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
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.



I Could Fall in Love[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to bring this article to WP:FAC in the coming month.

Thanks, jona(talk) 01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 March 2015, 01:14 UTC)----

Taj Mahal[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because its a GA now and I would let it go loose for FA. It had a PR ages ago (in 2006) and its a GA for about 6 years. Of course, there is no question about notability which have about 6-7K hits daily.

Thanks, Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2015, 15:35 UTC)----

Avengers: Age of Ultron[edit]

This article falls within the scope of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which is being nominated for a Good Topic. In order to proceed with this nomination, this article needs to be peer-reviewed. Thanks. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 00:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 March 2015, 00:22 UTC)----

The Tower House[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a very comprehensive account of a London house, which was built by William Burges, a master architect. The house was a real labour of love for Burges and some of the detail he put into it was a fine example of his prowess and talent, not only as an architect, but as a furniture maker and jewel craftsman. You can marvel at a room of the interior here. I'm convinced that this is comprehensive enough to make it worth promoting, so hope to see some pointers here before we take to FAC. …

Thanks, ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim[edit]

  • General
    • There are too many WP:OVERLINKs in the main text (and that's not counting the table near the end, where there are more): the V&A, Narcissus washstand and Charles Handley-Read are linked three times apiece, and there are duplicate links to Woodland House and Little Holland House. Richard Party-Popper-Puller is not linked at first mention in the main text, but gets a link rather late in the day in the final paragraph.
  • Lead
    • "Burges purchased" – definitely one of those tongue twisters like "eleven benevolent elephants". Perhaps "Burges bought"?
    • "by the likes of sculptor …" – three quibbles here: first the false title (first of several); secondly who are "the likes of" these people?; and thirdly aren't sculptors artists? Perhaps "interior decoration by the sculptor Thomas Nicholls and the painter Henry Stacy Marks, among others"?
    • [Merlin Minshall – Good Lord! I'd forgotten all about him. He used to bore us all to sleep on the train between London and Norwich in the 1970s.]
  • Location
    • Second para, second sentence: there seem to be a main verb and predicate missing here: we have "X, whose house did this…" and then no payoff.
  • Construction and craftsmanship
    • "finding the plot on Melbury Road" – why the Americanism "on so-and-so street" rather than the English "in …..", as in the earlier part of the sentence?
    • "Sculptor Thomas Nicholls" – another tabloidese false title; and do we need "stone" twice in the sentence?
    • Regent Street – worth a blue link (asked the retired librarian of the Crown Estate)? And the Strand, Covent Garden, Long Acre and Southampton Row too. I don't press the point. I sometimes think we all link far too much. Anyhow, pray ponder.
Done. But need to properly do the Strand.
    • "to undertake mural paintings" – is that the same as to paint murals?
    • Alphabet frieze – double quotes, not single, please. (Manual of Style diktat)
    • "Weeks painted legendary lovers in the drawing-room" – could we have this the other way round, as "in the drawing-room Weeks painted legendary lovers"? Perhaps it's just me, but the existing wording conjures up What the Butler Saw. I'm sorry, I'll be all right in a minute.
  • Burges and after
    • "completed some of his unfinished projects" – a bit ambiguous: better to say "Burges's" than "his" here, I think.
  • 1970s to present
    • I wonder about the validity of adding 2015 translations of 1970 property prices. The RPI or CPI (as used here, I see) bears little relation to the rip-roaring inflation of house prices over the same period. £1m would buy you a fairly modest flat in Holland Park in 2015, not a Grade I listed mini-mansion like this.
Not done. I don't like them either, nor do I think they are particularly accurate. Should I remove?
  • Interior
    • In-line attribution for the opening quote, please.
  • Ground floor
    • "each one relevant to their respective rooms" – you've changed from singular to plural within one phrase
  • Library
    • More single quotes where the MoS requires doubles. Same in next section.
  • Drawing room
    • "On wall" – missing an indefinite or definite article – not sure which.
    • I am confused by this section. If the room is "devoted to" Chaucer's House of Fame, how do Jack and the Beanstalk and Little Red Riding Hood fit in? It is true that my only reading of The House of Fame was so long ago that it was still on the Recent Fiction lists, but I don't recall either of them in there.
Done. Sort of.
  • First floor
    • Isn't the plural "fleurs-de-lis"?
  • Garden
    • mediaeval – instead of the "medieval" used everywhere else in the article.

That's all from me. There's a lot of quibbling, so let me add that this implacable loather of Victorian Gothic nonetheless enjoyed the article, and will be pleased to add a friendly voice at FAC if you ping me then. – Tim riley talk 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Tim! @KJP1:Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Have addressed most of these, I hope. Two outstanding issues. I agree about the price conversions but not sure I should just remove them. Thoughts? Incidentally, in the current planning spat between Page and Robbie Williams (which merits a mention??), I've seen newspaper valuations of the Tower House of around £20 million. That strikes me as much more realistic than even £4.5M, bearing in mind that Robbie Williams paid £17.5M for Woodlands in 2013, although that is a much bigger house. As to the decorative theme of the Drawing Room, I shall go and consult the Charles Handley-Read Country Life article of about 1969 which I've recently purchased. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The 4.5m is the equiv value of 350,000 in 1973 values in 2015, showing the vast inflation in house prices over the same period. Perhaps a comparison with the average 1973 UK house price would be better. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK - think the Dining (not Drawing) Room theme issue is resolved. The theme appears to be more about Fame and famous stories (fairy tales). Not my interpretation but Crook's, so no personal research. But really, trying to work out what was going through Billy Burges's mind in some of his designs is almost impossible. What was the Elephant Inkstand all about? Have also tried to update the references by using the 2013 version of William Burges and the High Victorian Dream and re-naming The Strange Genius of William Burges as Crook 1981. Hope to heavens I've got them right, considering past controversies! Interesting sidelight on prices (see above). The 1981 version of High Victorian Dream cost £40 in that year - a sum my mother considered monstrous for a book. The 2013 version cost me £45, which is ridiculously cheap. The very reverse of house prices.

Re-reading the whole article, I think it needs a good scrub. It doesn't flow in places, I'm not sure the structure's quite right and there seems to be quite a lot of extraneous detail. I'll also let Gareth Kegg know we're working on it, as he added so much to my original stub and it's more "his" article than mine. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks KJP. Yes it might need a bit of tweaking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I also had concerns about text flow, but I see that's covered above, so I'll confine myself to glitches. Very few, especially in the architecture sections.

  • "for himself" suggest possibly "as a personal residence"
  • "and the last" and the " suggest minor tweaking to avoid the double "and"
  • " with Bath stone dressings and green slates from Cumberland, with" double with should be massaged.
  • "that Burges designed, have been dispersed" don't see any great need for the comma.
  • Some uncited material.
NOT Done. To address later.
  • " Burges received no further major commissions" received or accepted?
The former, unfortunately. But having worked for Bute, the world's richest man, perhaps there was nowhere else to go.
  • "He agreed to purchase the land from the Earl of Ilchester, the owner of the Holland Estate, in December 1875. The ground rent was £100 per annum." An American reading this might assume that he purchased the freehold, which was obviously not the case. Can this be clarified?
  • "the capitals and corbels and the chimneypieces. " and ... and
  • ""little bastards" inhabiting the Tower House, who then left Harris alone" I assume these were vandals or squatters?
Not Done. Actually, I think they are supposed to have been ghosts. I don't like this part, although it is sourced. In brief, Danny La Rue, who visited the house with Liberace, when the latter was intending to buy it, found the place unnerving. Later, La Rue spoke about his visit to the then owner, Richard Harris, who said that he had purchased toys for the "little bastards" (ghosts?) inhabiting the nurseries Burges had constructed in the garret and that they had then left Harris undisturbed. It's all very odd, not least why on earth Burges, a confirmed bachelor, thought he would need two nurseries in the house. I'm really not sure what to do about this. Nor do I own either Danny La Rue's or Richard Harris's autobiographies, so I can't really investigate it further.
It's clear from Harris that he believed that there were ghosts of children (!) inhabiting the nursery at the top of the house. When I wrote this, I was loved the sense of colour it gave the article, and the unusual triad that Liberace, La Rue and Harris made. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gareth. It absolutely does give colour! Maybe it's just my old, grey Puritan streak and my not believing in ghosts. But that's POV, it's sourced and Harris, Liberace and Danny La Rue had all been inside the Tower House which is more than I'm ever likely to do. So it stays. KJP1 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth mentioning what band Mr. Page has been associated with.
  • "with a marble statue of a boy with" I've passed by one or two "with ... with" that I thought were justified, but I think this one should be tweaked.
References and so forth
  • There are a number of ref errors, affecting 4, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 34.
Not Done. Will address.
  • Ref 42 I suspect the page number is an error.
Not Done. Will address.
That's all I have. Look forward to reading it again when it's ready for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Really appreciate your comments and your time. KJP1 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. Thank you so much to everybody who has worked hard on this review. This article seems to brings me more pleasure than any other. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's because you can sense that it was a real labour of love of Burges and sense the passion and brilliance which went into his pieces. I'd say that's what makes it seem so much of a pleasure to tap into and experience when you edit it and the furniture pieces!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Very brief comments

  • On my screen, the red dot pinpointing the location on the map disappears when the image is clicked on and no street names are given. The shape of the shaded part in the inset map is different from the main one. These things make the main map of minimal value.
  • The first image of the building is not very different from the one in Exterior and design.
  • Scholarship is more of a gloss on some of the sources used than anything informative about the house.
  • "between 1875–81". Between A and B, or rephrase.

