sourced etc.) Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, little of her personal life is known. Though it is known that she has a younger brother, the names of the members of her family members, and their occupations and current statuses, are unknown. She grew up in Sapporo, which can easily be sourced. It's unknown where she went to school or who her early musical influences are (although it is known that her favorite singer is Alanis Morissette, which can be sourced using the old version of her website). However, it is known (and in fact, it is already mentioned in the article) where her music education took place (the Mitsuno Vocal School in Sapporo). Given these problems, what else can I improve on in preparation for for a possible GAR? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Hi. That's fair enough if information about this period in her life is not available; I do fear that we are missing information about her as a person due to this and it may hold the article back, but, if you can't find the information, then there's nothing you can do about that. As for meeting other GAR criteria: the article seems stable and appears neutral (given the lack of reviews, etc., it remains relatively factual); below are some points you may consider:
      • I've already said that I'm not familiar with this genre and so cannot comment on the reliability of the source's you've used; I will say that most facts and points in the article are references, which is obviously promising (though the first paragraph of the "Linkage" section is not referenced at all).
      • Looking at successful GA articles, such as Ricardo Arjona, it might be worth seeing if you can include a section on her artistic style.
      • The lead is also quite short - perhaps you could summarise her career progression a bit more to give an overview of the topic.
      • There are no images in the article (criteria number 6 for GA is "Illustrated, if possible, by images"). obviously, any images need to comply to the copyright policies.
I am not familiar with this topic and so it might be best to hear from other user(s) who are more knowledgeable about the content, but hopefully these will be helpful in the general arrangement of the article. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 September 2014, 08:16 UTC)----


John Dillinger[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… Looks like over the past year or so this article has got unbelievably over-detailed and is now very hard to read without a huge investment of time (Compare with article from last year). Don't know if all this detail should be dropped into many subpages or if it's just to detailed to be on an encyclopaedia. Thanks, Aldaden (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Even after some judicious excisions by Aldaden this article runs to 156,050 bytes, which is grotesquely long, and, as suggested above, means that no reader is likely to wade through the whole thing. See WP:TOOBIG: this article is 50% bigger than the maximum suggested there. It's asking an awful lot of Aldaden (or anyone else) to plough through the acres of verbiage and reduce them to a reasonable size, but unless some heroic soul undertakes that task the article will remain a liability to Wikipedia. – Tim riley talk 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If no one else comes along to fix it, I'm contemplating restoring it almost entirely to the way it in the link above from last year with what is currently on the article page put on subpages with the usual link to it at the top of each section on the main article (eg "for main article see John Dillingers Final Months"). This would mean a quite a bit of duplication, but am not really in a position, nor have inclination to edit or sumarise the text because don't know, or care, enough about subject and wouldn't know what there is copyright violation. Aldaden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If the subject isn't all that close to your heart, I call it even more generous of you to invest your time in rescuing the article. Please ping me if you would like input at any stage, and particularly if you get the page up to a second peer review. I wish you the very best of luck. – Tim riley talk 18:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Afterthought: having looked at the April 2014 version you link to, above, I think you're right to propose reverting to it and adding links to sub-articles on the various sections. For such a drastic step it would be better to have the backing of a consensus before you begin, and may I suggest you post a note on the article talk page, linking to this PR discussion, and proposing to revert to and start again from the April 2014 version? I will certainly support such a suggestion, and I should be mightily surprised if other editors, having once seen the eye-glazing dreadfulness of the present megascreed, don't add their support too. – Tim riley talk 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 8 September 2014, 11:12 UTC)----


London Philharmonic Orchestra[edit]

I have been working my way through the articles on the London orchestras, getting them up to GA level, and the LPO is my fourth such effort, with only the Philharmonia to go. As ever, all comments and suggestions on style, prose, proportion, sourcing, images or indeed anything else will be most welcome. – Tim riley talk 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cg2p0B0u8m[edit]

A very quick comment before I read it properly. I know that orchestras look rather similar, but there is no photo of the LPO on its page. Lots of conductors, but no orchestra. I am sure you have looked already, but thought I would ask. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell. There are plenty of pictures of the players from many decades, but nothing I can find that is public domain, and I don't think fair use would be an acceptable plea for a body of 88 players. Tim riley talk 12:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
3rd para of the introduction - "south bank of the Thames" - I think it is more significant that it is one of the two leading concert halls in London.
  • I've fudged this a bit: writing during the Prom season I can't in conscience ignore the Albert Hall, much as I'd like to. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
A general point, and trying to get away from conductors; you do mention some eminent original members of the orchestra, but hardly any others after that. I know that Malcolm Arnold was a trumpeter for them for a bit, and I'm sure there must have been a leader or two who was well-known.
  • Excellent point. Nobody leaps to mind, but I'll do a bit of research and add anyone I can find. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
again general - is there somewhere a list of notable premieres, assuming they gave major premieres?
  • Another good point, also needing research, which it will be a pleasure to do. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that the orchestra appeared on TV, or is that too common?
  • I don't think the LPO has appeared on TV all that often. In the LSO article I mentioned BBC's "André Previn's Music Night" series, but the LPO has had nothing on that scale. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Under 'Early Years' the last paragraph mentions a 1936 tour of Nazi Germany. Was this their first overseas tour, and does it need pointing out?
  • It wasn't. Their first overseas engagement was in Brussels in June 1935, but as it was just two concerts I haven't thought it needed mentioning. Quite happy to include it if you disagree. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In '60s and 70s' Solti is first mentioned as Solti, then three paragraphs on as Sir Georg Solti...
In the 2nd para of 80s and 90s, is there a word missing in the middle: "In 1984 LPO and the Philharmonia began...." ?
  • There was indeed: now amended. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Near the end of the 80s and 90s Roslavets is mentioned but I think make it stronger to mention other obscure composers they played.
  • I'll check in the Pirouet book and see if others are named. I know the LPO played music by Jonathan Lloyd, Honegger and Birtwistle in this period, which I don't imagine caused queues at the box-office, but I'll need to check if these works were played at the Southbank Centre's behest. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't understand in '21st century' "probably having been drilled to a fare-thee-well under Masur".
  • Not a phrase I'd run across either. The writer is an American critic, and I take the phrase to be an American one. I think from the context it is clear that it is meant to convey what an English critic might phrase as "drilled within an inch of their lives". Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be two Philip Stuart references but only one appears in the Sources.
  • One of them is an online source, and it is my practice to include such sources in the references, with the "Sources" section listing printed books. (A bit illogical now I think about it, but I've been doing it for years.) The online Stuart work is liked at ref 101. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But apart from my caveat about the photos and maybe these, it is as always from you a very nice article, from which I learnt a lot. Thank you. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Some really good points in there! Thank you, mon Général (as your username always makes me think of Général Boum in La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein). I shall enjoy working through them over the weekend. – Tim riley talk 20:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. Of course the username is a mistake, I got muddled with names and passwords when setting up my account, but it's too late to do anything now. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case I shall feel at liberty to continue thinking of you as Général Boum. Excellent! Tim riley talk 19:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Gosh! You have homed in on some excellent points there, and I'll look forward to going to the British Library again to do them justice. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Alfietucker[edit]

This is a very engaging and readable article which I think covers most of the salient points well. Just a few details I've picked up on a read-through:

  • Lead
    • "it secured a valuable engagement to play in the opera house during the summer months, at the Glyndebourne Festival from 1964." – I think this would be much clearer ("opera house" tends to make me think instinctively of the Royal Opera House) if worded "from 1964 it secured a valuable engagement to play in the Glyndebourne Festival opera house during the summer months."
    • "and makes national and international tours." – better, I think, "and tours nationally and internationally."
      • Yes to both. Will do. Tim riley talk 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • History: Background
    • "Sargent's patrons, the Courtauld family" – by this, do we mean Elizabeth Courtauld? In any case, I wonder whether we should provide a wikilink to Courtauld, though I realise there is no ideal article available at present to link to (plus, I realise you do link Samuel Courtauld in the following paragraph). Still, would it be legitimate to reword this earlier mention of Courtauld as follows: "Sargent's patron, Elizabeth Courtauld (wife of the industrialist and art collector Samuel Courtauld)"? Or, if allowed and possible, to link Courtauld family to "Category:Courtauld family"?
      • At some point during my sandbox revisions I linked "the Courtauld family" to Samuel neveu: can't think quite when or why I deleted the link and I'll be happy to put it back. I don't think I'll be charged with WP:OVERLINK if I also link later to the man himself. Tim riley talk 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 1950s
    • "described by Kennedy as "gruelling"" – presumably this is Michael Kennedy: in any case, we should have his name in full here at its first appearance, and if it's Michael perhaps we should wikilink to his article. Also, shouldn't we have a reference for the Kennedy citation in the footnote which ends that sentence?
      • Aha! Circumstantial evidence of self-plagiarism, i.e. copying and pasting from my own contributions chez Sir Adrian. Serves me right. Shall adjust. Tim riley talk 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Any reason why Stravinsky's Firebird is not wikilinked?
      • Yes: incompetence. Shall remedy. Tim riley talk 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 1960s and 70s
    • Haitink - the LPO's longest serving conductor, yet I don't see any mention of the repertoire he particularly conducted with them. Might something be said about his Shostakovich performances and recordings (also relevant to Vladimir Jurowski later)?
      • Done. Much improved thereby. Tim riley talk 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 1980s and 90s
    • Tennstedt - though he is noted for his importance and rapport with the orchestra, we are told very little about what repertoire he particularly conducted the LPO in (only that he recorded Mahler 8, as far as I can see). Might we say a little more on that front?
  • 21st century
    • "Jurowski had first conducted the LPO in 2001, making an immediate mark." What works did he conduct on that occasion? (Indeed, I think we could say more about what repertoire Jurowski has been particularly acclaimed for in conducting the LPO.)
  • Recordings
    • Could something be said about some of the LPO's opera recordings? For instance I think the first recording of Vaughan Williams's The Pilgrim's Progress (with Adrian Boult) and - the Shostakovich connection again - the landmark first recording of the original version of Shostakovich's Lady Macbeth under Rostropovich are worth mentioning.
      • Overview of opera recordings added, including the two you mention. Tim riley talk 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • References
    • The "discography of the LPO published in 1997" by Philip Stuart, mentioned in "Recordings", appears to be one of the article's sources: e.g. ref 101 which refers to the LPO/Boult recordings for Lyrita and EMI. Yet it's not listed in Sources – could this be added?
      • An oversight, now rectified. Tim riley talk 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me for now, but if I spot anything else I'll report back. Alfietucker (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I call that a helpful review! Any amount of good stuff there, all addressed, I hope. Thank you very much. Tim riley talk 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure - and you've certainly addressed all the points I raised. A very enjoyable article. btw, I wonder if there may be enough material to create a little article on Elizabeth Courtauld some day (something I could think of tackling, unless you're interested?). Alfietucker (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Cliftonian's thoughts[edit]

Will jot thoughts as I go through. Will start with body and come back to lead at the end.

Background

  • We have the footnote explaining what the deputy system is, but I think it may be advisable to give a few words in the body itself on what it was. Perhaps a variant on the second sentence presently in the footnote, in between two emdashes, with the thus shortened footnote immediately after?
  • When I was at school our music hall was the Adrian Boult building.
    • Was it, indeed! Boult was at Westminster in the first decade of the 20th century. His article is mostly my work, and I shall get hold of a citation and add that fact to his "Honours and memorials" section, alongside the Adrian Boult Hall in Birmingham. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Early years

  • "thirteen other venues in England, Ireland and Scotland" didn't they ever go to Wales?
    • It seems not.

War and post-war years

  • "Many of the players' instruments were lost when the Queen's Hall was destroyed by German bombing in May 1941; and an appeal was broadcast by the BBC, the response to which was enormous, with instruments donated by the public enabling the orchestra to continue." I don't think we need "and" after the semi-colon.
    • Indeed not; blitzed.

1950s

  • We wikilink Kennedy twice.
    • Good grief! One can never proof read one's own writing: one sees what one thinks one has written. Now corrected. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1960s and 70s

  • It may be good to make clear for the uninitiated that Glyndebourne is outside London, in Sussex. (I know, I went there once.)
  • We say "in Pirouet's words", then don't actually quote him word-for-word. Perhaps rephrase? ("in Pirouet's view", for example)
Both done. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1980s and 90s

  • I have split a long paragraph here

21st century and Recordings look good to me.

Very well done to all concerned on a fine and informative read. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. feel like a total philistine as it has just occurred to me that I have reviewed an article on an orchestra while blasting drum and bass. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that review. The article is distinctly improved after it, I think. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems I forgot to do the lead, though! Argh! So I'll do it now.

Lead

  • At the end of the second paragraph we use "founded" twice in quick succession
  • "From 1995 the residency has been jointly held" perhaps "Since 1995"?
  • The lead seems a little short to me. Here are some ideas for things that might be good to add:
  • In the last paragraph, where we mention the conductors, maybe add "Guest conductors have included" and put some of the more major ones.
  • We don't mention anything at all in the lead about its recordings. Maybe, after we mention the conductors, name-drop some of the opera recordings and film scores (Lawrence of Arabia and The Lord of the Rings come to mind).

Hope this helps, sorry about not doing this before. (now feel doubly philistine!) —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly does help and Philistine be blowed! All these points now addressed, satisfactorily I hope. I can't find anything online about the Adrian Boult building at Westminster, which is rather a pity (not for this article but for Sir Adrian's). Tim riley talk 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The school magazine, The Elizabethan, mentions the Adrian Boult building here on page 10. Also mentions my brother a few times in the cricket section. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Bless you, my lad! Now added to the Boult article. ("Breezy cameos", eh? Always good to watch, and I speak as one who in his youth sat through an opening innings by Chris Tavare and Geoffrey Boycott so plodding that every spectator temporarily lost the will to live. Good for your bro for smashing about a bit!) Tim riley talk 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto comments[edit]

  • "All except the last of these ensembles were essentially ad hoc ensembles" -- Ensembles/ensembles
  • "...and none approached the excellence of the best continental and American orchestras." -- POV? I know this is a build up of the next sentence or two, but I'm sure it could be tweaked to read less POVVY : "All except the last of these were essentially ad hoc ensembles, with little continuity of personnnel; an example of the latter orchestras excellence came in 1927 when the Berlin Philharmonic, under Wilhelm Furtwängler, gave two concerts at the Queen's Hall." possibly?
    • The sources are unanimous on this, and I think it will be better to address your very sound point about the POV tone by citing a cartload of contemporary and later sources. Shall rummage and add. Tim riley talk 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

War and post-war years

  • "Beecham was advised by his doctors to take a year's complete break from music" -- as opposed to a partial break? Surely a break is as long as one wants it to be?
  • Note 3 is missing a closing ref.
    • Thank you for that: now attended to.

