Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Review)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Current Instructions Discussion Tools Archive
Shortcut:
This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers.
"WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions.
PR icon.png

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

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

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

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

Contents

Arts[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

Sonic X[edit]

Sonic X is my last GA before I'm going on Wikibreak. It passed tonight, and I'm only sticking around for another day, maybe, while a discussion relating to a GAN I'm reviewing boils over. Anyway, I'm interested in making it only the fifth FA of WP:ANIME (not a value judgment; they just focus on GAs more), so I'd like comments to help with that goal. I have two main concerns, elaborated thus:

  • Plot. Obviously, it's a very long section, but then again, Sonic X is long for an anime and it includes copious original characters that aren't covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Does it need to be significantly cut down, and if so, how?
  • Is the screenshot appropriate? I don't feel that it adds much more than a slightly chubby incarnation of Cosmo and an abbreviated look at the main setting of season three; it doesn't show the Metarex, for example - yet I don't know what to replace it with. (If you've also seen the show, please try to recommend something better.) Full discussion is on the talk.

Otherwise, talk about whatever you think needs fixing, such as wording. Thanks, Tezero (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason why many anime/manga articles don't pursue FA status is due to the lack of high-quality sources that are made available to most editors of WP:ANIME. Some members rely on Amazon to show some release because certain sites have become expired. Its a good thing to remember that every article can become GA if the topic is notable and sources are there, but not all of them can be featured.
But with that said, the article is very short in various sections such as Creation and Development, Music, and Reception, it should really be extended further by getting the most coverage it can possibly get.For a series with a good reception, it usually has more extensive development section. The plot is indeed way too long, and it has to be captivating and as FA puts it "brilliant". So you could probably summarize it better. Probably make summarized versions and organize it by seasons. I'[m not sure if the DVD boxes count as quality sources, but if they do, then that's fine. Lucia Black (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Lucia Black, what could I use the DVD boxes for? What do they typically include?
And there's very little on the show's Japanese production and writing (though there is an alright amount for the 4Kids dubbing specifically); I think anime studios are traditionally pretty opaque, and most development info in anime articles comes from the manga, which Sonic X doesn't have. Tezero (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There could be more, you never know. Like i said, not all articles can become FA. Lucia Black (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 7 July 2014, 02:29 UTC)----


Stockhorn Arena[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it was written by myself, and Im not a native english speaker. I would be very glad, if someone could improve the grammar/spelling and style. Probably it would be good to add new or change some of the existing references too (I tried to find links to english websites, but wasn't always successful).

Thanks, --03:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Rectilinium'♥'

Comments from Sotakeit[edit]

Overall, a very competent translation, that expect for a few bits and pieces reads very well. It's certainly no longer a 'stub' in my opinion, so I'd consider removing that.

Suggested improvements on language/grammar:

  • From 1954 until 2011, Stadion Lachen was the home ground of Swiss side FC Thun: I think 'side' is a little informal. Perhaps 'team'?
  • The club received an exemption to play at the Lachen for a few more years, but was asked either to renovate extensively or to build a new stadium: again, maybe too informal, especially 'a few more years'. If you know the exact length of time, I'd suggest The club received an exemption to continue playing at Stadion Lachen for X years, on the proviso that it was either extensively renovated or a new stadium was built.
  • In 2006, the citizens of Thun refused to finance a new stadium with public funds, leaving FC Thun in a bind: I'd cut 'in a bind' out all together, which is rather colloquial to my ears.
  • The new stadium - at that time called Arena Thun - was officially inaugurated on 9 July 2011, with a friendly match between 1. FC Köln and FC Thun. It makes sense in its current format, but I think Originally known as Arena Thun, the new stadium was officially inaugurated... sounds more idiomatic.
  • The Arena Thun was subsequently renamed into Stockhorn Arena (in February already), but the official ceremony was on 12 April 2014, on the occasion of the match between FC Aarau and FC Thun. This sentence is a little clunky, especially the brackets. I'd rework it to something along the lines of: In February 2014, the Arena Thun was subsequently renamed Stockhorn Arena, with the official ceremony taking place on 12 April 2014, following the match between FC Aarau and FC Thun

Referencing:

  • The first and third paragraphs in the 'History' section are totally unreferenced.
  • The capacity and field size would also need to be referenced.
  • I've had a very quick look for English references but had no luck (I'm sure I'd find some if I tried a little harder), but foreign language references are perfectly fine if English translations aren't available. Sotakeit (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, is anyone up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Sotakeit; this is very well translated from whatever language it was originally in, with a few exceptions--I'd like to add to his list above the phrase "Stockhornbahn AG (runs an aerial cableway to the Stockhorn)." I think there should be a "which" at the start of the phrase in parentheses. Also, "football stadium" is a disambiguation page and the link should be retargeted to go to Soccer-specific stadium. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 04:08 UTC)----


Videoball[edit]

Since this article is not eligible under the good article criteria for want of stability until it is released, it needs an "individual quality audit" peer review in order to co-exist with an upcoming good topic nomination for Action Button Entertainment. I'd appreciate any feedback. @CR4ZE, since you've already read the article with the GA review, would you like to start? czar  13:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CR4ZE

Sure. I only have a couple of small things for want of brilliant prose.

  • Is the game presented in 2D or 3D? Is it top-down? I wasn't clear on this. (Before seeing it online).
  • A screenshot would be wonderful, and would solve the problem of not knowing what the game looks like. Have you contacted Action Button? If not, what about something non-free and low-res as a placeholder?
  • "The game's triangles and projectiles ...". Are the triangles and projectiles conceived as a sport without narrative or artifice, or are you referring to the game?
  • "that picked up speed ...". What is it that picked up speed exactly? Also, this sentence is a little "game"-y.
  • "Polygon's Tracey Lien described their process ...". Who is the "they" in this sentence?
  • "Rogers livestreams prerelease sessions". Do you mean he has in the past, or that he constantly livestreams? If he does, that begs the question as to how often he does it. You could just insert "has" after "Rogers" and say "livestreamed". Also, wouldn't you hyphen it as "pre-release"?
  • "and his excitement for local multiplayer..."—He thought about his excitement? Needs a little clarity. Could this work better as two sentences?
  • "having learned Videoball" sounds like it should be "having learned Videoball's gameplay" to me.

That's it. When you're finished, do I...support it for being good but not a good article, or...? CR4ZE (tc) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How about pretty-good-but-not-good-enough? Thanks for the review—appreciate it. I'll have more time to fix things next weekend czar  02:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@CR4ZE, all right. I think I addressed the above. Is there anything else? Some notes: (1) Yes, Rogers has said he was getting me stuff several times, but, well, life. If he doesn't respond to my next reply, I'll upload something with a FUR. (2) NOAD doesn't use a hyphen in "prerelease", so its' good enough for me czar  23:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. Even though the article is ineligible under the good article criteria, it is of sufficient quality to be included in a good topic. It is in the hands of an experienced editor, and I expect it to retain such quality as it expands out following the game's launch. CR4ZE (tc) 04:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
So what do you think of Infamous Second Son? ;-) CR4ZE (tc) 04:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 June 2014, 13:51 UTC)----


The Boat Race 2012[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a GA, and I'd like to take it to FAC soon. I believe it's the most comprehensive report on this 48 minute 11 second event in the world, and would like others to give advice on what they'd like to see more/less of, and if there's anything standing out that should be included.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to say that this edit added a cite to a named results reference that doesn't exist; I had a quick look to see if I could figure out the intention and fix it, but was unable to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 June 2014, 20:29 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

Steam (software)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I do intend to take it back to FAC once issues are resolved. however, first we need to know what the issues are, obviously.

Thanks, -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Review by ResMar

Initial release
  • I would like to see more information provided in this section on whether or what content distribution networks existed before Steam entered the market, the nature of why updating Counter-Strike was such a problem for Valve's techs, and whether or not content distribution issues was a generally widespread problem.
  • You need to copyedit the first sentence so as to redistribute where the stress lies. Since you are describing the origins of Steam in a historical manner, you should place the problem (Valve's issues updating Counter-Strike) ahead of the solution (the brainstorming and development of Steam).
  • Did Valve approach the other companies with its business concept to solicit resources, a partnership, funding, or some combination of the three? You should include this in the sentence, if possible.
  • Again, Valve decided that it would go alone after its proposals were rejected on approach, so the sentence on its decision to create a platform should come after its rejections, not before.
  • "before 2002" is not a particularly specific date: can something more precise be provided?
  • Relic Entertainment's involvement with Valve is technically a partnership, is it not? This language should be included in the sentence, since Relic's shoulder got tapped here.
  • Not sure how relevant the game never being released on Steam is: if you make a notes section this is good material for that, but otherwise it can be removed without consequence.
  • Why was this second series of partnerships more successful than the first? What were the partnerships meant to achieve? What did they achieve?
  • Since the next paragraph describes the public release of the Steam beta the mention of the release of the first mod on the system seems misplaced. Is your timing correct here? If so you need to explain to the reader why it is that a mod was released on the platform before it was made generally available.
  • How badly did the system choke? Avoid subjectives; use objectives.
  • What was the World Opponent Network?
  • The gamers that tested the system in beta are Counterstrike beta gamers, correct? If you so you need to include that it was tested as part of the Counterstrike beta. Also: any particular reason the numerical range is so wide?
  • The "their" in the next paragraph does not gel—you mentioning specific releases afterwards, but nowhere the companies which were responsible for them.
  • What makes Valve's partnership with Strategy First particularly notable?
  • Was it that Gabe Newell was offering the license, or would offer the license?
  • What engine (presumably, the Source engine).
Profitability
  • Why did it take until 2005 for third-party games to reach Steam? Does this mean that Steam had been a proprietary system before then? If so you need to make this clearer in the initial development section, and, if you can, explain whether eventually making the system publicly available was or was not an initial goal.
  • How could a proprietary distribution system be rendered profitable by the sales of its own company's goods? Is this, as I suspect, the point at which the costs saved and margin gained by excising the retail middleman overcame the overall cost of building and maintaining the system?
  • Why 2007?
  • The number of games available should precede the number of accounts created.
  • Seeing as that you cut off your historical overview at 2007, you can't claim that this is a fully adequate historical overview. You should merge this section into the one above and move it up one level, eliminating "History", so that you are left with "Initial development" as your sole heading. This is a significant structural issue that I'm a little miffed the GAN review didn't cover.
General comments

I see that this is the run-up to your first go at a bronze star. You're an a bit of an unusual position: though this article is certainly within rights to be made into a featured article, you aren't the primary author. This isn't something you can't work around, but in my time here I have found that for topics outside of your professional criteria (I assume, of course, that you are not a video game historian of some stripe or another), given how intimate you must become with your sources to bring an article to bronze star quality managing an FAC from the outer line is a particularly challenging task. There are many small gaps in the information presented in this article which, though more or less acceptable from the point of view of a good article nomination, are not acceptable from a bronze-star article. I have reviewed a part of this article and left a list of comments which you would need to address in order to be able to confidently approach a featured article nom; my reviewing the remaining four fifths (!) or so of the article are contingent upon the successful handling of the material in this first quintile. Ready to get digging? ResMar 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

alrighty, that makes sense, adn your reviews are very helpful... i'll start on that soon, RL has kept me really busy lately... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


(Peer review added on Saturday 14 June 2014, 18:37 UTC)----


General[edit]

2014 Sunshine Coast Rugby Union season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article up to better standard than what it currently is.

Thanks, RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 10 July 2014, 00:54 UTC)----


BrickFair[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as I want to see if there is any copy-editing to do that I've missed, or anything else that I could add. If you have any other comments or suggestions, please give them. Whether or not you know about lego conventions or even lego whatsoever, I'd appreciate a look at this article. Thank you.
Regards,
ɱ (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 July 2014, 20:45 UTC)----


Margaret Qualley[edit]

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

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 July 2014, 16:32 UTC)----


The Game (mind game)[edit]

I spent roughly 2 hours making this edit to the article and I think it's as good as I can get it. Some sections may be a little too detailed or contain stuff that doesn't need a mention - I'd like a second opinion as to whether everything mentioned is relevant and notable. Following two quickly-failed good article nominations a few years ago, I'm trying to get this to GA status.