I'll try to come back to it if I have time. EddieHugh (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009[edit]

A worthy topic for an article! Thoughts follow...

  • I found the first paragraph of the location section a little confusing, and thought it could easily be simplified to something like "The Tower House is located at 29 (originally 9) Melbury Road in the Kensington district of London." The reader probably doesn't need exact directions in an encyclopaedia after all.
  • Worth checking that the reader can tell who the quotes are from by the in-line wording; I can't tell who the "experience of twenty years...", "pledge to the spirit of gothic" etc. is supposed to be from for example.
  • I don't believe that the Consumer Price Index figures include housing projects, and the Measuring Worth webpage that's cited in the article advises against using it for this purpose (the template used here notes that it is Original Research to use it in this way). You could use one of the project measures from the site instead.
  • " In a shop in Lincoln, Betjeman discovered the Narcissus washstand, made by Burges for his rooms in Buckingham Street and subsequently moved to the Tower House." I couldn't work out when this was supposed to have happened - before he moved there? Later?
  • "The Zodiace settle", "Philosophy cabinet" etc. are mentioned once in the lead but never explained until they appear much later under Betjeman. Worth checking the consistency of how you refer to them.
  • Any chance of getting some dates into the history section headings? I suspect many readers won't know when Betjeman was alive etc. and you have to dig into the section to find out whne he was using it.
  • Worth explaining who David Bowie is in-line, like Page et al?
  • " with floor depths being sufficient to support rooms four or five times their size. " - I wasn't sure what this meant.
  • "At the time of Burges's death, the letterbox, in the form of the messenger Mercury wearing a tunic powdered with letters, was near the front door." - I'm probably being simplistic, but aren't letterboxes normally near the front door of a British townhouse?
  • "Figures within the chimneypiece represent "parts of speech, noun, verb, preposition" etc." - the "etc." seemed odd here
  • If you need any help producing a ground plan of the house, just say. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2015, 19:04 UTC)----

Ant-Man (film)[edit]

This article falls within the scope of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which is being nominated for a Good Topic. In order to proceed with this nomination, this article needs to be peer-reviewed. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2015, 18:51 UTC)----

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. The article already underwent a copyediting treatment, all sources and images were fixed and checked through the different FA nominations. At the last FAC, the closing comment suggested that further work should take place outside the FAC process, so I'm looking for any info on what I could improve. All helpful comments are welcome.

Thanks, Earthh (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

This is definitely on its way.....

  • Lead only needs to mention promotional single release and earliest single release
  • It already mentions its promo release and its digital release.
  • I mean to replace November 2013 release with October 25, 2013 release Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "who praised the composition and the intimate lyrics; reviewers also complimented Leto's vocals" → "who praised the composition, lyrics, and Leto's vocals"
  • Done.
  • The MTV VMA nomination ref doesn't include results, so this should be used in place.
  • Fixed.
  • For Karrang! Awards, this is a better source for nominees, and here is the winners list, where it should be mentioned that Deaf Havana's "Boston Square" won the award
  • Done.
  • I still don't see what makes "LadyGunn" a professional, high-quality source
  • It's an independent magazine. That reference is an interview with Jared Leto. I could remove it if it isn't reliable enough.
  • Us Weekly is a gossip magazine and shouldn't be used
  • Removed.--Earthh (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's all I can think of for now Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 February 2015, 20:03 UTC)----

Go to the Future[edit]

I'd like to get my music articles up to A/GA/FA-level quality. I've managed to create a featured list discography before, but I'd like to see what the different approaches are for regular articles.

Thanks, Prosperosity (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 February 2015, 11:34 UTC)----

Lego Racers (video game)[edit]

I have been improving this article for a couple of days, and I'm planning on eventually putting it up at GAN. I'm just looking for any info on what I could improve.

Thanks, BlookerG talk 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 February 2015, 19:49 UTC)----

Birdman (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to promote the page to GA status, but have only worked on the production section: please ONLY review this (production) section. I will in due course rewrite the rest of the article, but would like feedback on what I've written so far. Approx. 4000 words.

Thanks, Neuroxic (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Overall, I think the production section is well written and thorough. I hesitate to say it might be too detailed, but because it is an Academy Award winner, the length of this section reflects its increased notability. One small issue is this sentence:

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,[8] and he himself described it as "almost suicidal", not knowing whether the technique would be successful, and worrying that it would become a distraction.[10]

The sentence needs to be rewritten to place "huge" and "important" in the voice of whomever is quoted, which is not clear. Using Wikipedia's editorial voice does not work here. Over all, though, the section looks good! --Zfish118 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Zfish118: Thanks for your feedback. Too detailed? Believe me, I struggled to keep information out after the hundreds of interviews I read! But in seriousness I do consider it an important movie, completing the trifecta of 2014's masterpieces (along with The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood.) I think this and the film's atypical production approach warrants the level of exposition.
Addressing your concern, would it be suitable replacing the line you mentioned by adding authorship such as

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; according to Dinelaris and Giacobone "huge" and "important" people told him to not even try the project,[8]...

or would it be better to reduce specificity?

They weren't the only people he faced resistance from though; several people told him not to even try the project,[8]...

Cheers, Neuroxic (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the first rewrite ("according to Dinelaris and Giacobone..." presents their point view that the author was strongly cautioned against the project better. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Zfish118:Changes made! Thanks again for taking the time to look through it. Neuroxic (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This article smells like balls, what is it doing here, it doesn't belong here...but otherwise its looking good, great job. Hope to see it promoted soon.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 February 2015, 12:23 UTC)----

Gasparo Cairano[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this contains detailed information on a prolific yet hitherto little-known Renaissance sculptor, and the original Italian article from which it has been translated has been rated 'good'.

I would in particular welcome

  1. a review of the translation itself.
  2. any suggestions for improvement, additional information, available images.

Thanks, Feanor0 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

I would first thank you for the work you have done for Gasparo Cairano. However, I do not think that working on Italian Work is sufficient for this work. I think personally that consulting French Wikipedia for example for further information can make a very influencing difference. However, translation cannot be sufficient of such works... More information should be afforded in order to get better work about Gasparo Cairano

  • Biography: I think personally that the work had succeeded to give an overview about the huge lack of information about the artist. However, it could be bettered by specifying the close relationship between him and ssome rich and famous families...
  • Arts: The work has succeeded to describe all the artistic works that Gasparo Cairano had done with some description... However, it has not benefited from the works in Italian Wikipedia: Itinerario critico di Gasparo Cairano and Opere di Gasparo Cairano. These works can give further and useful information about the Italian Artist such as the circumstances in which the works had been done and the reaction of the artistic audience towards his artistic works...
  • Posthumous Impact: The work lacked a lot from a brief but concise description of the impact towards the death of Gasparo Cairano, the place in which he was burried... The Honours he received after his death and some quotes from famous people born after his death can be a good advance in this work...
  • Social Influence: The precise description of the Social Infuence of Gasparo Cairano such as quotes or ceremonies about him can constitute an exceptional amelioration to this excellent work.

Finally, I would like to thank you again for the work you have already done. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 February 2015, 12:28 UTC)----

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have found as many sources as I can to flesh this article out, but it still seems somewhat short to me. I'd appreciate some opinions as to what could be added, as well as any fixes to errors I may have made.

Thanks, BlookerG talk 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

My lack of sleep over the past couple days is hitting hard now, so I may be overlooking things or griping over concerns I otherwise wouldn't, but here's what I'm noticing (and it's not much - you could GAN this right now if you wanted):

  • "individually control B.U.D.'s hands and grab onto any part of the environment, which can be used to push and climb objects" - like what? How far can they be extended? (I'm instinctively thinking of the Cruise Bubble from SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom - are the uses like that?)
  • "The game allows players to grow "Star Shoots" from the "Star Plant"" - you don't need to quote Star Plant more than once. I'm also a bit confused, though - is the Star Plant a giant thing that you use to reach different parts of the world, and thus are never too far from? Or is it portable in some way? Or can you go far away from it? Can you call the Plant over to you in order to use its platforms or something? It's clearly an integral game mechanic; I just don't have a feel for how exactly it works.
  • "as well as using procedural animation[13] and physics-based gameplay" - I could be understanding these terms wrong, but aside from text adventures and the like, what games don't use these?
  • Add the reviewers' personal names in Reception; referring to them only by their publications is discouraged.
  • Is there any goal? Is there a plot? Does the game end, and if so, when?