Other than the formatting issues with the refs (which I have now fixed), that is it! Top job Tim, let me know when you go to FAC! Cassiantotalk 11:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this: all grist to the Riley mill, not least your quiet amendment of my mistakes with the formatting of references. I'm not aiming at FAC. My tour d'horizon of the London orchestras is firmly aimed at GA level. One could write an FA quality article on any or all of the five orchestras, but I'm not willing to do the very considerable research that it would need. GA will do me nicely, and with your help and that of your fellow peer reviewers I hope to get this one there. – Tim riley talk 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

BB comments[edit]

I'm back in time to have a late run at this. A great subject, full of interest throughout.

Lead
  • Minor nitpick: it jars slightly to read consecutive sentences beginning "After the outbreak of war" and "After the war"
  • "By the 1960s the LPO had gradually regained its earlier standards..." I don't think "gradually" works in a sentence fixed at a point in time, i.e. the 1960s. I imagine the intended sense is that by the 1960s, through a gradual process over the previous two decades, the LPO had regained its former standard; suggest you simply remove "gradually".
  • Incidentally, the previous paragraph does not refer to a fall in the LPO's standards, merely to a change of ownership and to increased competition, so it may be advisable to briefly say when/why standards fell.
Background
  • "All except the last of these ensembles were essentially ad hoc ensembles": Repetition, tut tut
War and post-war years
  • "Among the conductors making guest appearances in this period..." – perhaps define "in this period" more specifically as "the immediate postwar years"
  • "After seven years with no principal conductor, the orchestra engaged the Dutch conductor..." – another close repetition, rephrase if possible
  • Does Martinon deserve to be singled out from the list of postwar guest conductors? (I remember him only as the conductor of Deryck Cooke's version of Mahler's 10th, many years later).
1950s
  • I think we should say "mezzo-soprano" rather than the informal "mezzo"
  • "In 1952, the LPO negotiated a five-year contract with Decca Records, which was unusually rewarding for the orchestra..." Lose the comma after "Decca Records" to preserve your meaning (it was the terms of the contract that were unusually rewarding).
1960s and 70s
  • Is it possible to avoid "Pritchard. Pritchard"?
  • Barenboim should be linked at first mention (he is at second, later)
1980s and 90s
  • Re RFH: "The two orchestras were interested in making a counter-proposal for a joint residency, but the matter was not resolved until 1995". This is a bit tantalising – perhaps indicate the solution here, rather than reserving it for later. Precise chornology is not always necssary.
  • "...in 1995 the two orchestras agreed to share the residency at the Festival Hall". From what you've previously written, I gathered that the two orchestras had years earlier proposed a shared residency, but that the Arts Council had pressed for a single resident orchestra. Did the Arts Council simply withdraw its proposal?
Recordings
  • Does Mahler's Eighth have to be the "Symphony of a Thousand", a name devised as a publicity gimmick and not sanctioned by Mahler?

Nothing remotely problematic here, I think, and I look forward to the article's onward progress. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 6 September 2014, 16:50 UTC)----


Changchun[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this article constantly, and I need some suggestion to improve this article to a good article.

Thanks, Lzy881114 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 5 September 2014, 21:24 UTC)----


Harbin[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this article constantly, and I need some suggestion to improve this article to a good article.

Thanks, Lzy881114 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 5 September 2014, 21:24 UTC)----


Gabi on the Roof in July[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review just because

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 September 2014, 17:12 UTC)----


Sophia Takal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because that's what you do

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 20:13 UTC)----


Ashita, Haru ga Kitara[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article a GA. It's something I've not done before, a J-pop song article. Any comments on how to make the article better would really help me and of course, the article. Thanks, Ryoga (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 September 2014, 13:24 UTC)----


Batman: Arkham Origins[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA alongside Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, but as it wasn't received as well as those two games the coverage is less and I feel like it is missing something. A fresh set of eyes would beneficial in making sure it is as complete as possible so it can be nominated.

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

I'll take a look at the article. By the way, Darkwarriorblake, is there any way you could give some feedback to the Sleeping Dogs (video game) peer review too? That would be much appreciated. Thanks!

  • Lead feels too short for FA. Specially the 2nd paragraph.
  • A paragraph for gameplay would be nice.
  • The opening of the 2nd paragraph kinda bugs me for some reason. I think it needs rephrasing.

More comments inbound. URDNEXT (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree about the lead. Dunno if it was this way when I was reviewing for GA, but if so, that was an unfortunate oversight on my part. Considering the size of the page, four full paragraphs would not at all be unreasonable. Tezero (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 August 2014, 22:40 UTC)----


Payday 2[edit]

I've basically reconstructed this article from an outdated mess. Looking for advice on improvements such as explaining gameplay (since I have about 400 hours into the game and am very poor at explaining it) and writing reception.

Cheers, Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I recommend you base the lead on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. And reception on Skyrim. NEXT (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Skyrim could also be a decent starting point for Gameplay. Any of our FAs on individual games, really. Tezero (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that, for Gameplay, you should also try looking at the two GA Shin Megami Tensei: Persona games, 3 and 4. They deal with multiple gameplay concepts in a comprehensive way. As to the reception, I think one of the GA Silent Hill games or Tales of Symphonia. I would probably also condense and reference the different game versions and DLC content. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I want to condense the versions and DLC content, but until the Crimewave Edition comes out, I cannot, since there is little information on it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

8/28/2014 15:30 Update[edit]

I did some padding to the intro and reception. Any specific thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks promising, since it's missing gameplay, DLC, and reception. I'd like to also mention how the Sleeping Dogs review is almost over, the only issues bow are date formats because me and Tezero are on our phones and can't open the refs. I'll start working on Payday as soon as Dogs passes, which could be today, for all I know. Is there anyway you can help us, Zero Serenity URDNEXT (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a lot of good RS for the gameplay - not even a roll call for the special units. Prima didn't put out a guide - I guess they got word of how much would be changed and they held off. Maybe they'll have one for the Crimewave edition. Anyone preorder and get "The Guide of Bain"? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Web Series[edit]

Produced as an ad, the series might be worth having it's own section. You can watch it here and decide if it's worth mentioning. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 August 2014, 17:26 UTC)----


The Widower (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It needs a clean up.

Thanks, GiraffeBoy (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable?
  • Is this article notable for Wikipedia? The content of the article seems to read as though it is no more, or little more, than a synopsis of the film followed by a credit roll followed by a list of referenced press-releases about the airing and casting of the project.
  • To the above: please sign your posts. To the nominator: the issue is not one of notability – of course this series is notable within WP's definition of the word. The issue is the undeveloped nature of the article, which requires rather more than a "clean-up". I suggest that you examine some of the hundreds of TV/film-based articles that have been listed as Good Articles – the link is here. These should give you some ideas about how to develop the article. Until you've done a lot more work, the article is not really reviewable. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 August 2014, 16:07 UTC)----


The Who[edit]

Previous peer review

This article passed GA about a year ago, receiving a million award in the process. Such an important and high-traffic band article really should be at featured article status, so this is the first step. Since the GA review, I've added a section on "Musical style", kept the narrative up to date to include their 2014 tour, and done some general copyediting, but hopefully with as many eyes on this as possible, we can make this a truly great article.

Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

@SNUGGUMS: - anyone out there? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, Ritchie. Here's some starting comments.....
Infobox
  • Are the listed subgenres of rock really needed? Since they're known as a rock band, we can just simply say that.
Some are, some aren't. Power pop is cited explicitly, and I think hard rock probably could go in somewhere around Live at Leeds to explain the contrast between itself and Tommy. Let me come back to this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Lead
  • "an English rock band formed in 1964"..... that formed
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "For much of their career they have been regarded"..... needs a comma after "career"
Are you sure about that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "most important British rock acts"..... English, let's be more specific here
I would rather stick with "British", as that is what the sources use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "one of the world's best-selling bands of all time, having sold more than 100 million records"..... why is this not mentioned within the article body? Should probably be under an "achievements" section or something in body.....
  • "hit singles" in "A string of hit singles followed" is WP:PEACOCK
I don't think it is - it's factually correct. Their follow-up singles could have been chart flops, but they weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant the word choice of "hit"- "successful singles" would be less POV Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed, though personally I don't think it makes too much difference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Try splitting "The Who resumed regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey, to a positive response, and were considering the possibility of a new album, but these plans were stalled by Entwistle's death in June 2002" into two sentences
Whereabouts would you consider a good splitting point? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say after the "positive response" bit, so replace "and" with "they". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
History
Background
  • The founding members passing an exam isn't really needed, just say they all attended the same school and grew up in Acton, London
(Without wishing to sound like a grizzly old fart who was programming on the ZX Spectrum before Katy Perry was even born...) The eleven plus exam was the cornerstone of the Tripartite system of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the 40s to the 70s and was an important stage of anyone's life. The result of passing or failing the eleven plus could completely change a child's future as it determined which secondary school they went to. (Just compare Norton Knatchbull School to The North School). Passing the eleven plus was a notable achievement (only about 1 in 4 did) and allowed all three to have a better shot in life. Had any of them failed it, the Who as we know it would probably not have existed. Fletcher's book on Keith Moon devotes a couple of pages to this topic (Moon failed his). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would've included that on their individual pages rather than here Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove "so" from "He was unable to afford his own instrument and so built one at home", and place a comma after "instrument"
Removed "so" but I don't think the comma is necessary Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "a more accomplished musician"..... experienced musician would be more encylcopedic
Gone with "better" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
1964–1978
Early career
  • There should be a space after the comma in "in late April at the Oldfield,the band met Keith Moon"
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
First singles and My Generation
  • Do we really need "first singles" in the section title?
I think so, because prior to Tommy, the Who were a singles band, as were most acts in 1965, and their hits (like everyone from the Beatles downwards) did not put singles on LPs. It's only really about 1968 that albums became more important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out
  • For those who don't recognize Daltrey and Moon's faces, it would be helpful to indicate in the photo caption which is which
Looks like this has been done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant to include things like "(right)" and "(left)" in the caption Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, it was in the filename. Oops. Done, and popped another picture in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "had held off recording it"..... just say delayed recording
Gone with "avoided" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "a fairly disastrous tour"..... I think unsuccessful will do
Reduced to just "a tour" with an explanation of what happened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Tommy, Woodstock, and Live at Leeds
  • "In August, he gave a major interview to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in which he described in intricate detail an album project he was working on, the plot of which eventually became the Tommy album" is quite a mouthful. Try simplifying to something like "In August, he described to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in detail what would become the Tommy album".
Redone this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

More to come later on.....Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: - sorry about the delay, I got sidetracked with real like and AfC. Any more for any more? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries. There is indeed more, but it's not going to all come in one go.
Lifehouse and Who's Next
  • "both tracks' keyboard sounds were generated in real time by a Lowrey organ, and on 'Won't Get Fooled Again', it was further processed through a VCS3 synthesizer"..... while 'Won't Get Fooled Again was processed through a VCS3 synthesizer
Done 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, and linked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Quadrophenia, Tommy film, and The Who by Numbers
  • Elaborate on "Moon's behaviour was becoming increasingly destructive and problematic"
Done, though I would like a second opinion as now it goes into a little bit too much detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "screamed verbal abuse at him"..... reads awkwardly, "screamed at him" or "verbally abused him" would probably be better
"screamed at him" will probably do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Filming began in April 1974 (including 1500 extras at Portsmouth Polytechnic for the 'Pinball Wizard' sequence) and lasted through until August"..... concluded in August.
Gone with "carried on until August" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Who Are You and Moon's death
  • "he bumped into the Sex Pistols' Steve Jones and Paul Cook"..... met with
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "their performance was so weak that the footage was left unused. Moon's playing was particularly lacklustre"..... I'm not convinced this is entirely neutral
That's what's in the source. I've counterbalanced it with an online interview from Daltrey about the gig. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "poor performance at Kilburn. Their performance was strong"..... same as before
They wouldn't have done the May '78 filming unless they had to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's best to keep Moon's age in his own article rather than here
Seems a bit silly to just have "He was 32" to a whole source. Removed that, but left the source in as it does back up the previous claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So far, coming along pretty well..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

See I'm little late here. Here's the review (from bottom to top):