Thanks, Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 6 July 2014, 10:14 UTC)----


Hasil Adkins[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to featured article status. It was promoted to GA in late May, and has changed only in the slightest since then. I've put a lot of work into it and am quite proud of it, but I've never gone through the FAC process. I am curious if there's anything that stands out that I should try to address before moving forward with the nomination. Any input is greatly appreciated! — MusikAnimal talk 06:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 4 July 2014, 06:37 UTC)----


Fit For An Autopsy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because why not

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 3 July 2014, 03:13 UTC)----


Stephen Sondheim[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because Sondheim is one of, if not the most important voice in musical theatre. Any and all help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Phaeton23 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 July 2014, 17:25 UTC)----


Ashley Tisdale[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it since 2008-ish and I want to get it promoted to FA status. I'd really appreciate some input, copyedit or anything that can help me polish it up. I've been working on it for so long that I can't see anything else wrong with it, so a third-party point of view is pretty much what I need!

Thanks in advance, decodet. (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Pedro[edit]

I applaud your work, it's clear that you've worked your ass of on Ashley's article and you're getting closer and closer to that gold star! For now I can't see any obvious problems with the article, other than some minor details. But those are easy to do, so I'm going to go ahead and do some copyedits (feel free to remove any which you find unhelpful or irrelevant). I'll give you an update as soon as I'm done. pedro | talk 16:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro. I really appreciate that! decodet. (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • "The High School Musical series became a successful franchise that included three films, a spin-off, and numerous soundtrack albums"..... I'm well aware of the success of the series, but some might find it POV to call it "successful" in this instance. Not too sure if the soundtracks are needed. Maybe we can use "The High School Musical series included three films and a spin-off" instead.
The soundtracks released were all number one albums in the USA and the first one became 2006's top selling album there. I thought it was worth mentioning the soundtracks but I can remove them if it's trivial. decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "demonstrate a more adult image"..... seems POV, how about instead including some lyrical/thematic details?
I changed the content a little maybe, what do you think? Would it be POV? decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "has received very positive reviews"..... critical acclaim
Changed it. decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Notable" in "Her other notable roles" is POV
Copyedited the sentence. decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Tisdale has also been building for herself a career as a producer"..... how about something like "Tisdale has also gone into producing"?
Done! decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

More to come..... SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your first input! decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 July 2014, 12:16 UTC)----


Temperatures Rising[edit]

Toolbox

* Further information

I've listed this article for peer review because Temperatures Rising was a very funny and well-made show ... at least in its first season. It is also a favorite of mine and I would like to have it elevated to FA status. I have greatly expanded this article and used a large number of vintage newspaper articles for my sources. The series is not available on DVD or blu-ray and there is no website devoted to it (at least not specifically) so getting information proved to be a rather formidable task. There are a number of web pages that I have refrained from using because I'm not sure if the powers-that-be at Wikipedia consider them as reliable sources:

Anyone care to "weigh in" on their merit? And anyone care to critique the entire article?

One other thing: Although, as I said, this show is not available on DVD there are some episodes circulating among private collectors and "someone" posted some episodes on YouTube. If anyone is interested in seeing them I will be glad to provide links.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 July 2014, 01:38 UTC)----


Lost Luggage (video game)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this article for FAC after my current one is promoted (hopefully). So I'd like people to pick at it before I do so.

Thanks, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, a solid little article about a silly little game. Some random comments as they come to me.

  • "enabling this mode will cause black suitcases to appear.[3][2]" - change it to [2][3]
    • Done
  • Luggage carousel and Dallas, Texas are redirecting
    • Done
  • The Games by Apollo article says that they were based in Richardson, a Dallas suburb town, not Dallas.
    • You're right. Handled
  • "After, Salvo presented artist Ernie Runyon" - "later" or "afterwards"
    • Done, used "afterwards"
  • "Runyon was a new hire at Apollo, having joined the company in March 1982" - you haven't said outside the lead that these development things took place in September 1982 (and was it? You said it took a month to make and came out in September 1982, but was there a gap between finishing the game and when it was on shelves? I know a lot of Atari games had a large gap for production.)
    • There were no sources indicating when the development period, so I just deleted this sentence. I also re-arranged the lead; didn't mean for that sentence to indicate development was also in September.
  • "The crew of Apollo brainstormed titles[...] with Runyon remembering one of the proposed titles was "Airport Mayhem"" - tense problem, he wasn't remembering it at the time, he remembered it later.
    • Yep. Got it.
  • "He stated he would have liked to have included a luggage train" - either "He has stated" or say when or where he stated it
    • Got it.
  • "in the 4K cartridge" -link or define what 4K is in this context
    • Kilobyte. Done.
  • "Salvo programmed the game" - you said Runyon programmed the game not two sentences ago
    • Salvo helped him program it. Changed.
  • "joystick movements which took one week to fix" - comma before which
    • Done
  • " were done by Larry Minor" - done is an odd, casual word to use there- try "created"
    • Switched.
  • "Upon release, there were negative reviews" - oddly passive, try "The game received negative reviews upon release" or something like it
    • Done.
  • Link Kaboom! (video game) the first time it's used in reception, not the second
    • Done. This was a leftover from when I switched the reviews to have contemporary ones first.
  • Link Eggomania
    • Linked.
  • Why do you redlink TV Gamer in the references but not Electronic Gaming or Digital Press or Atari HQ?
    • Unlinked TV Gamer.
  • Capitalize Allgame in the references
    • Done.
  • Consider archiving your online references with a site like archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removals of content don't wreck your citations.
    • I'll see about this. I checked and Archive.org has copies of all the references, so I think I'll be fine, but I might make webcitation copies just in case
  • --PresN 19:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Cool. Just saw that you nominated two more Games by Apollo games for GAN- are you planning on building out a Good Topic on their whole catalog? --PresN 22:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna try. I don't know if there'll be enough material for some of them, though. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 June 2014, 22:00 UTC)----


Super Mario Bros. 3[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on taking it to FA, and for that, I need feedback. I've been getting awesome help from Tezero, Cas Liber and another great editor, but Tezero adviced me to take it here so that I get more opinions from people. I had another game peer reviewed a couple of weeks ago, Sleeping Dogs, which is also aiming for FA. Super Mario 3 is currently a A class article, which has been also GA reviewed and passed. Any feedback is appreciated! Also, since in 2006 the article was FA nominated, but never got to be one, I'll make it my absolute goal to make this a FA, but just like I said, I can't do this alone.

Thanks, URDNEXT (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It was released worldwide, beginning in Japan on October 23, 1988, followed by North America on February 12, 1990, and in Europe on August 29, 1991. - Is this too much detail for the lead, especially when you have the information in the infobox already?
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The reference after "In addition to the running and jumping moves found in past games, the player can fly and float with the aid of special items, slide down slopes, and execute new types of jumps." is unnecessary per WP:LEAD
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead feels heavy on release information but light on reviews and production details.
  • Princess Peach sends Mario and Luigi to go and stop the Koopalings, - you refer to her as Toadstool above. I think she was still officially Toadstool at this time, so that should be fixed.
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't mention in the plot section that the Koopalings are Bowser's children
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the only place power-ups can be given to small characters, as in levels this simply makes them bigger. - I've played the game, and this is unclear even to me
Yes check.svg Done I removed the sentence from the article, since it does not have a good citation. URDNEXT (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Through this mode, players can also access several minigames, including a remake of the original Mario Bros. arcade game, in which one player has the opportunity to steal the cards of another but may lose their turn if they lose the minigame. - I never knew this... awesome.
  • Be back after work with more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • that the game's code uses to access in real time, and are combined to form complete images on the screen in real time - Repetition of "in real time"
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to actually say when the game was released in the article text, at least not before discussing the game's reception. That needs to be referenced.
  • I'd be explicit: which are contemporary reviews, which are reviews in hindsight
Yes check.svg Done I have revamped the entire reception section,  — Crisco 1492. URDNEXT (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You haven't mentioned the hidden items in the gameplay section, yet they are all over the reviews. Kinda comes out of nowhere.
  • The final two paragraphs of "Reception" (i.e. not including the Sales section) really would work better in legacy, I think
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Nintendo Power's Top 30 - top 30 what? Games of the year? Games of all time? Sales?
Yes check.svg Done It was best games ever. URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The section #Sales would possibly work better in a section specifically on the release of the game and its marketing.
  • In 2008, Guinness World Records listed the game as the best-selling video game to be sold separately from a system, and reported worldwide sales of over 18 million copies. - does this include the ports?
Yes check.svg Done Yes, it includes ports. URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • all New Super Mario Bros. games except New Super Mario Bros. - I have the nagging feeling you're missing italics
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Your discussion of the original Super Mario All-Stars port is very light
  • It was also re-released for the Nintendo 3DS, and Wii U on April 17, 2014, as a reward that Club Nintendo users could purchase with their coins for the Wii Virtual Console on June 3, 2013. - not really sure what you're saying here
Yes check.svg Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You've got a lot of fair-use images. I'd nix two (the men working in their office, as it doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8 regarding contextual significance, and maybe one of the screenshots.Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The development photo is historically important since there are virtually no photos from the game's development, and the other two photos I'm just gonna change their captions. Is that ok,  — Crisco 1492? URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In a book which doesn't have the NFCC to worry about, you might be correct. On Wikipedia, if that doesn't illustrate anything and the lack of an image is not "detrimental to readers' understanding", it's got to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments from CR4ZE
  • Gameplay and Plot look a little light on citations. If you're wanting to take this all the way, you should probably get hold of the print sources being used and check them yourself. Try to find more. There's a citation needed for the fourth paragraph of Gameplay.
Yes check.svg Done I have added the citations you asked for. CR4ZE URDNEXT (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead does need work. I'd suggest moving the gameplay stuff into the first paragraph, and expanding the second paragraph to have more on the development.
Yes check.svg Done How does it look now, CR4ZE (t? URDNEXT (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing enough reviews in Reception that were published at the game's release. This would really be necessary if you wanted an FA, because the coverage needs to be as comprehensive as possible. No contemporaneous reviews feels like an omission.
Yes check.svg Done I have revamped the entire reception section. URDNEXT (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Images need alt text.
  • Fix up that choppy paragraph in Reception. Perhaps there's more in the way of criticism to develop upon.

Make sure major contributors have been contacted directly before you nominate. CR4ZE (tc) 04:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it, CR4ZE (t the other contributors lasted til last year. The page was abandoned when I took over it. I'm the only contributors asides from Tezero and two other great editors who came on board after I put it on Peer Reviw. URDNEXT (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Contemporaneous sourcing is a lot thinner than it should be. In terms of reviews, where are Nintendo Power, GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly? I see a NP preview in the Reception section, but that isn't going to cut it. Every early issue of NP is available here, so the review will be in there somewhere. Ditto for GamePro. The EGM review is in #9 (April 1990), which I don't know where to find—but you're going to need it anyway. I see an EGM preview in the reference library that you aren't using. Plus, there'll be preview coverage from GamePro and possibly more from EGM at Retromags. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I searched for "Super Mario Bros 3" on Highbeam and these links turned up. Some of them might be dead ends; others might be good. You'll have to get someone with a Highbeam account (or similar) to access them for you: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Make sure to contact people with NewsBank, LexisNexis and Questia accounts for SMB3 news articles from the period as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much, JimmyBlackwing! URDNEXT (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tangled is ready for review. I'm taking reference from FAs about games to see how this article can be improved. Comments coming.Forbidden User (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Forbidden User! I'll be reviewing Tangled in a bit. URDNEXT (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 June 2014, 22:45 UTC)----


Tangled[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to push this article to GA status, and afterwards FA.

Thanks, Forbidden User (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems someone has been reviewing at the time I look at that page. Could you still review this page? Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
People can review pages at the same time with no problem, just look at FA nomiations. And yes, I will review this page too. URDNEXT (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I will be on your PR, though from 2 to 6 July I'll be on a trip.Forbidden User (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! And I just started reviewing your oage, by the way. URDNEXT (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 June 2014, 16:58 UTC)----


Sega Saturn[edit]

Sega Saturn has had a tumultuous, but mostly positive, history over the last four months. The article was a complete mess until a user asked User:Red Phoenix to whip it into shape after a sock-puppet filled content dispute. Red did an admirable job of cleaning up and reorganizing the article, and it received promotion to GA after a rigorous and extended nomination overseen by me. User:TheTimesAreAChanging picked up the torch at that point and shifted through a large number of new and often contradictory sources to greatly improve the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the article. After a helpful FAC that further tightened the article's sourcing, but did not result in a promotion, Times decided he was satisfied with his work on the article and would not renominate. I plan to take over the FAC process from here and plan to renominate after the mandatory waiting period has expired. Any and all feedback welcome.

