Wikipedia:Peer review

This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For the pending changes trial, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.

"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For peer reviews sorted by date, see Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.

Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. Nominations are limited to one open request per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since any previous peer review. Please address issues raised in an unsuccessful FAC before opening a PR. For more information on these limits see here. To add a nomination: Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return. Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests. Note. You may change a topic parameter in the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are: X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosophy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.

How to remove (or close) a request In accordance with the peer review request removal policy, you may close any listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed, as follows: Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}. Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1). The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions. Current archive: March 2012

How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews. The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Use the non-image templates, {{done-t}}/{{not done-t}}, instead. Automated peer reviews can be generated using the Tips tool link in the upper right corner: please do not include them on the peer review page. Feel free to improve the article yourself. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.

Related pages
Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) Chemistry peer review Chess peer review Comics peer review Film peer review History peer review LGBT studies peer review Novels peer review Scouting peer review Conservatism peer review	Other peer reviews: Academic peer review External peer review Picture peer review Portal peer review
Purge server cache	edit guidelines

Arts

Vices & Virtues

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some suggestions on how to improve it, as I've read it over and it reads quite well to me. I'm not the most well-versed in the topic area, so as someone with limited knowledge of the band, I understood the article quite well. That being said, any suggestions for improving it would be fantastic!

Thanks, Yaminator ^talk 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 March 2012, 23:48 UTC)

---

Carmen

Previous peer review

Carmen is one of the most popular of all operas, beloved not only of a worldwide public but of such masters of music as Wagner, Brahms and Tchaikovsky. When it played in Germany, Bismarck just couldn't keep away, and Friedrich Nietzsche said it made him a better person. I've done my best to make this into a worthy article, though much credit is due to earlier editors who provideda lot of excellent basic material which I have been happy to use. While this PR proceeds I will work on the list of recordings. All comments and suggestions keenly awaited. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

A fine effort. I've enjoyed Carmen many times over the years and am glad to see the article in such a fine condition. Ah, my customary list of nitpicks:

Lede

• Is there any way to avoid the clash of the 36es in the first paragraph?
• "Later commentators " This and the next sentence seem a bit misplaced where they are.
• "has maintained its position" Possibly a "since" after "has" may help, but I won't mourn greatly if you disregard.
• " there is still no standard edition of the opera" I would omit "still", which implies it may come to pass, about which I would not hold my breath.

Synopsis

• "José arrives unobtrusively with the new guard" Unobtrusively? Given that directors seem wedded to staging that scene in a most spectacular manner, I'm not quite sure this is the proper term. Also some reference to the guard being changed might not go amiss.
• "The smuggler's hideout in the hills" Possibly "smugglers' "? I'm not certain on this.
• "read the cards" Perhaps expand slightly.
• "José is sent away to guard the contraband." This may slightly confuse the reader who has just had the booty come onstage. Jose is going to guard the approaches or some such rather than standing over it.
• " Escamillo confesses" He's rather up front about it, actually.
• toreador's song." You have called it the Toreador song, and have not referred to him directly as a toreador.
• You might want to mention in Act 4 that Carmen refuses to leave fatalistically or some such.
• ", as the crowds flock from the arena to find him confessing to the murder of the woman he loved." Perhaps "as the crowd exits the arena, they find Jose standing over Carmen's body, and he confesses to killing the woman he loved."

Creation

• " so there is" perhaps "resulting in"
• The sentence about the librettists' prior relationships could benefit from being placed earlier in the paragraph.
• The first sentence of the next paragraph would benefit from the loss of an "1873".

Characterization

• "that would later find fuller expression" You could omit "later" without penalty.
• "such as have deterred some of opera's most distinguished exponents." Perhaps, " ; this has deterred ..." And why exponents if they have been deterred? Consider the omission of the word "Even" in next sentence.
• "Toreador's song" Suggest standardisation.
• "Gounod" First usage, should be linked.

Performance history

• "It was generally believed " Perhaps "at the time", for clarity, should be added.
• " Drury Lane theatre" Is this the customary capitalisation? I see the redirect works.
• "In the event ..." This sentence strikes me as a bit confusing.
• "with the Viennese public" Perhaps avoid the word "Viennese" due to its proximity to "Vienna".
• "was the springboard towards the opera's rapid ascent" I would say "began the opera's ..."
• "among the first recorded instances " If you do not mean to say that they were recorded on media, suggest "recorded" be replaced with, perhaps, "known" or another synonym.
• "the fate that she personifies" Death?
• " as Micaëla reappears and sings her duet with José " Pedantic, but it takes two people to sing a duet effectively.

Recordings

• Afro-American. This term may ring oddly to American ears. Can it be worked around?

Well doen, as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda Arendt

love the opera, hear the music now, just a few comments:

lede

• "tells the story of the downfall of Don José" - the novella is told by him, but the title figure is Carmen, could that show?
• "brilliance of melody, harmony and orchestration" seems very general
• perhaps include "a drama with real men and women instead of the usual Opéra-Comique "puppets""?

Writing history

• "Micaëla does not feature in Mérimée's version", - suggest to say that she was added by the librettist

Music

• what is "full fortissimo"?

Musical numbers

• not really helpful if you don't read French, could be a table with translations, no?

other

• What do you think of File:Carmen habanera original.jpg?

Thanks for a great improvement! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 March 2012, 19:09 UTC)

---

Hill & Adamson

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm still pretty new at creating articles, and I want to see if I've covered all the bases (Notes/References, infobox, authority control, talk page, etc.)

Thanks, Scewing (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 March 2012, 18:55 UTC)

---

Heather Chasen

I've listed this article for peer review because from this peer review I am hoping to be able to cleanup the article to a high standard, aswell as being able to further nominate for FA. I would also like to confirm whether the article is at the standard I think it is. Thanks, MayhemMario 16:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 March 2012, 16:44 UTC)

---

Days of Heaven

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some creative, constructive feedback from Wikipedia's peers and distinguished editors to improve this articles quality and scope in hope of perhaps later nominating it as a Good Article. So far, I have done a little bit of working in cleaning up references and citations, adding visual enhancement and fixing up the introductory paragraphs.

Thanks, Ashton 29 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 March 2012, 02:41 UTC)

---

Rodney Atkins

I want to get another country music GA under my belt and I think I've got something here. The article as it is seems pretty comprehensive to me, but I'd like some more feed back before I send it to GAN. Does anything need improvement?

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 11 March 2012, 23:38 UTC)

---

Wyntoon

Previous peer review

This article is about a piece of property that has held some wild and fantastic homes, and is now owned by the Hearst Corporation. The article made GA last fall and has rested quietly since then. I would like to advance it to FAC but I could use some objectivity. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 11 March 2012, 07:13 UTC)

---

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to FA status in the near future and fellow editors at peer review are always great at spotting things that may need improving .

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 18:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 10 March 2012, 18:24 UTC)

---

Johann Sebastian Bach

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… Thanks, 14jbella (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I listed this for peer review because I am planning to submit it for good article review. I thought that it would probably be helpful to have it peer reviewed first, as I am not sure that I caught everything. Thanks for helping, 14jbella (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: It is good that someone is prepared to work on this article, which has languished somewhat while those of other, often lesser composers, have been the subject of devoted attention. I have not read the text in detail, but after a quickish survey I have a number of concerns:-

• Since you began editing the article in mid-February, you have reduced the text by about 2,000 words. I wonder why you thought this necessary? I have not examined in detail what has been removed from where, but from a glance I would say that the section dealing with Bach's music (works, style etc) had been halved since you began editing.
• With 4761 words, the article is way, way shorter than those of any of the major composers that have been developed into featured articles. Examples: Tchaikovsky 10871; Elgar 9899; Mahler 8861; Rimsky-Korsakov 7977. Even relatively minor figures (Delius, Smetana) have around 7500. I know wordcount isn't everything, but given Bach's status and the immense scope and range of his output, it is hard to believe that the article is a comprehensive account of the composer's life and works.
• It is very hard to get an overview of the sources used in the article. There is a "Further reading" list which mixes cited and non-cited sources; these need to be separated. A bibliography of all the cited works, organised by author's surname, would be very helpful. Have you added any new sources during the course of your editing? Likewise, have you removed sources that were previously used?
• The general organisation of the article looks odd with a Legacy section in the middle. The norm is for the composer's legacy to be discussed (not always under that title) after the consideration of his works, as a kind of tailpiece to the article – an evaluation of his/her lasting contribution to music.
• In this respect, the Legacy section looks painfully thin, considering the immense influence of Bach on later music.
• On relatively minor points, the referencing looks uneven; there are uncited assertions and, in particular, many paragraphs do not end with a citation. Some of the image choices look questionable, and their placement often results in the squeezing of text. Bullet-point format should not be used in the text.

I realise that this is not a full review, but these are all issues which I think you need to consider. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 9 March 2012, 01:11 UTC)

---

You Are the Apple of My Eye

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to list this article at GAN. I would like another editor to have a look through this so that I can correct any problems before its nomination.

Thanks, Lionratz (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 7 March 2012, 13:35 UTC)

---

Imaginos

I've listed this article for peer review because I need advice on the comprehensibility of the text, that should be encyclopedic but also simple enough to be easily understood. I also need help with the placing of the reference tags. Too few? Too many? Are some references missing? Please, let me know what you think.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 March 2012, 20:45 UTC)

---

Early Netherlandish painting

This article is still at an early stage of development, but I would like guidance as to where to take it from here in terms of focus/coverage, structure etc. Also as its inevitable going be a large article, I would like to iron any current problems reviewers might identify, rather than be faced with a humgous taks at a pre FAC PR. I appreciate that reviewing the page is a big task, but any bits of feedback would be appreciated. Tks, Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 4 March 2012, 22:15 UTC)

---

Ra.One

Previous peer review

Several editors have been working on this article for almost a year; in culmination of this, I would like to open a peer review to clean up any problems and issues this article faces before we go for a possible FAR. A few editors have noted that the article has a "way to go before being FA"; I would just like to finish up the loose ends as quickly as possible. Extensive copy-editing was performed by Baffle gab1978 while major contributors include myself, Meryam90, Karthik Nadar and X.One. The article has already undergone a review previously prior to its GAR but a much more detailed and fine-toothed analysis will be appreciated this time. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Section by section organizing

This part deals with my organizing of each section of the article. I'm making all the sections chronologically ordered, and also related to each other as some sections seem to have wildly unrelated stuff all bunched up together (especially the Commercial analysis section, which looks messed up after the copy-edit drive). I'll mark Y Done for each section completed.

• Lead - Y Done

• Origins and Development - Y Done

• Casting and filming - Y Done

• Post-production - Y Done

• Visual effects - Y Done

• Promotions - Y Done

• Video games - Y Done

• Release - Y Done

• Critical reception

• Box Office - Y Done

• Commercial analysis

Any section not mentioned means the section is too small and is properly done already. Note, any problems regarding the sections, comment underneath. I'm only adding this for organizing, not for full-check. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

General Comments

Guys, wouldn't it be better if a completely uninvolved editor review this article? I am not saying that you guys stop giving inputs, but a fully thorough and absolutely unbiased review can be given only by an external editor. I will approach somebody to review this article; if you find any problems, continue to point them out please. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes please find someone else; I think its fine to have several reviewers. BollyJeff || talk 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked Grapple X, hopefully he'll respond soon. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guys, sorry for late reply Ankit! You are doing a wonderful job dude. Just hoping Grapple X to respond soon. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing next to nothing, as you can see its all the others who are taking the pains to comb through this article :P. Yes, I hope he responds though he is very busy sending the WP:FILM newsletters to the subscribers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• The film's budget is a primary concern, given the fact that it was the most expensive Bollywood film till date. The given source for 125c is first party data, given by the producer. Independent sources, like this and this show contradicting figures of 150c and 160c respectively. I see a case of cherry picking here, and it needs to be sorted out. X.One ^SOS 10:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm really unsure as to what to do here, and I think the best thing to do would be to keep the infobox blank regarding the budget. Instead, we can discuss about multiple sources quoting various budgets. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

PS, Enthiran had this exact same problem. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And, not only that, the same SRK, in a previous interview with the same paper, revealed that the budget was 150 crore. I suggest abandoning first party data. X.One ^SOS 10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

SRK has been flipping on the budget for long. In a post-release interview it was him who said the budget was 125 crore. I think leaving the infobox blank is the best thing to do. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Too many quotes exist in the article. Other than in "Critical reception", they should be reduced, especially in "Commercial analysis". While some contain unnecessary info, some have been multiplied and written elsewhere or so, increasing the length of the article. Secret of success (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure what "too many quotes" mean, but if any quotes are repeated then definitely we should remove them. But I didn't see repeated quotes as far as I;m concerned (though I may be wrong). The commercial analysis section needs the quotes, I really think we shouldn't remove them. The quotes contain a lot of info and without them the section would be half as useful. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

They might need to be converted to indirect speech. I'll try looking into it. Secret of success (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of them are better off as quotes; after all, it will look a bit awkward if the entire paragraph seems to be in indirect speech. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 1

• Commercial analysis should perhaps not be under Box office section, but have its own section.
• Too many reviews; probably the most of any film on WP. Isn't there a way to summarize the reception better without so many?
• Too much detail in Box office - India section. Will we really care how much it made on its third day, fourth day, after nine days, etc. after a few years has passed?

BollyJeff || talk 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, good idea. We should make the commercial analysis a separate section, its huge enough.

Y Done. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes there are way too many reviews but all the reviews are notable and professional; I doubt we should remove any of them.

• LOL, we may ideally mention its first few days and post 1 week, its better to keep second weekend, second week, third week and then total (as Ra.One didn't earn significantly post the third week). I'm not really sure of what the current format is, I'll check it.

Thanks for the pointers, X.One is also doing his bit so hopefully we'll have a great article on our hands soon. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You guyz are joking right? Why on earth should the BO figures be removed? It fails FA criteria of "Comprehensiveness" that way! X.One ^SOS 05:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that "Comprehensiveness" means that every piece of data available must be there. Looking at the only Indian film FAs, Lage Raho Munna Bhai and Taare Zameen Par, comprehensiveness is achieved by covering every topic possible, without drowning the reader in detail on certain ones. BollyJeff || talk 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bollyjef, if the data is notable then ideally it should be there; since Ra.One had a second-best first week we should detail upon its first week. I did shorten a bit about the second weekend by removing the unnecessary second Monday figure, but beyond that there really isn't anything that should be shortened. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the revenue section, there's more trimming that can be done. For example, the third day numbers are mentioned which honestly aren't important. The total for three days setting a record is important and should stay. Fourth day numbers add no value to the article. Same with 5th day, 9 days, etc. It's information overload - we should be summarizing, not putting every little detail in the article just because there's a source. Highlight the big stuff. Ravensfire (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, alright I'll start removing those stuff (provided somebody already hasn't). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've done some trimming; can you guys take a look at it and see if its alright now? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• It could use some more external links like these Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#External_links. BollyJeff || talk 06:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. Added links to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and AllRovi. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're linking to the site as a reference, we shouldn't be also linking to it as an EL. That's for sites that aren't in the article but give some useful information or context to the subject. WP:FILMMOS suggests linking to the review aggregation sites to avoid linking to every single review. That may be something to consider here. Keep the EL's, but remove some of the reviews, especially if it's just saying the same thing in a slightly different way. Likewise, the link to BOI and BOM provide some summary of the revenue for the movie, allowing us to cut down on the details. Ravensfire (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are present in the article (not all RT reviews are reliable enough). So I think the RT EL is required. As far as I know, none of the reviews have RT as a reference. Indian reviews have no fixed database that keeps track of all the reviews, though undoubtedly the reviews section is quite long (But this is Ra.One, the way the film was promoted, having an overload of big reviews isn't unexpected). BOI doesn't summarize revenue, heck BOI hasn't updated their 2011 part at all. We have to depend solely on their news bulletins (and due references have been put). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully none of the reviews use RT or Metacritic as a reference! I know the article uses the main RT and MC links as references for the overall % numbers, but from the film MOS and various other articles I looked at, makes sense to keep them as EL's. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL yes, I can't imagine anybody wishing to go through over 180 references just to check if there are any reference pointing to RT :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Has there been a final resolution to the controversy? It should be added or stated that it hasn't happened yet.
• Hindi text not needed in plot section.
• First paragraph of Box Office section. Why is it considered average by some?

BollyJeff || talk 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy? Pardon me, which controversy? The Hindi text should ideally be there as the viewers have to know the context in which that line is spoken and translation will not be the best option IMO. The average part - are you asking why, or are you asking for some reference? If why, well just see the film's budget and its India earnings, its not exactly earth-shattering. Hopefully there is a reference to that statement though. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Section Ra.One#Controversy says there was a temporary settlement. Has there been a final?

Hindi text provides no context for English speakers. We removed title scripts but we are keeping whole sentences in the plot? Makes no sense.

It should be stated why it is considered average. If its because of the huge budget, then say that. BollyJeff || talk 13:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There has unfortunately been no news on that issue. Especially since the issue was about the script, and the script of Ra.One wasn't exactly one of its positive talking points :P. Regarding Hindi, I strongly believe the sentence should be there though maybe we can fit a translation somehow. I'm not sure, but I feel we should not remove that line as it is very important in the film's context. Nobody will give as to why the performance was average, its the trade analysts job to report figures and give verdicts. The real reason is, of course, because of its budget but there will be no RS on this as analysts don't give the why, they just give the math. I can add the budget reason, but that may fall into WP:OR. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 2

• I just caught sight of the critical reception section and I calculated the average rating from all the reviews; the average comes out as 2.95 (i.e almost 3). I doubt that can be called just mixed; it should ideally be mixed to positive. I know that a hell lot of problems appeared due to this issue, but we should tackle it. Thanks to the Don 2 ongoing review process, which reminded me of this. What should we do now? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I trimmed the lead and removed the now-redundant Ra.One (character) link from the top. I request somebody to give it a final look and see if it is alright. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments by Baffle_gab1978

Hi all, I did some copy-editing on this article so I don't qualify as a neutral editor. Please note that these are just suggestions.

• Disambig check: Hatnote and 'Plot' - 'Ra.One (character) and G.One (character) are redirect pages that link back to this article. 1.