  • refs 37, 268, 269, 273–no need for capitalizing the article's name
After other changes, I think the citation numbers are all out of sync, but I assume this is because the titles had VERY ANNOYING SHOUTING in them. Should all be fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • the 'Awards and accolades' could use some expansion; you can write whether they have won a Grammy, or that the band has entered the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, for example.
Before I started work on getting the article to GA, this section was basically what List of awards and nominations received by The Who is now, and I just kept the opening paragraph. I think this needs rewriting from that list article, but it shouldn't be too taxing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done a bit more work on this. I've collapsed "awards and nominations" to a subsection in "legacy" and copied a few more accolades over. Most of the other stuff in the awards spinoff article are either not particularly reliable or about specific albums. I'll have a scout around for anything else that is of unquestionably high importance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • second paragraph of the 'Legacy and influence' could benefit from some copyediting. The quotes read monotonically to a certain degree; all of the musicians are repeating themselves by saying "The Who are the greatest band of all time!". Why not paraphrase some of the quotes, or incorporate in what way the group influenced the bands that followed (musically, lyrically, visually, etc.)
I've made a start on this. Some of it can move into "Musical style" (eg: the note about power pop), some of it can be trimmed down. I need to do some more work on this, principally as you say by using quotations and concentrating on sources that deal with music as a whole. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • Isn't there some rule that we're supposed to use a recent photo (for BLPs, I think).
Not as far as I know (but that doesn't necessarily mean anything) - the lead says "their best known line-up...." and lists the members in the picture, two of whom are deceased. Given this, I'm surprised nobody challenged it, but coverage in books and sources suggest the (not quite) original four is where the article should spend most time, and I think the picture should follow suit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For much of their career they have been regarded: what about now?
The last source marking this claim is dated May 2013, which I think is recent enough not to invalidate the claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • more than 100 million records: what about cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs?
You can't say "albums" as that doesn't include singles (and before Tommy the Who were singles first, albums second), "albums, singles and EPs" is too long, "albums, cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs, reel to reel, librettos, sheet music" is too long, and "units" is industry jargon that the layman reader won't understand. What word can you use? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"having sold more than 100 million copies of their recordings"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • single billed as the High Numbers the single was billed as the High Numbers?
"billed" is redundant. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • specialising in auto-destructive art by destroying guitars and drums onstage: I'll have to read the rest of the article, but did they really specialize in such a thing? It makes me think of Hendrix---he had a reputation for smashing and burning guitars, but only actually did it something like three times.
The Who smashed their gear occasionally through 1965, most of the time in 1966 and 1967 (eg: Montrey, Smothers Brothers, the montage of equipment smashing on The Kids are Alright film), and tailed it off in 1968 because it was getting two expensive. Certainly on their first US tour, Townshend was smashing five guitars a day. In short, yes. (all in Marsh's book, can get specific cites with page numbers if required). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
But "specialising in"? Maybe "featuring"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, let's go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • support by pirate radio and television: but not mainstream radio? How did they manage to get on TV?
In 1964, the only "mainstream radio" in the UK was the BBC (independent commercial radio did not exist until 1973), and its coverage of pop music was extremely limited. They got on TV because they had a single in the charts and they got the record deal for the single through somebody seeing them gigging at the Marquee and writing a rave review about it. They then became closely identified with ITV's Ready Steady Go throughout 1965 and 66, hence the "television". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I won't be the only one who has no clue about these circumstances (no commerical radio?) Perhaps in the lead it should just be "radio", and then "pirate radio" in the body, where it can be explained. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes in 1964 we didn't have commercial radio, we'd only just gone up to three black and white TV channels, you needed shillings for the electric meter, I had to get up at half ten at night half an hour before I went to bed, work down mill 37 hours a day for tuppence a year and when we got home our dad ... sorry, I'm rambling. I've removed "radio and television" entirely, while the pirate radio connection is important, I don't think it'll hurt to restrict it to the body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it not worth mentioning that Tommy and Quadrophenia were rock operas (and double discs)? "Rock opera" is a term associated with the Who, isn't it? I might also mention that Quadrohenia was recorded with quadrophonic sound in mind.
The trouble is, "Tommy" the rock opera could be confused with the orchestral version, the film, the musical, or something else. I'll have a think about "rock opera" (and it goes back to 1966 for the Who). I don't believe Quadrophenia was specifically planned with a quad mix, do you have a source for that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying---"rock opera" is a term strongly tied to the band, but the lead never mentions it. The Quadrophenia arilce quotes Townshend in the lead: "The whole conception of Quadrophenia was geared to quadraphonic". The infobox there also claims the album was prog, which is an awful broad interpretation of prog, if you ask me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Quadrophenia is assessed as C class, has numerous cleanup tags and needs serious work. I wouldn't trust anything in that article. I will improve it some day (unless somebody else does). I've put "rock opera" next to Tommy as the two terms are unquestionably related. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • was released in 1979 along with the retrospective documentary: this makes it sound like the releases were related to each other. Were they?
Not really. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 that drew mixed reviews: was the fact that it drew mixed reviews significant enough to mention it in the lead? Was it a big deal?
From Rolling Stone : Much to the horror of their fans, the five-man lineup of 1979-1982 had suddenly swelled to 15 people. Making matters worse, Pete Townshend played acoustic guitar all night. Steve "Boltz" Bolton handled electric duties. It didn't sound much like the Who, and fans derisively labeled it "The Who on Ice." A search for "The Who on ice" (inside quotes) brings back similar strongly negative reviews (although not all are as reliable as Rolling Stone). No other Who tour before or since got such negative press coverage, so in that context, "mixed reviews" is, I think, generous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Is "mixed reviews", then, an accurate (or helpful) way to describe it? It makes one wonder why it's even being mentioned. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's because the tour was substantially different and there were no tours for years either side of it, but to be honest, I don't think it really matters for the lead. As an added bonus, we can loose a comma, which generally makes the FAC regulars happy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • a tour of Quadrophenia in 2012: sounds like they toured a place called Quadrophenia
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • before announcing their retirement in 2014 after a final album and accompanying live shows.: yet Townshend and Daltrey are still listed as current members in the Infobox
Reworded so this makes more sense - they've announced they will be doing a final tour but they've done a "final tour" 30 years ago, so until multiple sources say the Who has irrevocably and permanently split, or one or both of the founding members dies, then we can change the infobox, but per WP:CRYSTAL, not before. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

More later. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Background[edit]
  • The three founder members: is "founder member" a BrEng thing? I'm used to "founding member" (but I'm Canadian). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is, but "founding members" doesn't sound out of place, so let's go with what will fit with most readers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Daltrey, Townshend and Entwistle,: given that this is their first mentions in the body, I'd used their full names, and link them
The problem here is that I have had previous reviews telling me the opposite, ie: WP:LASTNAME applies for every second and subsequent use, lead or body (see Talk:The Yes Album/GA1.
WP:LASTNAME doesn't actually say anything about the lead, and Funkmonk was actually telling you the same thing I am. WP:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That's not a requirement, but it's definitely a very common approach, especially considering the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Ther's inconsistency in that you link, for example, albums, songs, terms such as auto-destructive art, and basically everything else linked in the lead except for the band members. If you feel strongly enough about it, I'm not about to oppose it at FAC, but I do think it's good practice. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Kudos on The Yes Album, by the way---one of my favourites! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am convinced that not too long ago I got reverted with a summary of WP:OVERLINK / WP:LASTNAME after putting a name in both the lead and the body. However, I'm blowed if I can find it, so ... full names in and lead and body it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cliff, had played saxophone: but had ceased by the time Townshend went to Acton? If not, drop the "had".
"Had" removed (sources documenting him playing professionally up to at least the mid 1960s, well into the Who's career). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Townshend's father, Cliff, had played saxophone and his mother, Betty, had sung in the entertainment division of the RAF during World War II, while Entwistle's father, Herbert, played trumpet, and his mother, Queenie, played piano.: fairly long sentence, might be worth copping in two. "saxophone", "trumpet", and "piano" are WP:OVERLINKing.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and so built one at home: holy shit!
It's perfectly true (or at least verifiable to two official endorsed band biographies). What the article doesn't say (but one source does), though, is that the glue gave out on the first gig and it collapsed in pieces. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • both left school aged 16: as in they dropped out, or they graduated?
The source says, verbatim, "At the age of sixteen, John and Pete left Acton County School". It means "graduated" in the sense they reached the minimum school leaving age without getting expelled, but that's more US English. "Left school" (with the implication that the subject got to standard leaving age and started work) is recognisable British English. These days with kids going off to get a BTEC in hairdressing it's starting to become anachronistic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, is there some way to word this to make it clear they didn't drop out? Because, like I said, that's the impression the wording gives to a North American (WP:COMMONALITIES). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I ran this past my other half yesterday (who grew up in the US), and the long and short of it is the UK does not have the equivalent of a High School Diploma, the closest thing being compulsory subjects at GCSE, and (certainly in my case) after my last exam, I never went to school again (and in Moon's case, he simply stopped going and looked for work). Anyway, back on track, I've simply said "After Acton County", as what they did after school is more important (in Entwistle's case, the job allowed him to buy a proper bass, Townshend has repeatedly said that art school changed his life). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • fitting in as an outsider: as a geographical outsider, or personality-wise? A North American would assume the latter.
I would say both - he came from a different area and was of a different social class. Does that make sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but you might want to make that explicit. North Americans tend to move frequently---I went to three elementary schools in different municipalities, and it never made me an "outsider". It would not cross a North American's mind that such a thing would make one an "outsider" unless that was explicitly stated. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed to "fitting in at school". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Through Townshend's mother, the group obtained a management contract with local promoter Robert Druce, who started booking the band as a support act, and they became increasingly influenced by bands they were supporting, including Screaming Lord Sutch, Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers, Shane Fenton and the Fentones, and Johnny Kidd and the Pirates.: another long sentence I'd like to see cut up.
I've reworded this bit, and cut out a few other superfluous terms. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • more of a lead instrument: in what way? He did solos?
That's what the source says, verbatim. I think the problem with the sources is they assume you've heard the Who's music before reading the book and trust you're familiar with stuff like this and this (is the last two of those a reliable source, I wonder)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the actual video might---not so confident a promo would be acceptable. What I meant, though, was about his playing at the time in the narrative. Was he playing all over the place then, or did it develop over time? Does the video say, I wonder? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled out a few more book sources to talk about Entwistle's style, though most of it's ended up in "Musical Style" as you might expect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Early career[edit]
  • By the time the Detours had evolved into the Who: is this evolution? They dropped the one name and took on the other
Changed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sandom claims that Townshend: WP:CLAIM
Fixed (also did a "noted" per WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED elsewhere) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the band met Moon for the first time: first mention in the body, so should be full name & linked
See above comment Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • but wanted a full-time role: wanted a full-time role with the Beachcombers?
I think he just wanted to play music professionally, regardless of which band. Reworded in any case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The way it's worded, it could be parsed as "he wanted a full-time role [with the Beachcombers]". Maybe "he wanted to be a full-time drummer" or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so - that article says they formed in the late 1960s when the Who were well up and running. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking another break here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