Thanks, Indrian (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 June 2014, 15:11 UTC)----


Daniel E. Friedmann[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the issues pertaining to it's validity have been addressed. Most importantly, citations were included for the content.

Thanks, Jeronimo Jeronimojammies (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This article has multiple still-valid issue tags, still leads like a promotional article on a barely relevant LP, and isn't long enough or well-written enough to really justify a full peer review. My immediate recommendation would be to scrap what's there and rewrite it in more encyclopedic tone from scratch. ResMar 15:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 June 2014, 03:36 UTC)----


Frédéric Chopin[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would welcome opinions on what it might need to take it up to FA status. Although it has been subject to some alarums and excursions in the past it has now been stable for quite some while, and it could now be appropriate to make any further revisions to take it to the next step. The subject is listed as a level 3 vital article so it would be right to make is as good as we can. I will be very interested in all (constructive) comments.

Thanks, Smerus (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, Smerus, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but should have some time after the weekend. I'm looking forward to reading the article, which certainly looks in good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie. I'll add comments as I read the article; I doubt I'll be able to get far tonight. I am not particularly knowledgeable about classical music so I'm afraid I won't be much help as a subject matter expert.

  • "Chopin and his family now lived in a building adjacent to the Kazimierz Palace": you're in past tense up to this point.
  • "in May 1825 performed on this instrument part of a concerto by Moscheles and his own improvisation": I think this phrasing could be improved. Was the improvisation a separate piece of music from the Moscheles concerto?
  • "Here the parents continued running their boarding house for male students; Chopin lived here until he left Warsaw in 1830." The repetition of "here" is a little clumsy.
  • "In September 1828 Chopin had visited Berlin with a family friend": why "had"?
  • Any reason not to link James Fenimore Cooper?
  • You say Chopin never named an instrumental work beyond genre and number, but then say he did name the Funeral March. Isn't this a contradiction?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for these comments. I believe I have now dealt with them all in the article; in the case of Cooper, I deleted the whole sentence, since the (apparently single) meeting had no consequences for either party - and Chopin of course met very many people in Paris, few of whom were relevant to his story. The 'had' for the 1828 visit I have retained, because is I think appropriate for reasons of continuity, as the narrative goes back briefly in time here. --Smerus (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All the above fixes look good. A couple more:

  • "which contain lengthy and scholarly explanations": perhaps "both of which" or "each of which"?
  • I use a wide, though not unusually wide, computer screen, and as a result the quote from Rosen about rubato appears to the right of the image of the Schirmer edition of op. 62 no. 1. This means that the indent of the quote is not visible. It might be better to move the "Form and harmony" illustration to the right edge of the article; move the "Title, opus numbers and editions" illustration to the left edge, and move the two "Chopin's technique and performance style" illustrations to the right edge. That would allow the quote indent to be seen.
  • 'Warsaw "urbanised" versions': I think '"urbanised" Warsaw versions' might be a bit more natural.
  • "Chopin's music was also utilised in the 1909 ballet Chopiniana, choreographed by Michel Fokine, using orchestrations by Alexander Glazunov": "utilised" is a bit polysyllabic here. How about: "Chopin's music was also used in the 1909 ballet Chopiniana, choreographed by Michel Fokine, and orchestrated by Alexander Glazunov"?
  • "Further orchestrations were commissioned from Stravinsky, Anatoly Lyadov, Sergei Taneyev and Nikolai Tcherepnin, by Sergei Diaghilev for later productions (using the title Les Sylphides)": Two questions here. First, did Diaghilev commission all these orchestrations? If so, I would use some form of parenthesizing punctuation for the list of composers -- perhaps em dashes before "from" and after "Tcherepnin". Second, it took me a second to work out the meaning of the final comment about Les Sylphides. How about "for later productions of the ballet under the title Les Sylphides", which I think more directly connects this to the earlier reference?
  • Is the number of YouTube videos worth including? And does the reference to Chopin in Autumn Sonata really belong here? I think both might be cut. I'm also doubtful about the mention of the recent documentaries.

That's everything I can see. The article is in very good shape, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks again for these further helpful comments. I have adopted all of them, except as regards the YouTube figures. I feel that these are a convenient way of giving 'citeable' evidence of Chopin's continuing popularity, (particulalry as they are in fact cited by the leading Chopin organization), so I'm inclined to leave the comment as it is. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Fair enough re the YouTube numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've not yet finished reading through, but here are my comments to the end of the "Final years" section. In general this reads as an excellent summary account of this major composer's life, and my comments are in the main minor nitpickings or suggestions.

Lead: in the absence of an infobox (I concur), the first lead para should be a little more informative, at least to the extent of stating that Chopin's medium was the piano, that he was an acclaimed performer as well as composer, and that all his compositions feature the instrument. These details occur later in the lead, but I believe should be prominent in the opening description of the subject.
Childhood:
  • naming: in "Childhood" sections, use of first name generally reads better. He was not really "Chopin" at that point.
  • Is a gallery of childhood homes really necessary? One image might do: otherwise its a lot of prominence for minor background details
Education:
  • Misplaced semicolon after "locales". Preferably this should be a full stop, followed by: "In 1824 and 1825 he was at..."
  • "is now a small museum" is not time-specific. Suggest "became a small museum in ..."
Travel:
  • I'm curious to know how young Chopin was so well-connected – meeting "celebrities" like Mendelssohn on his first Berlin visit, guest of the prince on his second?
  • "For the Prince" - capitalisation not required
  • La ci darem is not really a "theme" from the opera. Variations on an aria, or an air, perhaps?
  • You use British date format, but mixed with AmEng spellings, e.g. "favorable", "traveled" etc
Paris
  • For the "Chopin at 25" image and other portraits, I think "upright= 0.6" is too small. I enlarged the Elsner image to 0.8 which I think is better - perhaps you'd consider raising all the portraits similarly.
  • Ref 39 should be repositioned at end of paragraph
  • The comment "The list of musicians who took part in some of his concerts provides an indication of the richness of Parisian artistic life during this period" - reads rather like editorial comment/analysis and should be reworded in NPOV terms
  • Mendelssohn overlinked here
George Sand:
  • I'm not sure about her real name as stated here. She called herself "Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin".
  • "In June 1837 Chopin had made..." Why the past perfect form? (I noted s few other examples in my read-through)
Final years:
  • After quite profuse detail of Chopin's life up to up to 1839, the period 1839-45 is rather sparsely covered, just the odd line or two. Is there no more material for these years, or did he just do very little?
  • I'm curious to know when/how Sand acquired a fiancé?
  • "underway": I don't think this word exists – I can't find it in any of the dictionaries that I use ( though my OED is a little outdated). It may be one of those words that's crept into usage via journalism, but I don't think it really counts as excellent prose
  • "invited by Jane Stirling to visit Scotland, staying at Calder House" → "...where he stayed at Calder House"

I'll try to cover the rest as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski≤

Once again thanks for these helpful comments. I think I have now dealt with them, except for two. As regards 1839-1845, I need to review this carefully, so will revert. As regards "The list of musicians who took part in some of his concerts provides an indication of the richness of Parisian artistic life during this period" - I cannot really think this is controversial, or risks NPOV or OR; it is an opinion expressed by most (or maybe all) writers on ther Parisian music scene of the time, and I certainly don't know of any contrary opinion. Whilst we should certainly caution ourselves as editors against promoting doubtful or contested opinions, I can't make myself feel that this comes under such categories. But I am susceptible, as always, to the opinions of others if they agree with you! Re the past perfect - I sometime use this when I am taking up a thread after referring to an event out of sequence; probably a doubtful habit, but anyway I agree unnecessary/inappropriate in this instance. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
More comments
Death and funeral
  • "his unfinished piano method": what does this mean?
  • Unnecessary "In fact...". I'd also avoid close repetition of "many"
  • Are we to assume that Lefébure-Wély played the Preludes on the organ?
  • There are some stylistic oddities in the prose, e.g. "Also played were..."; "walked Chopin's sister", etc. At least you don't say "Played at the graveside was...", but do you see my point?
  • Five thousand in words, and 200 in numerals, in the same paragraph
  • Since there is a linked memorials article, I see no justification for three monument images (in addition to the death masks). Maybe just keep the masks to avoid overcrowding with images.
Music
  • Hatnote: I don't think the many articles listed as "main" are in fact the main articles. Surely, this is the main article, providing an general view of Chopin's music, while those listed are daughter articles? Suggest replace "Main" template with "Further information".
Overview
  • I think the links on "polonaises" and "waltzes" should go to the dance articles, rather than to the Chopin versions, since the dance articles explain to the unaware reader what the dances are.
Form and harmony
  • " held by Temperley": as this is his first mention he should be properly introduced. Incidently, he becomes "Nicholas Temperley" in the next para
  • The "Nicholas Temperley" sentence is very convoluted: "Nicholas Temperley explains that in these works, based on an extended 'departure and return' form, and with "immense variety of mood, thematic material and structural detail", "the more the middle section is extended, and the further it departs in key, mood and theme, from the opening idea, the more important and dramatic is the reprise when it at last comes." I really think that this point needs to be made by paraphrase rather than by a series of direct quotes.
  • Do we need "basically"?
  • "folky" of "folksy"? The latter seems more idiomatic.
  • "The Préludes, many of which are very brief, some of them consisting of simple statements and developments of a single theme or figure, were described by Schumann as "the beginnings of studies" - could do with some attention. "Many of" and "some of" in close proximity is awkward. I'd try and simplify.
  • "as Kenneth Hamilton has noted in a recording by Ferruccio Busoni of 1922" - I'm not sure what this is referring to. A recording of what, by Busoni?
  • The quote beginning ""used the sonata..." is far too much direct quotation, and I suspect not easily understood by a general reader. Much prècis/simplification advised.
  • In general, comments such as "worthy of Brahms" should be attributed, not just cited.
  • Last paragraph also contains a lengthy unattributed quotation.

Just a few sections to go... Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have now covered these issues, except for the memorials, and Lefébure-Wély. The problem here seems to me that figures such as Chopin are entitled to have their tomb in their article. Chopin as it happens has two tombs, and both of them are rather interesting. But there's no room for them in the body of the text in this section (which is where they were when I first started tinkering with the article an aeon ago) without generating unacceptable clutter - which is why I went originally for the option of a gallery. But two pictures aren't really ewnough for a gallery, which is why I added the statue (for which I agree there is the least justification). One possibility might be to put the tombs right at the end of the article, where there are presently no illustrations. As regards Lefébure-Wély, the Revue et gazette is unclear about exactly what he played (only that he was the organist, and that the preludes were played - but this doesn't preclude someone else being involved in the latter), so it's probably best left as it is. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Final comments
Titles, opus numbers and editions
  • It seems to me that this section would be better placed before, rather than after, "Form and Harmony"
Chopin's technique and performance style
  • MOS disapproves general of the subject's nametechnique and performance style appearing in section titles; thus this should be "Technique and performance style". This actually makes more sense, since the section is not only about Chopin's individual technique as a pianist, but also the general technique required to perform his music.
  • The two music MS illustrations may be understood by a techically well-equipped reader. I doubt they make much sense to the general reader, who is or should be the main target for this article.
Polish heritage in Chopin's music
  • Again, for MOS reasons, "Polish heritage" preferred.
  • Quote box, at 200 or so words, too long – virtually a mini-essay! A shorter quote from this text would be acceptable; otherwise, if the text is deemed essential to the article, then it should be paraphrased and included in the main body.
  • "The influential biography..." I'm sure it was, but editorial judgements should be avoided.
  • Fr the same reason, one needs to be careful in the use of "However". Sometimes it is OK as a way of maintaining prose flow; when it appears at the start of a paragraph, it seems less "neutral". I don't think the second paragraph would lose anything by beginning: "Some modern commentators..."
  • "adverts" rather than "refers" seems a little stilted.
Reception and influence
  • "his lack of Byronic flamboyance [and] his aristocratic reclusiveness make him exceptional" should be attributed
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph lacks a citation
  • "His qualities as a pianist" → "Chopin's qualities as a pianist..." (new paragraph)
  • "folk-music" - dehyphenate
  • "one worthy successor" – whose phrase?
  • "have been assessed as influenced by Chopin's use of national modes and idioms" – somewhat inelegant. Perhaps "are regarded by critics as having been influenced by..." etc?
  • "Further orchestrations..." → "Other orchestrations..."?
Recordings
  • Ref 165: link is dead.