Tezero (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it greatly. Regarding what you have pointed out:
  • B.U.D.'s arms aren't really comparable to the Cruise Bubble; they extend as far as their length, and are controlled individually with the left and right triggers for the left and right arms respectively. The left stick is used to direct the arms and general movement. I know, however, that it's frowned upon to bring up specific control references in video game articles, so I found difficulty in showing what I meant. Can there be an exception to this rule or is there another way I can word it? Yes check.svg Done
  • To my mind, the two barest essentials to any Wikipedia article are that it (1) be supported, or at least supportable, by reliable sources and (2) make sense. Cruft is also a concern, but if comprehensibility is at stake, go ahead and include it - besides, I think those guidelines are intended more for games with complex control schemes that the reader wouldn't really care about. (And when you think about it, mentioning that important actions are controlled by the triggers and joysticks isn't really any more specific than pointing the Wii Remote or prodding the DS' touchscreen.) Tezero (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Star Plant is on a fixed path throughout the game, but the Star Shoots can be directed by the player. I have fixed the quotation marks in the Gameplay section. Yes check.svg Done
  • While many games use a physics system, a physics-based game uses the game's physics engine as a key gameplay mechanic, whereas a game such as Call of Duty only has a basic physics system that allows players to jump and move. As for procedural animation, Grow Home is one of the few games that have implemented it to such a large degree, which is why I have explicitly mentioned it.
  • I'll fix the reviewer names. Yes check.svg Done
  • The main objective of the game ends once the Star Plant grows to 2000 in-game metres and the player takes a star seed to M.O.M., but there is a goal after the main game is over to collect 8 star seeds. Upon completing that objective, the game is essentially finished, but the player is free to continue exploring the world and collect the power up crystals. You also unlock a ninja suit which allows the player to jump higher. The trouble is that I can't find any sources which support this information, so I have so far left it out. Yes check.svg Done BlookerG talk 12:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We decided a few months ago at WT:VG that it's okay to cite quotes, or even the game itself, for whatever you need as long as it isn't controversial information that would necessitate third-party sources. It's pretty vital information, so I'd suggest doing something like that. Tezero (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How would I cite a game? Is there a specific way to do it? BlookerG talk 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Something like this:
{{cite video game|title=Grow Home|developer=Ubisoft Reflections|publisher=Ubisoft|date=4 February 2015|level=Lethal Lava Land|quote='''Peach:''' Mario, please come to my castle. I've baked a cake for you.}}
Giving the following result: [1]
  1. ^ Ubisoft Reflections (4 February 2015). "Grow Home". Ubisoft. Level/area: Lethal Lava Land. Peach: Mario, please come to my castle. I've baked a cake for you. 
Tezero (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 February 2015, 21:08 UTC)----

Sonic Adventure 2[edit]

Considering FACing this sometime later this year. All comments appreciated; thanks! Tezero (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by ProtoDrake

I'll be back in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we go.

  • Ref 28 needs its url updating. The GameSpot and IGN reviews also need their urls updating to the current ones. I would also archive the online references as several sites have been closing or changing recently. I would also find alternatives to the VGMDb references. They are inadmissible at FAC.
  • "A Nintendo GameCube port of Sonic Adventure 2, entitled Sonic Adventure 2 Battle (ソニックアドベンチャー2 バトル Sonikku Adobenchā Tsū Batoru?), was released..." - "Entitled" seems a little odd in the context of this sentence. "Titled" might be better.
  • "Every level includes five missions; only the first is required to continue on during the campaign, but other missions include completing a harder version of a level and collecting 100 rings. The player earns emblems by completing missions, as well as other tasks, many of them related to Chao raising. Collecting all emblems unlocks a 3D version of the Green Hill Zone level from the original Sonic the Hedgehog.[11]" - You should really find a reference for some of this that isn't a primary reference.

Those are the ones that stood out. I could come back for more. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by TheTimesAreAChanging

I would expand "Reception" with more than five reviews in the table and discuss the level design, which shouldn't be hard considering the emphasis some of the sources (e.g., IGN) place on it. Moreover, the implication that all of the play styles were equally acclaimed seems false. For example, the Game Informer review I used at Dreamcast argues the slower characters contribute to a disjointed, unfocused experience (I'll send you the text via email).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by George.Edward.C

I will do the above as soon as I have access to a computer. (please revert if this is in the wrong place) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 February 2015, 18:56 UTC)----

Title (Meghan Trainor album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to Good article status.

Thanks, MaRAno FAN 14:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've finally finished my comments. Here they are:
General comments
  • For the named references, there are three different URLs each under the "RIAA" named reference. These three should be separate as they link to URLs each about a different song (All About That Bass, Lips Are Movin', Dear Future Husband).
  • You have several instances were periods and commas are outside of quotation marks, and in American English, periods should be within quotes unless it's a partial quote. See MOS:LQ.
  • I recommend changing 'their' to 'her' and avoid repeating 'debut' at the end of the second paragraph. In other words, it might read like: "...the thirteenth woman in history to have her debut single and her debut album debut atop...".
  • Add comma after "On August 30" in first paragraph, remove comma after "on October 14" in second paragraph.
Writing and inspiration
  • Add comma after on Title in first sentence of second paragraph, and remove extraneous single quote after 'world?' in the quote that follows.
  • At the end of the 3rd paragraph, you have a quote from John Legend which is actually a recollection of Legend's quote by Trainor. You may clarify this or at least include a semicolon after "I love this". The semicolon is not in the quote from the source, but would be more gramatically correct that way.
Music and lyrics
  • In the first paragraph, blue link to riddim.
  • In the first line of the second paragraph, insert a comma after "Close Your Eyes".
  • In the fourth paragraph, add hyphen in "nextdoor" to create "the funny girl-next-door".
  • In the last line, you say "The tour will begin on February 11, 2015". This can be changed to "The tour began..." as that happens to be today as of this writing.
Critical reception
  • In the second paragraph, be sure to render "naïveté" with the accent marks. You can cut and paste from here if need be or see Naivety for spellings.
Commercial performance
  • Similar to my comments under "lead" above, be sure to avoid overusing commas and the word 'debut' in the final two sentences.

Overall, it looks great. In particular, I liked the analysis of the songs and the influences from various artists and genres across the 20th century. Good luck with the GA review. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 February 2015, 14:30 UTC)----

Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the last peer review did not generate much interest, and then the FAC nomination turned into a discussion about the article's length. It has now been trimmed significantly and some information was moved into a sub-article courtesy of Dr. Blofeld. I still want the article to achieve FA, but the moderator suggested another peer review first. Please see if there is anything stopping this from reaching FA now. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 13:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

The length is much more manageable: 6,200 words of readable prose compared with about 8,000 last time I looked at a version of the article. Only a couple of minor points:

  • The caption for the image of Dmitry Medvedev is wrong: in 2010 he was President, not Prime Minister, of Russia.
It does say that, but I fixed it in the sub-article. I have a question about that below.
  • Captions: The anti-hero, "The romantic hero" – The MoS bids us avoid definite articles like these in headings.
Fixed, thanks.

The article seems to me suitable for FAC now. The prose is fine and the proportions of the article are clear and sensible. Tim riley talk 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Question from Bollyjeff[edit]

This article and the sub-article Shah Rukh Khan in the media both include a duplicate 'Humanitarian causes' section. Do you think that I should remove it from here or there? If I remove it from here, perhaps I could swap the commerce section (IPL cricket team and/or endorsement sub-sections) from there, into Other work section here, as it seems less about media to me. Any opinions on that, or anything else related to the sub-article? Obviously, I cannot add much overall length at this point. BollyJeff | talk 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I would probably wait and see what the others have to say about this. Personally, I would summarise the humanitarian work under his "other works" section in the main article. And given the length it saves, I would go on and add a bit about his IPL team and endorsement activities in the main article. -- KRIMUK90  01:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
IMO, I think "Humanitarian Causes" should be removed from "SRK in the media" and, like Krimuk90 said, be a sub-section of "Other works". Again, as Krimuk90 said, you can add a "little bit" about the IPL, which I see you have already done. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be best to preserve all of the humanitarian information in the media article and summarize it in the main, because that stuff is more about media than actual 'work', and I was told by another reviewer that it makes him look too pious in the main. I would rather move the IPL stuff to the main in total under other works. See what you think now. BollyJeff | talk

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

  • The "early life and background" section mentions a 2013 event as well. I suggest changing the name to something else.
What? 'Early life and family'
  • In 1993, Khan starred in Maya Memsaab in which he had a highly controversial nude scene. He's actually the only Bollywood star to have done such a scene. Why has this information not been included?
You got a source? I found one that says there have been five others, but it's still probably worth adding, thanks.
Even if not the only one, he's one of the very few to have a complete nude shot. The other four mentioned above weren't exactly fully nude. Anyway, the information is surely important. I have read Chopra's book on him and there are several paragraphs dedicated to the explicit sex-scenes in the film and the controversy that it generated. -- KRIMUK90  10:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, you'd think I would have noticed that when I read the book. This goes against what she said on page 112, that he never kissed a co-star on-screen, and the other source that said his first on-screen kiss was in 2012. Are you sure that this scene was released in theatres, or perhaps it was censored out before release? Can you provide me with the appropriate quote from the book? BollyJeff | talk 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the book with me anymore. I had borrowed it while working on his filmography page. Btw, the scene is available for viewing on youtube. Several results turn up on google books too. -- KRIMUK90  01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
According to the above source, and here and here, all but a split second was censored, and then the rest came out on the internet in 2008. Chopra describes a slanderous article that SRK reacted to, not about controversy of the film itself. I may add a sentence, but cannot add what you said without definitive sources. BollyJeff | talk 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so we can mention about him filming a controversial sex scene in the film, in which he performed a nude scene. I can see the sources are contradictory on the topic. -- KRIMUK90  03:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the other works section, the sub-sections are quite short. I believe they can be merged.
  • This is a personal preference, but the images in his career section take up a large amount of space. How about reducing the size? -- KRIMUK90  03:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no mention of Karan Arjun. It was his biggest success before DDLJ.
Take a look at the last FA review. I removed a lot of stuff, and even then some of the reviewers said it was too big and refused to read it. I hate to say it, but some stuff has to be left out if there is any chance of passing FA. BollyJeff | talk 03:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Does Chopra's book have any critical reviews of his early film roles? -- KRIMUK90  03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the book now, but I would have put some reviews if it did. The rest is done. Anything else? BollyJeff | talk 01:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I found a scan of an excellent Filmfare mag article of 1997 here, that chronicles SRK's career to that point. You may want to use it. -- KRIMUK90  07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

This article has improved over time. Here's a prose review.....