First singles and My Generation[edit]
  • He signed the group to his production company: do we have a name for this?
I'll have a hunt round for sources. You would have thought an original label for "I Can't Explain" would have it, but it doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a (one-sentence) explanation of pirate radio would be helpful. If you don't know the history, it sounds fringe & underground, & unlikely to contribute to Top Ten Success.
I've dropped in a brief explanation of why pirate radio was important, and changed the link to the more descriptive pirate radio in the United Kingdom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The single also reached the top 10 in the UK: if it was rejected for the US market, then what does "also" refer to?
Removed (it refers to being their second top ten hit)
  • who enjoyed clubbing: meaning they enjoyed clubbing together?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean "clubbing" was unclear, I meant following "The Who were not particularly good friends either, apart from Moon and Entwistle" it wasn't clear if Moon and Entwistle were good friends because (or so) they clubbed together, or they just happened to be friends, and tangentially both enjoyed clubbing. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lambert and Stamp claimed...while Talmy claimed: "claim"
Fixed, although to be honest, exactly what is the issue with "a claimed x but b claimed y" other than "The MOS says so"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The rationale at WP:CLAIM is "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • it saw a proper remix: as opposed to what kind of remix? Also, there are reviewers who maintain that "saw" here would be inappropriate anthropomorphism (I don't buy it, but don't be surprised if it comes up).
Reworded. I think a proper remaster would be the right term here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reaction Label: is "Label" part of the label name?
Mistake, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and replaced with "Waltz for a Pig": was the "Substitute" single replaced with "Waltz for a Pig", or just the B-side?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • collection of songs called "Quads": does "collection of songs" man something like an EP? In that case, should "Quads" be italicized?
I would guess so. 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out[edit]
  • Moon detonated his drum kit: this was live, wasn't it? I might mention it.
The music was mimed, but the explosion was obviously real. 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I mean, wasn't it broadcast live? This seems to strongly imply it: "...nationally televised performance of "My Generation" with a literal bang that singed Pete Townshend's hair, left shrapnel in Keith Moon's arm and momentarily knocked The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour off the air." A filmed performance wouldn't knock anything off the air, I imagine. And those other details might be worth mentioning (shrapnel in Moon's arm?) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
See below. The Smothers Brothers show was released on The Kids are Alright film and several other Who documentaries. Needless to say it's been bootlegged all over YouTube (just do a search for "The Who Smothers Brothers" and you'll find one), and you can easily see the explosion and resulting carnage, but it did not knock the show off the air. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • but had been banned that August: the album, or pirate radio?
Added link to Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 and reworded (the ban happened first, then the album was recorded) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • a mini rock opera called "Rael" whose closing theme ended up on Tommy': meaning the closing theme appeared on both albums?
Yes - it's musically identical. It also turned up in the Live at Leeds performance of "My Generation". Do you need a {{cite audio}} for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant it's not clear if this meant the ending was dropped from the album and then included on Tommy. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded this so it makes more sense and explains exactly what songs use the same music. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing about Hendrix upstaging the Who with their own schtick at Monterey?
I thought I added a quote from Tony Fletcher's book about Hendrix being "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing". Maybe it was another article. Let me come back to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added quite a bit more information about the 1967 tours, which account for the comments re Monterey and the Smothers Brothers show above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't there something about Townshend refusing to have the Who follow Hendrix? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Something like that - it was more that the Who wanted to go on first and argued. I don't think Hendrix cared. I've popped a bit in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Tommy, Woodstock and Live at Leeds[edit]
  • came directly from Townshend's studies of Baba: meaning he wrote them while studying with Baba, or they were inspired by Baba's teachings?
The latter (Townshend and Baba never actually met; there is some irony in a member of "the world's loudest band" being influenced by someone notable for taking a lengthy vow of silence)
You might want to state that---I mean, this comes not long after the Beatles went to India, so it's easy to assume Townshend was studying with Baba. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'd still like to see "interested in the teachings of Meher Baba" made more explicit. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and "Pinball Wizard" was written to attract the interest of New York Times journalist Nik Cohn: why?
Reworded so it's more obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Today, Gibson manufactures: this'll date.
They've been making Townshend SGs for about 15 years now, but I see your point. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"subsequently" coud be interpreted as "not long after". Maybe "From 19XX, Gibson began manufacturing..."? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd need a source for that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm taking so many breaks. If I forget to come back, give me a ping. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tend to be busy in real life, so I wouldn't worry about it too much - there's no deadline in finishing this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I think everything's been addressed one way or another, or at least almost everything has. Shall we tackle the 70s? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'm sorry I keep cutting out like that. I actually have been pretty busy lately, but I'd still like to get in what feedback I can on the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Lifehouse and Who's Next[edit]
  • tired of not getting enough of his own songs on Who albums: maybe "more" instead of "enough"---after all, what's "enough"?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
As above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • thought of a suitable follow-up to Tommy': could be interpreted as a sudden thought that came to him, or as Townshend spent time thinking of something
Reworded. I've gone with "how the Who could make a studio album" as Live At Leeds had been released at this point in the narrative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • creating various layers of synthesizers: meaning he multitracked synthesizers?
Yes, you couldn't get polyphonic synths until the mid 1970s. What wording should be changed / improved here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • had a nervous breakdown, and Lifehouse was abandoned: I think it reads better as "had a nervous breakdown and abandoned Lifehouse"
Not sure. That implies Townshend specifically abandoned Lifehouse, whereas I think it was a group decision that the project was not going to work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the available Lifehouse material: I feel like "available" isn't the right adjective
Reworded (and taken out the adjective, thus side stepping the issue)
I thought it was, but a quick look at the source reveals it was the Record Plant on Seventh Avenue. Added "Record Plant" and changed link. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • in New York, which had to be abandoned: they had to abandon New York?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • were released as a traditional studio album, Who's Next': a release date would be nice
It was August 1971 (added and sourced)
  • reaching No. 4 in the US pop charts and No. 1 in the UK: "in" the charts and not "on" the charts? Is this an ENGVAR thing?
Changed to "No. 1 in the UK and No. 1 in the US". I don't think we need to say "in / on the charts" as it's not done anywhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Townshend was credited with "VCS3 Organ" and "ARP Synthesizer" on the cover.: this sounds more like info for the album article than for the band article
Removed (the previous sentence describes it in more detail) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • , produced by Moon: the solo was produced separately from the tracks? That raises a number of questions for the reader; personally I'd drop it and leave the details to the album article.
That's what's cited on the back cover - "violin on Baba O'Riley produced by Keith Moon". [1] Moon's own article (a GA) talks about the circumstances more. I've taken out "produced by Moon" from this sentence, but left the remainder. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • they opened the Rainbow Theatre: not opened at?
Reworded (now slightly shorter). Also rewritten so that the text doesn't say on 4 November they played at the venue for 3 nights. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Quadrophenia, Tommy film and The Who by Numbers[edit]
  • for the first part of 1972: how long is a "part"?
Clarified (also added name of abandoned album started in May 72) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • had left significant amounts of money unaccounted for: what, they left mystery money lying around?
The source says, specifically, "In 1972, Daltrey had New Action's books audited and discovered huge sums of money unaccouted for." I've toned this down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and examines the relationship with his family and the mod culture: Jimmy or the album examine this?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • and rehearsals were interrupted due to an argument which culminated in Daltrey punching Townshend and knocking him out cold: "and" seems to imply that this was related to the tech issues or the synthesizers---was it?
According to the source, the group were rehearsing "5:15", the tapes malfunctioned, Townshend got cross and started having a go at whoever was in earshot, which happened to be Daltrey, who, being the better fighter, punched Townshend in self defence. How might we get that in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • described this gig as one of the worst of all time: worst gig, or worst Who gig?
Worst gig, full stop, according to the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • that the Canadian Mounted Police were called: I'm Canadian. I'd say it's unusual to shorten "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" to "Canadian Mounted Police". I'd either unshorten it, or use RCMP (or "the Mounties"---but I'm not sure if that's unencyclopaedic or not).
Okay, you might be able to help with my understanding here. I though the RCMP were the national police, at a higher level than the provincial or municipal police, so you had the standard Montreal PD, then the RCMP above that - the implication here being that they caused so much destruction that they required top level enforcement. It's not in the article, but according to one source, Moon trashed an antique painting and he, Townshend and some roadies rammed a table through an adjoining wall, before sending it out of the window. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me; I didn't think about that, but yeah I guess calling in the Mounties for trashing a hotel room sounds pretty over-the-top. Perhaps because it involved high-profile foreigners? The details of law enforcement are definitely well outside my expertise. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth just briefly qualifying the status of the RCMP (eg: "the highest level of Canadian law enforcement") - since I had to ask, anyone else outside Canada probably would too. They did destroy irreplaceable antique furniture! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was going to suggest something like [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]], but the article on it says "It is unique in the world as a national, federal, provincial, and municipal policing body". I have no idea what the difference between "federal" and "national" is, and I had no idea they also functioned on a provincial and municipal level. I guess that muddies the water a bit---even if your sources calls them national police, they may have (naturally) simply assumed they were acting at a national capacity (until a few minutes ago, I would've, too). Maybe just leave it at Royal Canadian Mounted Police (expanded)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I missed this: "the RCMP does not provide provincial or municipal policing in either Ontario or Quebec". So I guess [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]] would be accurate. And if they destroyed antique furniture & paintings, wouldn't that be worth saying so? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, now done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • to a standing ovation from the audience: seriously?! It's been twenty years since I last saw it, but I remember it as horrifying
It's in the source here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not accusing you of making it up. It just blows me away. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the 70s for you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • $2M in box-office receipts in its first month: MOS:NUMBERS says "M" may be used "after spelling out the first occurrence", but (a) the "first occurence" is in the lead; and (b) I don't think it's a good idea in an article in which big numbers like this don't appear frequently
  • reaching number 2 on the Billboard albums chart: sometimes there's "No.", sometimes "number"; should choose one or the other
Should all be "No." + non breaking space + number - that's my preferred format. I blame IPs.
  • were restricted to a one-off show: "restricted" sounds like someone actively disallowed the shows; I imagine from the context that they just didn't have time
  • a one-off show at Charlton Athletic Football Ground in May: worth redlinking Charlton Athletic Football Ground?
That's The Valley (London), but it's not linked on first use. Now fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • lightened by "Squeeze Box", another hit single: how did "Squeeze Box" lighten things? By being a hit single, by being light in tone?
I've reworded this entire sentence, and added some other examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • reintroducing Tommy to the set: songs from Tommy, or performances of Tommy?
Clarified Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Entwistle considered the Who's live performances to be at their peak at this time.: any word on what the other members thought?
Townshend was fed up with all of it. Added that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Another break---sorry. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: - okay, I think I've covered all the points now. I'm busy over the weekend, so there's enough time to tackle as much of the remainder as we can manage. Thanks for all the help you've done so far, hopefully if a few others chip in it'll make the FA review a much easier ride. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Who Are You and Moon's death[edit]
  • While recuperating: a surprising choice of words, given that we're told his reason to take time off was to spend time with his family.
Removed
  • he discovered that Allen Klein: who? And why would this disillusion him?
If you knew the first, you'd know the second! [2] Reworded
  • who both liked the Who: just "liked"? Weren't the Who a primary influence? I seem to remember Lydon making snide comments about the band doing "their Who things" or something.
I don't think I've got a source that goes that far, and the case of the Pistols (who were year zero, all the past is irrelevant etc etc) they were unlikely to come out and say it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • he passed out in a doorway: just like that? Was he drunk?
Might have been more than just drink, but without a reliable source and since he's still living, I'm not sure what else we can do here?
  • Moon was so out of shape: what, he'd gained a lot of weight? It says so later, but you might want to make it explicit here; for those who know how he ends up, "out of shape" could mena something to do with his consumption habits
I've gone with "unfit", but I'm not sure that's the right word to use - but the Kilburn footage has been released and this demonstrates why they were not exactly on top form
  • Having not played: "Not having played" seems to roll off the tonguue more smoothly, I think
  • The film was shelved: because of the shitty performance? Best to make it explicit
Reworded to solve both of these issues Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • biggest and fastest seller to that date: was it surpassed by a later recording?
I'd be surprised if it was - this was pretty much the end of their mainstream recording career. What would you suggest? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
1978–1983[edit]
  • can ever take his place".: Is there a period in the original? Given this is quoted as a full statement, if there's a period in the original, the period should go inside the quote.
Fixed (also the quotation spans over two pages) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • at the Cannes Film Festival in France, in Scotland, at Wembley Stadium in London, in West Germany, at the Capitol Theater in Passaic, New Jersey, and in five dates at Madison Square Garden in New York City.: this reads unnaturally, as it alternates between <specific place> in <country>, and just <country>.
  • unassigned, or festival seating: "unnassigned, or festival, seating"? Otherwise it reads as "festival seating" vs "unassigned"—unassigned what?
"unassigned" in this case means nobody gets a ticket for a specific location; however the rest of the sentence describes what festival seating is anyway, so it's irrelevant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • on MTV on its first day of airing: on the video's first day of airing?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • realising his role as a visionary: I think "realizing" is one of those words to avoid
Had a go at rewording this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing.: is this supposed to imply Townshend was pining for Moon's playing?
  • There was resentment, too: resentment from the rest of the band? This is an unannounced shift from the Townshend perspective
It was specifically Daltrey and Entwistle. Jones had generally nothing to do with arguments and stayed out of them. I've added a quotation from Entwistle to enforce this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "farewell" tour of the US and Canada: why the scare quotes? And why not Britain?
Because history has shown us it wasn't a farewell. Indeed, later in the article, there is a reference to a newspaper article mentioning this in the light of their current farewell tour. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ending in Toronto on 17 December: whoo, T'ranna!
  • paid for himself and Jones to be released: do we know how much he paid?
Not yet, but I'll look for a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • as White City: A Novel : this is an album, and not an actual novel? Might want to make it clear
Reworded to solo albums (as they all were) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: What did you want me to do?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Like everyone else, suggest anything and everything that would make the article fail an FA review. Bad prose, missing facts, dodgy formatting, content that could be misunderstood - anything, really. I've been out all weekend so I'll deal with comments in the week to come. I would like to get a brown star but the man hours it seems to require always seem to be prohibitive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry I haven't come back—I'll try to find the time. I noticed this, though—I didn't revert because I wasn't sure, but "they didn't do anything in 1998" isn't the same thing as them having broken up again, is it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not the same. I don't have a reliable source saying that they had actually split up in 1998 - there's just no reference to them doing anything. It's exactly the same situation as the first half of 1977 - they hadn't split up, but they did no work and they were on a rest. Because the surviving members of the band were in their 50s by this point, a year off before deciding to come back with a great tour is nothing unusual. So yes, it's unsourced original research, unsuitable for an FA => revert.
I'll be forever kicking myself about the 1999 tour. I'd seen reviews and coverage of the "Who On Ice" '89 tour, and reviews of the 96-97 "Quadrophenia" tour, but remember thinking they would never do anything like the classic 4-piece hard rock version of Tommy from 69/70 ever again. So when a friend said "do you want to see the Who at Shepherd's Bush" I declined saying, "They're no good without Moon and they're past it." Then I saw footage of the band, and was amazed that a band in their mid-50s could be that good and emulate previous success. Then Entwistle died. So I've never seen the Who live. Ho hum. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Reunions[edit]
Okay, this is where things get a little more difficult as my book sources of choice (Dave Marsh and Neill / Kent) run out, so I will have to be a little more creative in sourcing additional material... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there something about Townsend stabbing his arm with a whammy bar in the early eighties, that led to him toning down his performances?
That was the '89 tour. Sources here and here, but I don't think either give us sufficient information that an FA requires. Was the concert in Washington, Washington or perhaps Washington? The Who Tour 1989 says it was DC, but it (like most of the Who tour articles) were written by somebody who thinks factual accuracy and reliable sources are things that other people fuss over. >:-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • at Bob Geldof's Live Aid concert: having two links back-to-back like this makes it look like this is "Bob Geldof's Live Aid". But at this scope, is it even worthwhile to mention Geldof?
No, just Live Aid will do. I think the event is well known enough on its own merits to not warrant that level of detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
1989 tour[edit]
  • to preserve his hearing: it looks like you mention Townsend's tinnitus late in the article, but it should've been mentioned by this point—the reader at this point has no idea that Townsend's hearing was already severly damanged, so the wording seems to indicate he was just turning into an old fart. Do we know the year he was diagnosed with tinnitus? It's probably worth mentioning earlier in the article the Who's reputation for being loud to give this proper context.
  • some critics slated the over-produced: is this an ENGVAR thing? Doesn't "slated" mean "schedule for"?
"Slated" means "Strongly criticised" or "Panned". I've toned this down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine: does Erlewine belong to the AllMusic staff, or was he just writing for AllMusic?
According to his own article, that's what he's primarily notable for. AllMusic have published print works such as The All Music Guide to Rock, which is one reason we generally accept them as a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Re-formation[edit]
  • see the band back on form: I wasn't sure if this was a typo—is it BrEng to say "back on form" rather than "back in form"?
It is eg: "I've had the flu the past week but I'm back on form to start work this morning". However, since it empirically causes confusion, I've reworded it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oasis' Noel Gallagher: when you say this out loud, do you say Oasis' or Oasis's? If the latter, then that's how it should be spelled
According to MOS:POSS, there are a number of options, but consistency is the most important. Elsewhere in the article I can see "Middlesex Schools' Symphony Orchestra", "Kenny Jones'", "The Stooges' Ron Asheton Remembered" (in a source). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Stephen Tomas Erlewine described the Albert Hall gig as "an exceptional reunion concert".: a pretty blah comment. Is it really worth quoting?
I think so, because the gig was commercially released on CD and DVD, and it's the only fair way to give a positive appraisal of it without being POV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • at the [[World Trade Center]] on [[September 11 Attacks|11 September 2001]]: I know it sounds silly, but you should probably be explicit about what happened on 11 September
September 11 Attacks is a vital article and fodder for POV pushers and conspiracy theorists. I don't mind linking to September 11 Attacks in full, and explaining what the rescue services were doing (that led to the charity gig) but anything more than that could be borrowing trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the paragraph about Entwistle's death could be moved to the next section? It flows more logically with the first paragraph of that section.
I'm not so sure. The "peak" years ended with Moon's death, and for consistency it would make sense for Entwistle to follow suit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • tapes via themusic.com: worth a redlink? And are all the recordings tapes? I'd imagine more recent ones might be digital?
I've gone with "recordings", it's generally a better term. As for themusic.com, show me any coverage in reliable sources, otherwise what's the point of the redlink? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • with Palladino and Greg Lake, respectively, on bass: respectively of what? We're only given one instrument
Palladino played bass on "Old Red Wine" while Lake played bass on "Real Good Looking Boy" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • was released on 30 October 2006 (31 October in the US): I'd drop the US date at this scope
I don't remember that being there - removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • some songs of which may appear on a future Who album: is this still likely, now that they've announced their breakup?
Since the paragraph isn't actually anything per se to do with the Who, I've removed it. The paragraph that started "since Endless wire" was obviously once the original end of the article, and it shows. I've attempted to trim it down a bit to deal with specific gigs immediately following Endless Wire. Need to come back to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Quadrophenia and More[edit]
  • He is experimenting with a new: recentism
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The in-ear monitoring system was scheduled to be tested out at the Quadrophenia concert at the Royal Albert Hall on 30 March.: this is obviously dated
Removed, this doesn't need to be here anymore Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Who hoped to tour again in 2011, with "a new show," according to Daltrey, or possibly a retooled stage presentation of Quadrophenia ... The tour was officially announced in July 2012,: this has the feeling of being accrued sentence-by-sentence as events unfolded. It should be tightened up—for instance, there's no need to mention that they announced that they hoped to tour, and then actually toured. Just that they toured.
I've chopped this down. Anything saying the Who "may do this" or "may do that" should be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Will come back to this but I think we can probably trim the 2001 onwards down even more. It's obvious that people have just added bits and bobs in Wikipedia's lifetime and although I've arrested the decline somewhat, stuff that is reliably sourced has stayed in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Future plans[edit]
  • I'm not a big fan of a whole section called "Future plans", as it will obviously date quickly.
I've gone with "The Who Hits 50" as that is now what sources are calling it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • However, some journalists were suspicious of this being a genuine "final" tour, with the Daily Mirror's Johnny Sharp pointing out that the Who previously quit touring, supposedly for good, in 1982.: is this speculation really encyclopaedia-worthy?
I think I added this at the time it was announced, but better sources have appeared for this since. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In April 2014, Townshend confirmed that the band was considering working on a new album, stating that, "I'm trying to [look] through my 20,000 hours of complete and utter disorganized music [to find possible songs]," adding, "I'll be pulling some songs out of [his long-gestating project] 'Floss' to give to Roger to see if we've got enough to make an album. It might be a big waste of time, but I'm hoping there will be an album.": is this really worthy of extensive quoting?
No. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Jones reunited with ...: is this event really of such import that it deserves three sentences? If it had happened in 1984 instead of 2014, would it even have been mentioned?
I've trimmed it down to one sentence.
  • Overall, I think this whole section should be rethought—it needs tightening at the very least, and a lot of the information I think might be UNDUE or recentisms.
It's better than it was - see here - but yes, I'll need to take the scissors to this lot. One of the key problems is this is a very popular article and IPs and new editors turn up and add new stuff all the time. I think some of it has been edit warred over too. Rather than taking a draconian hand and reverting stuff on sight with a manner of ("Get orf moi article"), I've tried to find sources where possible and integrate it in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been a week since any comments - any more for any more? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • I don't know if I can give this the attention it deserves, but I will at least try and do an image pre-review and leave a few quick comments. Image review tomorrow, quick comments today:
  • The section #Awards and accolades is so short relative to the rest of the sections as to be invisible. The main awards article has a bit more detail; maybe at least have two paragraphs in the band article?
To recap events, originally the awards article was in here, and I split it before the GA review. I cut it down to one paragraph recently pending expansion, then S10787091 (talk · contribs) took an interest in it, though he seems to be new to Wikipedia and was having trouble sourcing. In any case, I've invited him in here to comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • FN 169 (Neil & Kent 2009, p. 369.) is broken. You forgot an L in Neill — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Fixed (is there an easy way of checking for this?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You want User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 15:52 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Greythorn Park[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get an idea of what specifically could be improved in this article, especially given its recent creation. Thanks, Takerlamar (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 September 2014, 05:25 UTC)----