Y Done. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Check all references with checklinks

I suggest you point out whichever references have any problem; going to the Checklinks part is reporting Malware warnings on www.filmfare.com, so its not opening. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there are any dead links there, but it might be worthwhile visiting those that show as problematic; you can then use the open page to add author, date, acceassdate, work and publisher info to the citations. I'll get back to you later on the checklinks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope there is another way to ind dead references, because Checklinks is still not opening. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent with citations; although FA doesn't require it, this article does use cite referencing - many lack source date, accessdate, author, publisher and works parameters.
• Be consistent with date formatting - use either '1 December 2011', '2011-12-01', '01-12-2011' or the variant commonly used in India per WP:STRONGNAT.

I don't think the date part is a problem; some of the dates do have only month and yeear, but that's how it is reported. Can I call this as Done? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it's you're choice, I'm only suggesting these changes, but a proper FA reviewer will check for consistent referencing because that's part of the FA criteria. If the full date's missing on the source there's no problem, but date formatting will be commented on at FAR. Choose one format and stick with it - what format do you prefer to use? I may help you with this. I know it's a drag but it's worth doing now, IMO.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I always prefer MM-DD-YYYY. And at least I use that format consistently. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, some of the inconsistency was my fault, I prefer to use '1 December 2012', so I used that when I expanded a couple of references. But no worries, I'll start tidying it up later. at least we'll be on the same page! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's roll up our sleeves :P. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This can easily be done with scripts; how do you want it? I think dmy is somewhat standard for Indian type articles. BollyJeff || talk 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, mdy looks better. But I don't have any particular problem with dmy either. Whatever the majority asks, we can go by that. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Me again. Most of the all-numeral dates, which seems to be more than half of those on the article, are in the YYYY-MM-DD format, so I think we should standardise on that as it's less work to convert. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What? You mean "2012, December 1"? That looks absurd. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No, I mean that most are formatted 2012-12-01. "2012, December 1" would look silly :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the dates in the references, or in the article? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well there was an editor going around putting yyy-mm-dd in the references, and either dmy or mdy in the article body. Its just not spelled out in the policies that it has to be a certain way, but he said you should not change it, if its already consistent per WP:DATERET. This one is not consistent at this point, so we can decide how it should be. I can easily change it to all dmy with one click per WP:STRONGNAT if you say so. BollyJeff || talk 13:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I really feel mdy would be best. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done BollyJeff || talk 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Thanks, the references section looks much better now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Standardise (!) '...ize' or '...ise'; British Spelling is probably the most dominant form of English in India and allows both styles. US English allows only '..ize on most words. Check American and British English spelling differences.
• Consider archiving referenced webpages using WebCite or The Internet Archive.

I started doing this using WebCite; 5 done, 175-ish to go! Hope it's ok, feel free to continue. :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean we need to archive each and every reference? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think the article is looking good and progressing well towards FA. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception section

I was going through this section and I found several serious errors in it. Advice is required.

• The Gulf News review in the article shows a 4/5 rating; the original review has no rating.

• The LA Times review in the article gives 4/5 rating; Rotten Tomatoes gives 4/5 but Metacritic is showing 100/100. The actual review is unrated.

What is to be done? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess it has been sorted. Secret of success (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You can remove Gulf News from the table, or leave it and say "favorable" instead of having stars. I have seen it before when not all ratings are in stars; they are in whatever 'units' the reviewer uses. For LA Times, its not in the table anyway, so what does it matter? The text makes no mention of stars, so it's okay. BollyJeff || talk 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The LA Times problem was corrected before you commented. The Gulf News part has also been corrected I believe. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Gulf source still does not say 4 stars. BollyJeff || talk 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 March 2012, 14:28 UTC)

---

Zombie (fictional)

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been consolidating its information for the last several weeks. I feel that a great deal of good work has been done by previous editors, and the information is of good quality and well-sourced. It was, however, poorly organised; spread over three different articles with much overlap and little clarity as to jurisdiction. Now that it has been brought together, I was wondering if it might eventually be promoted to a higher class, possibly GA.

Thanks, Serendi^podous 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead's too short per WP:LEAD for an article of this length.
• Avoid bold links in the lead per the MOS.
• "Half Life" is a dab.
• We shouldn't have inline external links like ""The Death of Halpin Frayser".
• Our article just calls it the Epic of Gilgamesh, not The Epic of Gilgamesh.
• "works couldn't be properly " avoid contractions.
• Avoid overlinking, e.g. George A. Romero is linked twice in quick succession, as is his Night of the Living Dead...
• Avoid linking common words like "disease".
• Para starting "The 1954 publication ..." is entirely unreferenced.
• Zombi II is (according to our article) actually Zombi 2.
• "countries.)[23]" not sure that's where the full stop should go.
• "RotLD " put this in parentheses after the expanded version if you're going to use (a non-standard!) abbreviation.
• the Evil Dead series is actually The Evil Dead series.
• Other paragraphs without reference, I would suggest for a GA that any sentence/para making a claim needs to be verifiable.
• "the "zombie apocalypse", " no need for this text to be in bold.
• "it wouldn't be " again, avoid contractions.
• New York Times should be The New York Times.
• War of the Worlds should be The War of the Worlds.
• Similarly for the other literary titles.
• In comics and In television sections are entirely unreferenced (apart from YuYu Hakusho which for some reason has three references).
• "game - was an " should be an en-dash.
• Fix the [when] tag".
• In music section is borderline a list of trivia.
• A zombie walk in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. no period required.
• Avoid bare URLs in the refs.
• "2011-10=02." should be a - not a =.
• Online refs should have publisher, author, access date, publication date information where appropriate.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Check titles of refs for comlpliance with WP:DASH.
• Be consistent with author names, either first last or last, first.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 March 2012, 22:14 UTC)

---

The Marshall Mathers LP

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to promote it to GA. :)

Thanks, Khanassassin ☪ 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Released May 23, 2000" released on... but perhaps clumsy USEng now allows us to ignore basic grammar?!
• ✓ Done
• "in its first week just in the US" -> "in the US in the first week alone."
• Take both the above comments into account and write a nice sentence about how well it did in the first week following its release in the US....
• ✓ Done
• Link "certified" in the lead.
• ✓ Done
• "As of 2005 the album..." umm... it's 2012?
• " by such magazines as " remove "such magazines as".
• ✓ Done
• Avoid # for "number" in the prose.
• "August 1999 - April 2000" see WP:DASH.
• "In the album's title, The Marshall Mathers LP is a more serious and personal album than his major-label debut," don't know what this means. "In the album's title...." why does that make it more serious and personal?
• " in both clean and explicit versions." suitable links for these kinds of releases?
• Don't overlink The Slim Shady LP.
• " ("Stan","I'm Back",& "Marshall Mathers")" spaces after commas!!
• "Eminem went on to answer his critics more frequently in some of his later works." your opinion?
• "Two lines in "Marshall Mathers" parody the song "Summer Girls" by LFO." ref?
• "a few other words " not encyclopaedic.
• "As of July 17, 2011" it's March 2012... any chance all of these "as of" can be updated to be more relevant?
• "throat splitting" what is this?
• Is the Track listing table compliant with MOS:DTT?
• Samples, only one has a reference. Why?
• Certifications table, put Hungary in the right place.
• Don't mix date formats in the references.
• Ensure ref titles meet WP:DASH.
• Make sure refs have publisher, access dates, etc (e.g. see ref 81).
• Check ref 43 as well. Odd stuff.
• Foreign language sources need to use a lang= parameter.
• Dead links.
• Bare URLs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP Comments

• There's probably going to be a few months to several before I can get to working on this article, so I thought since you're interested now, I should give you a few notes.
• The article is fully referenced by web sources. I know it has potential to grow into a very comprehensive contribution, but there are several printed sources that should be considered. Here are some biographic options.
• By the looks of it, the article's layout is generally good. A section discussing the writing and recording would vastly improve its quality and comprehensiveness. Here's a lovely article from MTV News' archives on "Stan".
• Chart and certification tables must undergo WP:DTT.
• Are you sure the Controversy section is a summary of the entire Misogyny in hip hop culture article? If there is a slight relevance, you may consider {{See also}} or {{Further information}} instead.
• Much of the information is unsourced and citations need to be provided. Again, printed sources work well.
• My talk page is open if you have questions. It's great that you're working on this article. Good luck with GA, but it's a long way. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 20:34 UTC)

---

Hold It Against Me

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to FA in the future.

Thanks, Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 22:13 UTC)

---

Willow Grove Park Mall

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I want to see what it needs to succeed at FAC

Thanks, Dough4872 04:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Not sure if there are any FA mall articles but worth a check at WP:FA to see if there's something you can use as a comparison.
• "stores plus several " plus several seems really loose to me, maybe "including a number of" or similar.
  • Changed "plus" to "along with". Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• " is anchored by" may be common USEng, but I have no idea what this means.
  • Changed. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• " on the site of the former Willow Grove Park" this is more succinct and should probably be how you introduce it in the first para of the lead, moving the road intersection info to the second para...
  • For the lead, I tried to describe the current information about the mall in the first paragraph and the historical information in the second paragraph. I feel that is a good way to keep the lead organized. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Explain what SEPTA means to us non-US readers before just using it like we all get it.
  • Explained. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ah, you link anchor store later on. Do it in the lead.
  • Linked in lead. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Various shop floor areas are far too precise (down to the nearest 0.1 square metre, really??) so make it (oddly) less accurate.
  • Rounded to zero decimal places. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In addition, a relocated two-story 17,000 square feet (1,600 m2) Forever 21 opened in a small portion of the former Strawbridge's in December 2011.[11][13][14]" does this need three refs?
  • Each of the references describe a certain aspect of the sentence. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• J. Crew appears to be just J.Crew (i.e. no space).
  • Fixed. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Captions which aren't complete sentences (e.g. The third floor carousel entrance.) should not have a period.
  • Removed periods. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• The two "incidents" are out of chronological order with the history.
  • I felt it was easier to provide the information about the evolution of the vacant anchor spot in one paragraph and provide the information about the incidents in another paragraph as not to make the reader jump around. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Seems to be a large space before the Economic impact section.
  • This space is caused by a commeted out deleted image. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• A couple of "As of 2011", "in 2009".. it's 2012 now, any updates?
  • Updated to latest available information. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't mix date formats in the references.
  • Made date format consistent. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce the SHOUTING in the ref titles, just write them in natural English.
  • Fixed. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. Dough4872 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 04:45 UTC)

---

Sam and Diane

I have created and expanded this article for one month and would like to know your suggestions to make this either a GA-, A-, or FA-class. It has real-world coverage and references, and I wonder if there are a lot more or less than this article deserves.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just briefly: ther are a lot of presumptions/synthesis that needs clarification. Subject titles in the first section are too long and sing-songy/stroy like and not encyclopaedic. Otherwise well sourced and should have no probs at GA soon when stuff is answered. (i tagged some of them that need answering)Lihaas (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_and_Diane&diff=480212801&oldid=480108485 --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Better but just check for overlink and fragments like the list of whio chose "According to the 1993 article from ..."Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There have been updates: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_and_Diane&diff=481599731&oldid=480222093. --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 February 2012, 22:45 UTC)

---

Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa

I think the article has all the relevant information that a film article should have. I'd like to get further inputs on improving the article and going for a GAN. Lynch7 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lynch7 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's Comments

• In Cast, write 1 line summaries of characters as in Mr. and Mrs. Iyer
• "Development" is more about "Promotion"/release of the film. Development should be similar to Rang_De_Basanti#Development
• File:Vtvfilm.jpg: questionable fair use. I don't it meets Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria "Contextual significance": "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
• "The shooting started on February 14, 2009"; "London on 19 December 2009": Dates need references
• Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa (soundtrack) needs to be summarized in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! Something unexpected came up, and I don't think I will be able to attend to this for some weeks. I will surely work on it in some time (anyone else is welcome to take this up in the meanwhile!). Thanks again! Lynch7 13:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Here are a few more suggestions for future improvement.

• The prose in the existing article is generally clear. However, the lead includes several "with plus -ing" constructions that are awkward but fixable. Here is an example: "The film began its initial schedule in February 2009, following a mystery launch with a series of publicity posters being launched with no details of the cast or crew." This would be better recast as something like this: "Launched by a wave of publicity posters with no details about the cast and crew, the film began its initial run in February 2009." I'd suggest looking for "with plus -ing" sentences throughout the article and modifying them for concision and clarity.
• Link Tamil on first use in the lead.
• Spell out as well as abbreviate BAFTA on first use.
• Link Goa on first use in the "Plot" section.
• Try to keep images entirely within the sections they illustrate. File:Vtvfilm.jpg in the existing article overlaps a section boundary and displaces the edit buttons. I agree with Redtigerxyz that this particular image does not meet the non-free content requirements, so deleting it would solve two problems.
• Readers from outside of India may not have any idea of how much "Rs.64,66,062" is or what a crore is. These should be explained or also given in dollars or euros, perhaps, or linked to explanations.
• Rather than giving each critic a separate paragraph in the "Critical response" section, I'd merge some of the shorter ones to make a less choppy section.
• Look through the article for overlinking. It's generally not necessary to link unusual terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. Its seems pointless, for example, to link Vijay Prakash four times in the "Awards and nominations" section.
• Use consistent date formatting in the citations.
• Italicize the names of newspapers such as The Times of India.
• Use normal Wikipedia style rather than all caps for the title in citation 25.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 February 2012, 17:08 UTC)

---

Hal Block

I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe the article could potentially be a feature article. I previously nominated it, but I was far too inexperienced and it wasn't prepared. I would be interested in any help improving the article. One previous area of failure was the pictures. I've attempted to ensure all pictures now used are in the public domain. However, any advice on any of the sections would be welcomed. While I've been nearly the sole contributor, I'm not proprietary about the article so please feel free to say anything. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You contacted me about this peer review...hope it's ok to comment here. I just had a cursory look at the article - sorry it took me so long to get around to it. While I'm not well versed in what FA standards are, I think the content you have written so far is very, very good. There's only a few little tweaks I suggest (copy edit stuff, minor rephrasing - nothing major). Aside from that, all the content looks well sourced and very well presented. I have a two-week vacation from school coming up, so I'd be happy to help you with any tweaking, etc so you can get this passed to FA status. I don't want to muck it up too much because I do think you've done a bang up job thus far. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Any help, opinions, etc. would be great. Thanks! BashBrannigan (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox: be consistent with italics for the titles of television shows.
• "Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois, USA California" what does that mean?

>>Fixed

• The image needs to have specific fair use justification for inclusion in this specific article.

>>I thought it did. The image description page has fair use justification for use in this article.

• Why not link What's My Line? the first time?

>>Fixed

• "of What's My Line?." avoid these double periods.

>>OK.

• As a non-American, I have no idea what USO is. Please expand it in the lead for the benefit of the rest of the world.
• "Chicago Sun Times " Sun-Times appears to be hyphenated in our article.

>>fixed

• "Block was suspended and then fired. Block left show"... no need to repeat Block. And what happened to Block afterwards? The lead is supposed to summarise the whole article.
• Captions with more than one sentence should always end in a period.

>>Fixed

• "Hal Block was born August 2, 1913 in Chicago, Illinois. Block was originally from the Hyde Park area of Chicago,[1] According" ouch. No need for "Hal", no need for the second "Block", use "He" and why is there a capital "A" after a comma?

>>fixed, except for use of "Hal". First use of name in beginning paragraph of article's body should use full name.

• "TV game show" is a little colloquial, we'd normally say "television" in preference to TV.

>>fixed throughout article

• "then the University of Chicago, graduating in 1935, where he majored in law" move "majored in law" bit to after "University of Chicago".

>>fixed

• "fraternity [6][7] " no spaces between text or punctuation and refs.

>>fixed

• "At just 21, Block " "just" awards undue weight, your POV to this situation.
• " Block decided to change his career path and attempt to make a living writing" how many verbs? decide, change, attempt, make, write.... "Block changed his career path to attempt to make a living" is a bit better, but all in all, this sentence sucks...
• "Hal Block was considered as one of the best writers" again, don't repeat Hal.
• "The 1930s and 1940s was the Golden Age of radio" is this a quote? Where's the direct ref?

>> sorry, not sure I understand. The direct quote is in the notes to the citation at the end of the sentence.

• "Block defied the odds" this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper.

That's halfway, there's a lot to do here. I suggest a good copyedit from WP:LOCE to ensure neutral prose. I suggest you also make sure you consider writing as a professional article rather than a (perhaps) fan page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rambling Man. BashBrannigan (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 February 2012, 16:14 UTC)

---

Jordin Sparks discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FL. Any feedback and suggestions would be great! Thanks, Oz ^talk 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• No mention of soundtrack appearances in the lead. Y Done
• " and earned her a record deal " no need for "her" or replace "and" with "which". Y Done
• "was then released in" no need for "then". Y Done
• Link "certified" to Music recording sales certification. Y Done
• "As of November 2010," nearly March 2012, any update?
  • I'll try searching for more recent sales. Oz ^talk 03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Update: I could not find any recent updates on the album's sales. Oz ^talk 05:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• "as of December 2010" ditto.

Otherwise, look forward to seeing it at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Michael Jester

• Overall, an excellent article. Great work so far. I hope to see it in FLC soon. Anyway,
• Some references (the Hung Medien-related ones) have lower case letters in the work parameter (e.g. australian-charts.com). While I don't particularly care too, too much about this, some users can be picky. Y Done
• Ref #14: According to Template:Cite news, a person should not be put as a publisher. Y Done
• Ref #38: Use {{-'}} to turn "' into "' Y Done
  

(Peer review added on Friday 17 February 2012, 22:09 UTC)

---

Canadian comics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've completely rewritten this page from scratch over the last month, and would like to get feedback. I think the subject of the article could definitely be made GA-class. Please pick nits and split hairs!

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a very comprehensive article. Because I am very strapped for time at present I have concentrated on identifying a few issues which may help to improve the article.