That concludes the review. I'll add any further comment on your responses when you've looked at these final issues. I have enjoyed reading the article very much, and I know a lot more about Chopin than I did before. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski"[edit]

An editor has added to the article this note which seems to me to be WP:UNDUE for this article - it might be more relevant, perhaps, in Nicolas Chopin, if anywhere. There is no evidence that F Chopin ever met this character, or even knew of his existence (or vice versa). Opinions welcome.--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The information is barely relevant to Chopin's life; possibly worth a mention in an expansive biography, but it doesn't merit this space in an encyclopedia article. Either reduce to a brief sentence, or delete. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Brian. There's so much to say about Chopin more interesting than a cousin who did those things. Preferably remove entirely. --Stfg (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 June 2014, 19:51 UTC)----


Katy Perry[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I just got it up to GA last week and am hoping to polish it up enough to become FA in time to be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. This means I will likely have to get it to FA at least one month ahead of time. Input is highly appreciated. Peer review shall close on July 11th as I plan on taking to FAC next month.

Thanks, Snuggums (talkcontributions) 20:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • The image in the infobox will need an alternate text description.
  • There are some external links that need to be corrected.
  • In the first sentence of the Prism section, fall (and seasons in general, for that matter) do not need to be capitalized.
  • I'm not sure perfumes need a separate section for listing the way that discography and filmography do.
  • In the filmography section, it would be helpful to include the year when each film was released.
  • I personally don't think that the succession boxes at the end of the article are necessary, I would remove them altogether.
  • I would also consider separating the templates at the end of the article from the "Links to related articles" umbrella; I think that just leaving the templates separate will be a more direct navigation.

WikiRedactor (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

  • I think it would be useful to add where Perry was born and that she was raised in a patriarchal family. That would be in the second sentence from the lead, in order the reader to understand why her exposure to pop music was limited.
  • I'll see if I can find the exact location for her birth (all I know so far is that it was a hospital just outside of Santa Barbara), but so far I haven't come across anything that suggests her family was ever "patriarchal" (or matriarchal, for that matter). Snuggums (talkcontributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "her family moved about seven times" — I'm sure that this would be pointed in the FAC, that if available, we should have the exact number.
  • Will do if I can find it, but for now I'll just say "often moved" or "frequently moved", sound good? Snuggums (talkcontributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "At age 15, Perry's singing attracted the attention of rock veterans" — the names of the rock musicians are needed here; "At age 15"→just "at 15" is fine; "attracted the attention"→"caught the attention"; "to polish her writing skills"→"to improve her writing skills"
  • all Yes check.svg Done except for the names..... for now, as I'll have to search for those..... Snuggums (talkcontributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "craft songs"→"write/compose songs" (more encyclopedic)
  • in order to add an "undeniable smash or two"→I think just "undeniable smash" would be fine
  • stating "They love and support me".→this could be paraphrased
  • "reached the number one position"→just reached number one
  • Teenage Dream was met with generally mixed reviews — omit generally
  • "Firework" was released as the album's third consecutive number-one on the Hot 100. — You need to clarify that it became the album's third consecutive number single. This way it seems that she knew the single was going to be number 1 before it was released.
  • In the fall of 2012, Perry told Billboard about Prism; we need to explain that Prism was her upcoming album because it is mentioned for the first time
  • her relationship with Mayer ended (explain what was the reason); "telling GQ "there's no rush" (this needs paraphrasing because it sounds slightly "mystic")
  • This is all for now. I should finish the review on Saturday. Comments on the rest of the sections coming then. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job so far Snuggums.--Retrohead (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir :3 Snuggums (talkcontributions) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • the gospel genre→ just gospel would be fine
Yes check.svg Done
  • At the age 15
Yes check.svg Done
  • inspired her music; finish the quote with attitude and omit "really"
Yes check.svg Done
  • drop "frequently" from the opening sentence of "Musical style and themes" and "notably" from the third
Yes check.svg Done
  • possesses→has would be a better word choice
Yes check.svg Done
  • likened→compared
Yes check.svg Done
  • music industry sex symbol—I believe only "music sex symbol" or even "sex symbol" would be more adequate
Yes check.svg Done
  • "In early November 2010"→In November 2010 (exact dates kinda drag the attention away)
Yes check.svg Done
  • choice of fashion→fashion choice
Yes check.svg Done
  • early November 2013 and late January 2014 should be November 2013 & January 2014; I've noticed that is quite frequent in the "Other ventures"
Yes check.svg Done
  • overall, this section could use some quote trimming; I get the impression that every second sentence contains quote marks.
  • went towards→were donated to
Yes check.svg Done
  • in young women; shouldn't this be at young women?
  • The charity supports young women with breast cancer, so I think "in" is fine.
  • supported President Barack Obama in his November 2012 run for re-election; the date of November 2012 is not needed here
Yes check.svg Done
  • This is all from me. Have a good time.--Retrohead (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorted out most of these. S△M talk 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio[edit]

I'm going through the article now and jotting down comments as I go. Will paste them all together when I'm done. On way I will be copy editing also anything I find missing. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to it :) Snuggums (talkcontributions) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am done with the scanning of the whole article. I'm sorry to say at present how it is, it won't pass FAC and the whole blame comes on the prose. The main problem is not balance or anything regarding it, its just that the prose has a complete timeline way of writing. Its like someone keeping a log of Perry's important events in life in a diary. "She woke up, brushed her teeth, released 'Roar', performed at music awards, broke up with John", like this. It essentially makes the article pretty bland and has a complete monotony associated with it. When you read a book, do you find that the content is written like that? The author always tries to spice up the portions but keeping it professional. How does he do it? By adding quotes, or anecdotes, or conversation, or maybe an image. He also combines the flow so that sequences of same event are clubbed together. The pictures are all present, we need to just regurgitate them again. I will give one example from the Prism section how we can better it.
We can start with the development of the album and Perry's thoughts of changing it to a lighter version. Then, instead of going into the diary entries, we can talk about how the album did / doing commercially. Then we can talk about the singles and the promotional performances, then talk about the tour associated with the album. In this way the diary like entry is avoided and we have also clubbed sequences of same era together. I think the Lady Gaga article (though not of FA worthy obviously) has a good way of effecting this, especially in her Artpop section and pointers can be taken.
Besides that the section can contain other endeavors of Perry like that awful duet with John, her perfume and The Smurfs appearance, then any notable controversy excluding the album. In this way we are adding notable incidents from the whole zone but we are making it interesting. A reader would definitely not like to go from album → development → perfume → movies → singles → promo → breakup in that order. He/She would want to know what happens next with the exact portion he's reading and I think this is a great way of improving that. Just to remind you, this does not mean that the article has to be a QUOTEFARM. Just minor anecdotes and one liners.
I will be posting more gradually as I see more problems. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a WP:TNT is needed, IndianBio. If Peter had told me about the whole "timeline" idea when reviewing the GAN, that would've been quite helpful. Of the sections that need revising, do any specific ones need more copyediting than others? Give me all you've got here- for FAC, I'm determined as top contributor to do it once and do it right. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, it is not TNT that is needed, it is a rearrangement. Why not start with the most recent section of her bio as I explained above, i.e. the Prism section. Take each and every sentence and then place them category wise. Like 1. Album, 2. Singles + promo, 3. Other endorsements. Then copyedit and expand on the prose so that the sentences flow better and makes the reader understand what he/she is reading. As I said above, it reads like a disjointed diary entry at present with ideas just thrown in buyt not combined or placed in apprrpriate areas. I can even show you for this section in the talk page of this PR if you want. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll get to that, but in such a case I'm not quite sure where her relationships with Travie and Russell would be placed for One of the Boys and Teenage Dream sections. Definitely gonna need some fiddling around since it looks like I went overboard with chronology prior to requesting the PR. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 06:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
IndianBio, take a look now- Samjohnzon just gave a total revamp. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully it's an improvement, tried to organise things according to topic rather than chronologically this time. Let me know what you think, IndianBio! S△M talk 01:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
One thing I just realized- we forgot to include her involvement with Sesame Street, The Simpsons, How I Met Your Mother, and Raising Hope. Just trying to figure out how to incorporate them. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 02:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes thanks Sam, just taking a look at it and checking if the prose flows like a stream :P —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(→) Hi Sam, the rearrangement of the section, now the idea is to make the prose flow smoothly between these sections and the lines in each section. At present the ideas are separately listed, but the sentences do not merge into each other as a smooth prose. I am starting to give it a brush up now. Hope that would make it clear. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Another question, IndianBio: do you feel there's enough information available to warrant a "legacy" section or is it too soon in her career? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prism[edit]

  • Per WP:ALTTEXT, all the alt text descriptions of images are wrong except for the Public image section. — prism 12:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • What would better alt text descriptions be? Snuggums (talkcontributions) 13:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll change them as soon as I can. :) — prism 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

I've read through the lead and the first few sections. Apologies if I've repeated anything covered above.

Lead[edit]
  • "Her fourth album, Prism (2013), spawned" - not sure if "spawned" is the right word to use. Maybe redo as "She released her fourth album, Prism in 2013 which included the number-one singles "Roar" and "Dark Horse"
  • The lead says "the dissolution of her one-year marriage" but the infobox said they were married from 2010 to 2012
  • That's because they married October 2010 and the marriage ended February 2012, which really isn't two years. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's one of those tricky things. If you leave it out, you can't tell they've separated. If you put "brief", well it's got nothing on Cher and Gregg Allman. Tricky one to resolve, this.
I guess "short" or "brief" would have to do. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Early life and career beginnings[edit]
  • turned to God after a "wild youth" - I assume the quotation comes from the Scotsman source in the next sentence, but I would put it right up against this quotation myself.
  • "Keith formerly made and dealt LSD" - don't need "formerly", we know it was in his past
  • "Mary once dated musician Jimi Hendrix" - Hendrix's article does not mention her. "Dated Hendrix" for me means someone like Kathy Etchingham. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, and I don't think The Scotman cuts it. I think this sentence can go - her parents are reformed Christians, that'll do.
  • Their relationship was only brief, which is probably why Hendrix's article didn't include it. Should I scrap the LSD part as well if getting rid of this sentence? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd get rid. It's not actually about Katy Perry per se. The source did say "dated" but, with I have a feeling they said that as a tabloid euphemism for "one night stand". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Scrapped SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "and an older sister named Angela" - don't need "named"
  • "Throughout their childhood, they attended religious schools and camps, including Santa Barbara Christian School" - do you mean the whole family, or just the children
  • "E! Special: Katy Perry" needs a time as to where the supporting information can be located.
  • In general, I think some (but not all) of the sources in this section are a bit tabloidish, and you may come unstuck at FAC where reviewers tend to demand higher quality sources such as officially authorised biographies, or at least commercial books from good publishers.
Well I had a quick pop onto Google Books and there were a couple of biographies, though nothing that I would think would reach critical acclaim. Sorry I can't be more specific. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I meant which sources looked questionable/tabloidish. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Seventeen and OC Weekly were the obvious ones. None of the sources are unreliable per se - they got passed a GA review after all, but are they the absolute highest quality sources going? It's more a gut feeling that at FAC showing evidence of consulting a good in-depth printed biography shows you're serious about providing the best possible sources.