  • In the lead, his net worth is listed as $400 million in American dollars, but later in the article is said to be between $400 million and $600 million. Be consistent.
  • Are genres really needed for the lead?
  • Best to use Rupees rather than American dollars when available as Khan is Indian and not American
  • I'm not sure if "dark roles" is appropriate tone
  • Add a comma after "2010" in "As of 2010 Khan's paternal family"
  • "However, production delays meant that his second film Deewana, in which he starred alongside Divya Bharti as the second male lead behind Rishi Kapoor, was released first in June 1992"..... quite a mouthful, and it would help to specify what delayed production
  • I understand what "negative roles" is trying to say, but I'm not sure if it's really encyclopedic
  • When mentioning in prose nominations that Khan lost, include who won them. For example, see how the Robert Downey, Jr. article mentions how he lost his Academy Award nomination for Chaplin to Al Pacino.
  • I don't see the need for including books published about Khan
  • "Sukanya Verma of referred to it as Khan's best performance"..... include some detail on what Verma particularly enjoyed
  • Is "risky" in "was considered risky" the best word choice?

You've done well, Bollyjeff, and I commend your efforts for this article. I'll leave reference concerns to other users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SNUGGUMS. I have used Rupees where available. I don't think there is a template to convert from Dollars to Rupees. If not dark or negative, what about villainous or antagonistic? Risky is from the sources; meaning that it could be detrimental to one's career.
  • Happy to help. Yes, those would be better word choices. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 February 2015, 13:43 UTC)----

Everyday life[edit]

Mary Celeste[edit]

Almost everyone knows about the famous ghost ship, found abandoned and drifting in the Atlantic, her captain and crew having apparently vanished into thin air. Many of the "facts" generally assumed are false, inventions that have been handed down and incorporated into the legend, but the known facts are startling enough to make this into a gripping mystery story, the solution to which has defied consensus for 140+ years. I hope reviewers and readers will enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it. All comments welcome – please watch out for errors in my attempts to use American spellings (harbor, traveled etc). Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim[edit]

From first read-through, purely for spelling, my haul of suspected anglicisms, but caveat emptor (or better still consule Wehwaltum aut SArgenta):

  • dishevelled
  • fictionalisation
  • fictionalised
  • practising
  • kilometres
  • recognised
  • rumours
  • apologised
  • metres
  • dramatisations

I have amended some typos, though in the case of "nagivation" most reluctantly – a fine word for domestic use. More anon on the text. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 22:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch of comments from TR

Precious little from me, and someone else has already Americanised the spellings I mentioned above.

  • New owners, new name
    • I believe the usual American form of possessive for names ending in s is a single apostrophe: "Hains' creditors". If you concur, you'll want to change the five "Briggs's" later.
      • I think American prose tolerates the extended form – certainly I've seen it in American writing. The shorter form is I suspect more journalistic convenience than a rule. My American prose consultant, User:Rosiestep, did not comment on my usage when she did her spelling check; I'd prefer to leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If it were my draft I shouldn't have the comment about the new name relegated to a footnote. It's not incidental information: I'm fairly sure anyone reading this section will want to know.
      • If there was a known history or reasonong behind the choice of name I'd agree with you. But there isn't; it's Begg's speculation, with no other authority behind it, so I think it belongs more fittingly in a footnote rather than gaining authenticity by being quoted in the main text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Derelict
    • "A makeshift sounding rod" – unfamiliar term (to me anyway): perhaps a link?
    • "The last entry on ship's daily log" – on the ship's…?
  • Gibraltar salvage hearings
    • "Two weeks later, she left Gibraltar for Genoa" – do we know who was driving? Where did they get a crew?
      • Local crew, name of skipper added. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "This was far lower than what might have been expected" – there seems a touch of Ernie Wise about this phrasing; I might drop the "what", I think.
  • Foul play
    • "and no enquiry was instituted by the insurance companies" – you might ask one of our American colleagues if "enquiry" or "inquiry" is usual in this context.
      • Again, Rosie passed this without comment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "This theory, Begg notes" – first mention of Begg: a word or two of introduction is wanted
    • "he left Arthur behind" – I had to refer back to check who Arthur was (short-term memory loss in the elderly and debauched) and perhaps "he left his son Arthur behind" would be a kindness to other dotards.
    • "sounding-rod" – this mysterious implement has acquired a hyphen since it was found on the deck in an earlier paragraph
  • Natural phenomena
    • "and it would surely have been spotted" – this looks like (though I know isn't) editorial rhetoric: it might be safer to say "would almost certainly…"
    • "One suggestion is that a "seaquake"—an earthquake on the sea bed" – I wondered vaguely, at the first mention of "seaquake", what it was, and now I know. Perhaps move the explanation up to the first mention?
      • It is linked, and explained (sort of) in the lead, but I've rephrased here anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Myths and false histories
    • "In 1913, Strand Magazine" – definite article lacking
    • "asserts that Gove tried hard" – first we've heard of Gove. Who he? (Though how nice not to have heard of Gove, some might say.)
      • Not Michael, but Wesley, the head of the Boston consortium. I've explained. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Legacy and commemorations
    • "it is the Mary Celeste that is remembered; the ship's name has become fixed in people's minds as synonymous with inexplicable desertion" – I don't think that's quite true: I'd say the name "Marie Celeste" is the one that has become fixed etc. Not one person in a hundred would call the ship "Mary Celeste", I suspect.
      • One in a hundred is overstating it, I think, but it is certainly true that most people instinctively think "Marie". I inadvertently typed it in a few times, while I was drafting the article. I've covered this now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. This article is at the same time spendidly informative and intriguingly mysterious – a really good read. When it appears on the front page I bet it will get a huge number of hits, and quite right too. I am available for FAC on presentation of visiting card. – Tim riley talk 11:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and comments. No reply means point taken. On the question of main page, I'm cross that i've just missed the 130th anniversary of its wrecking in January 1885. We could wait until 4 December 2022 and have the 150th anniversary of its discovery by Dei Gratia, but life is too short. I might put it up for next 4 December (but it's got to get through FAC first). Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It will. For the record, I'm wholly content with the above. Tim riley talk 16:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Afterthought. Sorry to shilly-shally, Brian, but I'm fretting about the footnote on the name of the ship. I'm certain that most people who read the article will want to know why the vessel was given the name Mary Celeste. OK, you can't tell them – and so may I suggest this, or something like it, tackling the matter explicitly in the main text: "...registered her with the Collector of Customs in New York as an American vessel, under a new name, Mary Celeste.[14] The reason for the choice of name is unknown." [And then the present footnote, from "Begg points out..."] Tim riley talk 19:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally doubt the value of telling people simply that information is unknown – it's either the whole note in the text, or nothing, I think. It was indeed part of the text in an earlier draft, before I relegated it. I'll reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Schrocat[edit]

Brief comments before a more thorough run through shortly:

  • emphasised is another to look at
  • FN12 has "and details get changed as the story passe through numerous" I presume passes, but its in a quote, so...


  • I think we're supposed to have 13-didgit ISBNs now, rather than a mix of 13 and 10 didgits (Here's a useful ISBN converter, courtesy of Mr Riley)
  • God save us, whatever next! I've never heard of this rule, but like the dumb obedient sheep I am, I have replacd the offenders. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cobb: do you have an ISBN or OCLC for this edition?
  • Cobb is no longer a source, so I've deleted him from the list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fujiwara needs a location; you can trim the publication date down to the year, rather than the day. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Further reading": We should probably show these with the full publication details (as per the sources)
  • These books are hangovers from an earlier version of the article. They offer nothing significant that's not covered by the source works, so I've removed them. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More anon - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I wait in eager anticipation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts from Cliftonian[edit]

I have heard of this, but I know almost nothing about it, so I'm looking forward to an enlightening and interesting read either this evening or at some point over the next few days. I will note any thoughts as I go through. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


  • We call the ship "British-North American"—is this strictly correct? Canada had become a dominion in 1867 (sans Newfoundland, which remained a British colony at the time of the events described). I am no expert on nautical matters so I will defer on this, I just thought I'd mention it. Why not call it "British", or "British-registered"?
  • "None of those who had been on board were seen or heard from again." "None" is a contraction of "Not one", so strictly speaking shouldn't it be "None ... was seen or heard from again."?
    • Fowler reckons that None may be singular or plural as sense demands. God (or at any rate Solomon) agrees: "None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life" (Proverbs 2:19) Tim riley talk 07:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • He actually wrote כל באיה לא ישובון ולא ישיגו ארחות חיים, which doesn't include the word "none" (the original says "All will not" rather than "None will")... ;) but I am happy to defer to Fowler and Tim riley. This is fine, I have stricken above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "she was destroyed when her captain deliberately wrecked her" couldn't we just say "her captain deliberately wrecked her"? In my mind it seems we are saying the same thing twice, the word "wreck" having connotations of destruction in itself.

Early history

  • If the source gives details, it may be worth mentioning to which denomination Briggs belonged (if indeed he belonged to any)
  • "was Danish in origin although born in New York" the two do not seem to me to contradict each other, New York being at that time (and today) chock-full of immigrants. This is a nit-pick though.