• Lead: The lead looks rather a long and daunting slab of prose, which may deter readers. There appears to be rather too much detail; remember, the lead is supposed to be a broad overview of the article's content. In the second paragraph we have arther more than that, with John Bengough, Hal Foster, Joe Shuster, and many other names and trends, all mentioned individually. This is the stuff of the text rather than of the lead, which I suggest couuld be reduced to around half of its present 700-word length.
• Redlinks: There are rather a lot of these, particularly in the earlier sections of the article. They should be used only when the subject is suffiently notable to provide a reasonable chance that an article will be written. It may be that you have been overgenerous in this respect.
• Citations:There are numerous instances of uncited statements, often at the ends of paragraphs, and there are some short paragraphs with no citations at all. As a rule of thumb I would say that every paragraph should have at least one citation, and ever paragaph should end with a citation.
• Images: Of 14 images, 11 are non-free. This is an exceptionally high proportion, unlikely to be acceptable. Wikipedia's general policy, defined in Wikipedia:Non-free content, is "to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions". A key element in a fair use rationale is the extent its presence would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Note the word "significantly".
• Works cited: These include a book by Duncan and Swift to which there are no citation.
• Prose: I have not given the article a full prose check, but I have noticed a couple of things:-
  • A tendency to repetition, for instance in "While Canadian comics have show varying degrees of British, Japanese and European influences over time, American comics have had the most notable influence on English-language comics, while French-language comics have tended to show a strong Franco-Belgian influence"
  • Overlong sentence such as: "The Golden Age of Comic Books and subsequent superhero boom kicked off with the June 1938 release of Action Comics #1, which had the first appearance of Superman by Jerry Siegel and Toronto-born Joe Shuster,[11] who modeled Superman's Metropolis after his memories of Toronto, and the newspaper Clark Kent worked for after the Toronto Daily Star, which he had delivered as a child."

One other thing. I notice from the article history that this is your virtually unaided work. It might be worth your while talking to and getting input from other editors who are active in this subject area. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've started working on your suggestions already. I just wanted to point out, though, that the Duncan and Smith references actually were there, but they pointed at the name of the book they wrote rather than the authors, so it wasn't clear. I've fixed that.

It would be great if more people helped me out with the article, but it doesn't seem many people are interested or motivated. It had actually been there since 2006 when I decided I would tackle it during the winter break. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I do believe I have managed to track down citaitons for every statement in the article (I've deleted the odd statement I couldn't get a good enough source for). I've rewritten the lead to be shorter and more general, rather than a historical synopsis. I've removed a large number of the redlinks (sometimes by starting the articles, sometimes by finding out there was already an article, and I just had the wrong name for it). I've tired to clean up the prose and cut down on overlong sentences. I removed most of the fair-use images (is it still too man?).

I've also managed to track down a couple of sources for Canadian editorial cartooning, which I had trouble finding before. I think that was the biggest hole content-wise in the article (I don't think there are any significant holes any more).

Where else could this article be improved? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani's comments (or comment):

I know it is the Wikipedia done thing to set out the article's ambitions as to scope right away, but the opening couple of sentences here rather suck out any desire to read further. Not any easy problem to solve, but perhaps you could try working in the considered authors and media later on in the lead after the more interesting stuff about the dual comic cultures. Yomangani^talk 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reworded anything, but I rearranged the order. Is that more what you had in mind? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 01:13 UTC)

---

Language and literature

Free Culture (book)

I've listed this article for peer review because it's an assigned article for Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (Michael Mandiberg) and, since an unaffiliated editor has markedly improved the page recently, I'd like to request comments as to what the students should focus on to possibly push the article up to featured article status. Thanks, Banaticus (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

WP:FAC is a noble goal, but I think perhaps you should caution the students to think in terms of baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day, etc. It's great that you've initiated a PR, but after this I would suggest maybe WP:GAC -- provided that the article is much improved from what I'm seeing now. (Note: my idea of "improved" may be different than your own.)

In its current form, the article seems like only a re-hashing of the book's outline. Other than a brief section on "Derivative works", the article is an outline and summary of the book. I suggest you alert the students to this proposed structure of a non-fiction book. As the page states, a general book article may contain:

1. A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers (see also WP:LEAD)
2. A book synopsis
3. Information about its publication
4. A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view)
5. Noteworthy citations and sources

The way I see it, the current "Synopsis" in the article is great -- keep that. But despite the amount of work and level of detail, the "Outline" is largely unnecessary and repetitive. Two important factors are currently missing from the article:

• When was the book published? By whom? Why? The fact that it was published on the internet is notable, and should perhaps have been mentioned in news articles.
• Was it popular? Did it sell well? What did the critics think about it? What effect has it had?

Another important point I want to make is the lack of reliable, secondary sources. The only reference I see is to Lessig's book: the book on which the article is based. This is a primary source. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Once you begin to research and add new info, unrelated to synopsis/summary, such as what I've suggested above, you should find outside sources to support that info. I see several sources listed at Lawrence Lessig that may prove helpful, but as an online ambassador, Banaticus, you should be able to point them in a more scholarly direction.

I hope these suggestions help. There's quite a bit of work to be done, but with some hard work I'm sure the article will be improved. María (yllosubmarine) 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to other potential reviewers: the article is being worked on in a sandbox, so the current version of the article is probably not stable. (Would have been nice to know that before I reviewed, sigh.) As I stated here, the PR is rather premature. María (yllosubmarine) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 22:09 UTC)

---

Berge Meere und Giganten

I've listed this article for peer review because… ...it's just made good article status and I'd like to make it a featured article in the near future, if possible. The article is about the 1924 science fiction novel by Alfred Döblin, better known as the author of Berlin Alexanderplatz. Thanks, Sindinero (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 February 2012, 07:07 UTC)

---

Everyday life

Harry Lee (cricketer)

I've listed this article for peer review because having got the article promoted to good status, I am looking for comments and thoughts on how to improve the article to featured standard.

• Good article review
• MilHist A-class review

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 17:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have not found time to give a full review of the article. I have carried out a few minor copyedits in the lead and "Early life" sections, and have identified a few concerns:-

Early career

• "Lee joined the MCC bowling staff in 1913..." You need to clarify that this did not affect his eligibility to play for Middlesex
• It does seem extraordinary that he was given his county cap in 1913 after so few appearances and hardly any performances of note; I wonder what the story was, here. I'm also a bit confused by the fact that, in 1914, his first-class appearances "almost doubled". As you say he made 3 appearances in 1913, "almost doubled" presumably means five, but the last paragraph of the section indicates many more appearances than that in 1914.

First World War

• It is not clear to me why, in an article on a professional cricketer, so much detail is given of his very brief (15 months) military career (or why this short span requires its own infobox). Lee's military service was honourable but in no way different from that of millions who served in the First World War, and does not really warrant more than a single short paragraph, I would have thought. Indeed, the whole connection with the MilHist project looks somewhat misplaced to me.

There is also the issue discussed on my talkpage, where I indicated that at least one of the county histories ought to be consulted. All in all, the article looks fairly well written, but I would advise another copyedit before taking it further. For example, phrasing such as "The Indian team did not have Test status, which was not attained until 1932" could definitely be improved.

My time is limited, but if I am able to revisit I will do so. Brianboulton (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 February 2012, 17:33 UTC)

---

Nintendo DSi

Previous peer review

I would like editors to identify additional areas of concern that I may have missed. Similar to what Laser brain brought up.

Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 09:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 February 2012, 09:10 UTC)

---

Oxford United F.C.

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been largely improved from the two failed FAC attempts, and i would like comments on what else needs to be done to get in to FA status (third-time lucky). Please be nit-picky. Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I fixed some hyphen/en-dash issues using a script. For these kind of sports articles, WP:DASH compliance is a must.
• Nicknames aren't referenced explicitly.
  • see below.
• What does "(as Headington United)" mean after the last nickname?
  • see below.
• " on 16 May 2010 " maybe a bit too detailed for the lead?
  • Changed.
• Not arguing with the history section here, but consider branching off, expanding and making an entirely separate OUFC history article.
  • Will consider this over easter when i have some time. Is the history section to large for it to go FA?.
• Shouldn't "Rev" have a full stop after it as an abbreviation?
  • Added.
• "Saint Andrew's church" would normally expect that to be Church (most churches I know have it capitalised when it's the full name...)
  • Capitalised.
• "Old Headington, " looks odd to me just linking Headington in part of this.
  • Linked both words.
• "The first game played " cricket or football? Previous sentence obfuscates this a little bit.
  • Clarified.
• "Road, but this was redeveloped " - why "but" ? Perhaps reinforce the redevelopment meant that OUFC had to leave or something?
  • Added.
• " was finally found in" maybe lose "finally".
  • Removed.
• "during the 1940s. In 1899, six years after their formation" mildly confusing to suddenly drop back in time a few decades.
  • Relocated
• " The team spent two seasons" you mentioned two teams in the previous sentence...
  • Clarified.
• "finishing fifth and fourth respectively." not sure this works, since you've just said "1940s". Respective to what?
  • Added actual years.
• "considered during the second season. " what "second season"? Be specific.
  • Done.
• " just one fewer vote" -> "just one vote fewer"
  • Rearranged.
• "They played their first season" you mention multiple clubs in the previous sentence, and in the lead you were using the singular for OUFC, not the plural.
  • Changed.
• "The club installed floodlights in 1950, the first professional club in Britain to do so,[8] and the first floodlit game was held on 18 December against Banbury Spencer.[9]" reads clumsily to me repeating club and effectively repeating floodlights in a single sentence.
  • Rephrased.
• League position graph is five years out of date.
  • see below.
• "thanks to a James Constable hat-trick" reads like a tabloid, and is there a link for hat-trick for our non-footy readers?
  • Slight rephrase and linked.
• "Rugby Union matches" this isn't a proper noun, no need for over-caps.
  • Done.
• Attendances graph needs an update too. And the caption needs a full stop.
  • see below.
• "Former Directors Nick Merry (L) and Jim Smith (R)" no need to capitalise Director and put (left) and (right) instead of your (L) and (R).
  • Changed.
• Remove the "Notable players" "section" altogether.
  • Removed. Moved link to List of Oxford United players to top of section.
• Three refs for youth team coach? And most of the other staff unreferenced? WP:CITEKILL.
  • Removed.
• Club officials, why are people's names in bold? no need.
  • Unbolded.
• Make sure the managers' table complies with MOS:DTT for WP:ACCESS to screen readers.
  • see below.
• Heading in that table - Notes should be Refs since these are references.
  • see below.
• What's the point in having all the managers here since 1949 when you have a main manager's article?
  • see below.
• "Pre-advent " and "Post-advent", what happened to "Before" and "Since"?
  • Changed

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. A few points: The nickname boys from up the hill was only used when the club were called Headington United. Since the change of name to Oxford United, the other two nicknames have been used almost exclusively. Also i cant find reference that specifically states "Oxford United have the nicknames.....", but the U's and Yellow are used frequently within the two club books, and the boys from up the hill was the title of a book on the early history of Oxford United. I will update both the attendances and position graphs when i figure out how i made them again (lost the originals). Will remove the managers table tomorrow, it was there as prequel to the full managers article and was never removed. Will replace it with a short description of the managers history, similar to Gillingham's article.Eddie6705 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Strikethough those done. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 16:45 UTC)

---

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed a GA candidacy (and a GA review), along with the peer review that came before that. Now WWB and I wish to take it on to FA, but we want to have this peer review first to focus specifically on the Featured Article Criteria. The more we fix up now, the less we have to do at FAC, right?

Anyways, WWB has a large COI in this article and, as a member of Wikiproject Cooperation (as is he), i'm here to help assist in the improvement of this article. Depending on how extensive the improvements suggested in this peer review are, we may need to make a userspace version of the article so that WWB can help as well, since he will not be actively editing the mainspace version of the article. But, for now, I think it's best to see what sort of peer review responses we get.

Thanks, Silverseren^C 05:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - lede says: "During the 1990s, the company was the subject of controversy for discriminatory practices against gay and African American employees."

• However, the heading in the body is: "Alleged racial and sexual discrimination".
• In reality it was sued for racial discrimination against employees and guests, and sexual harassment against employees, but never for discrimination against gays, as I recall. Just demonstrated against. "After demonstrations by gay rights groups the company ended its policy and stated it would not discriminate based on sexual orientation."
• "Policy toward sexual orientation" section needs some minor rewording, so that it follows a chronological order and is not so clunky.
• The lede needs correcting. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm rather busy until Thursday evening, so I hope you won't mind if I put off really focusing on this until then. Silverseren^C 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Apologies, i've been having (and still am having) internet connection problems with my laptop. But I should have internet access while i'm working tomorrow, so i'll make these changes then. Silverseren^C 04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, i've changed the lede so that it discusses the sexual orientation policy change seperately from the discrimination against African-Americans and female employees. Also, i've tried to emphasize the dates and chronology in the policy section better. How does it look? Silverseren^C 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copy edited a little in the lede and the final section. I think the article is fine and covers the controversial issues, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed one dead link and marked it - ref 21, I think. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) That's good. Do you think there's anything else that they might be specifically looking for at AfD? Maybe something special added to the references? They always seem to say something about the reference format. :/ Silverseren^C 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

K. I'll check it out. Silverseren^C 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

...weird. A direct url link doesn't work, even when that's the url on the page when i'm looking right at the article in the Tennessean. Maybe i'll just use a mirror. Silverseren^C 15:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ AfD - Articles for deletion? I can't see any reason for that at all! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not AfD. *facepalms* Sorry, FAC, I meant to say. I'm kinda wrapped up in an AfD right now, so i'm a little distracted. Silverseren^C 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 February 2012, 05:53 UTC)

---

Raiden (Metal Gear)

I've started editing this article some months ago considering the amount of sources I could find to expand the reception and creation sections. However, I have doubts about what does this article require before a copyedit and GA review, since it's still a C-Class. My main doubts are the organization and length from the sections.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments some quick things...

• "video game character" is a dab link.
• The infobox image needs specific fair use justification for inclusion in this article.
• The infobox image caption is an incomplete sentence so no need for a full stop.
• Infobox, hyphens in the "affiliations" should be en-dashes.
• I'd be happy for you to include "series" in the first wikilink of Metal Gear.
• "came up with the idea of" just seems a little loose prose to me, not professional.
• "white haired" should be hyphenated.
• "sneaking suit" - this isn't common at all. What is this?
• "which make him hard " makes?
• LittleBigPlanet appears to be just one word.
• Doctor Watson -> Dr. Watson.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Made the changes.Tintor2 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 16 February 2012, 23:12 UTC)

---

Hedley Verity

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC soon. It had a thorough GA review and I'm interested in any prose clean-up required, cricketing jargon and any instances of over-detailing.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "in 40 Tests " link to Test cricket.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should medium paced be medium-paced? Check all these, although I have to admit I'm not entirely ever sure about this!

• I think it should, so I changed it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "remains (as of 2011). " -> "which, as of 2012, remains."

"*Fixed (and reworked that part). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " over the next few years" -> "over the following years"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " Source: [1], " in the infobox, would prefer "Source: [Crickinfo]"

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Consider linking Sunday school in case that's not a universally common term.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "in total he took 29 wickets " you haven't said how many games he played so this "in total" is a little difficult to put into context.

• No idea how many games it was, but I still think we need "in total" so no-one thinks it was in one game or in his career, etc. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You relink Yorkshire Country Cricket Club here but not bowling average. Is there a reason?

• Linked average on first mention after lead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "By 1926, when he scored 488 runs and took 62 wickets " would be worth making it clear that this is what he managed to achieve during the entire season and not in some mega-match.

• Clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aha, you do link bowling average, just quite a way down the paragraph.

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Professional cricketer" I think I count 8 consecutive sentences where you refer to him as Verity. Can we rework this a little for less jarring prose?

• Ouch. Fixed some: it is a bit tricky at the start of the section as using "he" would be ambiguous, but tried to sort some of the others. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Beginning to attract more notice" a bit odd-sounding, maybe "attract more attention"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "and came top " -> "and finished top"?

• Not sure about either one, so went for "topped". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The senior professionals in the Yorkshire team, Rhodes and Emmott Robinson, discussed tactics with Verity and his friend and team-mate Bill Bowes, and analysed their errors." I don't know about you but there are quite a few "and"s in this sentence...

• Took one out and re-ordered sentence to make it less jarring. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "to take ten wickets in a " maybe clarify that this was "all" ten wickets for those who aren't quite sure of the significance of this performance.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could link "six" to Boundary (cricket)#Scoring runs for those who don't know what that means.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Observation - it rained a lot during Verity's career, didn't it?!

• Oh yes! Bill Bowes actually that when Verity came into the team, it did nothing but rain, to the former's resigned amusement! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" you've already linked and abbreviated this.

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "this remains the best analysis recorded in first-class cricket in 2011" not quite what you mean, perhaps "as of 2012, this remains the best bowling analysis recorded in first-class cricket."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Chosen for the first " prefer the more conventional "Selected..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "so that Verity bowled just five overs" -> "restricting Verity to five overs"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "owing to England's Bodyline tactics." -> "as England once again resorted to Bodyline tactics" (as you've said they did it a couple of times already, I thought it might be nice to reflect that).

• Reworded this to reflect it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "he took part in partnerships" reads oddly to me, "he formed partnerships" perhaps?

• Went for "shared". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• " overs in the first innings,[29] In Australia's second innings" something not quite right...

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "when he was permitted to use more attacking tactics" what does this mean, who gave him permission? Was it Bodyline spin?!

• Ha! Tried to reword to explain this without going into too much detail over attacking spin bowling. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could link West Indies cricket team.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "although other players declined " -> "although others declined..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the high number " not keen but brainfreeze stops me thinking of an alternative.

• Had a go at this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is Sind the same as Sindh cricket team?

• Yup, linked (but kept the spelling of Sind as that is what the source gives. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "HMS Verity" should be "HMS Verity".

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You relink "Flight (cricket)" here, any reason?

• I think for the benefit of the non-specialist; it's not obvious that "flight" as a skill and "flighting the ball" are the same thing, I don't think. But maybe I'm being dim. However, it was deliberate, whether it is right or not! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could link "South Africa cricket team"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Last seven sentences of "Career in the mid-1930s" has "Verity" nine times...

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who was Voce?

• Clarified and rather naughtily linked inside a quote as he is not otherwise mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You link Leveson-Gower on only the third instance...