Katy Hudson and The Matrix[edit]
  • "In December 1999, Perry completed her GED" - readers outside North America don't know what the General Education Development is - this should be spelled out in full.
  • "At fifteen" - up until this point, ages have been numeric. I'd do with numbers.
  • "her singing caught the attention of rock veterans from Nashville, Tennessee," - "veterans" is often used to mean a retired soldier or general. Do we know whose specific attention she caught?
  • "before the label ceased operations in December 2001" - don't need 2001, the paragraph has established we're talking about that year
  • "Following a terminated record deal" - not sure what is meant. Did the contracts get signed and then dropped after unsuccessful recording, did the paperwork just not work out, or something else. I think this needs to be clearer.
  • "She was dropped by her third record label," - state the label directly
  • " In the interim of being signed to another label" - "During this time" might be simpler

I'll see if I can comment further on the article later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Things are looking better. I'd merge the last two sentences of the second paragraph in "Early life and career beginnings", but I can't think of anything else right now. I assume you've looked through Binksternet's comments and applied the MOS issues generally throughout the article. I'll try and see if I can look at more of it soon! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I have addressed his concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
OK I've now found the names of the veterans (from Alice Hudson's biography), used Kimberly Dillon Summers' biography in place of Seventeen (though moved that ref to later in the article where she speaks to the magazine), looking for a better ref for OC Weekly. As for merging..... Sam, it might have been a bit long, so here's what we can do:
Original text: "Her family 'barely got by' financially during her childhood and adolescence. The family sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church, and used food stamps."
What I used (and you found "long winded"): "Her family 'barely got by' financially during her childhood and adolescence and sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church, and used food stamps."
Proposal: "Her family 'barely got by' financially during her childhood and adolescence, sometimes eating from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church, and used food stamps."
Ritchie, if you or Sam have any better suggestions to merge, feel free to state them. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a really tricky one to word. It feels like if we have two 'and's in the same sentence it may be a bit too long a sentence, but if we repeat "The family" twice it feels too repetitive. Perhaps "Her family 'barely got by' financially, sometimes using food stamps and eating from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church."? It's obvious to the reader this section is about her childhood, so it doesn't necessarily have to be specified. S△M talk 15:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Gonna go with that. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Binksternet[edit]

  • Looks like the clunky prose will prevent this article from achieving FA. Staccato sentences such as "She grew up in Santa Barbara, California," stand out as examples of poor writing. (Her hometown couldn't be worked more gracefully into some other sentence?)
  • Because of the result of The/the Beatles RfC, the musical group the Matrix should have lower case the in running prose, not capitalized The.
  • In running prose, city/state formulations should end in a comma. The phrase "born near Santa Barbara, California to Pentecostal pastors" should be "born near Santa Barbara, California, to Pentecostal pastors". Later on, the same problem shows up in "Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, California on October..." which should have a comma after California.
  • Rather than calling her parents by their first names, I think the encyclopedia should say "her father" and "her mother". For instance, instead of saying "through Mary, she is a half-niece", the article should say "through her mother, Perry is a half-niece".
  • This wording is wrong in two ways: "Between the ages of 3–11, her family frequently moved ..." First off, per MOS:ENDASH, when giving a range of numbers separated by an en dash, we should never say "between" or "from". If those words are used, then the numbers should be separated by a preposition; for instance "from 3 to 11" or "between 3 and 11". The second problem is that her family was not aged 3 to 11 when they moved. Perry was that age range, not the whole family, despite what the sentence suggests. The paragraph continues "Throughout their childhood", assumed to mean the family's childhood, which is nonsense, or the siblings' childhood, which is not defined. Of course we are talking about Perry's childhood. It is not necessary to use "they" or "their" to include Perry's siblings; the article is about Katy Perry, not her siblings. The sentence "They sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church" should be "The family sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church".
  • Per MOS:ENDASH, the phrase "from the ages of 9–16" should be "from the ages of 9 to 16".
  • Pedantic: Do we really have to be told that singing at age 9 came "before" getting a guitar at age 13?
  • Per MOS:NUMERAL, the ages 9 and 13 should both be spelled out or both be numerals, not mixed in the same sentence.
  • Is it vitally important that Perry's dancing lessons were conducted in "a recreation building in Santa Barbara"?
  • Per WP:DASH, the article should settle on either unspaced em dashes for sentence interruptions, or spaced en dashes. I see that both kinds are used.
  • Per WP:NBSP, million dollar figures require a non-breaking space between the numeral and the "million", or a nowrap template can be used.
  • Doesn't that make text look messy in editing mode? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:DATE, a month/day/year formulation should always be followed with a comma in running prose, so "April 28, 2008 as the lead single" should be "April 28, 2008, as the lead single". Same with "released on October 18, 2013 and debuted" which should be "released on October 18, 2013, and debuted". Same with "engaged on December 31, 2009 while vacationing" which should be "engaged on December 31, 2009, while vacationing". As well, "on December 10, 2011 with Robyn" should be "on December 10, 2011, with Robyn". Finally, "text message on December 30, 2011 that he was divorcing" should be "text message on December 30, 2011, that he was divorcing".
  • The first instance of a reference should be the full citation rather than a named ref. An example is the bit about Perry's mother "dating" Hendrix (does this signify a brief backstage romance or something more meaningful?) which is supported by a named reference "GraffBold", but the full GraffBold reference comes later.
  • Thanks for catching that. They were only together briefly. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm stopping my prose review at the year 1999. The article needs a lot of prose and manual-of-style work to move ahead. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 June 2014, 20:59 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Bristol[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is nearing the quality for a FA nomination. It has had peer reviews in the past (I did one of them) and has recently had the referencing issues sorted and copy editing from others. Another set of eyes to spot anything else which is likely to cause a problem at FAC would be really helpful. Thanks, — Rod talk 19:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Historically in Gloucestershire, the city received a Royal charter in 1155[7] and was granted County status in 1373." I did not understand this until I read the details below. I think it would be better to spell out with something like "The city received a Royal charter in 1155. It was part of Gloucestershire until 1373 when it became a county in its own right."
  • Changed— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "latter part of the 18th century." A bit clumsy. Why not the later 18th century?
  • Changed.— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Archaeological finds believed to be 60,000 years old, discovered at Shirehampton and St Annes, provide "evidence of human activity" in the Bristol area from the Palaeolithic era." I find statements like this problematic, as they could be interpreted as implying occupation since that time, whereas modern humans did not reach Europe until around 45,000 years ago and Britain has probably only been continuously occupied since the end of the last Ice Age around 11,000 years ago. The paper here shows that the evidence is of Neanderthals using the Lavellois technique, which is interesting in its own right.
  • I will have to look at bit more closely at this one.— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've had a go, but could you take a look at the way I have worded this please?— Rod talk 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Palaeolithic going back 2.6 million years is too broad to be meaningful in this context, so I have changed it to "in the Middle Palaeolithic period". I trust this is OK with you.
  • "appears to have been founded in c.1000 and by c.1020 was an important enough trading centre to possess its own mint," Surely it cannot have developed in 20 years enough to have its own mint? Perhaps before 1000.
  • Changed— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Harold's sons" I would link Harold.
  • Done— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • " Having been rebuffed in the east," I think it would be better to spell out that Sturmy's expedition was unsuccessful.
  • Done
  • " Isle of Hy-Brazil, " You need to spell out that this was a phantom island.
  • Done— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Traditionally this is equivalent to the town being granted city status, which was granted to Bristol in that year." So Bristol became a county in 1377 and a city in 1542. This needs clarification. I see you say below that Bristol is both, but this could do with spelling out in the history section as it seems confusing as it stands.
  • Done— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "18th century expansion" I think 18th century should be hyphenated when it is a qualifier.
  • Done— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would delete sport from the history section as it has its own section below.
  • I will look at this.— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "The next [elections] are expected in May 2013." Articles should not be written so that they become out of date. See WP:Recentism. There are other comments which will become out of date such as "There are two Labour members of parliament (MPs), one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative." Dates should be given when making statements which will become out of date in the future.
  • Changed— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have looked through the article down to demographics and will try to come back to it later. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the really helpful comments. I've dealt with some and will come back to the last couple.— Rod talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

  • It would take up a bit more space, but I think it would be better to have the historical data in single vertical columns rather than 3 horizontal as it would be easier to see the trend.
  • I don't quite understand this one - I presume this is the population records, but what would each column contain?— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry I was not clear. I mean a table with two columns, headed Year and Population (total is superfluous). The technical details above the table could be relegated to a footnote.
  • I've had a bash at this in my sandbox. The most recent few years need sorting and updating but I think the main problem is the length. If this were added to the article in the Demographics section this would either create a large amount of white space or push down the pics etc in the subsequent Ecomony and industry section.— Rod talk 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps dividing into 3 vertical columns would look better, but I will leave it to you to decide what looks best. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at this - what do you think?— Rod talk 20:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole table is not visible on my screen at the same time. Contrary to my original suggestion, I think splitting it into 3 vertical columns might work better. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've taken the middle course and made it two vertical columns - better?— Rod talk 08:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks fine. I think tables in columns are easier to read than rows. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "As a major seaport, Bristol has a long history of trading commodities, originally..." It would be better to give approximate dates of the phases.
  • I've added more history of the port with dates.— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 2004, Bristol's GDP was £9.439 billion, and the combined GDP of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset was £44.098 billion." Maybe a bit pedantic, but as Bristol is a county the higher figure appears to exclude Bristol (and I doubt it tells us anything useful.)
  • I've removed the surrounding counties.— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Portbury Dock (1977) as the size of shipping increased" This is ambiguous. Would size of ships be more accurate?
  • Changed.— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Since the port was leased in 1991," This needs clarification. Something like: Until 1991 the port was publicly owned, since when it has been leased. (if this is correct).
  • Revised.— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "but imports of wines and spirits by Averys continue." Probably best not to mention Averys and more recentism.
  • Averys removed.— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that your reversion of the edit on non-league clubs is correct. The Conference Premier is the top league of the Conference, not separate from leagues below it. Does 'non-league' mean anything with the new set up?
  • I reverted my own revert.— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the biggest problem with the article is frequent recentism. You need to go through it looking for statements that may look out of date or trivial to someone reading it in ten years. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks again - I will look for more examples of recentism.— Rod talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 June 2014, 19:41 UTC)----


History[edit]

Horatio Bottomley[edit]


If you think most politicians are crooks...well, you may be right in many cases, but today's bunch pale into insignificance compared with Bottomley, one-time Liberal MP, founder of John Bull magazine (20th century version) and also, surprisingly, of The Financial Times. One thing that distinguishes Bottomley from his present-day counterparts, and makes him almost likeable, is that he was completely blatant in his activities – an out-and-out swindler blessed with a charm and plausibility that persuaded thousands – millions, perhaps – to part with their money, over and over again. A brilliant orator, he was one of the principal voices of the people during the First World War, and would probably have been in the Cabinet but for being temporarily disqualified from parliament as an undischarged bankrupt. He overreached himself in the end, went to prison and died broke, but what a story to tell. All comments, as usual, greatly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting indeed. I confess to never having heard of the individual. My comments:

Lede.
  • I would add "at age 14" after "errand boy"
Life
  • "Horatio received a useful basic education there" I would strike "there"
  • "mainly based on the marked facial resemblance between Bradlaugh and Bottomley noted by biographers" presumably more than biographers, as Bottomley encouraged it. Full stop needed.
"with his sister from who he had been separated" from whom, I would think.
  • "London's first financial daily paper" perhaps, to avoid the repetition of "financial", "London's first business daily"
  • "developed it into large country mansion" a missing a
  • " he had the constituency in his pocket." A pocket borough? (no action, unless you want to avoid the joke)
  • "and drained Bottomley's rapidly depleting resources" perhaps "and rapidly depleted Bottomley's resources"
  • I think the last paragraph in the "Parliament ..." subsection could be profitably split at "His parliamentary ambitions". You might want to make it clearer that a bankrupt could not remain in the Commons (assuming that was so then). I know you say "forced to" but that still can be misinterpreted.
  • "the winner of the sweepstake". Is it sweepstake or sweepstakes?
  • "complete coincidence". Is "complete" really needed?
  • Somewhere, a link to "First World War" might be appropriate. I don't see that you do it.
  • "Macdonald's birth certificate which indicated" perhaps "showed" for "indicated"?
  • "with a distinctive policy stance" not distinct?
  • "by by-election victories" if possible, you may wish to avoid the by-by
  • "upon which he severed all connections with the paper." While this is understandable as a whole, who "he" is a bit muddy. I imagine Bottomley. I guess it's confusion as to whether Odhams is severing the Bottomley-paper relationship or Bottomley doing it.
Appraisal
  • "notes his ability to charm the publicpec"
I am somewhat minded of your own comments regarding Mr. Franklin Peale, more or less that you were uncertain whether he was a good man who did wrong, or a bad'un with good points. Much the same for Mr Bottomley, though perhaps both his good and his bad points were on a grander scale.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 10 July 2014, 18:16 UTC)----


Ammar ibn Yasir[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because much effort has been done by many editors to improve its quality and we are interested to hear more opinions on how we can improve it even further.