  • When we mention Briggs being joined by his "wife and baby daughter", it may be worth repeating their names just to remind the reader. "his wife Sarah and baby daughter Sophia"

Salvage hearings

  • "and in a drunken frenzy had murdered the Briggs family" I don't think we need the word "had" here again. Small nitpick
  • "before fleeing the vessel in the yawl, to suffer an unknown fate" perhaps "then fled in the yawl to suffer an unknown fate"?
  • In the footnote we mention the William L. White drifting unmanned for over 5,000 miles. Are these nautical miles or some other kind?
  • "concluded that they were not blood" not human blood specifically, or not blood of any variety?

Proposed solutions

  • "the deeply religious Briggs could have killed all on board in a fit of religious mania" repeated word "religious", suggest substitution of "spiritual" or similar
  • "if the ship was becalmed" shouldn't this be were becalmed? (conditional clause?)
  • We say 9 of the 1,701 were found empty. Does that mean the rest were all found full?

More later. Cracking read so far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 March 2015, 21:15 UTC)----

2000 Belgian Grand Prix[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have the intention of putting this article up for FAC in the near future. This has recently passed it's GAN and I welcome all comments that will help to improve the quality of this article before I attempt the FAC nomination.

Thanks, Z105space (Talk to me!) 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Zwerg Nase[edit]

Here are my thoughts on the article. I will try to move along the lines of the Good article criteria.

1. Well-written: Reasonably well-written, even though some parts were confusing to understand. I fixed one issue in the race section already. One small thing though: In the post-race section you say "After the overtake, Häkkinen went to Michael Schumacher advising him not to repeat a similar manoeuvre." First of all, he certainly didn't say that right after the overtake, but after the race. But more importantly: I believe he did not complain about Schumachers move during the overtake, but to the incident the lap prior! This should be changed accordingly. Also the quote you give at the beginning of the post-race section by Häkkinnen and the one in the quote box are quite similar. Maybe one can be left out.

I will take a look into it. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Verifiable: Certainly well referenced, very impressive how many sources you found.

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. It adresses the main aspects of the topic: Yes.
b. it stays focused on the topic: Here is where I have my problems, the article is far too detailed. This makes it hard to read at times. I will give some examples:
  • Background: The question would be, which information are actually necessary for the reader? The fact that the race was contested by 11 teams is not necessary information, and certainly not which teams. It would have been noteworthy if a team had missed the race, which was not the case. All people reading the article who are familiar with F1 will know where to find the list of competing teams (or look at the result table). Anyone not familiar with F1 will probably not care in such detail. Now about the part where you summarize the point standings. It is standard to describe the situations in both championships in the background-part of a race article. But if you give as many information as you did, what get's lost on the reader is, which of these information are the actually significant ones. Fisichella being fifth on 18 points is not vital information to the point, because he is not, as you later state, a championship contender at that point of the season anymore. Following this line of argument, which best positions the no-longer-contenders Barrichello, Frentzen, Fisichella and R. Schumacher had achieved is beside the point of this race article.
I personally do not believe that the article is too detailed. The fact the event was contested by eleven teams is vital to the reader as it allows he/she to understand how many drivers took part and regardless of the points standings, it is the standard on Formula One race articles include the top five drivers in the Championship at that point of a particular season.
  • Testing sessions: I see absolutely no reason for this passage to be in this article. Maybe if anything noteworthy would have happened during testing, it might have been interesting to add it to the article 2000 Formula One season, but it certainly has no place here.
I have to differ with this as moving the info to the 2000 Formula One season would cause. Removing the testing information would not help as it helps to explain what the teams did prior to the race weekend. This is also included in articles of similar quality to this one such as the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix and the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Qualifying: Here as well I feel that the part is far too detailed. It's like I'm watching the entire session on TV. It is painstaking to read about how "Arrows driver Pedro de la Rosa stopped on circuit" or how "Alesi had a trouble free session and set the twenty-first fastest time, one position ahead of team-mate Nick Heidfeld" because I feel those are all facts that are not significant to main aspects of the article and distract from the main events.
I am not sure about editing this section as I will need another editor's opinion on this section. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Race: Why is there information about the warm up session in the race section? I would either suggest a new paragraph or to cut the description alltogether. The only vital information here is the fact that Fisichella crashed but was able to start the race. That can be a small sentence at the beginning of the race paragraph. Also, why do you tell about Fisichella's and Villineuve's accidents in the first paragraph concerned with the warm up, but state the Mazzacane engine troubles one paragraph later?
Cutting the warm-up description altogether will be determinal to the reader. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Race: At the end of the race report, you start by saying "At the conclusion of lap 34" and later you write "A few laps later", which leaves the reader not knowing on which lap Häkkinen overtook Schumacher. While it is stated in the lead section, I'd say it's vital that you write it in the race report as well.
This has been amended. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Neutral: Overall a clear Yes. I was slightly confused by the sentence "Trulli refused to criticise Button after the race accepting the view that the Williams driver made a mistake and chose not to show his feelings to avoid criticism." I read the source and yes, that is what Trulli said he did, but I feel that following his words here sounds a little wierd. We cannot know for certain which emotions he had so we cannot know which he chose not to show. At least not in such a matter-of-fact way.

Amended the sentence. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

5. Stable: Looks like it.

6. Illustrated: Yup. Good pictures.

Overall, this is a very good race article, but too long in my opinion. With the points I stated, I would have problems granting even GA status, let alone Featured Article. Which does not mean that I want to play down the great work you did, on the contrary, I believe the problem of this article might be that you were too thorough. Keep up the good work! :)

Cheers, Zwerg Nase

P.S.: If you would find the time to participate in my ongoing peer review, that would be absolutely wonderful! :)

Unfortunately Zwerg Nase it is not possible to undergo all of your suggestions as I believe they would deter from the focus of events that occurred during the race weekend, such as altering the info about the warm-up session. Although I have made some changes have been made, I would suggest that an second opinion should be given before I attempt any further changes. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from QueenCake[edit]

There is no problem at all with the level of detail in this article's background section. Our general approach to articles is to assume the reader has no knowledge of the subject and we should be providing enough information, within reason, to ensure readers are not left wanting. That said, I do think you have written too much on the Practice sessions. Most articles limit the overview to one paragraph, incorporating just the fastest times and any major incidents. It's hardly a crime to go into too much information, but it is worth considering that practice isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

A few other suggestions:

1) The fact that the race was almost cancelled is more important than testing and driver contracts - it should probably be above those paragraphs. I would also suggest expanding it, if there is anything more to say.

2) The explanation of the qualifying procedure would read better if you modified the opening sentences. Something along the lines of "Saturday's afternoon qualifying session lasted for an hour. Each driver was limited to twelve laps, with the grid order decided by the drivers fastest laps. During this session, the 107% rule was in effect, which necessitated each driver set a time within 107% of the quickest lap to qualify for the race." might work better.

3) It's worth putting the offset to UTC of the race start time.

  • UTC has been placed in warm-up session start time. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

4) You've started a lot of sentences in the race report with "On lap X". Consider revising.

5) Is Gale Force F1 a reliable source? It's not one that I've come across on Wikipedia before.

6) The picture of Hakkinen serves no use being located amongst the tables at the bottom of the page. It'll be better placed in the post-race section.

Hopefully that's useful! QueenCake (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @QueenCake: The suggestions you have raised have been taken into account. I would suggesting checking to see whether if you are satisfied with my changes. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I'm happy with all the changes you've made. Fair enough with Gale Force F1, I wasn't aware that it was considered a reliable source. I don't believe you'll have much of a problem taking it to a Featured Article from here. QueenCake (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 February 2015, 15:53 UTC)----

2012 Brazilian Grand Prix[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it to a level where I believe it might be close to putting it up for GA nomination. Please give me notes on what can still be improved here.

Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is the right way and place to provide comments; it is my first contribution to a peer review. I have never heard of a 'left diffuser'; they are central structures at the rear. Is it possible that the damage was to Vettel's side pod? Also I was bothered by two references to Schumacher. I've edited the sentence about his qualifying - it was very awkward before. I'm worried that the referenced sentence about Schumacher helping Vettel reads awkwardly because it begins as a sentence about Räikkönen. However, it's a good article about an exciting race! Hayttom 14:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! Double blown diffusers had famously been introduced to F1 in order to increase rear downforce, a matter for a lot of controversy back in 2009: [1]. This was outlawed before the 2014 season. Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Single or double, it's still in the center of the back of the car (between the rear wheels). A double diffuser would have a top and bottom part, not left or right. The damage on Vettel's car was the floor plate on the left side (and a bit to the side pod.). See this picture. Tvx1 21:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to get this to a Good Article, my advice would be to look at one of the featured race reports (2008 Brazilian Grand Prix is a good example as it is another season finale) and try to bring this article up to a similar standard. As things stand now:

1) The article is currently lacking a paragraph providing an overview of the practice sessions - you don't have to go into much detail really.

2) The post-race section is too brief. There should be quotes and reactions from Vettel and Alonso, as well as a mention of any plaudits Vettel received from the paddock or world figures for winning his third title. A quote from Schumacher on his retirement would also be good. Again, it would be good to follow the style of the 2008 report.

3) For a good article, you'll want to improve the quality of the prose and the referencing, particularly in the race section. In an encyclopedia you should always be using a formal tone, and colloquialisms like "grab the title" or "unable to answer" must be avoided.

Hope that was helpful, and all the best on article. QueenCake (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I'll see to it! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for this excellent work. Although it is very advanced, it also lacks from several facts.