• FIxed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the batsmen played in a negative fashion, despite pitches that were very good for batting. High scoring games " don't seem to go together for me...

• Not quite sure what you mean. The batting was deadly dull, even though the pitches were really good and they could have scored quickly and safely. The result was big, slow scores and someone or other wrote that both sides took it all far too seriously. Should any of this go in to make it clearer?--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Egypt, Syria, we don't tend to link obvious country names any more.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note 3, MCC or M.C.C.?

• MCC, unfortunately. I much prefer the old-fashioned look of M.C.C. but it really buggers the punctuation... --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 68 missing a full stop.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 103 missing a pp.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, very helpful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 February 2012, 22:58 UTC)

---

Philosophy and religion

Dreamtime (Duerr book)

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is of sufficient quality, covering all the available information on the subject.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

• "... with the aid of a hallucinogenic salve which the Christian authorities suppressed". How do you suppress a salve?
• "... focusing on the shamanic use of hallucinogens and the experiences they induce." That's a little unclear. Are you talking about the experiences of the shamanic use of hallucinogens or the use of hallucinogens?
• "... and that it is this process which both the shaman and the European witch undertook in their visionary journeys". I'm not certain that you can undertake a process?
• "Both academic and press reviews in the Anglophone world were mixed, with critics opining that Duerr's case was unoriginal ...". "Both" stands out like a sore thumb there, and I just hate that "opining".

Background

• "He had spent the day visiting the Puye Cliff Dwellings and was returning to the Alburquerque Greyhound Bus Station. Here he met a Tewa Native yerbatero buying a cup of coffee ...". That doesn't quite work; he was returning to the bus station when he met the native? Or did he meet the native at the bus station?
• "Having taken a blow to his vanity, Duerr decided to travel to Arizona, and from this experience first thought about writing Dreamtime." That's altogether too flowery. And what is the experience anyway? The blow to his vanity or the trip to Arizona?

Cheers for this Malleus! I hope you will not mind if I take the liberty of crossing out each point as I deal with it in the text. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC))

Not at all; it's your review, do with it as you will. I'll do a bit more later this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis

• What I think is missing is an introductory sentence or two outlining the range of topics discussed in the book, before diving into each chapter one by one.
• "... arguing that in the Late Middle Ages society began to increasingly accept female nudity in art and fashion." Are you comfortable with split infinitives?
• "... people have used hallucinogenic substances to reach states of consciousness outside of ordinary societal boundaries." I'm not terribly happy about "outside of", as the "of" always looks redundant to me. Could we say something like "beyond ordinary societal boundaries"?
• "Instead he champions the idea that the visionary experiences of shamans should be treated as real rather than illusionary." I know that "illusionary" is a real word, but it seems a bit contrived to me; I'd prefer "illusory", or perhaps "illusional", but your choice. (Why do we have three words meaning essentially the same thing?)

Press reviews

• "She also identified multiple influences over Duerr's thinking ...". Shouldn't that be on Duerr's thinking?
• "Atchity ultimately considered Dreamtime to simply be an 'obscure essay on the human experience.'" Another split infinitive. Some people are quite relaxed about them, but I think they're best avoided.

Well, thank you very much for this Malleus; hopefully this article can now go on and attain GA status! --Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should have too much trouble with this at GAN. I'm not sure what FAC might expect of an article on a textbook though, never having seen or reviewed one, but it'll be interesting to find out. Just one more thing I think needs attention:

Background

• The first paragraph repeats itself a little: "According to his own account, the idea for writing Dreamtime first came to Duerr when he was in New Mexico in the middle of 1963 ... Duerr would later relate that this blow to his vanity first provided him with the idea of writing Dreamtime." Malleus Fatuorum
  

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 March 2012, 17:38 UTC)

---

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

Previous peer review

This article is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed once before. It has been a kind of tricky article to get well sourced and flow well, but I think it is basically in good shape. I'd like to nominate it at WP:FAC, but I'm not sure it is FA quality yet and would like another review before I try. Any help weeding out issues that might cause oppose votes at FAC would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 March 2012, 00:50 UTC)

---

Korban Olah

I've listed this article for peer review because… it needs fixing. The subject of the article is the burnt offering in the case of Noah, Ancient Israel, mentioned under the term "burnt offering" in English language Bibles, English language Talmud, and academic works.

• (1) it was created as a fork from holocaust (sacrifice) on Dec 7 2010, from which the deleted/moved material was then restored, creating duplication. Inevitably that means there's a clean up issue back there as well.
• (2) the forked article was created using a WP:TITLE contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE and with other POV problems. Same sort of oddness and circular POV problems created by entitling/creating e.g. fork of History of Roman Catholicism in Japan as Kirishitan, for example. The original Hebrew term is [olah], the term korban olah (WP:CAPS) is rarely used in English language texts.
• (3) lack of any scholarly sources relevant to the actual historical period - added a WikiProject Ancient Near East banner.

Thanks, In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed a merge to pull back the forked duplication.. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: It appears to me that what you're really looking for is a dispute resolution rather than a peer review, which is meant for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Partly because of the unresolved dispute, the article in question has no immediate prospects of promotion to GA or higher. I see on the Korban Olah talk page that the idea of pursuing an RfC has come up. That's one of several possibilities mentioned at WP:DISPUTE. Whatever you decide, I'd suggest closing the PR. This is not the right venue for mediation. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 February 2012, 00:14 UTC)

---

Irenaean theodicy

Previous peer review

I created and worked on this article near the end of last year and it acieved GA status in November. I've recently been working on it again and would like to get the article to FA at some point. I'm looking for any constructive feedback from editors to help me improve the article. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Under present rules (see red highlight on WP:PR page) editors are restricted to one PR nomination. This is because too few editors are reviewing here, creating a lengthy backlog and long wait times for reviews. You should either close this review until the Augustinian theodicy review is complete, or close that one to allow this to proceed. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I had meant to close the other one, but forgot. I'll do that now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The first sentence should include an IPA pronunciation for "Irenaean". Not many readers will know how to correctly read that on sight. I may be back with more comments; I thought I had more time at the moment than I actually do. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 February 2012, 23:10 UTC)

---

Social sciences and society

The Doon School

I've listed this article for peer review because… it is a potential Good Article (Schools). Not many good school articles have emerged from India except this and a few others. I will be extremely grateful for any suggestions and constructive criticism from experienced school editors. Thanks very much!

Thanks, Merlaysamuel (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at it, time available determining exactly when (teaching responsibilities on my part). I already note:

• The lead is a bit confusing to those with different educational systems ("C form"? "D form"? taking a test at age 13 but with the entering grade specified - do you not have any students who are promoted two or more grades/standards?); at the minimum, some explanatory links would help. (I realize that it's in British English, and that this should not be changed.)
• The automated checker found some problems, as did the alt text checker.

• You might want to work on these in the meantime. Allens (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and suggestions Allens. Will get on it right away....!

Merlaysamuel (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quite welcome. I also note that there are quite a number of {{cite web}} instances that should actually be {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}. For instance, the Wall Street Journal's online edition should be {{cite news}} with "|newspaper=Wall Street Journal"; similarly, a book cited from Google Books should be cited as a book, with ISBN (can be gotten from the book's Google page). (Both of these will have "|url=" still.) Allens (talk | contribs) 11:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm going to have to do a complete overhaul or the references, probably in line with what was done at SMAC (some cite templates for books and such in the bibliography section, then individual notes would only be page numbers linking to the larger citation). CW to CN/CB...alright, on my mental checklist :P Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• The only problem with notes + page numbers is that, unless one constructs them manually, they don't seem to allow for separate URLs (e.g., different Google Books links) for different pages. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve this - see Joan Pujol Garcia for an instance. Any thoughts? Allens (talk | contribs) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• We ran into that same problem over at Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Notes, but it was an easy choice since all of the sources were either offline books or fairly short online sources in which we felt comfortable linking to the first page and letting the reader navigate to the fifth. Of course, there's always the ability to, in a format like "1. ^[[#Shah|Shah (2000)]], p.1.", link the page number separately (and individually) to Google books. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh. I should also mention that I've installed a script (User:Ucucha/duplinks - Stfg over at the Guild of Copy-Editors told me about it) that checks for duplicate links, so I'll be going through the entire article with it soon, thus saving some manual effort. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 March 2012, 22:03 UTC)

---

Bowling Green State University

I've listed this article for peer review because… the page has been improved, expanded, and updated over the past few months and weeks. Significant expansion of the article to become a comprehensive, well sourced and cited article close to GA status. Thanks, Bhockey10 (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 February 2012, 18:44 UTC)

---

Street Children in Thailand

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help with this article. I'm quite new with wikipedia. Thanks a lot!

Thanks, Ec3371ngo32 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)EC3371ngo32

Finetooth comments: Thank you for your work on this article about an important topic. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement:

• More details about these children would improve the article. What are their ages? How many are boys, and how many are girls? Where do they find places to sleep? What do they eat, and how do they get it? Are there any shelters for them? Is anyone working to help them? Have any books been written about them? Why are so many of these children non-nationals? How did they get from other countries to Thailand?
• Perhaps a whole section called "Response" could be added that would elaborate on what the Thai government, NGOs, church groups, or anyone else is doing to address the problem.
• Change the title to "Street children in Thailand" with a small "c" on "children".
• Use the lead to provide a brief summary of the main text sections rather than making it an introductory paragraph with information that is not covered by the main text. WP:LEAD has details.
• Combine the NGO definition with the "Categories" section to create a "Definition" section.
• Use the statistical material from what is now the last part of the opening paragraph to create a "Description" section that follows the "Definition" section and explains who these children are and how many.
• Instead of linking directly from within the text to an external site, use an inline citation. This would apply to the foundation linked to in the opening paragraph.
• Use straight prose paragraphs rather than numbered or bulleted lists where feasible.
• When a source is written in a language other than English, use the |format parameter in the "cite" family of templates and write the name of the language there.
• "Perhaps most worrying of all,... " - Instead of editorial comments like this, it's best to stick with a strictly neutral statement unless you are directly quoting a reliable source. Better here would be "In addition,... "
• Since you linked Thailand on first use, best to link things like Khmer and Burmese too.
• Linked terms like "street child" that appear in the main text should not also appear in the "See also" section.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 February 2012, 04:23 UTC)

---

History

William McKinley

I've listed this article for peer review because… on behalf of Coemgenus and myself, because we plan to bring this to FAC soon and would be grateful for feedback

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Eisfbnore comments

• "He defeated his Democratic-Populist rival, William Jennings Bryan, running a front porch campaign in which he demanded "sound money" (the gold standard unless altered by international agreement) and promised that high tariffs would restore prosperity." – you may call me unkind, but I could possibly argue that the sentence could imply that Bryan ran the campaign. I'd swap "running" for "on" or "in".
• "Religiously, the family was staunchly Methodist and young William followed in that tradition, becoming active in the local Methodist church at the age of sixteen." – def article before "young William", ne?

I think that's OK. I've used similar constructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Hanna had come to admire McKinley, and in the years that followed, became a close adviser to him." – move the comma from after "McKinley" to after "and", as the parenthetical phrase is "in the years that followed".
• "Instead, McKinley's wealthy supporters, including Hanna and Chicago publisher H. H. Kohlsaat became trustees of a fund from which the notes would be paid." – comma after "Kohlsaat".
• "Morgan expects the debate over McKinley's actions to continue indefinitely without resolution, and notes that whatever however one judges McKinley's actions in American expansion, one of his motivations was to change the lives of Filipinos and Cubans for the better." – "whatever however"?
• "Czolgosz was put on trial for murder nine days after McKinley's death, was found guilty, was sentenced to death on September 26, and was executed by electric chair on October 29, 1901." – I appreciate the grammatical parallelisms in the sentence, but I fear that there are a few too many 'was'es. Eisfbnore ^talk 13:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

All valid points which I will deal with later in the day. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Except as noted, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: My review will be somewhat fragmented due to time constraints, but I'll get through as much as I can before you feel you have to move forward:-

Image issue?

• According to WP:PD: "The United States Copyright Office, in section 206.02(b), 206.02(c), and 206.02(d) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, has stated its position that works of the U.S. Postal Service, of the government of the District of Columbia, and of the government of Puerto Rico are not "works of the U.S. government" and thus are subject to copyright." How does this square with the licensing of the stamp image?

Because the USPS, a government owned corporation did not come into existence until 1971. Prior to that, the United States Post Office Department issued stamps, and their works are government works. Note that pre-1978 USPS issues are also PD as they did not put copyright notices on until then. USPOD stamps, of which this is one, are in the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "In 1876, he was elected to Congress, where he became the party's leading expert on the protective tariff" Up to now you have only indirectly identified McKinley with the Republican Party, so "the party" should be clarified.
• "He was elected Ohio's governor in 1891 and 1893, steering a moderate course between capital and labor interests." I think "steering a moderate course" is what he did in office, not what he did while being elected - or am I misunderstanding?
• "...some historians argue he should be more highly regarded." I'm not sure that this is established in the text. One historian offers an explanation for McKinley's modest ranking, but that is about all.
  • I fixed the first two -- will consult with co-author about the third. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Early life and family

• "He met Nancy Allison there in 1829, and married her there the same year." The repetition of "there" is a bit clunky
  • Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Civil War

• Over-use of "soon" in opening paragraph ("The men soon left...", "the men soon began training", "Delays in issuance of uniforms and weapons soon brought the men...") I also think the same word reappears rather too frequently in the subsequent text
• Bearing in mind the overall length of the article, this section is one which I believe could be advantageously pruned without loss of significant information. To give just one example of sentences that could be substantially shortened:

Except for encounters with bushwhackers, they passed the next few months out of contact with the enemy until September, when the regiment encountered Confederates at Carnifex Ferry in present-day West Virginia and drove them back.

could become:-

Their first contact with the enemy came in September when they drove back Confederate troops at Carnifex Ferry in present-day West Virginia.

There are other examples where unnecessary details could be pared. I am unsure, as a general reader, of the extent to which McKinley's presidency, or indeed his political career, was particularly influenced by his Civil War experiences, and so wonder if the 1250 words devoted to this section are, as they say, "value for money".

I've trimmed this and some other parts. It's not the most important section as national events go, but those years were quite formative to McKinley and very relevant to his future political career. But, yes, it should be concise. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To be continued Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit more

Legal career and marriage

• "He soon formed a partnership..." - that word again
• When Hayes was nominated for governor in 1867, McKinley made speeches on his behalf in Stark County, McKinley's first foray into politics." Rather clumsy close repetition of the name (which is mentioned eight times in this paragaph)
• "As McKinley's professional career progressed, so too did his social life blossom, wooing Ida Saxton, the daughter of a prominent Canton family". It was him, not his social life, thay wooed Ida
  • These are fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Congressional career

• Readers like me, unfamiliar with the workings of Congress, may wonder that McKinley, nominated for the House of Representatives in August 1876 and presumably elected that autumn, first took his seat eleven months later. Why the delay?
• "Canton had become prosperous as a center for the manufacture of farm equipment because of protection." Surely not just Canton?

Leech is talking about what may have informed McKinley's views on the tariff; I've tied it to him a bit mroe closely.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• The information dealing with McKinley's bid to become Speaker looks chronologically misplaced. We jump suddenly from 1880 to 1889, but the subsequent paragraph deals with events of the 1880s. Those events, however, seem to have little to do with McKinley's congressional career; hsould this be a separate subsection?ǏǏ

Gerrymandering

• "The national party sent its legions to Canton..." Clarify that you mean the Republican party. Perhaps rather than the figurative "legions" you should more realistically say "leading figures"

Brianboulton (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done the ones in the (now renamed and reorganized) Congressional career/gerrymander material.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A further instalment (to end of election campaign)

Governor of Ohio

• Image caption: rather long, especially as the main subject is Blaine rather than McKinley; See MOS:CAPTION - "Captions should be succinct..." etc
• Please clarify: "Sherman, with considerable assistance from Hanna, turned back a challenge by Foraker to win another term in the Senate". But weren't Sherman and Foraker members of the same party? Was Foraker's challenge merely for the nomination, and someone else was beaten in the general election?

It was a legislative election. The minority Democrats weren't going to get their guy elected, so they'd do a deal. And some of the Republicans were allied with Foraker ... he fell a few votes short. This sort of thing led to direct election of senators.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...the aging Blaine, Reed, and McKinley". Does the adjective apply just to Blaine, or to all three?
• "Hanna established an unofficial McKinley headquarters..." At what specific point did Hanna align himself specifically to McKinley? The last we heard of him, he was assisting other candidates.
• Slightly more detail required for what you mean by "business notes"
• The McKinleys placed their property in the hands of trustees; a couple of senetences later we read: "All of the couple's property was returned to them". What is the timescale here? Was the property returned quickly, or years later?
• Regrettably, here in the UK we don't know what a "railroad trestle" is. Some kind of metal girder bridge, perhaps?
• This reads as clumsy: "The local sheriff wired McKinley using alarming terms, and the governor responded by sending a large force of militia, correctly assuming, based on his Civil War experience, that an overwhelming force would make violence unlikely." I would split this thus: "The local sheriff wired McKinley using alarming terms, and the governor responded by sending a large force of militia. Based on his Civil War experience he correctly assumed that an overwhelming show of force would make violence unlikely."
• In the last sentence of this paragraph the word "However..." is not required
• "His political efforts in Ohio were rewarded by the election of a Republican successor..." Successor as governor, presumably?

Obtaining the nomination

• "Sherman did not run again after 1888": suggest "Sherman did not seek elective office after 1888"

He did, of course, for Senate (1892). I will clarify.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Lamented Platt in his memoirs..." Quirky; I would invert the first two words
• "Ohio's vote gave McKinley the nomination": this could easily be misunderstood. I know you mean that in the alphabetic roll call of states, Ohio's delegates provided the necessary majority, but non-American readers may imagine that Ohio's delegates alone had the power to determine the nomination.

General election campaign

• In the sentence beginning "Once Bryan's plans became clear" the second comma should be a semicolon and the third comma should be a colon
• Examples of possible overdetailing (bearing in mind there is a linked article:-

• "excepting three days in July when he fulfilled nonpolitical speaking engagements elsewhere in Ohio, and a weekend of rest in late August."
• "If McKinley was still dealing with the previous delegation, they were halted on the far side of the arch from McKinley's home, and were offered their choice of beer or lemonade to refresh them as they waited."