Thanks, Grandia01 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 3 July 2014, 14:06 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Radiocarbon dating[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article level. I've done a fair amount of work on it, and have created two sub-articles, in addition: radiocarbon dating samples, and calculation of radiocarbon dates. These are linked, per summary style, from the appropriate sections of the article. I'd like feedback on anything that would be required for FA -- this means not the subarticles, but if there's anything in those articles that should be brought up to this article, I'd like to know. Conversely, if there are other sections where the article could be shortened by making another subarticle, I'd like to know that too.

Thanks for any feedback. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

I've looked at this article in past and I'm impressed with the recent improvements.

Physical and chemical background
  • You show the decay of carbon-14 in a figure but do not explain what the symbols represent. Consider including the breakdown inline as in the Carbon-14 article:
\mathrm{~^{14}_{6}C}\rightarrow\mathrm{~^{14}_{7}N}+ e^- + \bar{\nu}_e

with an explanation of the symbols. Perhaps mention that beta particles are electrons.

I've added the equation, and an explanation; the symbols don't perfectly match the svg image, which predates my involvement with the article. Is the image useful now? I see a couple of problems that would need to be fixed if I were to keep it: the symbols are slightly different, e.g. for the electron and anti-neutrino; and the explanation of decay includes a reference to the ratio, 1012, and the fact that the decay reduces that ratio. This is not addressed in the text at this point. I have an svg editor and can change the image if necessary, or it could just be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the picture can be removed as it doesn't add anything to the article - and could confuse. Why does the first equation have N+ rather than simply N? Aa77zz (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the picture. The plus was added in this edit; the edit summary was "balance the charge", and I see that it does that, but I'm not convinced it is any clearer this way. I left it on the assumption that this conforms to a standard in these kinds of equations, but perhaps that was wrong. Should I cut it again? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand why the nitrogen has a plus in the C14 creation reaction. The symbols represent nuclei (not atoms). There are 7 protons and 8 neutrons on either side - ie in terms of charge +7 on each side. Perhaps there is some subtlety that I'm not aware of. Have you an authoritative source? Aa77zz (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I found a source and removed the +; the source does not include it. I assume the reason the other editor added it is that 14N would have 7 electrons, and 14C would have six, so the electrons would not balance; they must have considered it as an atomic equation, rather than as a nuclear equation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The ratio of 14
    C
    to 12
    C
    in the carbon exchange reservoir is 1.5 parts of 14
    C
    to 1012 parts of 12
    C
    ." -> The ratio of 14
    C
    to 12
    C
    in the carbon exchange reservoir is approximately 1.5 parts of 14
    C
    to 1012 parts of 12
    C
    .
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Principles of the method
  • "The ratio of 14
    C
    atoms in the original sample, N0," The article introduces the ratio here while N0 has been defined to be the actual number. I can't see an easy solution without adding complication.
    Good point; this was confused. I've had a go at fixing this; let me know if that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Invention
  • The text uses carbon-14 rather that 14
    C
    . Is this deliberate?
    No, it's just carelessness. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Errors and reliability
  • Counting statistics. The example is for counting beta particles. If, as I suspect, dating nowadays uses AMS exclusively, then perhaps it is not such a good example.
    I can't tell if beta counting is still in wide use. I suspect it is, because it's a lot cheaper to build a beta counting lab than an AMS lab. The most recent source I have that unequivocally talks about the continuing use of beta counting is Walker's Quaternary Dating Methods, which was published in 2005. I have noticed that Groningen and Belfast, two of the best known labs, have converted to AMS, which certainly implies that AMS has finally overtaken beta counting as the best way to get a precise radiocarbon age. I haven't been able to find a source that definitely states beta counting is on the way out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Contamination
  • I don't think you need the equation here. It follows directly from the text and doesn't lead anywhere.
    OK, cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Measurement
  • Beta counting: If dating by counting beta particles is no longer used then perhaps this section could be shortened.
    See comments above. I am planning to ask an archaeologist I know to do a "subject-matter expert" review, and perhaps he'll be able to settle it, or will know someone who knows the answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    Also, in looking for something else I noticed that beta counting is still discussed as a current method in Malainey's A Consumer's Guide to Arcaheological Science, which was published in 2011. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Accelerator mass spectrometry: Are the details of a mass-spec device really necessary? Also you could point out that AMS but not beta counting can determine 12
    C
    :13
    C
    (and hence fractionation).
    I think the picture is helpful, mainly in showing the streams of 12
    C
    , 13
    C
    , and 14
    C
    separated as the output of the device. I think readers who aren't clear on the text will immediately understand what AMS does when they see that picture, even if they don't quite understand how it does it. I cover the details of AMS internals partly because the need to add the accelerator component was a big deal; it added a huge amount of cost, and was the main reason why AMS did not spread more quickly once it was clear it worked well. Do you feel these details are a digression?
    Re fractionation: I found one source saying that some AMS facilities can also measure fractionation in the sample, so I'll add something to that effect. I'm a bit surprised that the source says only some facilities can do this; I can't see why all facilities wouldn't be able to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Calibration
  • I'm not convinced that you need to mention that uncorrelated errors are added in quadrature. This is more "How to" - which wiki is not. I don't think the "The output of CALIB" fig adds very much.
    The secondary sources spend a fair amount of time on the question of how to combine errors. I think a reader not familiar with statistical errors is going to naturally make the mistake in red in the "calibration error" graph; it would seem sensible to take the outside bound of both sigmas and treat that as the one sigma error on the result. So I think something should be said. I know when I first looked at the INTCAL graphs and saw the error bars, my reaction was "why don't they show those errors in the textbooks?" and the answer is because the error is added to the radiocarbon age reading before using the intercepts. I wouldn't mind simplifying the explanation -- perhaps if I take out the equation, and just use the text description?
    Maybe the CALIB figure doesn't add what I wanted it to. What I wanted readers to see from it was that it produces a probability distribution, not just a range. I picked that particular date range so readers could compare the output to the intercept method on the other graph. The intercept method gives the illusion, which several sources comment on, that the date is definitely within the range; the probability method makes it much clearer that sometimes the date is going to be well outside the given range. Do you feel this information is adequately conveyed by the text? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Notes/Footnotes/References
  • Using the both titles "Notes" and "Footnotes" is confusing. I suggest Notes/References/Sources
    I would like to keep "References" to refer to the list of works, since that seems to be the standard -- WP:FNNR says any heading can be used but says "References" is the most common here. I agree "Notes" and "Footnotes" isn't ideal, but I think there would be a similar confusion between "References" and "Sources". How about "Endnotes" for the text notes, and just "Notes" for the footnotes that simply give the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are many little problems with consistency.
  • Do first names come before or after the last name?
  • Do initials have punctuation?
  • When there are two initials, is there a space between them?
  • Some References (Sources) use templates, others not. The are many tiny differences: "and" or "&" introduced, period after isbn etc. I suggest all use templates (editor1-last= etc)

That is all for now. I hope some of the above is useful. Aa77zz (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Very helpful; thank you very much. I've responded to most of your points above; I will work on the consistency issues and post here again when I think I've cleaned them up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've now done quite a bit of citation cleanup. Please let me know if you still see inconsistencies. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A few additional comments[edit]

  • There should be cite for the decay equation in the section "Physical and chemical background".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you really need both equations in the Fractionation section? Perhaps keep just the second?
    Agreed; I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there some way that the time scale for carbon dating could be made more prominent in the lead? Currently, fifty thousand years is mentioned, but only in terms of the calibration.
    Done; this wasn't really covered in detail in the body either, so I added a note in the "Errors and reliability" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For my own curiosity I tried to check whether beta counting is still used by scanning the latest issue of Radiocarbon (vol 56, issue 2). Of the 21 articles that I looked at, 16 mentioned AMS. It was unclear which technique was used for the remaining 5 - but counting wasn't mentioned.
    I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, but I can't find a source that says this. The most recent source that mentions beta counting as current practice is Malainey (2011). I suspect I can get the answer by asking an archaeologist I know, but I don't know how to cite it. I suppose if it does turn out that beta counting is now rare, I could at least reverse the order of explanation in some sections -- though I also like keeping the historical sequence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I came across an article that might be useful for the "Reporting dates" section:
Millard, Andrew R. (2014). "Conventions for Reporting Radiocarbon Determinations". Radiocarbon 56 (2): 555–559. doi:10.2458/56.17455. 
Thanks; I added some material based on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made small changes to formatting of the references - aiming for consistency. I find the referencing system used in the article very odd. I'm used to a system in which the short cites including the year rather than the title. The treatment of chapters in edited books is also not what I expect. For #32 the short cite in the Footnotes would be "Schoeninger (2010), p. 446." while the full details in the References would be:
Schoeninger, Margaret J. (2010). "Diet reconstruction and ecology using stable isotope ratios". In Larsen, Clark Spencer. A Companion to Biological Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 445–464. ISBN 978-1-4051-8900-2. 
Notice that chapter titles and journal article titles are normally in sentence case, while book titles and journal titles are in title case.
I agree. I'm going to make this change throughout and come back to your other points when this is done. I think the style I used was simply inherited from when I first began editing Wikipedia, and had paid very little attention to the referencing system. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Aa77zz, how should journals be handled? Would you suggest they be listed in the references, and a short form used, or should I leave them as they are, cited directly from the footnotes and not listed in the references? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view on this. FAs use both systems - Jimfbeak for example doesn't use the short form for journal article. When journal article are 10s of pages (unlike Science and Nature) then it helps the reader if one cites the actual page. In these cases it makes sense to use the short form- especially if one has several cites to different pages in the same journal article. The short form is not used for web sources.
In writing the above I noticed that you cite Bowman for the Libby's Nobel prize. I usually try to avoid web sources but in this case I would cite: "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1960". Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 5 July 2014.  This is unlikely to suffer from link-rot. Aa77zz (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with everything that was cited from a book; I'll hold off on the journals until you comment on how those should be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
For edited books I think you've haven't realised that the template automatically does everything for you - and avoids having the year twice. I'll tweak them now. Aa77zz (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah. I was going to ask about that duplicated year; thank you for those fixes (and the other tweaks I see you're doing). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on tackling this important topic. The article is clearly written and well referenced. Aa77zz (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks; I am glad you think so. I'm sure there are more improvements to be made, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Edited books[edit]

  • In the References section I've now added the page numbers of the chapters in edited books. Previously only Post (2001) had the pages specified. I used google (I'm not near a library). I came across a couple of errors in the authors.
  • "Tunis, C.; Zoppi, U. (2004)" actual has 3 authors and a different spelling of the first author. I've changed it to "Tuniz, C.; Zoppi, U.; Barbetti, M. (2004)." Google preview available here.
  • "Šilar, Jan (2004)" actually has 3 authors, and Šilar is the middle author. It is now "Košler, Jan; Šilar, Jan; Jelìnek, Emil (2004)." Google preview available here.
  • This level of carelessness is worrying (I'm assuming I haven't made errors myself). I haven't checked whether the cited page actually supports the text.
  • On an unrelated issue, in the Calculations section is a sentence: "A common standard sample is HOxII, 1,000 lb of which was prepared by NIST in 1977 from French beet harvests.[55]" The cite is to a chapter published in 1984 available here. This is 30 years ago and the technology has changed enormously since. I suspect that this info is really only of historical interest. Aa77zz (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your comment about carelessness; I knew I wasn't the best at dotting every i, but when I saw the number of corrections you had to make, even before reading your comment above I was planning to apologize to you. I should have done a pass through to find these simple errors before bringing the article to PR. I am sorry you've had to spend your time on this sort of tedious work; next time I bring something to PR I'll do my best to make sure it's clear of these mistakes.

On the Tunis & Zoppi article, I have no explanation for what I did. As it happens, Google Books has two different versions of the book: ISBN 1-58603-424-3 comes up if you search for "Physics Methods in Archaeometry, Volume 154" in books.google.com. This is the one you cited, with authors Tuniz, Zoppi, and Barbetti. There is also one with ISBN 1-58603-385-9, which comes up if you search for "Physics Methods in Archaeometry edited by M. Martini, M. Piacentini". That one shows only Barbetti as the author of the article in the table of contents. However, Tuniz and Zoppi show up in the running head, so it seems to be just an error in that edition; and in any case, since I omitted Barbetti, it can't explain what I did.