  • Circumstances of the race: The work lacks from data about the situation such as flood rate and temperature. This information is important to predict if it would be accidents in the working race or not. Furthermore, it lacks also about the overview of the media conferences of competitors and administrators of before the race.
  • Report: The report is well done and well revised as it involves all the information about the race and the results. However, it lacks of the past performances of the competitors in precedent Brazilian Grand Prix.
  • Pictures: The work lacks of pictures... the Victory Ceremony Pictures... Some works should been done to improve this.
  • What happened after that: The work just cited what happened after the race briefly in the first and the last part of the work... There are not an overview about press meetings that are evidently done after the F1 race, it is lacks also from information about if some competitors had decided to work or retire... excepting for the case of Schumacher.

I think that the work has to be reviewed.--Csisc (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 February 2015, 21:05 UTC)----

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because it occurred to me that it would be a very fun and amusing TFA some day on April Fool's day or a similar event, and wondered if there would be the remotest possibility that it could be brought up to Featured Article status. I've been involved with about 12 TFA articles so far, and so I know the how to get something there, but my question for peer reviewers is if you think this topic would be doomed from the outset (I will note that Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo has been a TfA, so I don't think I am lowering the standards here). I know it's nowhere close now, but I'm curious if anyone thinks it's worth the trouble to try. In short, is it possible to find enough reliable sources to expand and verify this article to a FAC-passable standard? My preliminary check give me this and this. Thoughts? Comments? Volunteers?

Thanks, Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Finetooth comments[edit]

Yes. I think it's worth the trouble to try, and I would enjoy working on this. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On further review, maybe not. I found some stuff, but most is fluff. Enough, enough! It might be possible to compile a section of folklore analysis, a sort of critical review of the jackalope, based on scholarly publications. Jackalope as griffin parody? Jackalope as tourist lure. (See biggest ball of twine.) There's a jackalope in Dubois, Wyoming, that's rideable, according to unreliable sources. Jackalope as mechanical bull? Finetooth (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL! Well, have a lot of fun, that's the main thing! Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2015, 03:05 UTC)----

Engineering and technology[edit]


Omkar Nath Sharma "Medicine Baba"[edit]

I have listed this article for peer review with an intention to improve this article for GA status. I had updated the article and added media. I invite further assistance , information , suggestions to improve the article.
Thanks, One life to live (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

I'm fairly familiar with the Good article criteria and can help with this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Copyvio concern: It appears that significant portions of the text is copied from The Hindu article. See WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COPYVIO. You better reword those areas.
  • Coverage: The article short, is it possible to expand it further? Though length is not a GA criteria, it still may be a concern. Aren't there more references available?
  • Structure: See WP:ORDER, content is divided into Lead and body-which is further divided into sections. Write the lead section which adequately summarises the rest of the content. Also divide the content into relevant sections if possible. This would all be easier if you expanded it first.
  • Links: Please introduce suitable wikilinks to other articles, for help, see WP:UNDERLINK. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 February 2015, 12:08 UTC)----

Ohio State Route 612[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this page to at least B-status, higher if possible (it's currently at C-status), and would like some advice as to how I can reach that status.

Thanks, Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Review—if you'd like to make this B-Class, you'll need to do the following at a minimum:

  1. The lead needs to be expanded. It's not a sufficient summary of the contents of the article. I'd suggest a full paragraph at least double the current length.
  2. The route description is currently fine, but if it can be expanded some more, that would be better
  3. The history needs work.
    1. A 1937 map can't verify a 1937 creation date on its own. Do you have a 1936 map that shows that the highway did not yet exist when the map was created? If so, then you can narrow down the creation to being between the publication dates of the 1936 and 1937 maps. In short, such research requires two maps for the before and after conditions of a change.
    2. The extension stated to occur in 1939 needs a second map for verification. Again, this research technique requires the before and the after conditions of the roadway.
    3. Broken record time: if it was decommissioned in 1951, I need to see a 1952 map showing the number removed.
    4. Any idea when the highway was fully paved for the first time? If the maps indicate gravel/dirt vs. paved status, this is a useful detail to add. It's also interesting to note the location of the last section to be paved, not just the year it was done. Just remember to cite the maps before and after the change, and write the text to indicate that the change happened between the dates. If there aren't maps published every year, you'll need to indicate a range of dates, not a single year.
  4. The junction list looks fine, but you should repeat the footnotes for the 1939 extension there as well.
  5. References are one of my specialties.
    1. Please spell out the publisher. "ODOH" is meaningless in this situation.
    2. For all of these maps, if they have grid references that would enable you to specify which section or sections of the map apply, then you should add |section= to {{cite map}}. Just as you shouldn't force a reader to search an entire book for a single page, you shouldn't force that same reader to search an entire map when a grid reference can be supplied. Obviously, if the map doesn't have a grid, you can't invent one.
    3. Maps' scales, when known, should also be supplied. If the scale isn't known, |scale=Scale not given can be added in its place.
    4. Are you sure about the cartography information? If it's correct, drop the ", Director", but I'm doubtful that the actual director of the Ohio Department of Highways drew those maps himself. Rather, I suspect that a specific office within the department drew them. If the maps don't indicate this office, or then |cartography=ODOH is fine to indicate that the department drew the maps. (Yes, it's fine to abbreviate the department in this case, because it's being repeated in the same citation, but it shouldn't be abbreviated in its only mention in the citation.)

The short version: you have a C-Class article under WP:USRD/A because it has all of the "Big Three": the route description, a history and a junction or exit list. To be bumped to B-Class, the project will require the RD to be an appropriate length of text for the length of the highway and its general environment, that the history be fully cited with appropriate citations, and that the junction list should have all of its mileposts. Additionally, the lead should be an appropriate length and all of the citations expected should be in place. If you can do these things, the article should be ready to be polished the last little bit to be listed as a Good Article. (In this case, polish usually means just a quick touch up to any rough prose, double checking that captions for photos and other things are formatted correctly, etc.) GAs are better with photos, but they are not required.

You should also add a "See also" section with *{{portal-inline|Ohio}} and *{{portal-inline|U.S. Roads}}. Our USRD portal is featured, and it should be linked from every appropriate article to help drive some page views. If there are any webpages with additional information, say any of the various roadgeek webpages, then you should include them in an "External links" section, and shift the KML box there as well because it links to other websites.

I hope that this helps, Imzadi 1979  03:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 16 February 2015, 22:05 UTC)----

John Johnson (footballer)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have planned to make it a FA class. Comments are welcomed on this matter.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well sighted but you'll need a lot of content for FA-Class Aneditor (talk tome) 03:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 February 2015, 10:40 UTC)----

Geography and places[edit]


Previous peer review

Gold Star. Please. Any comments regarding the organisation/prose would be appreciated as I have serious intentions to bring this to FAC soon. Thanks, Jaguar 12:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2015, 12:45 UTC)----

Caldas da Rainha[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…it is currently a Good Article, and I think it's just about Featured Article quality. It went through the Guild of Copy Editors last week for some polishing. Before I submit the article as a Featured Article Candidate, I would like a final set of eyes to look it over to see if anything needs to be brought up to FA standards.

Thank you! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2015, 02:53 UTC)----

Georgia (country)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible GA application.

Thanks, kazekagetr 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Burklemore1[edit]

G'day, this is actually my first time peer reviewing an article, so sorry that I won't be able to cover the more complex problems that experienced reviewers can trace.

  • I have looked and seen four "citation needed" tags. These will need to be covered immediately if you want to nominate this for GA.
  • Even where citation tags are not placed, more sources will be needed. I have viewed many sentences with no sources, unless these statements can actually be found in other sources, so it's best to tag them where unsourced sentences can be found.
  • To me, the lead may need a bit of expansion, although you don't need to do this if you feel like the summary provides a good amount of coverage.
  • I have counted 17 dead links in the reference section, so new links will be needed to replace them.
  • The reference scrollbox should be removed. I have never seen this used in any article until now so I believe this is unnecessary.
  • The external link list is too excessive. I suggest removing some links (see Australia for a good example, but you don't have to follow this if there are some exceptions).
  • There is a possibility of use of weasel words, so a thorough search is recommended.
  • I haven't noticed any major grammatical errors and such, but you could try out a copyedit just to be safe for GA review.

That's seems to be all from me, so I would suggest waiting for another reviewer to address issues section by section. Burklemore1 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 February 2015, 17:34 UTC)----


Rose-Baley Party[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like additional input regarding the overall prose quality and paraphrasing before bringing the article to FAC.

Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2015, 17:39 UTC)----

Paul Kruger[edit]

"Uncle Paul" Kruger never read any book apart from the Bible and thought the Earth was flat, but nevertheless rose to be the four-time president of a republic that defied the British Empire. He encapsulated in his person the 19th-century history of the Boer people, from the Great Trek he took part in as a boy to the Second Boer War that ended his country's independence and sent him into exile. Personifying the Boers as he did, opinions on him correspond closely with opinions on the Boers in general. In some accounts he is a tragic folk hero who gave his all to defend his people, while in others he was an oppressive despot who ultimately brought disaster on himself and his country. The truth is in my view somewhere between these two extremes, though you will do well to find a book telling you that. Emotions run high to this day and even literature published recently often has an agenda.