Hadsund[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because. I want to get the parts of the article translated from the Danish Wikipedia da:Hadsund

My wish is (section name from the Danish Wikipedia)

Introduction

  • Navn
  • Indtil 1700
  • 1700-1854
  • 1854-1910
  • 1910-1970
  • 1970-1985 Industribyen
  • Historiske indbyggertal
  • Geografi
    • Hadsund Centrum
  • Uddannelse
  • Erhverv
    • Største arbejdspladser
    • Største private virksomheder


Hope someone will assist. Thanks, Søren1997 (talk // contributions) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 September 2014, 17:03 UTC)----


History[edit]

John Appleton[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article, and I wish to bring it to good article status. My fiancee is from Bolivia, and me being from America, I became interested in US-Bolivian relations. I figured I would start with the first US Ambassador to Bolivia. Turns out this guy was pretty active and influential in his lifetime.

Thanks, —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 September 2014, 05:38 UTC)----


Prince of Wales (ship)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in what it might need to get to GA. Any and all opinions gratefully received. Euryalus (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 September 2014, 04:56 UTC)----


Astrid (brig)[edit]

This article has been assembled over the course of the last year. I believe that it is now the most complete summary of the history of the ship that is currently available. I would like to nominate the article for FA status soon, but before I do so I would like to ask for input about a) whether the article makes sense as it is currently written, b) whether anyone can track down any additional information that isn't currently included in the article; and c) whether anyone has any other comments/feedback on the article.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Euryalus[edit]

My first ever peer review, so apologies for any technical errors. The article is certainly a detailed summary of the vessel, and flows in a logical order. Some minor points:

Lead

  • The meaning of W.U.T.A is spelt out in the article body but might be better explained in the lead.
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Per MOS, is it possible to slightly declutter the lead by transferring citations for uncontroversial points into the body of the article instead?
    • Yes check.svg Done (Actually, as the references and info were all used in the article already, I've simply removed the extra cites from the lead.)

Structure

  • "Astrid was the smallest tall ship in the Dutch Fleet" - this isn't mentioned in the attached reference (ref 15)
    • Yes check.svg Done It is in the reference, but the URL for the reference had changed - I've updated it.

History

  • The second paragraph on W.U.T.A tonnage, dimensions and engine might fit better in "Structure", especialy as neither the W.U.T.A nor the Astid specs are current (the vessel having been destroyed)
    • Yes check.svg Done I've moved part of the second paragraph into the structure section, and the rest into the first paragraph in the history section.
  • Is there any record of who the new owners were in 1975?
    • Doing...
  • "Alleged to have fallen into the hands of drugs smuggler" - alleged by who? Are there any statements by Customs or similar, upon which the SkyNews story might be based?
    • Doing...
  • Is there any more information on the 1984 recovery and repair work? Some details of what was required to restore her would be great, though possibly hard to find.
    • Doing... For these three points, I'll try to do some more digging for additional refs, although I suspect that if they exist then they'll be tricky to find.

Sinking and salvage

  • "The salvage company ... have been appointed..." - is the syntax incorrect here? Perhaps better as "were appointed"
    • Yes check.svg Done That text is a bit dated; it was written as the events unfurled, but past tense is definitely better now.
  • "initial plans" for salvage suggests the actual plans were changed, but the article implies they occurred as proposed. Is there another way to word this, or can the word "initial" simply be removed?
    • Yes check.svg Done the word "initial" isn't needed, so I've removed it.

I might have a few more shortly. Hope the above is helpful, and overall an interesting article. Euryalus (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your useful comments, and for reading through the article. :-) I've done most of them; I'll do some digging for extra refs to address the others soon. Any additional comments you have would be most appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 14 September 2014, 23:20 UTC)----


Henry Fownes Luttrell[edit]

I have put this up for peer review because I am hoping to take it to GA standard and I would like feedback about improving the article.

Many thanks, Noswall59 (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Rod This is an interesting article. A few comments:

  • The lead seems to have quite a lot of detail, particularly about his parliamentary career, some of which could be moved to the section "Member of Parliament", with more of a summary left in the lead.
    • I've had a go at shortening the intro and making it more of a summary... let me know if it needs any more tweaks.
  • I would be interested in more on his development of Dunster Castle (including early use of wallpaper!) and construction of Conygar Tower.
    • I've also done some research on the contributions he made to Dunster Castle and the grounds; I can see that you have done a lot of work on Dunster Castle's article, so perhaps you could let me know if I've addressed the matter properly, and if I've omitted anything. I don't have the Garnett book to hand and so I've used your citations to support three of my points (about the park, the Rococo style and the wallpaper).
  • If you want to go to GA it is often suggested that bulletted lists (eg the family) are turned into prose.
    • I have turned most of it into prose - a lot of their children died as infants or when young, so I've put that into prose form; the four who were individually more notable I've left as a list, because I think it makes it easier, but I could tweak it if it's still not up to standard.
  • Is there a picture of him (eg this or this of the man and his wife which presumably would be out of copyright by now), if not you could include a picture of the castle or similar.
    • I've added the images myself.— Rod talk 20:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I Thanks for the photos - I am never sure whether we can use digital copies of old paintings

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 19:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rodw: Thanks for the review Rod - very helpful and much appreciated. I've commented above, regards, -Noswall59 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 September 2014, 10:35 UTC)----


Margaret Bondfield[edit]


Miss Margaret Bondfied was a formidable woman who rose from impoverished beginnings to become one of the leading figures in the British Labour and womens' rights movements in the first half of the 20th century. First woman to chair the TUC (1923); first woman appointed to ministerial office (1924); first woman cabinet minister (1929); first woman privy counsellor (1929). Unfortunately, her performance in cabinet office as Minister of Labour (1929–31) alienated many of her natural supporters and she has been somwhat denigrated, if not ignored, by modern Labour historians (e.g. no biography since 1924 when her career was barely under way). Robert Skidelsky ungallantly drew attention to her "long black skirts and a voice that emitted a harsh cascade of sound". Well, here she is, make of her what you will. All comments most welcome; I shall be away for a week from Saturday (14th), so I won't be able to deal with them all immediately, but it would be good to have some idea of the reaction before I go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This is a very thorough, well-researched and detailed article about someone who appears more deserving of record than she has been given. I will say that I am not an expert on this period (though I am fairly familiar with it), and I am new to reviewing, but I do have a few comments (which are by no means exhaustive):

  • I notice that you refer to her as Margaret in some cases; the Manual of Style prefers the use of surnames only (see WP:SURNAME).
  • I think first names are OK when dealing with the young childhood of the subject, but you and Tim are right – by the time her career begins she should be "Bondfield", and now is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "This was not her vocation in life..." - this seems to imply that she was destined for other things - you might want to consider re-wording it.
  • In the third paragraph of the "Union official" subsection, you state that two thirds of the 750,000 shop-keepers were living-in; it doesn't seem clear to me whether this is taken from the Cox and Hobley work referenced later in the paragraph.
  • Everything in the sentence beginning "In 1907 the first steps..." is cited to Cox and Hobley, pp. 108–09. To make this clearer, I have divided the citation between p. 108 and p. 109. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Near-apostasy" has religious undertones... possibly a tad dramatic.
  • No, the word can be used equally to describe changes of political as well as religious principles: OED and OD of E confirm this. There is no more appropriate word, in my view. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-Noswall59 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this review and for your helpful suggestions, on which I have acted as above. I hope we shall hear more from you in future. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
New to reviewing? Aha! Welcome, Noswall, and I hope this will be the first of many reviews you do. Tim riley talk 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley

As you'd like a few comments before you leg it to Sweden here is my first batch. I preface them by remarking that for all your concern about lack of good book sources you have built up a thorough and balanced article from the sources you found. It is a good read, and I rather took to Miss B. Be that as it may, for the moment:

  • Childhood and family
    • "school's Boys' department" – capital wanted?
    • Just following the source – but no, not necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • "not her vocation in life" – I think "vocation" is fine, but I'd lose "in life" for crispness
    • I've reworded this per earlier review comment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Shopgirl
    • Agree with Noswall, above, that it's not clear why she's still being called by her Christian name in the first para. No family members competing here for use of the surname.
    • "As a shopworker…" – I found myself wanting to cheer as I read this para. Terrific stuff!
  • Union official
    • "In 1898 Bondfield accepted the job of assistant secretary" – Was she sounded out under the Old Pals Act, or did she apply more formally?
    • The job was created for her; the union raised a fund to pay her salary. I will add a footnote to this effect. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Women's Labour League
    • "through their mutual work" – you'll get some pedantic twerp at FA insisting that mutual requires a reciprocity not applicable here.
  • Women's Labour League
    • "of either gender" – I think I'd prefer sex
    • Your wish has been granted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • National prominence
    • "chair of the Standing Joint Committee" – this, and other uses, earlier and later, of the modern gender-neutral term "chair" worry me in the historical context of this article. I mean, she didn't go round calling herself "Chair of the Standing Joint Committee", did she? If her title was Chairwoman or Chairman I think you should use it, or alternatively dodge the question by turning the word into a verb and having her "chairing the SJC". I see, for instance, that The Times (27 Sept 1923, p. 12) called her "chairman of the General Council".
    • Yes, you're right; all contemporary sources, including MB herself, refer to her as "chairman" of this and that, not as "chair" or "chairwoman". I've adopted "chairman" a couple of times, and otherwise fudged the issue in various ways. I think it's OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • "the first women to assume the chair" – sounds like divine intervention: perhaps "to be elected to" or some such?
    • Got to be careful. She "assumed" the chair in accordance with that well-established trade union procedure known as "Buggins' turn". She was simply the longest-serving memmber of the council not to have served as chairman – no question of election. Hence my cautious choice of words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's my lot for now. More anon. Bon voyage, if you go before I send my second batch. – Tim riley talk 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Second and last lot from me
  • Late career
    • "suspecting her near-apostasy" – I'm not clear what this refers to. Does it mean her conduct in office or that they believed she had considered joining Macdonald in the National Government? If the latter, should it read "suspecting her of near-apostasy"?
    • Yes, it should, but... "apostasy" is a word that should be rationed to one use per article, and as I am using it in the Appraisal to describe MacDonald's actions, I have reworded this earlier use. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Last years, retirement and death
    • "Aside from her autobiography" – I've always thought of "aside from" as an American idiom, with "apart from" the British equivalent

That's all I can find. I think you've done an admirable figure full justice, and I look forward to supporting at FAC. Tim riley talk 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Tim, for these comments, as always to the point. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Comment from Rod This is an interesting read. I only became aware of the article because of the Somerset connection and have learned a lot from reading it. It may be useful to get further contemporary sources. A quick search (which may not be available without subscription) of the British Newspaper Archive finds hundreds of relevant articles which may be different to the Proquest ones identified. If you don't have access apply at Wikipedia:BNA.