Yeah, the section needs a little clipping. I'll cut it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The recording is brilliant!

I'll say. I'm not sure McKinley's style of speaking would go over well today, but he certainly had a way of speaking.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your valiant efforts. Those are all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

More: - (almost done)

Inauguration and appointments

• I am not yet an images expert, but I am learning...I have a slight worry over File:McKinley sworn in.jpeg. I am fairly certain that colour photography didn't exist in 1901, the stated publication date. Thus the coloured version may not have been published until much later, and may thus still be under copyright. This is the kind of issue I always looked to Jappalang to pronounce on, but alas he is long gone.

Fear not, in this case the colorized versions are in the 1901 original book. There were a large number of bios written and sold, the attraction of Davis's book is the great images, including this colorized shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The sentence "Sherman was not, however, McKinley's first choice for the position; he initially offered it to Senator Allison" should be the second sentence in this paragraph. Coming after the long account of Sherman's appointment, it has no impact.
• This sentence definitely needs some attention: "Once in Cabinet office, Sherman's mental incapacity became increasingly apparent, and he was often bypassed by his first assistant, McKinley's Canton crony, Judge William Day, and by the somewhat-deaf second secretary, Alvey A. Adee, prior to Sherman's departure from office on the eve of war in 1898." Suggestion: "Once in Cabinet office, Sherman's mental incapacity became increasingly apparent. He was often bypassed by his first assistant, McKinley's Canton crony Judge William Day, and by the somewhat-deaf second secretary, Alvey A. Adee. Sherman eventually departed from office on the eve of war, in 1898." - though from a chronological viewpoint it might be better to defer the last part.
• You mention there was speculation that McKinley might appoint a Gold Democrat as Secretary of the Treasury, but the only candidates mentioned in connection with the post seem to be Republicans.
• Could some of the details of the machinations surrounding minor appointments be trimmed? Otherwise one tends to lose the more important threads, e.g. concerning Alger at the War Department.

War with Spain

• Why no link to main article: Spanish–American War?
• "an" war for Cuban independence?
• The Maine "exploded and sank", not "exploded and sunk"
• "the court ruled that the Maine was blown up by an underwater mine" → "...the Maine had been blown up by an underwater mine"
• No mention of the Rough Riders (about all I can remember about the Spanish-American War]]?

Peace and territorial gain

• Clarify from which royal government the Republic of Hawaii had broken away.

Expanding influence overseas

• No particular points here.

Tariffs and bimetallism

• "American negotiators soon concluded..." Why not provide a date?
• "The Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, and his government showed some interest..." Technically there should be a comma after "government", but that would look very ugly. Why not shorten to: "The British government showed some interest..."? (and alter "he" to "they" later on)

One more heave and we're done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 March 2012, 10:25 UTC)

---

Order For Merit to the Fatherland

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently created over 20 other phalerisitcs related articles and am in the process of creating over 50 more in the next weeks. Feedback in the form of constructive criticism would be appreciated as I am relatively new at this. It would also prevent too many future corrections should I be doing something wrong. Cheers!

Thanks, Fdutil (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Sort of depends what you hope to achieve with these kinds of article. Is it a GA or an FL or just a decent B-class article?
• The lead is too short. It should summarise the whole article.
• " re establishment " needs a hyphen.
• "honorary title" is a disambiguation link so needs to be made more specific.
• "The Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" is a mixed civilian and military order" -> "The Order For Merit to the Fatherland is awarded to both civilians and members of the military."
• "These classes are awarded sequentially from the IV to the I class. " seems unnecessary.
• "Order For Service to the Fatherland IV" Service or Merit?
• 24mm, 40mm, convert to Imperial for our US and Brit readers.
• Don't put spaces between punctuation and references.
• Partial list of recipients is a partial gallery. You could make a table including these images and dates of award, reasons etc.
• Heading : Award Description is unnecessarily over-captitalised, should just be Award description. Check others.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 March 2012, 03:44 UTC)

---

John Forrest (doctor)

I've listed this article for peer review because I've followed the Wikipedia MOS and referenced all sources and hopefully created an article that is of good quality, but looking for feedback to see how it can be improved further.

Thanks, Gilesforrest (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

1. The lead and the main body of the article need to stand separate. That's because in some usages, the lead is published without the article and vice versa. It should be a summary, so there should not be anything in the lead that is not covered in the article. (MOS:Lead)
2. You need to add the information about his birth and its location into the first section.
3. Move the family information up to the first and last sections so the article forms a chronological narrative.
4. "Early military career" and "Later career" are just point lists. Rewrite in prose.
5. Link military units. eg 23rd Foot
6. He is not on the Physician to the Queen list
7. I like the notes, but they are unsourced.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 March 2012, 14:47 UTC)

---

Foley Square trial

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. This article is currently wrapping-up a GA review, but the GA criteria do not scrutinize the prose with the same level of detail as an FA review. I'd appreciate it if the PR reviewer were someone familiar with the FAC process and the FA criteria, and is willing to nit-pick the prose.

This is really an interesting topic. You won't be disappointed if you take on this review! Thanks, Noleander (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 23:12 UTC)

---

Lucius Arruntius the Younger

I've listed this article for peer review because... I'd like to make it better and for it to achieve GA status and to learn more about how to write good articles.

Thanks, Flaviusvulso (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• A few things (not really a full review):

• The article is rather short. What other information is available about this guy? For instance, more about any other offices held, what he did while in various offices, family life, and similar would be nice. During what times was he most popular? Any idea what his reaction was to the Senate's do-nothing attitude regarding the Tiber? (And are those Roman colonies that were objecting to diverting its tributaries?)
• Is there more analysis available from historians' commentaries?
• The alt text checker found that the pictures don't have alt text.

"alt text" added. Flaviusvulso (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Allens (talk | contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have rated the article as initially Start-level, but it may well deserve a higher rating (especially when it's been modified as per the above). I encourage you to submit it to the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject's assessment department for an updated assessment. I would say the same for the Biography WikiProject, except that they ask that any peer review for it be done before an assessment takes place. (I have tried to increase the likelihood of their peer-reviewing this work by making it show up in the listing of articles to be peer reviewed there.) Allens (talk | contribs) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments - predominantly technical issues but other stuff too.

• I would agree it's rather slim. The lead of most GAs that I've ever reviewed is usually more than three sentences.
• There may well be a decent infobox you can use in the lead. I note we have no "image" of Lucius but there may be something in a {{infobox person}} or similar that may embellish the article.
• Look for context specific links, e.g. instead of just linking admiral, perhaps look for a way to link Roman navy?
• "He was appointed consul..." the last person mentioned was his father, but I assume you didn't mean him?
• Per WP:HEAD, things like "Life As A Senator" should be "Life as a senator" i.e. avoid unwarranted overcapitalisation.
• ""a man of stainless virtues",[2], rich, daring, having brilliant accomplishments and corresponding popularity.[1]" no need for the comma after [2] but the "rich, daring, having brilliant accomplishments..." sounds more like another quote and should be in quote marks.
• Don't force image sizes (other than lead images), just use thumb or thumb|upright for images (landscape and portrait respectively).
• "Map showing the course of the Tiber river." isn't a complete sentence so no full stop needed.
• Refs 9 and 10, you have pp. for a single page reference. This is usually caused by the parameter in the citation template saying pages= instead of page=
• Don't think you need the 1st centry deaths category since you have a 37 deaths category which is more specific.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on a new version based on your suggestions.Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have substantially expanded and reworked the article now and updated the changes. Please have another look. Thanks. Flaviusvulso (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 21 February 2012, 05:57 UTC)

---

Geography and places

Kirkcaldy

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because i need a bit of help. Since the failed nomination for FA back in July of last year, a partial copy-edit of the article has been completed. This is of the first three sections, consisting of history, governance and geography. I have been advised by another user that other sections such as economy, culture and landmarks require this too, as well as giving me suggestions on these three sections. I took this advice and both the economy and landmarks sections have been cut back. Although i would still like to add statistical details for the town such as localised GDP on the economy section, i believe the info is not avaliable. Other than that, i am still aiming for FA.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 March 2012, 20:14 UTC)

---

Cedar Point

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan on nominating this for GAN soon but I need a little more input on the article. I understand it has a lot of lists but it lists everything an amusement park article should have. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Astros4477 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 March 2012, 01:29 UTC)

---

Cambridge

I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that it failed a GA nomination some time ago. I have revised the article according to the reviewer's comments and am submitting to peer review per their suggestion prior to making another GA nomination.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pontificalibus (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 9 March 2012, 14:38 UTC)

---

Aalen

Hi, this is a translation of the de.wp Good Article[1] de:Aalen, and the German version has undergone de.wp peer review[2]. I’m curious to know wether eyes of English-speaking people see different weak or good points in this article, and if it qualifies for GA here too. As yet, the article’s structure is close to the original, but it doesn’t necessarily have to stay that way. I’m not a native speaker so I definitely brought in many language flaws, but as I can see the article has been visited and improved by obvious native speakers since I’ve done my main translation work.

Thanks, dealerofsalvation 16:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 March 2012, 16:50 UTC)

---

Hyderabad, India

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now a GA and it has the potential to become an FA. Unless we kick start it with a PR, nothing can be done. The article is now comparable to other Indian FA's, and almost all possible fixes have been made. X.One ^SOS 06:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Yet to meet FA criteria 1b (comprehensiveness). Specific areas to work on are as follows. (I had only a cursory glance on the article, so may have missed something, please excuse).

Demographics More data needed; just population is not enough. Sex ratio, literacy, density, religious break-up are needed. If available, data of slums (either from census or sample surveys) is needed. Among these data, if something is noticeably different from national or state data, an explanatory line may be added (not must though, just to quench the curiosity of the reader).

Culture Mention cinema, theater, literature, architecture, any idiosyncrasies or peculiarities of the city. I see some info on cinema and theater are there in Media section, but probably these are more suitable in culture. As of now, the Culture section is too much cuisine-heavy.

Other comments No data on healthcare. Data on crime is missing. May be incorporated in Demographics section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Economy Some inline comments inserted. Please address. There is no mention of informal sector of economy; I think a large number of people in Hyderabad are involved in informal sector, right? Presently, the economy section is too much tech-heavy. At times, the section reads like advertisement brochure— 4th best city to live, best place to business!. You are not selling the city!! These are ok, but not everything. There are no poor people there? Any estimate of unemployment? Any percentage of population available who are in informal sector? (I understand not every data will be available, but as much as possible is warranted). Besides the recent tech developments, Hyderabad might house important national institutions, such as Andhra Bank. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Slum data : Y Done
• Sex ratio : Y Done
• Literacy rate : Y Done

Will work on the others shortly. X.One ^SOS 07:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment on demography. The growth rate between 2001 and 2011 is a phenomenal 87.2% !! I doubt if just population increase can cause that. There might have been increase in the area under Hyderabad city? What are the population densities in 2001 and 2011? If addition of newer areas under the city limit is a major reason for such population increase, that deserves a mention. If for some other reason, that also needs to be mentioned. 87% decennial growth rate for such a metropolitan city is unbelievable. --Dwaipayan (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

History The Telengana dispute deserves mention, as (IMHO) the disputeb and movement is actually quite old, although the agitation is new, right?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, it deserves a mention. I'll see if I can sort this out soon. X.One ^SOS 11:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Telangana bit and density : Y Done X.One ^SOS 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Education The following sentence "The International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad (IIIT) since 1998 and the Indian Institute Of Technology (IIT) since 2008 were set up with the technical and financial collaboration with the Government of Japan, as well as the Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS) since 2008." So all the three institutes were in collaboration with Japan?

Also, Osmania Medical College deserves a mention as the article mentions relatively less significant institutes such as Wigan & Leigh College.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore ^talk 13:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The city is one of the largest metropolitans of India with an area of 650 square kilometres (250 sq mi) having the population of 6,809,970 and 7,749,334 living in the metropolitan area, making Hyderabad the fourth most populous city and the sixth-most populous urban agglomeration in the country."—two participial constructions (-ing) in one sentence are disfavoured. I'd swap 'making' for 'which makes'.
• "The Kakatiya dynasty's headquarters was at Warangal."—subject-verb agreement: the headquarters are plural.
• "There are several movements to invalidate the merger of Telangana and Andhra; major being in 1969, 1972 and now."—what follows a semicolon must always be a complete sentence; try "the major were in 1969, 1972 and now."
• "As of 2011, the movement continues with Hyderabad being major center of strikes and agitations."—"with" is a poor linking word, and the participial construction is not very elegant, so I would try something like "As of 2011, the movement continues; Hyderabad is a major center of strikes and agitations."
• "The Greater Hyderabad, administered by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was created in April 2007 following an order from the Government of Andhra Pradesh."—comma after "Corporation".
• "Hyderabad Metro, the city's under-construction rapid transit system, is expected to operate three lines by 2014."—I'm not sure whether "under-construction" is an adjective. I would rephrase the parenthetical phrase to "the city's rapid transit system currently under construction".
• "Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, located at center of the city, is the main bus station of the city with 74 platforms for 89 buses, carrying 80,000–120,000 passengers in a day."—in the center of the city.
• "Among the early newspapers in Hyderabad was The Deccan Times establish in the early 1780s." → "Among the early newspapers in Hyderabad was The Deccan Times which was established in the early 1780s."
• "Ravindra Bharati, Shilpakala Vedika and Lalithakala Thoranam are well-known auditorium for theatre and performing arts in the city."—remove the hyphen from "well-known" as it is not an adjective but an adverb+participle. Eisfbnore ^talk 13:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 February 2012, 06:45 UTC)

---

Denmark

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I - and other editors - realise that this article still needs some improvements and an 'outside' look at the article would be valuable. Note that this article recently merged with Kingdom of Denmark, so any suggestions on cutting back/rewording the lead would be valuable. I hope that some key areas for improvement can be identified and hopefully work can start on getting this article back to GA status!

Thanks, Peter (Talk page) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why was this peer review page closed and archived? No review was made... AstroCog (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot archives any PR with no comments in the past 14 days. I have reopened it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a review in a bit then, since the bot is being impatient! CMD (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a big article. Over 139kB total of which 73kB is prose. That's a lot. This article should be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, giving a thorough but brief overview of Denmark. Length may bring more information, but keep in mind it will also bring boredom. If we can make readers interested in Denmark, hopefully they'll learn more.

I'll be doing this review section by section, so I apologise in advance if I take longer than you'd wish (and sorry this is only happening after a submission weeks ago). If what I say is unclear, or you have an alternative suggestion you'd like to ask, or if I just say something totally wrong just tell me here. I'm giving an outside perspective, and what I say are suggestions.

Lead

The lead seems quite disorganised. I feel it doesn't give a clear overview, yet at the same time goes into too much detail in certain areas.

• The lead theoretically shouldn't have information that isn't covered in the body (although the "(Danish: Kongeriget Danmark, pronounced [ˈkɔŋəʁiːəð ˈdanmɑɡ̊] ( listen) [note 1])" type stuff I've not once seen questioned, and I think should be fine). Because of this, there isn't really a need for references, as it should all be referenced in the body. Currently, the references in the lead are used only in the lead. This indicates to me that the information was placed directly into it and sourced there, which it shouldn't be. Make sure all information in the lead is in the body, and is sourced in the body.
• I suggest Greenland/Faroe information is grouped together. Currently there's a bit in the first paragraph, and a bit in the last (including the defining of Denmark as a unitary state). Group it together in the first paragraph so that the rest of the lead can deal with Denmark proper, which seems to be the focus of the article.
• The three notes in the lead are probably not needed. The state's pronunciation in regional languages isn't that important, as they don't apply to the whole state anyway. I've seen it argued that in fact no translations should be needed on the English wikipedia, but I think having the title in the state's official language is fine. Thus I'd remove that first note, and leave that to the interwiki links. The other two notes (and the prose they're attached to) go into a bit too much detail from the lead. I'd turn them into prose in either Administrative divisions or Politics.
• "Denmark proper is the hegemonial part, where the residual judicial, executive and legislative power rests" --> "Denmark proper is the hegemonial area, where judicial, executive, and legislative power resides"
• I'd cut down the information on what the exact definition of the Faroese and Greenlandic people are. Just keep it "The Faroe Islands are defined to be a community of people within the kingdom, and the Greenlandic people are defined as a separate people with the right to self-determination" or something similar. Again such detail is much more readily included in the body.
• Reword "Denmark's shores extend to both the Baltic and North Seas" somehow. It may be useful to combine it with a note that it is located where the two seas meet alongside the dominium maris baltici information.
• I'd remove the translations for the names of each island. It falls into the realm of trivia, and is more appropriately dealt with on the individual pages of those islands. In addition, as it stands the note "(commonly considered a part of Jutland)" is more confusing than explanatory. Either list the North Jutlandic Island as an island or don't.

• I think what the lead most needs is expansion in scope. I'd suggest adding a very short summary of history, "consolidated in the 8th century, entered a series of unions and wars with other Scandinavian countries, gave home rule and independence to overseas territories in the 20th century" or something (I have complete faith you can make a better summary than that).
• I'd also think slightly more about the people and their culture could be included, and perhaps economic information. We know the people are happy, uncorrupt, live in a welfare state, speak Danish, and are Scandinavian. Impressive for the short space given to that, but are those all the important points? The lead could go up to four paragraphs, as long as they're not too long!