This just passed GA after a very complimentary review from Tim riley, and I'm intending to take it to FA, but per Tim's advice to me relatively recently I am bringing it here first. I realise this is a long article (over 14,700 words as of 2 March), and input on where cuts could be made would be much appreciated. Cheers and I look forward to hearing your input. Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "lionise him" – I think of this verb as applying to living people; I'm not sure you can lionise someone who is dead. The examples of usage given in the OED seem to corroborate my view.
    • "his Presidency" – I don't think this wants capitalising. I never quite understand the MoS's rules about capitalising job titles, but though "a new President" may or may not qualify for a capital P, and "President Kruger" certainly does, I'm quite sure "his Presidency" doesn't.
  • Civil war; Commandant-General
    • "where Schoeman was Commandant-General was censured and relieved of his post" – something has gone off the rails with the prose here
  • Under Burgers
    • "bring the South African Republic up to speed with the nations of Europe" – a bit slangy, and not very clear: up to speed in what?
  • British annexation; first and second deputations
    • "He outlined issues Carnarvon had" – I offer you Gowers on "Issue": "This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute."
    • "E J P Jorissen refuted most of Carnarvon's allegations" – just checking: you do mean refute rather than just rebut? (I read this over the weekend and felt it winged me.)
    • "advisor" (here and later in the article) – regarded as an Americanism among scrupulous writers of BrEng, who stick to the established "adviser", but of course it may be fine in South African English. I just mention it.
    • "due to his wide knowledge" – again, I must be careful: "due to" used adverbially as here is established in AmEng, but not in good BrEng where it is confined to adjectival use. You'd want either "owing to" or – better still – "because of" here, if this were BrEng, which of course it isn't.
    • "His arguments were undermined, however" – I'd lose the "however": a word that so often creeps in when one isn't looking, and weakens one's prose.
  • Gold rush
    • "Kruger proposed to end the lack of higher education" – this rather peters out. There is no further mention of a university: did the Amsterdam institution get its way against Kruger?
    • "became too British (as opposed to Dutch) in character" – I think it is clear enough what "too British" means here without the four words in brackets.
  • Two volksraads
    • "a presidential carriage (later a coach)" – I didn't know there was a difference. Is it a distinction worth drawing here?
  • Rising tensions
    • "request that he not go on to Johannesburg" – is there a verb missing here – "…he should not…" – or is this some convoluted subjunctive construction? Not the smoothest of reads either way.
  • Resurgence
    • "except for with the Orange Free State" – strange phrasing
  • Road to war
    • "he did not envision" – unfamiliar verb: why not a plain "envisage" (or even plainer "foresee")?
  • Second Boer War
    • The third sentence of the first para contains a speculative statement that could do with a citation.
    • "forbidding them from laying down their arms" – can one forbid from? I can find only forbid to in the OED's examples of use of the verb.
  • Exile and death
    • "Utrecht, where the President took a comfortable villa – president of what by now? We say in the lead that he was president till 1900, and this is 1901.

As to the length, at which I raised an eyebrow during GAN, I suppose the word count is less important than whether the article seems to the reader to go on too long. The only place here where I slightly glazed over was "Road to war" where the details of the middle paragraphs are more discursive than I felt I needed. But even if you accepted that point and took the secateurs to the section it would save two or three hundred words at most, and perhaps it isn't worth the attempt.

Please let me know when you send the article to FAC. – Tim riley talk 10:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this Tim; this is very helpful. I will go through your comments either this evening or tomorrow night. I intend to end the peer review after two weeks (16 March) and go to FAC immediately thereafter. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Katangais[edit]

I found the article to be on the whole informative and engaging, and was pleasantly surprised that despite the length there was no need to soldier through it... it was sufficiently well organised, including an ample amount of visual aid. I did however feel that more sources were needed in the lead, particularly the second and third sentences (a cite for Kruger's apparent perception as the "personification of Afrikanerdom" for example does not appear elsewhere in the text).

There were also what I perceived to be a few peculiar litotes, which I changed to make slightly more palatable. Some redundancy was fixed. The opening sentence which made mention of Kruger's interpretation of the Bible concerning the Flat Earth Theory felt odd and it failed to click with me until reaching the much later description of the Doppers. Since the idea is to summarise the biography in that section I felt it would benefit by axing the excessive wordiness.

Other than that, I couldn't fault the current revision and would support a bid for FAC as or when.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2015, 11:56 UTC)----

R. V. C. Bodley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to nominate it for FAC one day. Any feedback would be nice, and i'd be happy to review your peer review in exchange. Just let me know if you have an article you'd like me to review when you leave comments here.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2015, 12:00 UTC)----

Basarab I of Wallachia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it should be chequed against WP:NPOV. I neither can decide whether the article is broad in its coverage. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by 1bandsaw[edit]

Overall, this is a high quality article about an interesting individual. The sourcing is great, and it provides a thorough documentation of this ruler.

1bandsaw, thank you for your comments and suggestions. I accepted all, but one. I also tried to answer your questions. Please find my comments and answers below. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Great! I guess it would take a Romanian reader to check the sources on Theodora's page in order to put her name on here? I'm satisfied with the fixes. Well done on the article! 1bandsaw (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I do have a handful of questions and suggestions below, which will help clarify some things:

Towards independence section

The 'main article' link to Battle of Posada doesn't seem right here, as it really only deals with the second half of this section. Perhaps break this in two and then it would, otherwise just link to the battle where it comes in.

I changed the link ("further information" instead of "main article"). Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

paragraph 1: "brawl" -- was this a personal fight or a battle between armies? "stated that Basarab's" what "was more powerful"? Did Stephen make the assessment, or the royal charter (written by Charles, I presume)?

Yes, it was a personal fight. I modified the sentence to clarify it. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

paragraph 4: "I will drag him by his heard from his lair" head? beard? heart?

Modifed. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Family section

It would seem good to me to actually mention his daughter's name when linking to her, in keeping with most other articles about royalty/nobility.

I fully agree with you, but no reliable sources referred to in the article mention her name. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Legacy section

paragraph 3: "chronicles used the denomination" perhaps simpler language could be used here, "chronicles used the name"

Modified. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

1bandsaw (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 February 2015, 19:02 UTC)----

Sinking Creek Raid[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to Good Article quality. I believe West Virginia American Civil War history has been somewhat neglected in Wikipedia, and I hope to post some high quality articles.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Review from Matthewrbowker[edit]

Thanks for reading the article. Another one may be ready in a few months. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The last USGS link returns a "302" due to excessive redirects. see here
It worked fine just now, but it has been awfully slow in other articles. I don't know if there is anything that can be done there. TwoScars (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Confederate Army camp contained about 500 soldiers (also known as rebels)" - That's a little awkward, you don't really need the parenthesis.
Will work on this over the weekend. I agree that it is awkward. The purpose is to somehow make sure non-USA readers are not confused. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have reworded that. You and I know who the rebels were, but I'm not sure if non-North Americans would. If you have any suggestions for improving this, please let me know. TwoScars (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Very good linear style, very interesting article.
  • Sources appear complete, however; I don't have access to any of the books so I can't cross-check the information.
  • Note: I ran CitationBot on it... diff

Very good and interesting article, I learned a lot about something I never knew before. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Thanks for reviewing the article, and past articles too! TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you use "Sinking Creek Raid" or "Sinking Creek raid"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Be wary of overlinking - try not to relink the same term multiple times close together
Unlinked Charleston and Kanawha River in the Background section. Any other place in particular with this problem? A few of the terms in the opening are also linked in the main part of the report. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Powell's men charged about a 0.5 miles (0.8 km) to the middle of the rebel cavalry camp" - are there words missing here?
I will clean that up this weekend. Since this is a quote, what do I do about conversions to metric? I'm thinking I can neglect it—that I should have kept the exact quote. What is the Wikipedia standard procedure? TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that it was not a quote. I will work on this over the weekend: either a quote or better wording—possibly better wording instead of the quote so that I can still use the distance conversion. TwoScars (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Reworded to "Powell and his men charged down the valley, a distance of about 0.5 miles (0.8 km), to the middle of the rebel cavalry camp." TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "release a union prisoner." - Union?
Reworded: "rescue a Union sympathizer held by the Confederates". I will look at this again on the weekend. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know how the two casualties were killed?
No information on that, except that no shots were fired. Powell says several rebels were hit on the head with the butts of their revolvers, but does not mention any KIA—only Paxton's official report lists KIA. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • None of your Sutton short cites link properly because the dates are given differently. Nikkimaria
Sutton originally published the book in 1892, and anyone can download it from Google Books. I have also purchased a reprint that added some pictures—probably found in the Library of Congress or National Archives. The reprint is dated 2001. I will correct my negligence by fixing the year. Is there a standard? Is it better to use the original 1892 date or the reprint 2001 date? TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cite book}} has a "orig-year" parameter that will allow you to include both. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it worked. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 17:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 February 2015, 17:30 UTC)----

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because at one time this article became confused between a history of the familly and a more general history of England in the period. As a result it failed a FAC. Much work has been done by others in removing the general history into a former redirect page England in the Late Middle Ages and adding details of the wider familly that were largely absent from the article. That done, it seems unlikely that further progress to A-class or FA is unlikely without wider feedback.

The article currently has GA status.

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 February 2015, 15:14 UTC)----


I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take the article to FAC and I would like feedback on improvements needed.

I'd say that the main problem is the language, as English is not my native tongue and I'm never confident in my grammar.

Thanks, Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 February 2015, 15:27 UTC)----

Yi Ye[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because peer review gives legitimacy to the information listed in the article.