For Šilar, the reason I put only one name down as author is that in the table of contents the subsections of that paper are attributed specifically to individual authors, and I assumed I should only give his name in that case. The overall section of the book does have the three authors, but perhaps the title I used should have been the more specific subsection, "Radiocarbon", with page range 150-179?

As for the HOxII, I believe it is still in use as a standard -- it was prepared a long time ago, but testing standard samples is a part of every lab's procedures, and the HOxII standard seems to be still the usual choice. I think I saw a more recent reference that stated this explicitly; if I can find that I will add the reference.

Thanks again for all your work on this. I'm really sorry about the work you've had to do to deal with my mistakes; and I really appreciate the help you've given me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've now added the additional HOxII reference; it appears it is still in use, as of 2007, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm pleased that I could make a small but hopefully useful contribution to the article. Aa77zz (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the Šilar reference to just the one author, with the title and page range constrained to just the part of the chapter that Šilar wrote alone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

  • Because the solubility of CO2 in water increases with lower temperatures —You would expect "heavy" CO2 to be more soluble than the standard form, is there any detectable effect of differential solubility?
    I agree this is plausible but I can't find anything about it in the sources, so perhaps the effect is not significant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you need multiple links to dendrochronology and Hans Suess?
    Repeated links removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Very comprehensive, good work. My FAs tend to have less technical stuff to aid readability, and to me there is too much on, for example, calibration. However, the fact that you are more diligent than me is scarcely a reason for complaint Jimfbleak - talk to me?
    Should some of that material be moved to a subarticle? My feeling is that calibration is so important that I needed to cover it in quite a bit of detail -- a radiocarbon age simply doesn't tell you enough on its own, and calibration can give quite surprising results. On the other hand, it's still quite a long article, even with the two subarticles I've already created.
    Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave the length to your judgement. Articles like this are more likely to be reviewed by people with a scientific background, so it's probably OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A few comments[edit]

Hello, Mike -- Just one comment for now. I may add others later. Will work my way slowly through the article. In the second paragraph of the lead, you have:

"The most important of these was the need to determine what the proportion of 14 C in the atmosphere had been over the past fifty thousand years. The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the actual calendar age of that sample."

There's just a bit of disconnect between these two sentences. I know the sentence before this referred to "much work" that needed to be done (by scientists), and I believe the phrase "the resulting data" was intended to refer to the data resulting from work done to answer the question regarding the proportion of 14 C in the atmosphere, but there's a stretch between "the resulting data" and the "work" mentioned two sentences earlier. You never actually say that that proportion was determined. You also switch from past tense "was the need" to present tense "is used", with no assist to the reader. There is no hint of a connection between the time of Libby's work in the 1940s and actually using the technique today. I'd like to suggest the following wording:

"Research done to answer this question yielded data which, displayed in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert the amount of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's actual calendar age".

I would add "now" before "used" so that it reads "is now used", and, just to simplify the last sentence, instead of "used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon", I would say simply "used to convert the amount of radiocarbon". I hope you don't consider this nitpicking. I just think it would add clarity and improve cohesion of the paragraph. CorinneSD (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

2) In the first paragraph in the section Radiocarbon dating#Atmospheric variation is the following sentence:

"Carbon-dating the wood from the tree-rings themselves provided the check needed on the atmospheric 14C/12 C ratio: with a sample of known date, and a measurement of the value of N (the number of atoms of 14 C remaining in the sample), the carbon-dating equation allows the calculation of N0 (the number of atoms of 14 C in the original sample), and hence the original ratio."

It's not clear to me what is meant by "original sample" or "original ratio". I understood everything else in this section, but not this. Perhaps there is a more precise way to refer to the sample and the ratio. Also, in the phrase, "with a sample of known date", are you referring only to a sample of tree-rings or to a sample of any material? CorinneSD (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

3) I noticed that you have "tree-ring(s)" hyphenated in Radiocarbon dating#Atmospheric variation but not hyphenated in "Variations in Carbon 14 production". Perhaps you should decide which form you want to use and make them consistent. I don't know whether you want to use the unhyphenated form (two separate words) when its a noun and the hyphenated form when it is used as an adjective. @Rothorpe: What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, strictly hyphen for adjective, no hyphen for noun phrase. Rothorpe (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

4) In the second paragraph in the section "Variations in 14C production", you have "polar excursion" (with a link). Later in the paragraph you have "polarity excursion". Is that an intended variation on the phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 July 2014, 01:55 UTC)----


Indian Institute of Horticultural Research[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the article to be rated on the quality scale so that necessary improvements could be made.

Thanks, jojo@nthony (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 June 2014, 09:12 UTC)----


Thismia rodwayi[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished translating it from the French article (of which I'm the author), and I'd like some feedback, especially on style, grammar, etc.

Thanks a lot, Thouny(talk), on 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sotakeit[edit]

Overall a well written article. Generally it reads well, though there are a few things that just don't sound right to my ears that I would change. It's particularly well sourced for a subject which you say has very little literature and available data.
  • Lead: The small number of known individuals of this species has put it under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Whilst this makes sense, I'm not sure how well it reads. May just be me, but I find it a little unidiomatic, especially suing the word 'individuals'. Perhaps something like: Due to its relative rarity, the species has been put under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995?
  • As it does not contain any chlorophyll, its only vegetative parts are a flower stalk and roots, both devoid of chlorophyll. Using 'chlorophyll' twice in the sentence sounds a little clunky. Perhaps getting rid of the first clause all together ('As it does not contain any chlorophyll')?
  • Its whole life cycle, and especially its reproductive one, is still mostly unknown need citing.
Perhaps a link to leaf shapes where 'obovate' is mentioned here.
  • Again in the description section, why is flower in quotes in the third sentence, but not in the second?
  • Perhaps renaming the Autecology section to something like 'habitat'? I don't think 'Autecology' would be readily understood by most.
  • Use of 'occurs' in the autecology section doesn't sound idiomatic. 'Grows', 'thrives' even?
  • Because of the anecdotal occurrence data concerning this plant: I don't like this sentence. It doesn't read well at all. Unsure what to suggest as a revision as I'm not sure what it is meant to convey.
  • Again, the use of 'cyrptic' here doesn't sound quite right. Sotakeit (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 June 2014, 12:53 UTC)----


Cerebrospinal fluid[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get this up to GA. However, it's accumulated a lot of information over its lifespan and I'm not sure if all of it is relevant. I'm also not sure whether this article is accessible to lay readers. So I invite any and all to comment/edit the article, particularly with regard to: broadness, readability, accuracy, and reliability.

I can't respond to comments in a reasonable time-span but rest assured they will be addressed... eventually!

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

At a glance, this article seems to be based to a large extent upon this link, which is dead. As for specific comments, I don't know that anything specific could be given beyond structural pointers at this stage, particularly given the presence of the dead link (which might be easily solved, but then again, might not). What I think this article needs is a content expert with a better grasp of the subject who can give pointers on the way article needs to be organized and on which sections need expansion. ResMar 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 June 2014, 08:19 UTC)----


This peer review discussion has been closed.

California Chrome[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC in the near future. This will be the third race horse "biography" I've taken to FAC, but it has become the most complicated because there were, literally, hundreds of news articles and other sources to consult in an ever-changing story. At this point, I have been working at the article and updating it on a near-daily basis for the last six weeks or so and am bleary-eyed. News on this horse changed quickly, and sources contradicted themselves, and it took a lot of time to be sure I "got it right" when, clearly, many members of the press did not. This was the first time I ever worked on an actively-developing story, and the article just hit 500,000 hits sometime today. So in reviewing the article, aside from the usual, I am hoping folks can:

  1. Catch the usual wikignoming fixes I need to make in style and syntax;
  2. Catch anything duplicative or otherwise just poorly written
  3. Is all the horse lingo either wikilinked to an article/definition or explained in the article well enough for non-racing, non-horse aficionados to understand?
  4. Suggest things that could be trimmed down a bit and discuss if anything could be thrown out altogether.
    For example, should we keep the funny story about the opossum at Belmont Park?  ;-)
  5. Any other improvements recommended before FAC?

Thanks, Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick pedantic comments

  • Sorting of Time and Margin fails.
    • I don't know how to fix that. (I don't understand table syntax at all, I just copy what other people do) Advice? --MTBW
      • Did this get fixed? --MTBW
  • Odd partial abbreviation of dates (e.g. you allow June but not July)...
    • Where?? --MTBW
      • In the same table that the previous remark related to. `The Rambling Man (talk)
        • The dates should be three letter abbreviations, else the column is ridiculously wide compared to the others. I'll tweak somehow. --MTBW
          • Looks fine with proper dates. No need to abbreviate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Have already had someone at talk complaining that the chart is too wide for their mobile device and want me to eliminate columns, which we're pretty much already cut to the minimum by eliminating unneeded parameters. I'm gunshy. Not a moral issue to me, but feels like a no-win.  ;-P Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Use a multiplication sign, not an x for the " 4 x 3 " etc.
    • It's an abbreviation for "by" like a wooden board is a 2 x 4 - I can do this, but is that the correct form? --MTBW
      • Yep, you need a multiplication sign. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • OK I fixed three, did I get them all? (I hate that stuff, it looks exactly the same to me, in all honesty, it's very difficult for me to fix, but I know, I know...) --MTBW
  • Explain what bold means (and if you're really keen, avoid it altogether or use an additional marker like a dagger per WP:ACCESS).
    • it indicates Inbreeding. (Other web sources use colors) We've never had anyone raise this at FAC and it's used for every pedigree chart in WP Horse racing... I can note it, but? --MTBW
      • Yep, well I'd raise it at FAC and I'd also ask for for WP:ACCESS compliance with the addition of a symbol so that those of us with inadequate sight don't rely on bold text when we can't really easily see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I hesitate to change the longstanding consensus of WP Horse racing to use bold on pedigrees, but I also understand the issue, so should I use a note that says "inbreeding in bold" or add a dagger to the boldface for the access issue, or...? (Open to suggestions) --MBTW
  • Notes should use consistent grammar, i.e. complete sentences take a period.
    • Feel free to tweak those as you see them, probably easier than telling me to look for the mistakes with one eye needing cataract surgery; which is probably why they occurred in the first place! --MTBW
      • I have done a few, but really it needs a copyedit to cover them all to stop the FAC warriors from going ape. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm quite bleary-eyed. Think we can convince Corbett to do a run-through? I burned him out on the last two, I think. --MTBW
  • Things like "Washington Post" really should be Washington Post as they're "works" not "publishers", this will be picked up at FAC no doubt about it.
    • Web citation template has removed the "work" parameter... looks like you or someone got a bunch of these already (?) I've had a lot of differences of opinion if online newspapers are citeweb or citenews. I'm open to whatever, I just don't want to fix 100 refs and then have someone else tell me I have to do it all over again --MTBW
      • I use the {{cite web}} template where "work" still exists fine. It's certainly clear that something like "Washington Post" is a work and not a publisher though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • The pull-down template version in the edit window has replaced it with "website". I'll have to check later to see if it italicizes the same as "work". Somebody fiddled with something that wasn't broke. (sigh) --MTBW
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
    • Copy and paste, probably. Found two that I fixed. Any more, if so, which refs? (numbers?) --MTBW
      • Everything where you HAVE A TITLE WHICH LOOKS LIKE THIS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • See above --MTBW
  • New York Times is The New York Times.
    • Fixed, that is soooo annoying. --MTBW
  • You have a "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "BH9May" is not used in the content (see the help page)." message to cope with.
    • Fixed. --MTBW
  • Sometimes it's Blood-Horse, then it's Blood-Horse, then it's BloodHorse.com.... be consistent with these.
    • Well it's this publication: Blood-Horse and I guess in italics as it's a magazine but it's also a web site and the two don't have identical content; I am always referencing the web articles. Thoughts? --MTBW
      • I don't really care either way, but I'd ask (suggest) that you're consistent every time you use this source. Or else I know of at least one FAC reviewer who will just mention it again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Gee, who might that be? (/snark) OK. Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing four WP:DAB links, "pedigree", "populist", Foundation, "Gary Stevens".
    • Will fix, thanks for spotting--MTBW

I haven't read the prose much, but these are things that will get you slaughtered at FAC if you don't fix... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @The Rambling Man:! I've answered or asked further questions inline. Feel free to tweak any small things you see as you go, probably easier than telling me to look for something I am not going to see, my eyes suck and I'm putting of getting cataract surgery, FWIW. Yes, ironic that prose, the first thing that readers see, is the least likely thing to derail a FAC. Sigh... off to fix the nitpicks, as you are correct, I'm just annoyed in principle... bleech Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I've made a few tweaks, some you need to address yourself, and after all the technical crap, I'll try to find some time to read the prose (in between real life work and looking after The Rambling Kid).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:I've heard there is a Rambling kid... and at certain ages, they can really ramble... Basically, There are some things that are truly very difficult for me to see, I edit on a laptop and my eyes are over 50 (as is the rest of me) so where you can make the little tweaks, i will be quite grateful! Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing my best, trying to fix your table, will try to sort the other technical bits too. And will finally get round to reading the prose (avoid contractions by the way!!) in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate everything. Considering how much I've stared at this thing to the point I just can't see half of what's there, I am more than welcome of any help in any form. You're the best! Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

More and sorry for not getting back sooner.