CMD (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for picking this up and thanks for the suggestions. I don't mind going through the article section by section and I agree it's easier. Following your suggestions, I've made edits to the lead; grouping together information and adding other rankings. I've also followed the example of other country articles by removing references for the various rankings, i.e. '16th on the Human Development Index', as these can be found in the respective articles. I know there's still a little bit more work to be done on the lead though, so any other pointers are welcome. -- Peter (Talk page) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead is looking much better. It is probably not worth going over it again until the rest of the article is good. The lead reflects the article, not the other way around. As for the rankings, while it's fine to have them in the lead without sources, they should be in the body with sources. Mention per capita income in the economy section, the Corruption Perception Index in demographics (or perhaps Politics?), mention happiness in demographics (or is this the same as life satisfacation?), etc. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

• What does the unification of Denmark have to do with Etymology? Were the Danes divided before this? Were they all considered Danes at that point in history?
• Reference [10] (after "Most handbooks derive") is placed weirdly. What exactly is it sourcing?
• References [12] and [15] don't seem to be references, but notes. If they're notable and sourceable, include them in the prose.
• Linking to birth certificate in the picture caption seems like the kind of linking WP:OVERLINK deplores
• There's little I want to say about this section as it stands, because much of it seems terribly unreferenced. Source it, and perhaps rearrange (who knows, there may be enough material out there to make a standalone article). It seems haphazard, going from the 12th century Chronicon Lethrense to the 10th century jelling stones (although I gather that's because the Chronicon describes history?)

History

• This is a long section, which probably could be greatly condensed (I like to look at these sections as analogous to - slightly larger - leads of their main articles). At the same time, much of it seems unsourced. The quick and dirty fix is to simply remove all the unsourced information, or move it to History of Denmark if you're feeling particularly productive! You can then edit from there. The long fix is figuring out what information is the most important to give a concise yet thorough history of Denmark, and using that information and sourcing. Have fun either way!

• Prehistory could use some dates, estimates I suppose, for when the Danes arrived to Jutland.
• Was the territory of the Danes just Jutland and the surrounding islands, or were they spread over a bit more of Scandinavia?

• In Viking Age it's mentioned they were the first to reach Iceland, getting there from the Faroes. When did they get to the Faroes? Were the Faroes under some Danish king at that point (or whatever kingdoms are in what are now Denmark)?
• It's mentioned Greenland and Vinland were settled. It's probably worth mentioning how the settlements were eventually isolated and died out. (I was coincidentally reading a book about this just earlier today. Are there good articles on the settlements that can be wikilinked to?)
• "and Frankish sources (e.g. Notker of St Gall) provide the earliest historical evidence of the Danes." By "historical evidence" do you mean written record/recorded history?
• Much of the second and third paragraph seem to be the kind of unnecessary detail that, while fascinating to weird people like me, is a bit too detailed for this summary article.
• "The Danes were united..." What were they before? Warring kingdoms? Tribes? Earlier you discuss a "southern border of the Danes", which wouldn't make sense if they weren't united.
• Is Cnut the Great the same person as Canute the Great? How were Denmark and England divided? Who is Sweyn Estridsen? What is the relevance of Duke Robert of Flanders? Again, this is probably a good example of far too much detail, which would need even more to be explained properly.
• When did the massive flotillas of Scandinavians start meeting? I'm a bit lost here, as I still don't know how the Viking system was arranged at this time. Was the Norweigian kingdom a separate united Kingdom?

So unfortunately I don't know enough about Danish history to figure out what's missing here, and how the bits connect. I can only say I don't fully grasp the events here, although perhaps I'm just somehow dumb, which I apologise for. Any thoughts on this? Will continue review later. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• There are no citations in the whole Medieval Denmark section. It seems to contain some very interesting points though. Was this the period of dominium maris baltici?

• Who was the Battle of Falköping fought agains?
• Why was Margarets nephew crowned instead of her (I'm assuming she was ruling at the time?)
• How did Sweden get a king if it was part of the union?

• Protestant reformation is another section which lacks citations.
• (1534–1536) is given for the wars extant, yet it says that "The massacre of Skipper Clement's peasant army at Aalborg in December 1534 brought an end to the war". Did the war end in 1534 or 1536?

• Is it really fair to say attention had been given to the south if much of the previous information had been about wars in Estonia or with Sweden?
• Who are "the Hansa"?
• Lots of citation needed in modern history too.
• Who was the Battle of Lutter lost to?
• I was under the impression Bornholm revolted against Sweden rather than was given back.

• 20th and 21st history section again without a great deal of sourcing. Other than that it seems to cover the important points.
• The two WWII pictures in this section don't add too much to the text, I'd suggest just keeping the EU one.

Overall, I'd say the section needs to be greatly reduced. It is supposed to be a summary of history, so perhaps consider it a large lead for the history article (albeit with sources). Different country articles have different lengths, some with no subsections at all. CMD (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes,I agree that it can be cut-down a lot. In fact, some parts of that sections are slightly more detailed than the History of Denmark article, so I'm going to try moving some of the information there. But as you pointed out, there are lots of errors which have been missed. History will still need subsections, but they can be much smaller and not correspond directly with 'History of Denmark'. I'll start on this today. --Peter (Talk page) 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That was impressive. The thing I question most now about structure is why a separate 20th and 21st centuries section exists. A title like that implies recentism heavily (and doesn't include the First World War?). I suggest renaming that and "Modern history" with names that show the importance of the split rather than seeming completely arbitrary: eg. "Modern history"-->"Denmark-Norway", "20th and 21st centuries"-->"Constitutional monarchy". CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Geography

• Images: They should help the text. The image of Copenhagen tells me nothing about Geography. On the other hand, it's the first time I've appreciated a CIA map, as it shows the islands clearly (and bridges). The satellite photo seems to have little to do with Climate, but more with environment. I'm not sure what information the beach photo is trying to give me.
• Furthering that, captions should help. "Map of Denmark" is pointless; I see it's a map. Perhaps note the bridges in black, or note it's Denmark proper.

• First two paragraphs are unsourced. Things like coordinates definitely need sources.
• Third paragraph has two sources, and mentions bridges. A bridge has already been mentioned in the first paragraph, have information about bridges in just one area.
• Danish translations: I suggest not including them. They interrupt the flow of prose, are inconsistent, and verge on Trivia. Leave non-English names to articles on the subjects.
• "Ferries or small aircraft connect to the smaller islands" tells me that Denmark has boats and planes, neither of which surprises me in the slightest. If it's non-notable information, remove it.
• What is the criteria for "Main cities"? (Cities may be better covered in Demographics)
• "Other hills in the same area" are notable why?
• "The area of inland water is: (eastern Denmark) 210 km2 (81 sq mi); (western D.) 490 km2 (189 sq mi)." Where is the split between Eastern and Western Denmark?
• "The size of the land area of Denmark cannot be stated exactly since the ocean constantly erodes and adds material to the coastline, and because of human land reclamation projects (to counter erosion)." This is true for any piece of land anywhere. Remove.
• "On the southwest coast of Jutland, the tide is between 1 and 2 m (3.28 and 6.56 ft), and the tideline moves outward and inward on a 10 km (6.2 mi) stretch." This needs to be rewritten. I can guess what it's trying to say, but it's not obvious. Also, why mention the tide in that specific area? Does it have the largest intertidal zone?
• "Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands)" Best to focus on proper Denmark, like the rest of the article. Last paragraph again needs sourcing.
• Needs quite a decent copyedit after sourcing is done.

• "The climate is in the temperate zone." The climate is temperate, Denmark is in the (a?) temperate zone. The climate is not in a zone.
• "The winters are not particularly cold" is just opinion that doesn't give any information. Remove, leave just the temperature figures.
• Why is Christmas celebrated on Christmas Eve, and what does this (and the other holidays) have to do with Climate?

• Big claims in the Environment section's first paragraph require equally impressive sources. Also, avoid such short paragraphs, they appear cluttered and MOS advises against them.
• "These agreements have helped in the reduction in CO2 emissions by Denmark." No they haven't; they've set goals. The Danish government's laws and the actions of the Danish people reduce CO2. Information on those laws (and possibly public actions, if notable) would be useful.
• "Much of the city's success can be attributed to a strong municipal policy combined with a sound national policy;" can it? Says who? Policies that do what exactly?
• I just noticed "The award was given for long-term holistic environmental planning" is a copyvio. That's not good at all. Fixed it myself, but the article must not have anything like this, or any decent reviewer will quickly fail the article.
• "It is comparable to countries such as Germany," which are what? The comparison against other Scandinavian countries was good, as that's a distinct block of countries, but what are countries like Germany? Perhaps give Denmark's ranking within the EU.
• Sources. Needed. Lots of them. CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Well it's clear that the geography section needs a lot of work, more than I first thought. I can see now that it's a bit piecemeal up to now, with lots of people adding various facts they consider relevant without checking over first. I'm going to add a few references first and remove some of the information that obviously shouldn't be there (I've no idea why Christmas Eve/Christmas is mentioned in the climate section, I can only think that an editor saw a mention of Midwinter - which is vaguely related to the winter climate - and added it in. I'm removing that!) -- Peter (Talk page) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Western and Eastern Denmark are common terms used to split Denmark - 'Western Denmark' is Jutland, and 'Eastern Denmark' was formerly defined as Sealand and Scania (now just Bornholm). But this division shouldn't really be used in this article for the "largest body of water" (there can only be one largest body of water in Denmark!), so I'm just going with the largest.
Arguably the agreements have helped to reduce CO2 emissions, because the Danish parliament has passed legislation only really because of the goals. But this could definitely be worded better.
Good thing the copyvio was noted, something similar was found on another article and nearly resulted in half of it being deleted. I'll check for more.
Adding sources now. --Peter ^{Talk page} 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

This doesn't seem to me to fit well under Geography, but that doesn't matter.

• I don't think the Counties of Denmark further is needed as a hatnote, and it's included in the prose already.
• Don't start off with "Administratively", it's redundant.
• This article says there were formerly 13 counties, Counties of Denmark says there were formerly 15. Which is it?
• "The regions were created on 1 January 2007 as part of the 2007 Danish Municipal Reform to replace the country's traditional thirteen counties (amter)." --> "The regions were created on 1 January 2007 to replace the traditional thirteen counties."
• Linking archipelago is classic WP:OVERLINK
• Again, there's a dearth of sources.
• Have the English name first on the table
• I'd remove the entire country stats. They're redundant to the infobox, the prose, and the table in the Greenland section below.

• Although the article isn't the shortest, to say the least, I think the status of Greenland and the Faroes should be fleshed out more than it currently is. The historical dates at which they achieved their level of autonomy, for example, would be useful information.
• Place the comparison table to the right or left of the prose, rather than below it. It's a compact table, doesn't need its own lines. CMD (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Politics

• That map doesn't fit here, but would be useful in the Greenland and Faroe islands section above. I suggest moving it into the Greenland and Faroe islands section, and forget what I said about moving the table to the right, as that picture would fill up some space nicely. The other two images are quite good.
• Sources again, I'd be especially interested to have one for the constitution noting the monarch as sacrosanct. A fascinating anachronism.
• Don't italicise words without good reason, like "formally". The prose makes the meaning more than clear already.
• You mention the Danish parliament in the thirds paragraph, then reintroduce it as the Folketinget in the next one. It is then introduced again in the paragraph after that. Introduce it as the Folketinget once and note that it is the Danish parliament at that point, then stick with either Folketinget or Danish parliament consistently throughout the rest of the article.
• "In theory the doctrine prevails." What does this mean?
• "Greenland and Faroe Islands" --> "Greenland and the Faroe Islands", I believe the "the" is usually used in English
• Remove the information about the previous administration, there's no real point to have it.
• The constitutional information shouldn't be at the bottom of this section, and does overlap with the administrative divisions section above. My suggestion would be to bring administrative divisions to a subset of politics, but it's up to the editors of the article.

• The foreign relations and military sections need some sources pronto, especially for claims like the first sentence.
• I'd expect to find a short paragraph about the EU here.
• I would actually combine the two sections, as it makes discussing things like NATO, ISAF, peacekeeping activities etc. much smoother and simpler, reducing duplication.

Good suggestion about merging the Foreign Relations and Military sections - will do. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Also, the counties article is incorrect. There were 13 traditional counties, but also the municipalities of Copenhagen and Frederiksborg were first-level divisions, but they weren't counties as much. I'll briefly include this in the section. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 February 2012, 23:13 UTC)

---

Engineering and technology

Charles Inglis (engineer)

I feel this article would benefit from a peer review. I would like to take this to FAC eventually, if peer reviewers think it likely to be suitable, (Engineering is heavily under-represented there and this would be the first FA about a civil engineer) but my last FA was three years ago so I am a bit rusty. In particular a check on the prose would be helpful as my previous FAs have been picked up for this. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 10 March 2012, 17:24 UTC)

---

Ready Flowers

I've listed this article for peer review because…

There seems to be a number of biased parties editing this article.

Thanks, FloristExpert (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 9 March 2012, 03:49 UTC)

---

Harvard Bridge

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because many changes have been made since the last peer review. I want to see what's still an issue.

Thanks, Denimadept (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 March 2012, 05:36 UTC)

---

Metropolitan Railway

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like comments before nominating it for FA status.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, using the automated tools I notice I need to add alt text to the images. Will do over the next few days. Edgepedia (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done already. Please comment on the text. Edgepedia (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by DThomsen8 (talk)

• Very good work so far. I made some slight changes, but I make a comment:

• In the lede, ... and King's Cross stations and the City. Londoners, and many others, know that the City means The City of London, the historic core of London and (by metonymy) the British financial services sector, quoting The City disambiguation article. For an encyclopedia, though, a link or some other explanation is needed. I leave it to your good judgment how to do that. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've expanded the article and discribed the city as the historic core and trading and financial centre. . Not too happy with that at the moment, see if I can improve before a short description in the lead. Edgepedia (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments ---Thanks, I'm going to fix these in what may seem to be a random order! Edgepedia (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lead feels a little short for an article of this length.
• Expanding it would also allow for a larger lead image, right now it's quite difficult to make much out of that map.
• "The railway started to electrify its routes " no, the routes were electrified, the railway didn't do it to itself.

I'll get back to the lede ✓ Done

• Check that all King's Cross have an apostrophe. ✓ Done One found
• I normally expect off peak to be off-peak.✓ Done Two found
• No reason for "the Hammersmith and City Railway Company opened " to be in bold.✓ Done
• "The Metropolitan Railway in 1870" caption, second sentence needs a full stop.✓ Done fixed a couple of captions that were sentences
• Link Swiss Cottage in the prose.✓ Done first occurance linked to station
• "The Metropolitan & St. John’s Wood Railway" again, no need to bold this text.

---I merged Metropolitan & St. John's Wood Railway and this is now a redirect to the Extension line section. I'll read the MOS about this.

WP:REDIRECT#PLA says it may be appropriate. I'll consider this.

• 3.75 vs 6½ - be consistent. ✓ Done with {{frac}} and {{convert}} templates
• "with plans to link it to the Circle line or to the Waterloo & City line, but these never came to fruition." is unreferenced. --- Good call, sure I've seen it, but the text is in the sub-article unreferenced. Looking in books...✓ Done I've done it, but perhaps it needs a better reference.
• Couple of really short paragraphs towards the tail-end of the article.✓ Done tidied up a bit
• "No 368 bogie " should that be "Number 368 bogie"?✓ DonePreferred No. as an abbr of Number✓ Done
• "Electric Locomotives" ->"Electric locomotives"✓ Done changed section title
• 1922-1923, -> 1922–23.✓ Done
• "named after famous London residents" could you give a couple of examples of famous residents of the early 1920s?✓ Done I listed (and linked) the names of the preserved units in the next para.
• "Electric Multiple Units"->"Electric multiple units"✓ Done changed section title
• "7 x 8-coach " and throughout. I believe there's a "multiply" symbol you could use rather than just a plain x.✓ Done
• Ref 5: pp. 10-12. needs en-dash.
• Ref 14: pp. 13,25. needs a space.
• Ref 19: pp. 8-9. needs en-dash.
• Refs 30 to 32: need en-dashes.
• Same for refs 38 to 40.
• Ref 55 needs publisher, author, accessdate, publication date information where appropriate.✓ Done Replaced with a better source
• Ref 58: pp. 206,207. needs a space.
• So do 67 and 69.
• Ref 71: pp. 12-13. needs en-dash.
• So does ref 78.
• And 94 and 101. ✓ Done Hopefully fixed all multiple page references
• Many books lacking comprehensive information e.g. ISBNs.✓ Done fixed
• First external link needs an en-dash. ✓ Done Changed the format

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that both in the intro and in the Metro-land section the article needs to be clearer that many of the developments were undertaken by the Metropolitan Railway itself, as is stated in the Wikipedia Metroland article: "In 1903 the Metropolitan developed a housing estate at Cecil Park, Pinner, the first of many such enterprises over the next thirty years. Overseen by the Metropolitan's general manager from 1908–30, Robert H Selbie, the railway formed its own Country Estates Company in 1919.".
• In the intro, I think the wording "... connecting Great Western Railway's relatively remote terminus at Paddington with Euston and King's Cross stations and the financial heart in the City" is a bit clumsy towards the end; I think it should say something like: "... connecting the Great Western Railway's relatively remote terminus at Paddington with Euston and King's Cross stations and the City, the financial heart of London". re-writing lead

✓ Done I've re-written lead.

• In the Metro-land section, only the 1st paragraph is actually about Metro-land. The remaining material is about locomotives, service patterns and new branches, and so should really be moved or given a separate heading.

Winstonsmith99 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Green has a chapter called "Metro-Land" and Horne a chapter called "The Heyday of Metroland" which cover about the same period... (not saying they're right!) Edgepedia (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Metro-land" 1915-33 section covers the period in the Met's history when it promoted the railway and the land with this name. Hopefully I've now clarified what this section is about.

• There are quite a few things that I can see that are silent or missing. Having written a number of the existing London Underground featured articles, I have quite a few of the reference works, so I will make changes as I think are necessary to bring it into a degree of conformity with those. --DavidCane (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, checking if there was anything missing was something I was hoping from this peer review. I'll delay writting the lede. Edgepedia (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that after looking at Baker Street and Waterloo Railway I am currently expanding the the London Passenger Transport Board, 1933 section to add a Legacy section. Edgepedia (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done

• I've replaced the first image as I really wasn't happy with the map, the details were not clear at all. Had been hoping for something like Praed Street junction, found it on commons yesterday. Edgepedia (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that this peer review has now about run its course. I've rewritten the first paragraph and found a better image for the lead, which I hope addresses some of the comments here. I've also expanded some of the later sections. However some of the references could be better, so I'm going to look for these and DavidCane has suggested that he has some additional information, so I going to (hopefully) leave the article for a while before putting forward for FA, although I next may write on an article on Metropolitan Railway electric multiple units which should mean some of the nerdy detail on h.p. etc can come out of this section. Thanks everyone! Edgepedia (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work; trying for FA would be a good thing, then on 11 December 2012 we can raise a TFA request for it to be TFA on 10 January 2013 - that will score 4 points for a semicentennial anniversary. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's my plan Redrose. I'm sure you know that according to unreliable sources some people have been playing with fire at Baker Street in prep for next year. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the current (April 2012) issue of The Railway Magazine (pp. 6-7) --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 March 2012, 20:07 UTC)

---

Kingfisher Airlines

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the artilce for GA in some time, and with all recent additions, woyld like to know what is best suited for the article.

Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PR by AroundTheGlobe

Iv concentrated on the general aspects based on which:

• Items in the lede need not be cited if they are cited later in the article
• When was the airline established? Prose says 2003, category says 2004. All the reference states is the start date in 2005
• A lot of uncited information throughout the article.
• Statistics are uncited and updated only upto 2009 (Operational performance)
• No need for 2 infoboxes
• Quality tag needs to be looked into
• Too many images clustered, refer MoS
• I understand the need for the Kingfisher logo and fair use, however I fail to see the need for the Kingfisher red and King club logos (the latter is also without its usual crown). The red logo also sandwiches information, something that should be avoided
• I would suggest that the awards and achievements section be rewritten either in prose or tabular form.
• There are 3 templates at the bottom of the page, the see also section is not required as its been superseded by templates

Hope this helps! Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Compdude123

You really have a lot of work to do before promoting this to GA-class. Some suggestions/improvements:

• You don't need two infoboxes. Just keep the first infobox, {{Infobox airline}} and get rid of the second one. Some of the info from the first infobox is duplicated in the second infobox.
• Expand the history section. Suggestions:
  • There's a section buried at the bottom of the article about the financial crisis. Move it into the history section.
  • Financial performance info needs to be cited or removed if no citations can be found.
  • Add info about Air Deccan acquisition and its renaming to Kingfisher Red, and add info about the creation of Kingfisher Xpress.
  • The history section should at least be as long as Virgin America#History. VX was also founded in 2004, but didn't start flying till 2007.
• Create a corporate affairs section immediately after the history section with info about (and a photo of) the airline's headquarters, it's subsidiaries, and employees. Perhaps the financial performance table which I mentioned earlier could go here. This is done on many other airline articles.
• Prose in the destinations section as well as the text at the beginning of the fleet section need sources.
• The table says that it is "as of 15 August 2010:" Perhaps this could be updated to match when the ref was last updated.
• New aircraft orders section:
  • Apparently that section needs to be rewritten. Please do so.
  • Sources are needed for some things.
  • "Kingfisher's first Airbus A330-200 was widely billed (according to the airline's press release) as the best A330-200 ever built by Airbus.[23]" That seems like mere marketing/PR and does NOT belong in an encyclopedia.
  • Is the aircraft delivery table really necessary? I don't think so...
• Services section -- I have a long list of complaints about this one:
  • Take the chopping block to the cabin classes section. It looks like a travel guide, which Wikipedia is not. Why not cut/paste that entire section into Wikitravel? That's a great idea!
  • Why is the cargo section a subsection of the cabin classes section? You should move it to the aforementioned corporate affairs section.
  • IFE section - Shorten, and make less promotional sounding. But first cut and paste to Wikitravel.  :)
• Awards and achievements - Change it from a list into prose. And move into corporate affairs section. Also, that entire section relies on a primary source from Kingfisher Airlines.
• In the incidents section there is no need for bullet points since there's (currently) only one incident.

That's all for now. Hope this helps you. In return you should check out Alaska Airlines and comment on my peer review which I started by clicking here. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 06:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 15:10 UTC)

---

Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania)

I've listed this article for peer review because Horseshoe Curve is an important part of Pennsylvania history. It allowed quick [relatively] travel over the Allegheny Mountains for the first time. The curve became so vital to the industry of the United States that it was the target of sabotage by Nazi Germany in World War II. It's a unique bit of engineering technology and is still both a major rail line and, also, a tourist attraction. The eventual goal is FA and I believe it satisfies the required criteria, but any suggestions to make the article are better are most welcome.

Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't do FAs much, so my only question is the length: aren't both intro and body substantially shorter than FAs normally are? Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • According to WP:Featured articles/By length, the shortest of all 3472 FAs is Tropical Depression Ten (2005); Horseshoe Curve would be around 3363rd. I do not believe an FAC can failed based on length (like DYK). The intro I can expand though, having realized I forgot some things that should be in it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very good work so far. I would want good documentation for the claim about Nazi sabotage, which so far is lacking. The description of the funicular makes me want a photo, especially since the cars are painted with PRR colors, presumably PRR red. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Had photos of the funicular, added it to Commons; I don't think there is an opening in the article to place it. How is the info on Operation Pastorius lacking exactly? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I suppose the sentence Targeted by Nazi Germany in World War II, Horseshoe Curve was and still is a major rail line in the lede without any inline citation drew my rather hasty observation about documentation. That sentence should be split, and recast with mention of Operation Pastorius. It turns out that there is a bad link in the inline citations, which can be corrected by not having the link, since the paper magazine can still be the source. In general, should the lede have citations, or should they all be left to the detailed sections later in the article? I will go look at the commons image of the funicular. Perhaps the funicular image and some details about it could go in the Railroaders Memorial Museum article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Adding details on the visitors center, including the funicular, to the musuem article is a great idea. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What about a terrain map showing why the curve was needed to get over the mountains? Where does the railroad go, exactly, going west? Also, what is the grade on the curve? And what is that pond in the middle of the curve? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A terrian map would be a good idea (maybe showing the route of railroad throught the mountains), but I have no idea how one would draw the map. The pond inside the curve is the first of three reservoirs that supply drinking water to Altoona. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • You or I could request a map from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, but they do ask for some possible sources, so we would need to look into that. I have seen terrain maps elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I am unsure about the sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Look at [3] as a starting point for a map. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The map request is at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Horseshoe_Curve_.28Pennsylvania.29. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Arsenikk ^(talk)

• After reading the lead, I wonder what the curve radius and gradient is. Perhaps also mention it is double track.
  • Added; actually, it is triple-tracked (used to be quad-tracked until 1981). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't think it's necessary to repeat the links from the lead in the first paragraph of the body.
  • Removed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• No comma after "The curve itself,..." and probably also "itself" is redundant.
  • Removed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Using surveys done several earlier": several what?
• Added missing word: years. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't need to include abbreviations after terms unless they are more commonly known by their abbreviation (such as FBI) or repeated later in the article. Specifically, don't need "(PennDOT)".
  • Removed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• What do you mean with "The funicular is long..."?
  • Removed, leftover from refactoring of sentences. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 20 needs an accessdate.
  • Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I can see in a short read-through; quite interesting article and I'm glad I read it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More comments by DThomsen8 (talk)

• There is a graphic at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Horseshoe_Curve_.28Pennsylvania.29. This map does show where the railroad goes, but it does not do much to explain why the curve was needed.

• Grade (slope) says that as a percentage, the grade is 100*rise/run, where according to the lede, the rise is 37 meters and the run is 720 meters (0.72 km * 1000). Therefore:

• Percentage = (100*37)/720 = 5.1389% but the article says 2%. Please explain. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• That is very interesting, however, all the published sources say 1.73%. There must have been a different method of calculating the grade; either different measurements or a different forumula. A result of 5% wouldn't make sense as its difficult for a train to traverse. Saluda Grade—the steepest railway grade in the U.S.—is around 4.7%. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to research the numbers for the lede. I am sure the grade is no where near 5%, but you need numbers which work out to the expected 2% or less. What do you think of the draft map?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've revised to numbers to ones that make mathematical sense. The original length only accounts for the center portion of the curve, and a USGS topo map indicates that the ending elevation was too high. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 14:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 19 February 2012, 20:20 UTC)

---

Natural sciences and mathematics

Spinal stenosis

I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate suggestions on how to improve the quality of this topic's content and make a more beneficial encyclopedic contribution.

Thanks, Dubyahill (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 March 2012, 22:10 UTC)

---

Giraffe

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I had just did some re-paraphasing of the available sources and would like someone to do a spotcheck of atleast some sources to see if the paraphasing is good enough for FA. This cost it in the last FA review. Two of the books can be found here and here.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 March 2012, 22:58 UTC)

---

Horse

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because a group of us (User:Ealdgyth, User:Montanabw and myself, mainly) have been working very slowly over the past few years to get this to FA, and we think we're about there. The article is currently at GA, and has been looked over by quite a few horse editors, but we'd like to get some (or at least one) outside opinion on it before we run the gauntlet at FAC. Comments specifically on jargon, structure and overall readability would be most helpful, although comments on the article as a whole will also be appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 March 2012, 21:14 UTC)

---

Passenger Pigeon

I've listed this article for peer review because… We've taken this article fairly far along. Citations (and links) are more or less complete. Would like to get a GA out of this. Taxonomy (and fossils) are beyond expertise (I guess) of present contributors. I think that the article is especially important and relevant to current extinction and enviromental issues. Also, this is a "CD" qualified article, so it needs to be really good. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments some reasonably quick things....

• Four paras in the lead seems a little hefty for this reasonably brief article. But just check WP:LEAD in case...
• Do you really think we need to link the word "bird" for normal English speakers?
• "when it went extinct " it became extinct.
• "due to hunting and habitat destruction." because it was hunted and had its habitat destroyed.
• "a large fraction", what does that actually mean? 9/10? 1/3?
• "time.[2][A][3]" put notes one end or the other of this.
• Don't link common locations like United States.
• Lead is a little bit mixed up, you seem to refer to the species' extinction twice, its massive flocking twice. You don't need a lead for the lead...
• Some items in the lead are referenced and noted, others aren't. Since the lead is supposed to not include anything that isn't in the main body, I imagine you could move all these refs and notes to the main body.
• Why is e.g. in italics?
• " living relative were thought to be the Zenaida doves" either relatives or was.
• "If anything, Ectopistes is closer to the former, but relationships within this Columbidae lineage are not fully resolved yet." ref?
• "The generic epithet translates" sorry, no expert, but what "generic epithet"?
• " as the pigeon migrator." ref?
• Don't link "dictionary".
• Don't squash text between images.
• More of the prose needs examination.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Ensure you use en-dashes for page ranges per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 March 2012, 20:19 UTC)

---

Deep vein thrombosis

I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked the most on four sections (Classification, Causes, Pathophysiology, and Prevention), and I would like feedback on these sections.

Thanks, Biosthmors (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 February 2012, 18:50 UTC)

---

Period 8 element

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive suggestions on how to improve it to GA.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't overlink "IUPAC systematic names" in the lead.
• Define what IUPAC is before using the abbreviation.
• Who is " Pekka Pyykkö" and why should I care about what he said or did?
• Avoid overlinking in general.
• You link "g-block" on the second usage, and have it bold in the first usage. Both need fixing.
• What is "the Madelung rule"
• Per WP:ACCESS you shouldn't use just colour to display a given property. You need a screen-readable symbol too.
• What's GSI?
• What's JINR?
• Resolve the [dubious] tag.
• "Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung" don't over link, and use this (or better, the English translation) in the first time instead of just GSI.
• What's GANIL?
• "quantum and relativistic effects the " both these terms are overlinked.
• Pyykkö model section needs expanding.
• Note 1 needs reference.
• Electron configuration table should use col and row scopes for screenreaders per MOS:DTT.
• Avoid bare URLs in the refs.
• Format refs correctly (e.g. ref 28 has no title, author, publisher info etc.)

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 09:02 UTC)

---

Group 12 element

I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it and I want to know what is missing before putting it for GAN. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs has some comments on the talk page (Talk:Group 12 element#A few ideas). The "Chemistry and compounds" sections would benefit from some more discussion IMHO (e.g. the organometallic chemistry) and some more references for the uncited sentences. The discussion on the inclusion of group 12 into the transition metals could be put into a separate section (see Group 3 element#Group borders). Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This source may be useful: http://www.che.uc.edu/jensen/W.%20B.%20Jensen/Reprints/091.%20Zn-Cd-Hg.pdf Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments more on the technical aspects than with any expertise on the subject itself.

• MOS always used to suggest we avoided bold links e.g. zinc, cadmium etc in the lead.
• Zinc, cadmium, mercury and copernicium are overlinked in the lead.
• "none of its isotopes have been found occurring in nature" you said pretty much that in the preceding sentence.
• Ensure tables are accessible to screen-readers by implementing row and col scopes as suggested by MOS:DTT.
• "members of this family show " instead of "this family" reiterate "Group 12".
• No need to relink the elements in the heading of the properties table.
• What is "pm" in atomic radius?
• Is it "Group 12" or "group 12"?
• "bluish-white, lustrous[7]" shouldn't this be "bluish-white and lustrous,[7] ..."?
• 150 °C. You link Celsius here but not in the table. Also, be consistent with conversions to Farhenheit. Convert all the time or never.
• "ofcadmium and zinc" space needed, and try to stop relinking things per WP:OVERLINK!
• In each new section, reiterate that you are talking about group 12 elements.
• Organometallic compounds section is empty.
• Image captions that are complete sentences need a period.
• No need to link common terms like "Egyptian".
• "This definition has since been changed (see krypton)." explain it, don't just say "see krypton".
• Avoid bare URLs in the refs.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Check for WP:DASH e.g. ref 82 title should be A–Z and not A-Z.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 25 February 2012, 22:07 UTC)

---

Transitional fossil

This is a very important topic, and the article could use improvement. I would like to one day bring this to GA and then FA status. It needs more review by relevant experts, since I am not a scientist myself and merely incorporated text from other sources. I would like a peer review to further show what those issues are so we can move forward. I know some sections need expanding and clarification. The article has just gone through a copy-edit. It includes some notes that may be useful:Talk:Transitional_fossil#GOCE_copy_edit.2C_February_2012

Thanks, Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I may have time to offer a thorough review soon, but just glancing over the page, I ask that you replace the Tiktaalik roseae reconstruction immediately. The first tetrapods were solely aquatic, and any image that suggests that they came onto land is outdated. Yes, I know the textbooks still use these images, but paleontologists who study tetrapod evolution will tell you these illustration only perpetuate myths. If you want better images, I suggest putting in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That is just the sort of commentary that is needed. I have also removed the image from the tiktaalik article (which is where I initially got it). I have replaced the image with another one from the tiktaalik article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Although File:Tiktaalik BW.jpg is better, I still suggest having a new one made at the Paleoart review. The posture of the fish suggests it is holding itself up on land. It would be best to have it redrawn as a fish swimming in murky water. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

An alternative is using a picture of the fossil, like File:Tiktaalik belgium II.jpg. We could also need a better image of Thrinaxodon, preferably one showing wiskers, scale and some hairs here and there. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We can digitally remove the shadow on the current Tiktaalik image, which would make it look less like it's on land. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the NSF restoration has grass on it. *facepalm* -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway I'll try my hand at creating a restoration for Tiktaalik. Will post what I make in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review#Tiktaalik Here is the link to the Tiktaalik Paleoart review. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Obsidian Soul. If you would like, I could try putting you in touch with an expert who is knowledgeable about the fish's anatomy in order to offer suggestions and critique your preliminary work. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2 : There really need to be more non-vertebrate examples. I'll look around a bit, since I actually have a bit of time, but my expertise lies with plants, not invertebrates. The fossil Archaeopteris (the tree, not the bird, note the different ending) is one of the classic examples, as its fragments were originally thought to belong to two completely separate divisions of plants, until Charles Beck found connected fossil material. The tree had gymnospermous wood, but the leaves produced spores like a fern, instead of seeds. The fossil Pleuromeia is also believed to be transitional between the giant scale trees of the carboniferous and the more modest-sized modern genus Isoetes (quillworts). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We clearly need more plants! We should perhaps also include a human ancestor, I'm thinking Homo erectus specifically. The problem is that the example section can become overlong compared to the rest. Should we drop a couple of vertebrates? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that having all the current examples (plus a couple more) would be a problem. The strength of the article will lie in presenting examples, rather than in simply defining a term. If this were simply a definition, then it would be a Wiktionary entry. The current vertebrate listings are certainly spread out phylogenetically (ray-finned fish, early tetrapod, bird, mammal), so there's diversity present in the vertebrate selections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My vote is to get rid of the "Examples" section. Instead, while discussing the topic, examples can be given in the text with illustrations nearby. If we really want to list examples, then maybe we should create a list article. From my experience, once you start listing examples, then everyone and their mother will want to list their favorite example. Again, it's better to work the examples into the text, with a preference for (up-to-date) textbook examples, particularly when explaining terms. For example, Tiktaalik and tetrapod evolution is a great case to bring up with discussing the incompleteness of the fossil record (due to the fossil footprints but lack of land-dwelling tetrapods in the fossil record at that time). Archaeopteris is good for discussing early discoveries, and how opinions change as we learn and uncover more fossils. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now the section seems like a bunch of random examples thrown together to prove a point that's already discussed in the proceeding sections. There's already a list of transitional fossils if readers want examples, and all the information in these examples can be found in their respective articles. Some of the more famous examples like Archaeopteryx can be discussed in a section about cultural perceptions. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Smokey, I don't see that your criticisms can be addressed. What would make any selection of examples not "random" (one of your criticisms). Why do you say they're "thrown together"? Why shouldn't examples be used to illustrate the point? Isn't that what a good article will do?

The problem with relying on the aforementioned "List" article is that it suffers from being a mass agglomeration of snippets that will presumably continue to grow randomly longer. By contrast, a small selection of examples included in this article can be written so as to illustrate carefully and clearly the current point. They also can be selected so as to present the more classic and clear-cut fossils, rather than a full list of all somewhat obscurely transitional and often argued-over fossils. Now, it might be possible, and even preferrable, to incoporate the selected list into the body text of the article, but we shouldn't leave readers having to go look everything up to figure out what is transitional about the fossils. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What's making the examples seem a little random to me is the placement of very famous fossils like Archaeopteryx with more obscure ones like Runcaria. If we are to keep an Examples section, I think there needs to be more explanation as to why they are notable, mentioning a bit about their discovery and cultural impact. A textbook source for all these examples might be a good idea.