Thanks. I have added my name to the BNA list, although I expect there will be a lengthy wait – however, this may well be a useful source for future articles. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A few specifics:

  • Childhood and family
    • I think the quote "We could not think religion and not think of the needs of the poor" needs to be explained - it isn't clear how it fits with the sentence before or after.
    • I've got rid of the quote, which I think was part of an earlier draft and should have been edited out. The other material relating to her religious beliefs and Congregationalism has been transferred to the Appraisal section, where it more fittingly belongs. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful. I have added the suggested links and corrected the spelling of Cicely. I have also brought the full name People's Suffrage Federation so that PSF makes sense. Thank you for your review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Most interesting figure about whom I at most ran by the name. First part of two

Lede
  • "Since her death in 1953, despite her years of service" I would have a sentence in which her death is mentioned, then start fresh with the things that have not happened to her since.
  • I'm not sure I understand the point, but I have slightly reworded.
Shopgirl
  • "She found some relief from these stresses " I'm not sure I like the way this is placed, as the immediately prior phrase deals with natural and unnatural vices, as they were then termed.
  • Again, I've made a slight rewording – am open to further suggestions if I am not meeting your objection.
Union official
  • "At the time the union's membership, at under 3,000, represented only a small fraction of shopworkers, and Bondfield gave priority to expanding this total." While it is not entirely ambiguous, there's a mathematical heedlessness about this. I imagine "this total" refers to the 3,000 (clearly she would have been gratified at increases in either figure) but clarification might be helpful in avoiding pedants like me
  • "with mixed outcomes in the face of apathy from shop staff, and outright opposition from shopowners." That doesn't sound like a mixed outcome, it sounds entirely negative. The help did not care and the owners did, very much so. Sounds fairly grim to me. Her thoughts on Gloucester don't really help much either.
  • The apathy and the opposition she faced from staff and employers were not the outcomes; that was the background to her activities. The outcomes were lack of success in Reading and Bristol, a good reception in Gloucester – I think that qualifies as a "mixed" outcome. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "which made partial provision" Perhaps "some provision" or "some attempt"
  • With all these descriptions of legislation and so forth, it might be worth mentioning the various PMs and general elections that had an effect on the era. For those unfamiliar with the rise and fall of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and his merry men.
  • I fear such detail might complicate the issue unnecessarily, without adding anything essential. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "talked-out" this may confuse American readers.
  • I have found an appropriate explanatory link. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It may well be worth expanding on the reasons she opposed a "same terms as men" bill. Was it provisions that excluded those who did not own or pay rent for land?
  • I have extended a wording a little, to clarify that the vote was available to men subject to a property qualification; the WSPU were fighting for votes for women on that basis, not for universal adult suffrage, which would include the propertyless working classes and which was Bondfield's objective. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I hesitantly suggest a break in the final paragraph, perhaps preceding "In 1906" with minor textual adjustments.
  • I've looked at this, but I see the paragraph as a single entity; splitting it would not I think be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WLL
  • " lecturing on the suffrage" perhaps this could be spelled out more clearly.
  • "Her investigation on behalf of the Women's Industrial Council (WIC) into the working conditions of married women" you introduced this organisation in 1896.
  • "of work practices for married women" perhaps also greater clarity here.
Looking forward to the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Campaigns
  • "Labour Organizations," I'm struck by the use of US and Commonwealth spelling)
  • Yes, I think that the current BritEng preference for "organisation" is relatively recent – although the "z" version is still acceptable. I have used the spelling which the "organization" itself used to describe itself. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bondfield revealed that in one factory women were being paid two-and-a-half pence an hour to make hand grenades (roughly 1p per hour in post-decimal coinage)." Granted, but what were the soldiers being paid? The "King's Shilling"? Or for that matter, male workers? I don't think currencies travel very well over a century.
  • Well, the "King's Shilling" was in addition to food, clothing, accommodation etc, so the comparison with other wage rates is problematic. The main port I was trying to make here, not very well, was the low rates of pay (compared with men) that women received, even for the same work. I have revised the text, and added a footnote with some specific pay rate comparisons. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "the composition of the next government" wordy, perhaps "who would form the next government"
  • Doesn't actually save on words, but I tried it – didn't think it read well. I've changed "composition" to "make-up". Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "the resignation of" I'm vaguely unhappy with this, as he would not have technically resigned but gone through the usual dodge.
  • Yes, but details of the parliamentary mechanism whereby MPs resign is of no importance here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Minister
  • Did she do anything to reverse the policies of the previous Minister for Labour? He's an easy target.
  • As explained, she piloted a bill which modified the previous government's restrictions on entitlement to unemployment benefit (though she didn't do this in a manner that greatly pleased the TUC). Beyond that, she was basically swamped by the financial crisis that overtook her government, and rather ended up pleasing nobody. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Late career
  • "re-embrace her and she was not re-elected" too much re-re.
Appraisal
  • "2011 a plaquein" obvious typo but I'm doing this offline.--~~``

Thank you for the review. I have done the minor fixes, supplied commentary where necessary on the other points. Most grateful for your suggestions, even when not fully adopted – it's always good to have food for further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi Brian, I'm enjoying reading this. A few comments:

  • Minor issue: Brighton is linked in the lead, but London isn't. I would link both or neither. Brighton is linked again in the "Childhood and family" section. In the "Last years, retirement and death" section, Lancashire is linked, but not Surrey.
  • World cities like London, New York, Paris etc are not normally linked in WP articles, but smaller towns like Brighton are. I tend to link the first mentions of such places in the main text, notwithstanding the lead link; this I think is accepted practice. I have added a link for Surrey. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Infobox: is Sanderstead in Surrey?
  • It certainly was in 1953, when MB died there. In 1964, in a vandalistic piece of municipal rejigging, it was absorbed into the entirely bogus "London Borough of Croydon" – but that post-dates our story. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This quote switches from she to I: She "had no vocation for wifehood or motherhood ... I had the dear love of friends". Also, according to Google Books it's "the dear love of comrades," in quotation marks (from Walt Whitman – interpreted as an allusion to same-sex relationships; see Stanley 1995, p. 223).
  • The word "she" does not form part of the quote. You are of course right about "comrades" – my carelessness, I'm afraid. I have added a footnote that gives the Whitman source of the quotation. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The way the article expresses her dispute with the suffragists – she was an "adultist" – might suggest that we're on her side: the "agenda pursued by the militant suffragists" and "divided her from the militant leadership."
  • I have read my wording carefully, and I can't honestly see that it is biased. I have made a small adjustment in the main text, replacing "their feminist agenda" with "their more limited aims". Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Images: perhaps consider increasing the size? The cartoon in the "union official" section, for example, looks better at 300px.
  • Well, yes, images tend to be clearer when they are larger, but I understand thyat the practice of upsizing without specific cause (e.g.to enable a map or diagram to be read) is somewhat frowned on, so I am reluctant to act on this sugestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: Through these activities Bondfield experienced the lives of the poorest of families, writing: "Oh! the lonely lives of these women, hidden away at the back of a network of small, mean streets!". No need for the full stop.
  • We should say who is being quoted: In an outburst of local celebration her supporters, "nearly crazy with joy", paraded her around the town in a charabanc.
  • I wonder about this: "Cox and Hobley draw attention to Thatcher's early life as a shopkeeper's daughter, and contrast her account with Bondfield's experiences half a century earlier. Thatcher believed that the concept of service to the customer was absolute; she would have had no sympathy for Bondfield's campaigns to better shopworkers' conditions." Thatcher's father owned a shop, so she was in a very different position, and it's a stretch to imply that Thatcher would have supported the working conditions that Bondfield saw.
  • I have amended the text to clarify that it is Cox & Hobley's assertion that Thatcher would not have sympathised with Bondfield's activities on behalf of shop employees. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll continue reading and will try to post more. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Should we use "shopgirl" in Wikipedia's voice? Most of the shopworkers were women, not girls; Bondfield worked as one until her mid-20s. I see the BBC places it in scare quotes (here) in an article about her based on the book. I have a similar concern about "a dreary, comfortless girls' dormitory": was it for girls, or was it a women's dorm?
  • I've replaced "girls' dormitory" with "women's dormitory". As to "shopgirls", the BBC named their 2014 documentary "Shopgirls", Cox and Hobley's book followed suit, and Lise Sanders's 2006 book is called Consuming Fantasies: Labor, Leisure and the London Shopgirl; so the word is evidently acceptable in some academic circles at least. However, it is not a usage that I particularly want to defend, so I have altered the three instances of it in this article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the section "Shopgirl": "Margaret's later recollections of this period": change to Bondfield's.
SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for these comments. Any more you have wll be equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 September 2014, 16:45 UTC)----


William H. Seward[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC in due course and would be grateful for comments.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I've done the first one. You might want to take a look at the licensing, I'm not certain on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. I think we should put the uncropped Brady in as well - a major photographer is always worth including. I'd also consider the salt-paper print, particularly as "Each item includes subject's original signature in ink." - meaning that gives us Seward's signature as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is the uncropped Brady? We have the signature in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
File:William_Seward,_Secretary_of_State,_bw_photo_portrait_circa_1860-1865.jpg is almost the uncropped Brady. I suspect we'd be best off recropping from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.04948/ (By the way, just a suspicion, but I think this may have originally been intended to be oval-mounted given the composition; don't think we should try and fake that, though.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
So uncropped or recropped?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd crop the junk around the edge, you know, the frame and the big white thing that has no detail under it, but keep as much of the photo proper as exists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
How's File:Seward by Brady.tif?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Henry Inman painting of Seward; companion to the Frances Seward image. Presumably also 1844
I've lost one of them. The one you mention is from 1859, in his second term. I've included it. He really aged in those few years ...--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:WSeward.png - this is a copyvio: PD-Art only applies to two-dimensional works, so the frame must be cropped. (I think we're safe enough on the Inman images as the frame there is flat with no detail.)
I know. I've been meaning to crop it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For the Emancipation Proclamation painting, it might be worth considering this engraving based on the painting: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.02502/ instead of a rather bad reproduction of the original. But one could argue either way.
That's actually rather interesting. It's a point I omitted in the article, but it's not the engraving being based on the painting, it is the painting being based on the engraving. And they are not the same. Look at them both carefully. Lincoln is much more the center of attention in the painting, and the pen has been transported from an inkwell by Seward's hand, to Lincoln's own hand. The engraving was published first, and Lincoln's friends objected to he and Seward being portrayed as co-equals, basically, so when it went up on the wall of the Capitol, Lincoln became very much first among unequals. I may hijack them both for the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you upload the tif? My browser keeps giving me an error when I try to do anything with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll sort it out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
While that shows Seward, and Lincoln for that matter, it would take too much explaining for a caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? What about "In an allegory for the Fugitive Slave Act, John A. Logan, c. 1859, stops Seward, Lincoln and Charles Sumner from interfering with escaped slaves being returned to their masters. Puck, 1864." - I'd imagine it'd take a little research to get the wording precisely correct, but I don't think it's impossible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll play with it. Good idea. I'll work on the images later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you also upload that? I'm getting the sam error from Safari.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Doing restorations before uploading. Might take a little bit. About a third through the first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Opening batch. I will do as much as I can before my disappearance (temporary) after Saturday 13th

  • The lead is seems a model of its kind: short, succinct and informative
Early life
  • "Seward did well, becoming a star student, elected to Phi Beta Kappa." Two points here. First, the syntax is wrong without "and was" before elected. Secondly, "did well, becoming a star student" could easily be condensed, e.g. "Seward was a star student"
I gather Dank took a swing at it and I've tweaked it as well.
  • "short on cash" → "short of cash" – though perhaps the former is normal AmEng usage
It is.here.
  • offered a job in developing Putnam County" – it's not clear whether "developing" is being used as a verb (i.e. the job was to help develop Putnam County) or an an adjective describing the natute of the County. I suspect the latter, but maybe a rephrase would make this clear.
  • "treated with hospitality" doesn't sound quite right, maybe "received hospitably" or some such formulation
Both done.
Early career... etc
  • "they shared a belief that government policies should favor development". Can this be more precise – economic developmnt? territorial development, etc?
Done.
  • Some tense confusion in the second para. A couple of "would becomes" follwed by a "were", all describing future events. In my view the final sentence is a rather premature summary of the Seward-Weed relationship and could be left out here.
I gave the latter point a lot of thought, and Seward's entire life revolved around his defeat by Lincoln. When something happens which foreshadows that moment, I want to point it out. That moment is a crucial one in American history.
  • "once he was elected president" → "after he was elected president"
State senator... etc
  • "including meeting former vice president Aaron Burr, reduced to making a living as a somewhat shady attorney" – again, something missing from thr syntax, e.g. "whom he found", or "who was", before "reduced..." (it may be worth hearing a little more of Mr Burr, some day)
I'll put it on the list, behind Mr. Agnew. My, these vice presidents!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that American English is more liberal when it comes to omitting such words. Still, I'll make the furriners feel at home, eh?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "In preparation for the 1834 election, the Whigs met in Utica to determine a gubernatorial candidate". You should specify "the New York Whigs".
  • "Weed procured Seward's victory at the Utica convention" – "nomination", rather than victory
  • "That year, William and Frances Seward undertook a lengthy trip..." That wording makes them sound like totally different people, particularly as Seward is mentioned in the previous sentence. Why not "he and his wife"?
  • Governor of New York
  • "At the time, New York City's public schools were run by a Protestant group, and used Protestant texts, including the King James Bible. Seward believed the current system was a barrier to literacy..." It is not clear to this reader why "Protestant texts", whatever they may be, or the King James Bible, were "barriers to literacy"
I suppose if Catholic parents declined to allow their children to read them, they would be.
  • "Although the Assembly..." clarify "state Assembly"
I'm not sure there's an ambiguity here.
  • "Seward did not campaign in person, following the custom of the time" – latter clause unnecesary, as this point was made concerning the 1838 election
  • "his name would never again pass before the voters" – a rather orotund way of saying that he never again ran for elective office.
It's phrased to avoid the Senate, where he was elected twice, but his name did not per se pass before the voters.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the events of the final paragraph in this section are really worthy of inclusion? In the general sweep of history, this seems a minor matter, and Seward's part in it seems marginal. And this is a long article...
It foreshadows Seward's firmness in dealing with the British as secretary of state, and tells the reader that he had some experience of foreign affairs beyond traveling in Europe.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