Thanks, Lodzamanei (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

I have read through this and honestly, I can't find anything big to point out. You've improved the significantly and looks decently sourced too. Here's what I've managed to find. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • In the first section, Early life, both "middle-class" and "Japanese Pirates" are pipe-linked to Chungin and Wokou respectively. From WP:EGG, "make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." Catering to an international audience, it would be better to write it as "chungin (middle-class)". Similar could be done to Wokou, Joseon Tongsinsa, Yangban, Ming Dynasty,
  • Article is a bit underlinked. A term is usually linked once in the article with the exception of infoboxes, captions and lead sections. As a reader unfamiliar to this topic, here are some issues which can be solved by introducing new or linking the present terms.
    • Early life section: It says he was born in the Goryeo Dynasty. Later its mentioned Joseon. Link Joseon and try to possibly explain when this changed.
    • Diplomatic career: Link Tsushima at first mention.
    • Could it be linked or explained about King Sejong's coming into power?
    • Link Japanese-improved watermill, sugarcane, Korean Buddhist culture and printing technology.

I think this can be a good article nominee, if you're interested in getting this to Good article status. Though once you nominate it, there's a big queue for it and it may take several months before it gets reviewed. So be prepared or focus on working on something else till then. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 February 2015, 11:33 UTC)----

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Jack jumper ant[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article would greatly benefit to receive feedback on where it currently stands in quality from the community. This was also a former GA candidate which was withdrawn due to a lot of grammatical issues, poor layout and complicated, irrelevant and contradictory statements, as well as current hardships in my personal life which strained time on actually trying to improve the article. After review, it was greatly expanded, and issues that were not solved during GA review are now dealt with, and a copyedit was initiated. Editors who are particularly interested in the medical fields and have high standard knowledge are especially encouraged to make comment to this, since that would help me a lot to bring this article to GA status. Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • And the exact opposite of who you asked for is here. Since this has been in the backlog and by your request, I've asked three editors knowledgeable in this field from the volunteer list to comment here. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Ok some notes:

  • Try not to have the 3 lead paras all start with "jack jumper" or something like it.
  • The queen has a similar appearance to a worker, and males are identifiable by their perceptibly smaller mandibles. - I'd put this sentence after the measurements - and actually try to merge it into the last sentence of the para
  • However, total deaths could be as high as six. - I'd make this lead sentence a footnote
  • The taxonomic history of the genus Myrmecia was an interest to entomologists - err, why?
  • Most ancestors of the jack jumper ant, and Myrmecia as a whole, are found only in fossils - err, you'd expect that as they wouldn't be ancestors if alive today...I am not sure of the significance/emphasis of this sentence
  • The distribution in the lead does not match the body of the article
  • Most places that "very" is used...the word is unnecessary
  • Link anaphylactic shock/anaphylaxis in body of text

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

This article is looking much improved from when I last looked at it. A few points:

  • You need to think about your use of singular and plural pronouns. For example in the second lead paragraph it states "The average jack jumper worker has a life expectancy of over one year. They possess the gamergates gene ..." There are other instances of this elsewhere in the article.
  • The words "jack jumper" occur excessively frequently in the article. If you didn't want to use "it" all the time, you could use "this ant" or "this species" occasionally.
  • "Insecticidal control of the jack jumper ant is successful in maintaining their populations around suburban habitats." - This is a curious statement, insecticides are not usually used to "maintain" populations.
  • The section "Interaction with humans" is very long. Would it be better to separate this off into a separate article? After all it is about the reaction of humans to ant stings rather than about the ants themselves. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Chiswick Chap[edit]

I have copy-edited the article slightly. I think it should pass GA without much trouble this time around, as it is well structured, properly cited, and whatever else may have been said presentably written. The GA criteria do not call for perfect prose, just decent writing, which this is. I'd concur that the Interaction with Humans section has become rather long for the article; this is not reason to fail GA, but it could be hived off leaving a Main link and a short summary. A minor thing is that titles in the 'cite' template should not end with '.' as the template takes care of that; I've fixed a few of 'em. The medical part is close to straying into WP:HOWTO advice (e.g. "it is recommended to...") though it rarely crosses the line there. I haven't seen evidence that being a gamergate is controlled by a single gene, so I've replaced that implication with the simple statement that workers are gamergates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 February 2015, 11:34 UTC)----

Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Catholic Church[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially revised in recent months for consistent sourcing, thorough content, and style as part of a push for GA status. Comments on where further work is needed are very welcome.

Thanks, --Zfish118 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 February 2015, 18:05 UTC)----

George Pickingill[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently achieved GA status and I am hoping to take it to FAC in the near future. I don't think that it needs much work but it would be great it I could have another pair of eyes look it over to see if there is anything that needs doing.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Just a small comment here and hope someone else does a proper detailed review. I've taken a brief look at it and think its of great structure, reference formatting and prose. I couldn't do a in-depth review of it because I lack FA experience and the topic is too alien to me. Here's one thing which may or may not be helpful: The sections here are very lengthy and (may be) off-putting to the readers. Is it possible to split them into more subsections? Particularly "Magical activities" and "Liddell's account". Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 February 2015, 16:00 UTC)----

Social sciences and society[edit]

Gateway Protection Programme[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was peer reviewed some five years ago and then made it to GA status, failed an attempt at FA, and then I didn't edit it for a long time but I've recently returned and would feedback on how close the article is to FA status, and advice on how to get it there. One of the concerns expressed in the original FA discussion was that the scheme was quite new and not much was known about it. Four and a half years have passed, so we now know more about the subject and the article has been expanded. Thanks in advance for your input. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 March 2015, 20:16 UTC)----

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been linked to on the front page of the English Wikipedia for the past several weeks and receives over 50,000 hits per day on most days. The group is in the news constantly and has had a major impact on the politics of the Middle East (and the world as a whole), and thus deserves a high-quality Wikipedia article for all who seek to better understand the topic. The article has already been checked against B-class criteria by the Military History WikiProject and I would like to get it up to A-class after I close this peer review.

Thanks, Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is really not my area of expertise so I don't really feel qualified to criticize the content. What I would say, however, is that the article seems to suffer from the same thing as quite a lot of "in the news" articles in that for large chunks of it, every paragraph begins "In [Month and Year]...". I guess this is hardly surprising, but makes the content hard to follow. As with any article, some kind of synoptic judgment is needed and these will need to be integrated into some kind of narrative. The ideology section is a good example of this working well I think. Just my two cents anyway. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments by Simon Burchell
    • Some sections appear very "listy", with multiple short paragraphs divided by year - my feeling is that many of these can be combined into single paragraphs. At first glance, the Names and As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) could use some work converting them into more-easily readable prose text, rather than lists of facts. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There are some "clarification needed" tags sprinkled in the text in the As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) section. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Following on from my first comment, in some sections (e.g. As self-proclaimed Islamic State (June 2014–present), lots of short paragraphs mentioning the full date with the year. Many of these can be combined, and the repetitive use of the year can be dropped. In some paragraphs the (same) year is mentioned repeatedly:
"In July 2014, ISIL recruited more than 6,300 fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, some of whom were thought to have previously fought for the Free Syrian Army. Also, on 23 July 2014, Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon swore loyalty to al-Baghdadi in a video, along with the rest of the organisation, giving ISIL a presence in the Philippines. In September 2014, the group began kidnapping people for ransoming, in the name of ISIL."
This, and other paragraphs like it, could easily be tidied along the lines of:
"In July 2014, ISIL recruited more than 6,300 fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, some of whom were thought to have previously fought for the Free Syrian Army. On 23 July, Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon swore loyalty to al-Baghdadi in a video, along with the rest of the organisation, giving ISIL a presence in the Philippines. In September, the group began kidnapping people for ransoming, in the name of ISIL."
  • I know each to their own referencing style, but multiple references in this article could really do with being combined. There's lots of text like "In its digital magazine Dabiq, ISIL explicitly claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women.[315][316][317][318][319][320]", which severely interrupts the reading flow.

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 February 2015, 08:19 UTC)----

Gun show loophole[edit]

Previous peer review

I'm hoping to get this article into shape for a good article nomination, and I think it's coming along nicely. Other editors and I are hammering out its NPOV balance, and we need an image, but other than that, I think it looks good and would like an outside evaluation. (We had a brief blip in collaboration, but the problematic editor has since been blocked for socking.)

Thanks, Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94[edit]

  • The second sentence in the lede should have a citation; currently, the sentence says that the loophole refers to a perceived lack of federal regulation with regard to sales or transfers of firearms between unlicensed private citizens, but doesn't say from where that information was found.
  • A citation is needed at the end of the sentence referencing the 1999 report by the ATF.
  • Consider putting the information about what the gun control advocates and gun rights advocates want in one paragraph – I don't see a reason why these would need to be separate. I would strongly recommend citing those claims as well.
  • Can you name and/or cite the seven gun show loophole bills that were introduced in the U.S. House and Senate between 2001 and 2013? Adding a citation after the claim that some states do require background checks while others don't would be good, too.
  • The alternate names for the loophole (found in "Overview") should probably be mentioned in the lede.
  • Consider breaking up the information under "Early efforts" into subsections so that it doesn't read as one large block of text.
  • Great job linking to main articles throughout the text and in the "See also" section.
  • Well-sourced in the main part of the article.

Overall, I think the article has some really good information. I would recommend you check out WP:MOS and MOS:ACCESS, but I think this article off to a great start. MJ94 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 February 2015, 22:47 UTC)----

Marnie the Dog[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have put all the information I could find, and I would just like some feedback (aiming for GA).

Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 February 2015, 02:09 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]