Following what's been said, I think the best way in which examples can illustrate a point is to put them right next to the specific points, not group them by themselves in an Examples section (Archaeopteryx with Missing Links and the Polish tetrapod footprints with Limitations of the fossil record, for instance). Smokeybjb (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For a layman (which is what an encyclopdia is for) this article would be very dry and theoretical, and very hard to understand, without examples. Many a beginning reader would actually do better to read the examples first and the theoretical part afterwards. --Stfg (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For a layman, examples can be offered (in summary) in the lead, along with an opening illustration (example with an informative caption). If you throw the readers straight into examples in the body, you will be struggling to explain terms along the way. What better way to introduce both than to turn it around and illustrate theory with examples. An example of a featured article with this structure is Lemur. Not only does the lead list special lemur adaptations, but the body does *not* have a "Examples of lemur adaptations" section. Instead, examples are given throughout the "Anatomy and physiology", "Behavior", and "Ecology" sections. I still strongly believe that an article with an "Examples" section is just as unprofessionally written as an article with a "Images" or "Gallery" section. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "examples", not "examples section". "Transitional fossil" is a more difficult concept than "lemur", but anyway, illustrating the concepts with examples at the point where the concepts are introduced, without a separate section, is fine. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'm glad we're on roughly the same page. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea of a cultural section, citing the classical "Icons of Evolution" like Archaeopteryx, Ichthyostega, Java man (or perhaps Lucy) and Cooksonia or Rhynia (just to have a plant). Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started adding a history section, an alternative to the examples. Please have a look at it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First problem I see is that you're using the name Rhynia for a plant that is now called Aglaophyton. The story there is much more complicated by the fact that Rhynia is the name of a fossil vascular plant, but the fossils now called Aglaophyton, on reexamination, were found to lack vascular tissue. Also, you'll have to be more specific than Cooksonia, which has turned out to be a polyphyletic assemblage of several species and has undergone extensive reinterpretation in the past 15 years. It's also wrong to call it the "ancestor" of vascular plants. There still ought to be mention of Archaeopteris as a classical icon of evolution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was using Rhynia for Rhynia gwynne-vaughanii, which to the best of my knowledge is still called Rhynia. The reason I wanted it (over Archaeopteris) is that I am trying to make a section on the history of transitional fossils, and old Rhynia is very much an old classic. If you read what is now the history section in the article, you'll see what I'm after. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll need to completely rewrite that section, because what you've written describes Aglaophyton rather than R. gwynne-vaughanii. I still don't understand why you don't think Archaeopteris is a classic as well. It has been around for more than 60 years, and is included in introductory biology classes as a classic example of a transitional fossil. It's also much easier to explain why it's transitional than either Aglaophyton and Rhynia, since more people are familiar with ferns and gymnosperms than with the architecture of the bryophyte sporophyte or alternation of generations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I took what is in the section from the page on R. gwynne-vaughanii, so if what I wrote needs a complete rewrite, then so does the Rhynia article. Seeing that you are a botanist, would you have a look at it (I'm a zoologist I'm afraid)? I'm all for having more plants, but the reason I primarily wanted Rhynia is that my trusty old "Studies in Paleobotany" (1967) spends a whole chapter on it (Archaeopteris is mentioned in passim), and the little weed was still all the rage when I started studying biology in the early 1990s. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In 1967, Aglaophyton was still considered a species of Rhynia. The detailed studies of vascular tissue had not yet been completed. As I am rather busy offline for the forseeable future, the best person to have rework the information is either User:Peter coxhead or User:Smith609. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 3 : The "Comparison with intermediate forms" looks suspect to me. I'm not sure this distinction in terminology is widespread, and I've certainly not seen it made in botanical papers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We haven't been able to track down a source, and in zoology too, the two terms are used interchangeably a lot. The article will in my view not suffer in scope or clarity by removing it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Having thought things over, I feel the article misses some words as to the definition and cultural aspect of transitional fossils. First off, what's separating the examples we have from any other evolutionary transitions? Why is Tiktaalik more important than let's say Osteolepis, Panderichthys or Diplovertebron? And why is still Archaeopteryx the quintessential transitional, when there's been found a heap of other small feathery theropods? I believe both answers are firmly rooted in culture, and that this rather non-scientific aspect needs to be mentioned. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps expand the role of media hype or mention that virtually all fossils represent transitional/intermediate forms? Some possible sources:

• Tarver, J. E.; Donoghue, P. C. J.; Benton, M. J. (2010). "Is evolutionary history repeatedly rewritten in light of new fossil discoveries?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278 (1705): 599. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0663. 
• Horenstein, S. (2009). "Paleontology and Evolution in the News". Evolution: Education and Outreach 2 (2): 318–325. doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0130-7. 
• Evolution, missing links and climate change: recent advances in understanding transformational macroevolution (John Long)
• Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs (Anthony J. Martin)
• Ida: Humankind's Earliest Ancestor! (Not Really) (Michael Lemonick, TIME Science)
• The Fossil Fallacy (Michael Shermer, Skeptic)

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 February 2012, 23:19 UTC)

---

Neurotoxin

I've listed this article for peer review because…

As a specialist in the field, I have made significant contributions to this article, improving it from just a few paragraphs to nearly its current form. It has been edited now for a few months by other users on Wikipedia, and I think it could now benefit from a review by those with significant knowledge in the field. I am specifically looking for comments about ways to improve the material presented. I have included what I believe to be a rather thorough presentation of the pathologies and treatments involved with each neurotoxin exposure, but I'm sure there is some primary research that will be missing. Suggestions on other material that should be included would be helpful (including other possible neurotoxins).

Thanks, Rysin (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• A few things, not a full review by any means:
  • The automated checker found a few things - I have to agree with it that the table of contents is too long, which in this case probably indicates a need to split the article up into subpages, with summaries of the subpages on the current page.
  • The alt text checker also found some images without alt text.
  • If you're wanting a review by others with knowledge in the field, this isn't the best place for that - try the pages of the neurology and toxicity task forces first, then the larger WikiProjects it's a part of.
  • Primary research is not what is emphasized on Wikipedia, but information interpreted by secondary research (e.g., review papers).
  • For ways to improve what's presented, you may wish to also check with the Guild of Copy-Editors (WP:GUILD).
• Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh. One other thing. It is not clear exactly why "inhibitors" and "receptor antagonists" are divided into two sections. Receptor agonists are easily understandable as being separate (and admittedly there are compounds that act as both agonists and antagonists).Allens (talk | contribs) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• A few possible additional toxins, such as strychnine, can be found in the Category:Neurotoxins and its subcategories. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I can't provide the kind of expert comment on the content that you would like, but I have a few suggestions for improvement. This is an interesting and important article with FA potential.

• Claims in the lead generally do not need inline citations since the lead is a summary of the main text, where the claim is already supported or should be. For example, citations 6 and 91 support the claim that lead is a common neurotoxin. You don't need citation 6. I'm guessing that the same consideration (redundancy) applies to all of the citations in the lead, though I did not check each to be sure.

• Technical terms are generally linked in this article in a helpful way, but I would unlink a few common words already well-known to most readers. Two candidates for unlinking in the lead are "cell" and "memory". Candidates for unlinking in the "Background" section are "plumbing networks", "brain", "blood" (which is linked twice), "scientist", "physician", "cell", and "skeleton". If you comb through the article looking for common words to unlink, you will find at least a few more such as "mouth" and "limb" in the "Tetrodotoxin" subsection, "arrow" and "dart" in the "Curare" subsection, and "paralysis" and "death" in the "Botulinum toxin" subsection.

• I would add inline citations to reliable sources for all of the claims added to the ends of paragraphs that have sources that cover only the claims in the middle of the paragraph. Otherwise, these claims seem to be afterthoughts or conclusions coming from Wikipedia.

• I enjoyed watching the external video about anatoxin-a. However, it probably belongs in the "External links" section rather than embedded in the main text. The Manual of Style advises against linking to an external site from within the main text. See WP:MOS#External links.

Background

• "As a result, the nervous system has a number of mechanisms designed to protect it from internal, and external insults, including the blood brain barrier." Would something like "has evolved mechanisms that protect" be better? The word design might lead to a kerfuffle.

• "Additionally, in-vitro systems have increased in use as they provide significant improvements over the more common in-vivo systems of the past." - Link and italicize in-vitro and in-vivo on first use. For many readers, an English translation in parentheses might also be helpful.

Applications

• "As the nervous system in most organisms is both highly complex and necessary for survival, it has naturally become a target for attack by both predators and prey." - Perhaps "for attack by predators and defense by prey"?

Mechanisms of activity

• "The time required for the onset of symptoms upon neurotoxin exposure can vary between different toxins, being on the order of hours for botulinum toxin and years for lead." - Tighten to "The time between exposure and the onset of symptoms varies among toxins; it may be hours for botulinum toxin and years for lead"?

• The abbreviations in the table (K and so on) should be spelled out on first use, though you might also abbreviate them; i.e., "Potassium (K)".

Tetrodotoxin

• "the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor Neostigmine or the acetylcholine antagonist Atropine," - Lowercase "neostigmine" and "atropine".

Tetraethylammonium

• "in a manner similar to that of curare" - Link curare.
• "Additionally, through chronic TEA administration, muscular atrophy would be induced." - Would this be better as "Additionally, chronic TEA administration induces muscular atrophy"?
• "other ion channels such as voltage gated sodium channels" - Link and hyphenate voltage-gated sodium channel]]?

Curare

• "though it has matured to specify a specific categorization of poisons" - Recast to avoid repeating "specific".

Conotoxin

• "Conotoxins represent a category of poisons produced by the marine cone snail" - Link cone snail?

Botulinum toxin

• "which are produced by the bacterium Clostridium Botulinum" - Lowercase "botulinum"?
• "Botulinum Toxin" - The subhead says "Botulinum toxin" with a small "t". That looks right to me. If so, the big T should be changed in the first sentence of this subsection and in the associated image caption.
• "to induce an insufficient tidal volume" - Link tidal volume?
• Link tetany and unlink both instances of "muscular contractions"?

Anatoxin-a"

• Rather than creating a text sandwich between images on opposite sides of a page, it's better to rearrange them. The subsection is big enough vertically to accommodate both without a sandwich effect.

Ammonia

• "This mitochondrial transition is a direct result of glutamine activity a compound which forms from ammonia in-vivo." - This sentence does not make sense to me. Maybe it should be: "This mitochondrial transition results directly from the action of glutamine, a compound which forms from ammonia in-vivo." Or something like that.

Lead

• Unlink "adult" and "child".
• I would try moving File:Trinkwasserleitung Blei.jpg down two lines to avoid displacing an edit button.

Ethanol

• File:Photo of baby with FAS.jpg needs a caption in the normal place (below the image). I'd be inclined to use image-manipulation software to clone out the caption that appears on the image itself and to replace it with "Baby with fetal alcohol syndrome" as a caption.

Endogenous neurotoxin sources

• "such as nitric oxide" - Link nitric oxide on first use.

Notes

• Citation 105 and 106 should include the author's name, Stephen McDonell
• Citation 107 should include the publisher, Chicago Public Media, and This American Life should appear in italics.
• I would use Occupational Safety & Health Administration for the publisher in citation 108.
• Citation 108 needs a date of most recent access.
• The date formatting in citations 105 through 108 should be consistent. Do them all the same way.

References

• Since one of the books in this list has an ISBN with hyphens, the Yang book should probably have them too. A handy converter lives here.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 17 February 2012, 00:19 UTC)

---

General

Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'm looking to improve the overall tone and style of the article.

Thank you very much, Heinl1cj (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Peer review in this case is very premature. The process is intended for articles on which a considerable amount of work has already been done, not for articles in the first stages of development. Furthermore, articles with major cleanup banners are specifically excluded from the PR process. Personally I am surprised that the subject is considered notable enough to warrant a WP article; can you point to any similar ones? In any event, I suggest that you seek help, possibly from editors concerned with WP:WikiProject Wisconsin, or WP:WikiProject Scouting, in getting the article developed further. It may be advangeous for you to study some of the basic help guides, e.g. WP:DEV and the Manual of Style WP:MOS. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 9 March 2012, 20:56 UTC)

---

Alliance for the Future of Austria

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make the article a "good" one.

Thanks, Xt-3 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll try to do a peer review of this in the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• At first glance, the best thing you could do would be to add more citations. Shoot for at least one per paragraph. In my experience, Google News is a good way to find articles to cite.
• It would probably be a good idea to translate all the non-English text in the article.
• The references should usually come right after the punctuation at the end of the sentence being cited.
• I'm not sure the lead section lines up with the WP:LEAD guideline. The lead should summarize the text, there shouldn't be anything in the article that isn't broadly summarized in the lead.
• I'm curious about the use of the coordinates in article, is 46.582389,14.28275 the location of their headquarters?
• I'm not sure if all the small sections are a good idea, maybe try to expand or condense them? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, I know its not so easy on peer reviewing articles that are based on Austrian topics ,but I appreciate your support. Abut the coordinates, no they aren't. The closets is LAT: 48.205928 LON: 16.357913 Ok I could try to do some translation work it needs some time,but I can do that. Good idea the sections could get cut down if needed in other cased maybe its better to expand.

Lets do that.

The best thing would remove the coordinates first. I'm gonna do that now. --Xt-3 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• It would also be a good idea to look at other Good Articles on political parties to see how they handle structure and content, like Freedom Party of Austria or Centre Democrats (Netherlands). You could try talking with people who have improved European political articles, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I'm looking forward to do that. --Xt-3 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 March 2012, 18:58 UTC)

---

Speech generating device

I've listed this article for peer review because I have a long term goal to get the subject more completely covered on wikipedia - maybe even to FA one day - there was also an issue with the article's GA status being challenged very soon after the status was achieved so I think a peer review might resolve any lingering doubts in the community.

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 February 2012, 16:01 UTC)

---

Police officers charged criminally in Canada

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new article created by myself and I expect it will be contraversial. One editor already tried, see talk page and edit history. I would like suggestions on how to make the article stronger, so it cannot be deleted by editors who take offence to the topic.

Thanks, JunoBeach (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: the article appears to have been deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 18:54 UTC)

---

Lists

National symbols of Argentina

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like input on how I can make this a Featured List soon.

Thanks, Bleff (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is too long per WP:LEAD for an article of this length, wouldn't expect more than two paragraphs.
• No reason for "National Flag" to be so capitalised.
• Each symbol could be discussed, i.e. explain its relevance to Argentina.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Make sure all refs have publisher info, access dates etc.
• Consider WP:ACCESS, i.e. ensure all images have descriptive alt text (not just the file names) and ensure the table is formatted per MOS:DTT.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The list is too narrow right now, it should have one or two more columns. One should be a description, as pointed by Rambling Man, such as who was San Martín, what is a gaucho, what type of sport is pato, etc. In which places of Argentina can the animals, plants and minerals be found, or the circumstances of the creation of the flag, cockade and anthem. In most cases, English speaking people do not know about them, so they will see them as mere meaningful names.

Another field could be for the dates when the symbols were chosen as national symbols, or if they are defacto symbols, never officially selected as such.

The "symbol" field should be consistent in linking the generic ideas ("national anthem", father of the nation", "national personification", etc). In many cases they link the specific symbols ("Flag of Argentina", "Logo of Argentina", etc).

The anthem should link File:Himno Nacional Argentino short instrumental.ogg.

I don't think "former occupant Spain" is correct. Spain never invaded Argentina, Argentina (or what we would nowadays consider Argentina) was part of Spain and waged a war of independence to became a new country. Cambalachero (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 March 2012, 03:46 UTC)

---

LCD Soundsystem discography

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like input on how I can make this a Featured List soon.

Thanks, What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments certainly a good start.

• "consists of 3 studio albums, 2 extended plays..." would write all these numbers as words, even eighteen and fourteen. Just makes for more elegant prose.
• I often recommend that we link "discography" too.
• "The band first gained attention when it released the single "Losing My Edge" on his own DFA label..." The band... his label... Who is "his" here?
• You link stuff like "disco" but not "indie".
• Link "certified" in the lead.
• " stated that he just wanted to make" unless you directly quote him lose the "just".
• Shouldn't full length be full-length in "full length album"?
• " of the Billboard 200" normally " of the Billboard 200".
• "spawned 3 singles" three.
• The 2010 album final cell of the table appears to be missing.
• Where are the two non-charting EPs referenced?
• Where are the remix albums referenced?
• And the heading in that table shouldn't be "EP details" should it?
• Where are the first three singles referenced?
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Check WP:DASH in the ref titles (e.g. ref 30)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Michael Jester

• Is there a photo that will show the other members of the band?
• "The album was certified gold in the UK,[5] but failed to chart on the US Billboard 200.[6]" no comma needed after UK
• Italicize 45:33
• "LCD Soundsystem's second full-length album, Sound of Silver, was released to extremely positive reviews from critics,[8] and peaked at number 46 on the Billboard 200." No comma needed after critics.
• A big problem here is that the tables do not fit WP:ACCESS. The tables should use !scope="row" and !scope="col", as well as other things. Take a peek at WP:DISCOG and look at their table. It doesn't have to be exactly from there.
• Abbreviations in the certification column should be from the provider (e.g. UK should be BPI)
• In the tables, you have wikilinks like Fin and NZ, but they should really link to Fin and NZ—the chart itself or the chart provider.
• I'd consider removing the US Heatseekers and Internet charts, since a majority of the albums have charted on the Billboard 200
• Live albums table: is there a need for two references to show one chart position?
• What does NA mean in the music videos table?
• En-dash needed for ref#9. Same ref also have a different date system than the other refs.
• Ref #22: Official Charts Company -> Official Charts Company; no italics needed

—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done, but are the tables okay now? What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 February 2012, 06:05 UTC)

---

WikiProject peer-reviews

• WikiProject Military history: William McKinley • John Forrest (doctor) • Harry Lee (cricketer)

Archives

• 2012:
  • March (current)
  • January, February

• 2011:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2010:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2009:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2008:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2007:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2004 and older:
  • December 2004
  • Archive 3, Archive 2, Archive 1