More anon Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Done up to here. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Second batch
Out of office
  • "As governor, Seward incurred considerable debt": suggest "As governor, Seward incurred considerable personal debt"
  • The way this first sentence is presently written, you need to delete the words "not only". Otherwise, the "and" must become "but also"
  • "was charged in the stabbing death of a fellow inmate" – rather imprecise. "...was charged with stabbing to death a fellow inmate" would be unequivocal
  • "In the Freeman case, involving mental illness..." – "which involved"?
  • "Seward supported the winner" – at this point, the "eventual nominee"
  • Mainly to clarify for the benefit of non-US readers, I suggesta slide prose amemdment thus: "...the split in the New York Democratic Party allowed the Whigs to capture the legislature, which until 1913 elected the state's two United States Senators. One of these senatorial seats was due to be be filled by the new legislature".
US Senator: first term
  • "and many Seward adherents appointed to federal office in New York were replaced by Fillmore". There is a hint of ambiguity in this wording which would be solved by a minor rearranged: "and Fillmore replaced many Seward adherents appointed to federal office in New York."
  • I am confused the final sentence: "The bill passed into law, but northerners felt they had found a standard around which they could rally, while those in the South believed they should have an equal stake through slavery in the territories their blood and money had helped secure". The two halves, connected by "while", do not seem concomitant.
Second term
  • "In September 1855, the New York Whig and Republican parties held simultaneous conventions that quickly merged into one." If this describes the birth of the Republican Party, could this point be made a little more directly?
No, that happened the year before, supposedly in Ripon, Wisconsin.--20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "In his speech on March 3..." Perhaps say where this speech was made?
  • "...damaged his chances of gaining the nomination" – maybe "the presidential nomination".
Candidate for the nomination
  • Suggest we combine the first two paras thus: "Seward returned to Washington in January 1860 to find controversy:" The word "that" which follows is unnecessary
  • "which most praised" – most senators, or most generally?
Either.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Convention
  • "prohibititive favourite" will puzzle UK readers; the word is not used in the sense intended here. Why not just "strong", or even "overwhelming"?
Campaigning for Lincoln
  • Are "embarrassed" and "constrained" contemporary descriptions – if so, from whom?
Contemporary reportage, I gather. I doubt it's worth primary sourcing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The words "Even then", in the final paragraph, seem unnecessary.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Done or responded to to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Another batch

(as far as the assassination)

Secession crisis
  • For clarification: "[Seward] had hoped to remain at home until the New Year, but with the deepening crisis left for Washington in time for the new session of Congress in early December." This implies that, but for the secession crisis, he would have skipped the new session of Congress. Is that the case?
Yes, senators often absented themselves for periods of time, especially early in the session. Most votes that I've read have a fair number of non-attendees.
  • "At the time, the leader of the political party that had won the White House was often offered the position of Secretary of State..." – this may well confuse UK readers, who assume that the leader of the party that wins an election takes the top job. Thus it might be better to refer to him as "the senior figure" (or some such) rather than the "leader".
  • "This was down at Lincoln's private request" – do you mean "done"?
  • "There were many such proposals" – from where/whom? Not all from Lincoln, presumably?
  • "...to expand from the states that permitted it". Perhaps "that currently permitted it".
  • "Lincoln travelled" → "traveled" per US spelling?
  • "It is unclear if Seward met him at the station; he may have overslept and met Lincoln at the Willard Hotel" – inessential detail, surely removable?
Secretary of State: Lincoln administration
  • "Although Lincoln did send a notification..." → "Although Lincoln sent a notification..."
  • "...but the British prevented it" – not clear what the British prevented, or how.
  • Link Lord Russell, and add that he was Britain's foreign minister
  • I don't understand the "nevertheless" in the third para of the "Diplomacy" subsection
  • Link Lord Lyons, and say who he was
  • The final paragraph of "Diplomacy" seems to have little to do with diplomacy!
I don't see that. The British were prepared to accept the convenient excuse that the boats were for use in the French' more wild Eastern Colonies.
  • "planned to gather to pass" → "planned to pass" – but how do these plans relate to this section?
  • The quote attributed to Frederick Seward needs closing quote marks. I confess I am unable to understand the relevance of the quote.
The point is the actions Lincoln was prepared to take in violation of normal civil liberties.
  • "One story is that when he was told that to deny Carl Schurz an office would disappoint him..." – there is slight confusion as to whom "he" and "him" refer to.
  • Re "the Lincoln boys", perhaps say "the two younger Lincoln boys" (and didn't William die quite early in Lincoln's first term?)
Yes, in 1862, which allowed Seward plenty of time to know him
  • Presumably, Francis Preston Blair didn't go to Richmond on his own initiative. Was this Lincoln's idea, or Seward's?
Assassination attempt
  • "delivering medicine to the injured secretary" – Seward was injured before the assassination attempt?

That's as far as I can take it before my Swedish trip. If you want to nominate at FAC before I can return to the review, that's fine – I will pick up any aoustanding points there. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

All clarified or responded to. Enjoy your Swedish extravangaza.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm back!

And here are my comments on the final sections:

Johnson administration
  • "repudiation of the Confederate war debt" – what, precisely, did this condition require the southern states to do? ("repudiate" = refusal to accept)
  • How is a presidential veto overridden? Is it a question of time, numbers or both?
  • "Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill, granting citizenship to the freedmen." The comma alters the meaning; it reads as though granting citizen ship was a consequence of Johnson's veto. I suspect the meaning is "Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill which proposed granting citizenship to the freedmen" – am I correct?
  • "Johnson hoped to elect congressmen who agreed with him in the 1866 midterm elections" – what powers did Johnson possess to "elect congressmen"? Surely that was down to the voters? Is it "Johnson campaigned for the election of congressmen who agreed with him..." etc
  • "When Stanton refused..." – It is not clear what Stanton refused, nor why he was suspended and then fired.
  • "When this became an issue in the United States, Seward would use strident language publicly, but be conciliatory privately toward the French." Awkward mixture of tenses - perhaps: "When this became an issue in the United States, Seward used strident language publicly, but was privately conciliatory toward the French."
  • "Although in speeches Seward had predicted all of North America joining the Union, Seward had, as a senator, opposed the Gadsden Purchase, obtaining land from Mexico, and Buchanan's attempts to purchase Cuba from Spain." Second "Seward" should be "he"; comma after "Gadsden Purchase" should be deleted as it alters the meaning.
  • In the last paragraph of the Alaska section there is some unnecessarily muddlesome detail. I see no value in "The Senate was to adjourn that day; Seward hoped the treaty might be ratified, but this was not possible, and he had Johnson summon the Senate into special session to approve it".
1868 election, retirement, and death
  • "Despite Seward's attempts to persuade him, Johnson and his Cabinet spent the morning of March 4, 1869 at the White House..." Something missing after "to persuade him", otherwise the sentence can't be understood.
  • Concerning Brigham Young, it would help if you added "as a carpenter" (or some such) after "who had worked"
  • I don't think the term "May–December romance" is encyclopedic – OK in a romantic novel, but strikes a slightly prurient note here. You may also wish to clarify whether the adoption went through, which is unclear from the present wording.
Legacy and historical view
  • It would be interesting to know when Paolino made his judgment
  • "Seward has been given high marks..." etc. By whom – historians?
  • "Despite being an ardent supporter of American expansionism, only Alaska was added to United States territory during Seward's service as Secretary of State." Does not parse as given; needs "his" after "Despite"
  • "Despite being an ardent supporter of American expansionism..." – well, on and off it seems (see first para of "Territorial expansion and Alaska" section. And, although it makes neat reading, is it really established that Fish, Everts and Hay were acting under the influence of Seward when they accomplished the territorial gains mentioned?
  • "Stahr believed that Seward's influence is still felt today" - "believed" and "today" don't go together. Since Stahr's book was published in 2012, I think it's safe to say "believes"

That concludes my comments on this highly instructive article which covers a lot of interesting US history. Could do with a little careful pruning – but I always say that, don't I? I hope my comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "He was successful in preventing Britain and France from intervening in the conflict, that might have led to the independence of the Confederate States.": Did you mean a semicolon instead of a comma? If not, I can't parse this. Also, I don't think it was in his power to single-handedly "prevent" Britain and France from doing anything; perhaps he successfully lobbied them?
Rephrased.
  • "born in Florida, New York": I'd go with "born in the city of Florida, New York"
  • "small community.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason you can't take this to FAC, judging from the first few sections. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2014, 21:40 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Geiger–Marsden experiment[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten in substantially and it deserves a good look.

Thanks, Kurzon (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 September 2014, 14:05 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

Raven Tales[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because myself and and several other editors have spent the past week working together as part of the Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement improving this article from what had previously been this: |hardly a stub to this. Even though TAFI has moved on, I've continued to fine tune this article and need some constructive criticism to improve it further. Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 September 2014, 00:52 UTC)----


Female genital mutilation[edit]

Previous peer review

I'm listing this for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for FAC at some point. I would love to hear from reviewers with FAC experience as to how far this is from being ready. Please don't be polite! I'd much rather hear about problems at this stage. Particular criticisms would be helpful, as would an overall impression.

I'm pinging some editors who said they might be willing (or who I hope are willing) to read some of it: Victoriaearle, Brianboulton, Zad68, Johnuniq, Jmh649

If you're not able to, don't worry, or if you can, but it will take time, that's fine too. There's no rush, and any feedback at all (even if only about one point or one section) would be much appreciated. Many thanks! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Starting with the trivia, the toolserver links in the toolbox won't work. I ran the "disambig links" tool a month ago and there were no problems. However, if that tool starts working again, it did report one issue due to some technical weirdness that can be seen in this VPT archive (it's a false report which can be ignored). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, John, and thanks too for the link to that discussion. The external links and alt text tools seem to be working, but not the rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I will definitely get to this. I'm very busy for the next couple of days, and I'm off to Sweden on Saturday for a week, but I'll try and make a reasonable start before I go. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Brian, that's very kind of you, thank you. Remember that there's no rush for this, so if you prefer to wait until you're back, that would be fine. I hope you have a lovely time in Sweden! SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll definitely get to it as well but not until later in the week. From the few peeks I've taken, it's looking like it's in good shape. Victoria (tk) 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

First, I think that this is a very important article, and you should be congratulated on the efforts you have made to bring it to its present state. As you know, I first encountered it at a much earlier stage in its development. It did not make easy or pleasant reading then, nor does it now, but that doesn't alter the fact that this is great work. I have very little to say about the content, which is remorselessly clear. My comments on the prose are mainly nitpicks and presentational issues. I have some further points about footnotes and referencing.

Lead
  • "There has been an international effort since the 1970s...": pluralise for consistency later in sentence, thus: "There have been international efforts..." etc
Local terms
  • "Infibulation is known as pharaonic purification in Sudan (tahur faraowniya) – a reference to the Egyptian Pharaohs – but as Sudanese circumcision in Egypt." For the sake of prose consistenct the first part of the sentence needs to be flipped: ""Infibulation is known as tahur faraowniya (pharaonic purification) in Sudan...". I'm not sure you need to emphasis the connection with the pharaohs, which is pretty self-evident, and "Sudanese circumcision" should be in quotes.
  • I've removed the pharaohs, flipped the order, and added quotation marks. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
English
  • "Anthropologist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." and "Austrian-American researcher Fran Hosken" – the normal British English form (except in tabloids) is to precede with the, e.g. "The anthropolgist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." etc. There are other examples in the text.
  • I think I'd prefer to leave that. The article is written in Canadian English (we had to choose something for consistency, and there were at least two editors in Canada working on the page at the time). SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete comma after "influential"
Circumcisers, methods, ages
  • The wording "Medical personnel are usually not involved..." seems contradicted if, in Egypt and others of the main practising countries, 77% of procedures are carried out by medical personnel.
  • It currently says: "Medical personnel are usually not involved, although in some countries, particularly Egypt, Sudan and Kenya, FGM is more likely to be carried out by health professionals."
  • "Given the unusual involvement of physicians in FGM in that country..." Replace "unusual" with "untypically high"?
  • I changed this to "higher-than-usual involvement," but I'll try to think of something better. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Classification
  • It is slightly confusing to have the subheading "WHO Types I and II" followed by a paragraph describing the UNICEF categories. What is the relationship between the UNICEF and WHO categories?
  • I've moved that paragraph into the Overview section, so the "WHO Types I and II" section discusses only those types. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Complications
  • Some of the terms used in the section are incomprehensible to the general reader, and are not determinable from context, e.g. "fistula", "sequelae" ("consequences"?), "neuroma formation", etc
  • I've linked sequelae, fistula and neuroma. That section was written by a gynaecologist, so I'd prefer not to change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Prevelance
  • The layout of the section divorces the columnar table from the text, with substantial intervening white space. It would be a good idea to give the table a specific bolded heading; alternatively, the map showing FGM concentration by colour could be relocated to a less cluttered part of the article.
  • "Nigeria has the highest number of women and girls who have experienced FGM, around one-quarter of the global number.[74] Around one in five cases is in Egypt.[75]" I'm not convinced that the information, put in this way, is necesary, and in the case of Nigeria, it is somewhat misleading. It gives the idea that Nigeria is a hotbed of FGM, but proportionately the number of Nigerian women who have undergone FGM is in the "moderately low" column. It's just that Nigeria has by far the largers population in Africa, so a low proportion still means a high absolute number.
  • I've added the population of Nigeria. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see much purpose in the upper of the two Africa maps. What information is it providing that is not otherwise given? Images and charts are quite numerous in the article.
Reasons - overview
  • Am I understanding correctly – footbinding "controlled sexual access to women" and "enhanced male sexual pleasure"? Seems dubious.
  • That now says: "Mackie compares FGM to footbinding, which was outlawed in China in 1911. Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, nearly universal where practised, and tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics. It was also supported by the women themselves." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry to harp on the theme of image relevance, but what does the Dogon cave painting contribute to the article? The image page itself gives no commentary explaining how the paintings relate to circumcision, and I'm wondering what the pictures are supposed to represent.
Support from women
  • Why have a redlink on "belief trap" when you then explain what it means? (And is a WP articlee on this subject at all likely?)
  • I didn't add that, but I did remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The cost of dissent with FGM is failure to have descendants, because uncut women might not find husbands" – that is a possible cost of dissent, but not absolute; women may not find husbands. I would replace "is failure" with "may be failure"
  • Why the American spelling of "programs" when otherwise British spellings have been used?
  • It's Canadian spelling, which can be program or programme, so I've plumped for the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "which provides a critical mass of support for collective abandonment" – suggest change "which provides" to "aiming to provide" or possibly "thus providing"; the present format is too definitive.
  • Changed to "which provides the critical mass of support needed for collective abandonment." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Antiquity
  • I'm not sure how the hieroglyph relates to the text. What is it representing?
  • This now says: "Historian Mary Knight writes that there may be a reference to an uncircumcised girl ('m't), written in hieroglyphs in what is known as Spell 1117 of the Coffin Texts (translation right, image below):" SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Europe and the United States
  • The insertion "controversially so because of his experimental surgery on slaves" reads as editorial opinion, and needs to be more directly related to a source.
Colonial opposition in Kenya
  • I would modify the second sentence to read: "The practice was known by the Kikuyu, Kenya's main ethnic group, as irua for both girls and boys, and involved excision (Type II) for girls and removal of the foreskin for boys." It might be logical to make the first sentence of the first paragraph the opening sentence of the third Paragraph, as the sentence is somewhat isolated where it is now.
Growth of opposition
  • Nitpick, but compare "In 1975 the American social scientist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." with "In 1979 Austrian-American feminist Fran Hosken..." Also, why give Hosken's dates? You have not generally done so with cited experts.
  • Could we have some comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the legal steps taken to ban or restrict FGM in the 22 out of 27 African countries that had passed laws by 2013? The impression I have from the article is that the practice remains widespread. It is, for example, a little alarming to read that Egypt banned the practice in 2008, yet "The first criminal charges under the new law were laid in 2014."
  • That would be a lot of work, and it's hard to find meaningful figures. France is the only country I can find that is rigorously prosecuting. (It was made illegal in the UK in 1985, but the first charges were brought there in 2014.) UNFPA and UNICEF established a programme in 2007 with the aim of seeing a 40 percent reduction in prevalence by 2013 in a certain number of countries. They're training people in 15 countries in how to enforce the laws. Only seven of the 15 countries reported any enforcement in 2012. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Law in non-practising countries
  • Make it clear that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the later Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, are US laws and only apply there. This could be done simply by merging the final two paragraphs.
  • I've joined those two paragraphs. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Comparison with other procedures
  • "Several commentators argue..." – this formulation often gives rise to [who?], so is maybe best avoided by modest rephrasing.

Aside from prose nitpickings, I have concerns about the nature and extent of the footnotes. In their present form it is quite hard to review these in the normal manner.

  • Why is it necessary, on so many occasions, to include lengthy quotations from the cited sources, especially when the citation incorporates a link to the source? The effect is to swell the article's wikitext to a massive 157kb – yet the wordcount is only 6,800. I know it's sometimes necessary to elaborate a citation, but the present arrangement seems to be seriously excessive.
  • I would like to see the "References" subdivided between books and papers, to get a better handle on the scope of sources.
  • MOS may not specifically require it, but I believe that at featured level, source books information should include publisher location and (where appropriate) ISBN
  • The footnotes were needed because a couple of editors (one in particular) were questioning even the most obvious points. I'll look to see which ones can be safely removed. Regarding the References section, the article now has a Notes section only, with full citation on first reference and a short ref thereafter, which is easier to maintain. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall watch the future progress of this article with great interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian, thank you, this is extremely helpful. I'm about to go offline, but I'll read through your comments carefully tomorrow and start applying some fixes. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to read and review, Brian. It's very much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnuniq[edit]

Support from women
  • Text "Attitudes may have changed somewhat since then" is too weasely. Perhaps replace with facts. Some facts for Sudan from UNICEF 2013 that might be used are:
    • p. 54: 53% of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C think it should stop (have to read number off graph; 53% is confirmed on pdf p. 3).
    • p. 55: 42% of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C think it should continue.
    • p. 77: 49% of women aged 15–49 and who have been cut think it should stop.
    • p. 90, Fig 8.1A: Percentages of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C and think it should continue: 79% (1989–1990), 51% (2006), 48% (2010).
  • I've retained "Attitudes have changed somewhat since then," followed by some figures, so it now says: "According to UNICEF in 2013, 79 percent of women aged 15–49 in Sudan in 1989–1990 said the practice should continue, compared to 48 percent in 2010. Over 50 percent of women in Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gambia and Egypt support FGM's continuance, but elsewhere in Africa, Iraq and Yemen, most say it should end or are unsure." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's good. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Antiquity
  • I have not read much of the relevant source yet, but I think Mackie's explanation regarding how FGM may have become an established practice is very interesting and worth more than the brief and unclear "practice associated with shameful female slavery came to stand for honor." Mackie's views on footbinding are also much more plausible than the brief account which was accurately described as dubious by Brianboulton above.
  • See above for what the footbinding reference now says. Mackie speculates in different ways in several articles. It would be quite a bit of extra work to write it up (it would involve checking earlier texts against the latest version to see how it had developed). If you'd like to put something together, I'd have no objection in principle, but it's not something I want to do myself. Bear in mind how speculative it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that conjectures on the origins of FGM are inherently speculative and I doubt it would be worth polishing them for the article. However, I may get around to studying what Mackie says and offer a suggestion for some brief text. The text currenty in the article is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Europe and the United States
  • Text "father of gynaecology" is unfortunate as "father of" has been much abused for boosterism on Wikipedia. It is sourced in J. Marion Sims and the point is not important, but it stood out for me.
  • Thanks—a bit unfortunate since this is a case where "father of" may be justified, but it's cleaner to remove it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Tolerance versus human rights
  • The main heading is "Criticism of opposition" so sentences should start by criticizing opposition to FGM. Perhaps the following could be reversed so anthropologists make their criticism first: "Anthropologists have been criticized...; they, in turn, accuse...".

Re the extent of the footnotes mentioned by Brianboulton: This topic has been the subject of considerable controversy at Wikipedia, with editors challenging text and wanting to promote certain views. In addition, the material is of significant interest to many readers. Extensive footnotes are extremely helpful for both these situations.

  • I agree that some at least will continue to be helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall, an excellent article built with a staggering amount of effort. I hope to think about what might be done with Mackie's reasoning later. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, thank you for this. I'll start sorting these out with the next round of edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks SV—a sensational effort! Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

I have to echo the comments above: this is a very important article and shows an incredible amount of fortitude. I have very few comments, and some are preferences only.

Lead
  • These two sentences seem quite similar, but one is in the first para and the other in the third. Maybe they can be merged or somehow brought together?

"FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa, in Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in Asia and within immigrant communities around the world.[8]"

"Over 125 million women and girls have experienced FGM in Africa, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan; half of them live in Egypt and Ethiopia.[13]"

  • If the two sentences above are reorganized then maybe also move this phrase: "Typically carried out by a traditional circumciser with a blade or razor, with or without anaesthesia," and put it with the para beginning "The procedures differ"?
  • I'm going to look again at the way this is introduced. It used to say (writing from memory) 27 countries in Africa and to a lesser extent in the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, but then someone objected that it emphasized Africa too much. So I rewrote it to be closer to UNICEF, but now it's repetitive (Iraq and Yemen repeated), so I may revert to what we had before. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Terminology
  • I'm tempted to suggest flipping the sections here so that English goes first, only because it's a more general overview, and then move into the more specific local terms. Also, a few terms are sprinkled throughout - should those go here too?
  • Link infibulation on first occurrence here
  • Both done. The other terms sprinkled throughout the article: now sure what they are. Will look. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Type III
  • "A 2–5 mm-hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood" >> I'd suggest adding the word "single" in front of "2-5 mm hole". Only because I was confused reading the section about the difficulty in obtaining a clean urine samples, and I had to scroll back up. The full extent of the procedure hadn't quite sunk in, I suppose.
  • I think it has to be emphasized here that the vulva closes during healing, to put in perspective the later explanations about how and when the vulva is opened.
Complications
  • I think this sentence is a little long and could do with some tightening (can't think though how to fix it!):
  • It has immediate, short-term and late complications, which depend on several factors: the type of FGM; the conditions in which the procedure took place and whether the practitioner had medical training; whether unsterilized or surgical single-use instruments were used; whether surgical thread was used instead of agave or acacia thorns; the availability of antibiotics; how small a hole was left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood; and whether the procedure was performed more than once (for example, to close an opening regarded as too wide or re-open one too small).[10]

  • I split it in two. This is one of the paragraphs written by the gynaecologist, and I've mostly left them as he wrote them. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Reasons
  • "Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, was nearly universal where practised, and was tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics. It controlled sexual access to women, was said to enhance male sexual pleasure, and was supported by the women themselves.[83]" >> some repetition of "was"
  • Only a suggestion, but think about moving footbinding to the end of the section to keep the emphasis on FGM
  • I couldn't see how to do that. Will look again. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I gave it a try, [3], but I think it breaks the flow into the next section, so I wouldn't bother trying to move it. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Victoria, I think I prefer your way of doing it, so I might revert to you, if that's okay. Your version of the section segues quite nicely into the next one, ending with "It was also supported by the women themselves," and the next section called "Support from women." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Religion
  • Gerry Mackie >> introduce full name on first occurrence
  • I"ve read "Opposition" and "Criticism" and don't have any comments at the moment, but would like to re-read those sections. They are quite interesting.

That's all. Thanks so much for asking me to review! Victoria (tk) 14:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Victoria, I really appreciate these reviews. I'm in the process of psyching myself up for another round of fixes. Once I get started, I'll come back here to report what's being done. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I've read through the other sections and don't see anything else to comment about. Thanks for the replies, and, more than anything, thanks for doing the work on this page. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 6 September 2014, 02:25 UTC)----


Nanjing[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review becausee I've been working on this article constantly, and I need some suggestion to improve this article to a good article. Thanks, Lzy881114 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 5 September 2014, 21:25 UTC)----


Liberty in North Korea[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in this organization and I have recently made a significant number of changes to the article to update it and clean up several grammatical and reference issues. In particular, I want to make sure that the article's content is solid and that it is organized well, that it is cited correctly, and that it is presented in a neutral manner.

Thanks, Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 21:06 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

Robert Downey, Jr. filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a good representation of Downey's filmography with good referencing.

Thank you! LADY LOTUSTALK 13:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Looks pretty good so far.....

Lead
  • Seems a bit repetitive with the use of "In *year*, he starred"..... switch it up and use "Downey" for some instances, i.e. try things like "Downey was cast as Tony Stark / Iron Man in the 2008 Marvel Studios film Iron Man".  Done I like that better, thank you :)
Film
  • It really isn't needed to say "credited as Robert Downey" when really that's his name (suffix not withstanding)
  • I would say to include his role for "Deadwait", but can't seem to find anything on it myself
  • Include any major awards/nominations his roles received within "notes", such as Golden Globes
    • There is his separate awards page for that though...? LADY LOTUSTALK 20:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I originally thought it could be useful since the awards had been mentioned in the lead, but now feel it's fine to just mention in lead which roles won him what nominations/awards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
See also
  • This section doesn't really belong, and neither does the link to his awards/nominations
    • Is there any reason why? I figured it would since it's a separate page from his main one, it's the point of a lot of editors on why they wanted the templates for the boxes deleted that had the main page, awards and filmography was because there was a See Also section for it.
      • It is indeed a separate page, but I haven't seen any FL filmographies use it Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
References
External links
  • (Just a thought) it might be helpful to have Downey's website and perhaps his Rotten Tomatoes profile as EL's
    • Does Downey have an official website that I'm just not finding? lol, I'll get his Rotten after LADY LOTUSTALK 20:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Rotten Tomatoes was easy to get :P, but from what I could find, it looks like the only websites on him are fansites Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely on its way to becoming FL :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob[edit]

Mainly ref check from me.

  • IMDb says he was on 25 episodes of Ally McBeal and include time he was on the show as 2000-02  Done
  • Mussolini: The Untold story TV miniseries is included on IMDb and it also lists him as exec producer on The Judge check both of these and add.  Done
  • Screen Crush, Dandy Chick, Screen Rush, Row 3, Cinema Blend, Split Sider reliable? If not, consider alternatives. Cowlibob (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I consider Cinema Blend, Split Sider and Screen Crush reliable, but I'll replace the others, so consider it done :) LADY LOTUSTALK 12:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Lady, All looks good here, with just a couple of comments from me. I've tweaked the prose a tiny bit to make it flow a little better, but please feel free to revert if you don't like it. (A couple of other bits added since the reversion tothe previous (and well-sourced) version)

Film

  • It's more normal to sort on the surnames of characters, I think  Done I did have the surnames sorted until MisterMorton removed it....but it's back now LADY LOTUSTALK 12:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I hate the use of the N/A template. Looking at the table as a whole, my attention is drawn straight to it with the cell a different colour and the text centred. It is also unclear what N/A means here. Not available? Not applicable? A left-aligned endash will suffice, and won't distract readers.  Done
  • It's a thought to centralise the refs - I'll leave that entirely to your personal preference (but ditto for the other tables as well)  Done
    • Comment: I noticed that MisterMorton removed the reference column along with ALL the sorts in the names and titles column and the "row" and "col". I undid that edit but wondering why he considered it "cleanup" by removing all of that? LADY LOTUSTALK 12:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Video games

  • As it's a one-item list, it shouldn't be sortable  Done

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 8 September 2014, 13:36 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]