  • Is the wives' participation in DAP really so important that they need to be included in the lead?
    • Complicated issue; they seem to be very active behind the scenes, see the Scoby source here. One other news article (One of the Arrington ones) says they are co-owners in the partnership. I have a note at your talk, it's about this. --MTBW
  • You link to the 2014 and the general Kentucky Derby using the same text, so it's a potentially confusing issue. Why not link "1955 Kentucky Derby" to the specific event, rather than the general event?
    • No article on 1955 Kentucky Derby, but I will see what I can do to alleviate the confusion; I did some rewriting. Is it better? --MTBW
  • "to treat the mare several times a day and gave him extra attention" reads just a shade odd, maybe replace "him" with "Chrome".
    • You're right, I'll figure out something. I don't like to say "California Chrome" tons of time, but I don't have a source saying that a lot of people (including Sherman) truncate his name to 'Chrome, though they do. --MTBW
  • I don't believe there's a real need to link a common term like "jockey".
    • Interesting article though, and I can see someone later claiming "jockey" should be "rider" or some such nonsense. I'd prefer to keep that one. --MTBW
  • "He won that race..." last "he" you mentioned was Espinoza, keep track of the subjects so they're not too confusing.
    • I did some rewriting there. Better? --MTBW
  • "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby" now you've linked the event twice in the lead, avoid over linking.
    • Fixed a couple of obvious ones, thanks for hunting them down. --MTBW
  • "a large field of 19 horses." interesting, a field of 19 is "large"? In the Grand National, we have around 40 horses, that's usually considered "large"!
    • Flat dirt race and the gate spans the width of the track 1-1/4 mile distance all start evenly - In most US flat races, you seldom see even 14 or 15 horses in a field. I think the Derby has the biggest field of any flat race in the country, though I'd have to double-check. --MTBW
  • You over link Preakness too in the lead.
    • Fixed --MTBW
  • "is anticipated race again later in the year, aiming for the Breeders' Cup Classic." this will very quickly become stale, I imagine it's best to not try FAC with such a temporally fragile ending to the lead.
    • I was lucky that Mucho Macho Man went up at the end of the season. I agree that stale could become a problem, but the Breeders' Cup isn't until November...his story is still being written. --MTBW
  • "when he was a foal, is "Junior"," no need for that first comma. Or, if you insist, add one before "when".
    • Fixed --MTBW
  • "broodmare" just links back to mare, is there a more explicit link (e.g. a section link) you could use?
    • No, the definition is in the first paragraph of the mare article. --MTBW
  • Don't overlink e.g. "filly" then "fillies" linked in consecutive paragraphs to the same article.
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • Add non-breaking spaces for things like "$2.1 million" so the text doesn't break in an awkward way.
    • Added   with each ref of millions, are there other places I need to do this? --MTBW
  • "Because all four of his legs are white, California Chrome's hooves are white as well." really? Our horse has four white legs, two white hooves and two black hooves...
    • Did exceed the source a bit, tweaked. --MTBW
  • "to developing problems,[16] During his two-year-old season" grammar fail.
    • Tweaked. better? --MTBW
  • "develop low heels" a bit jargon.
    • You are right, I'm not sure how to fix without a treatise on horseshoeing. this has a picture of what I'm talking about. Common problem in race horses... Thoughts? -MTBW
  • "a bit farther" sounds non-encyclopedic.
    • Tweaked. Better? --MTBW
  • Avoid repeating humans' first names after you've first introduced them, as long as it's not ambiguous to do so.
    • Alan and Art Sherman are a problem in that regard; as are Alberto and Willie Delgado. Other than those, you're correct, did I do it elsewhere? On those fellows, any thoughts? --MTBW
  • Do you mean "University of Illinois at Chicago " instead of "University of Illinois-Chicago."?
    • I think I phrased it to the source's phrasing. Problematic? --MTBW
  • "his reticence in talking" bit passive, maybe "his reluctance to talk"?
    • Complicated issue (see other complicated comment) --MTBW
  • "March 2014[28]" I think we could all wait until the end of the sentence for the citation.
    • Open to discussion, you re right it would look better, but I know that where I've worked on articles where two or more sources are needed to cite a single sentence and they all get lumped at the end, it can confuse future editors. I hear what you are saying, but my default is to cite each tidbit to the source provided. Do you think this one is small enough that such confusion could be avoided? --MTBW
  • "when he was looking for a tax write-off" again doesn't read particularly encyclopaedically?
    • That is the way most sources phrase it, not sure precisely what kind of tax issue he had - open to a better way to say it, though --MTBW
  • Is it "Love the Chase" or "Love The Chase"?
  • I imagine a link to catheter would be more instructive than a link to cowboy.
    • Did both.

That gets me up to the "Sherman training stables" section. If I haven't annoyed you too much, I'll continue when I get another 30-minute burst of concentration.....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

More

  • "individualised attention" why not just "individual attention"?
    • Good question;I guess because he is an animal, so the handlers didn't treat him like all the others, but your call. --MTBW
  • "had one prior experience with a Derby horse" perhaps -> "had prior experience with one Derby horse".
    • OK Fixed --MTBW
  • " race horsesr in" typo.
    • Fixed, thanks for spotting --MTBW
  • Is it "Southern California" or "southern California"?
    • I honestly don't know what the wiki gods of capitalization have decreed this week, but made both "southern California" for consistency. Until the rules change again... --MTBW
  • "Three weeks later... About four weeks later... " not terribly engaging prose.
    • Unclear about what solution you seek? Time between races is a factor, particularly when we got to the Triple Crown races with three in five weeks...? --MTBW
  • No need to repeat Delgado's first name until it becomes confusing because there are two of them...
    • Which occurs quickly... the later Delgado was the more involved one...? I removed one use, I just don't want a different reviewer coming at me later saying "which Delgado?"  ;-) --MTBW
  • You convert pounds to kg but leave furlongs and miles as they are. I'd suggest converting everything or nothing.
    • I've put in convert templates for all distances save where they are a direct quote. (I favor all) No conversion for furlongs in the text, but we have them linked at first use and the convert template after the chart. I can convert the miles in text, further fixes... ? --MTBW
  • "The horse was, incidentally, the" if you're saying "incidentally", is this really necessary for inclusion in an encyclopaedia?
    • It's a thing that mattered to horse people; shutting down Hollywood Park was an enormous big deal, last stakes winner was viewed as significant. --MTBW
  • "Alan Sherman at right." -> "Alan Sherman (right)."
    • I hate parenthetical phrases, but no big deal in a caption, I guess. Fixed--MTBW
  • "Stakes [82][86]" remove the space between s and [.
    • Fixed --MTBW
  • "plane" is a little colloquial for me.
    • Said "airplane" first time, the subsequent use is common American English. Better? --MTBW
  • You mention "speed horse" but I have no idea what is. Is it like a pacemaker?
    • Good catch, tweaked. Better? --MTBW
  • "Following the Derby, Sherman told the press that he had visited Swaps' grave at the Kentucky Derby Museum prior to the Derby" -> "Following the Derby ... prior to the Derby" in one sentence reads poorly (to me).
    • Tweaked. Better? --MTBW
  • "Sherman didn't like that" avoid contractions.
    • Fixed. --MTBW
  • " 35 pounds" previously you've used lb and converted to kg...
    • Fixed. --MTBW

Gets me to Belmont Stakes... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

More

  • "Following the Preakness, about 24 hours of press excitement erupted the day after the race" too much time here, maybe "About 24 hours of press ... erupted the day after the Preakness..."?
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • "like he had worn in his" prefer "as he had in..." tighter and less repeat.
    • Fixed --MTBW
  • Any reason to abbreviate EIPH if you don't use the abbreviation?
    • Was potential it might show up again in the article later, probably not now, but hesitant to toss it too soon; Ride On Curlin did just that (started bleeding in a race) in the Belmont, poor fellow. --MTBW
  • "plus aid" just "and aid"
    • Already had an "and" but reworded. --MTBW
  • "and on the following day" no need for "on".
    • OK--MTBW
  • "His first week at the track" you've lost the subject.
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • Is "critter" an encyclopaedic term?
    • Out here in the west it is, pardner! LOL! Actually, someone else added it, the original source said "marsupial" and I didn't want to crib that word but, I already have "opossum", "creature" and "animal." I'm out of words! Will "it" do? --MTBW
  • " a half-mile (0.5 miles (0.80 km))" I don't think we need to have it explained that "half-mile" is 0.5 miles...!
    • Fixed template.--MTBW
  • "47:69" do you mean 47.69?
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • "back .. the one" in the quote, shouldn't that be an ellipsis rather than just two dots?
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • "was tired for third" tied I guess you mean.
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • I would merge the Twitter account and hashtag information together as they both relate to similar things.
  • "The naysayers also were out in force" this reads a bit tabloid for me.
    • Suggestions for improvement on that one? Trying to include the good with the bad to keep it balanced, though DeFord was sort of the most interesting.
  • In the table, there's a mixture of the use of .5 and 1/2 to represent a half.
    • Convert all to fractions --MTBW
  • Also, the 3.2 should be 3.20 to be consistent with all the other odds formatting.
    • Fixed--BW
  • You have a conversion table for furlongs but not for lengths...
    • We have lengths wikilinked at first use in the text, it's 8 feet, roughly, but also "neck" and "nose" so not as precise as furlongs (which are also linked at first use in the text) Last FAC i worked on, we had problems with the furlong conversions in each chart cell bulking it out, so we moved it, WP Horse racing articles have not used conversions for lengths in charts; sometimes haven't even converted furlongs... not sure how big a deal this will be...? --MTBW
  • It may be unavoidable but "Lucky Pulpit was sired by Pulpit, a leading sire of 63 stakes winners and particularly known for his son, the successful sire Tapit" contains the word "sire" three times...
    • tightened. Better? (We can't say "produced" because that's what horse lingo says the mares- mamma horses - do) --MTBW
  • Needs an explanatory note as to what bold text means (and technically, per WP:ACCESS it should be used because some people find it difficult to distinguish from un-bold text....)
    • You are right, I'll figure out something. --MTBW

That's it for a quick PR, hopefully some of it will stand you in good stead (no pun intended) for FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

All has been very helpful. Can you pop back through my questions here and see if there is anything I did not fix to your satisfaction? I hope you will feel OK about weighing in as a supporter (acknowledging PR work) when I do go to FA? Thank you SO much! I appreciate your help! Montanabw(talk) 02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 June 2014, 06:53 UTC)----


Cervix[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe in striking while the iron is hot -several editors have invested time in writing and reviewing this article in recent months (LT910001, 97198, CFCF, Snowmanradio and TonyTheTiger to name some) and I think it'd be great to push on to FAC while the article is still fresh in folks' minds. It's a while since I've done something so bvroadly collaborative but this is what the wiki is supposed to be about, so let's try an examine constructively what needs doing from here on. As this is a Peer Review, there's no set expiry nor obligatory tasklist. I think this will then provide a better template for other anatomy/medical articles if an FA than a GA. Also always good to get broader articles to FA status.

I think it needs a non-human section but would not know what the best sources are for that. And also needs some expansion on its three layers.

(NB: My edition of Gray's Anatomy is 1967 - if anyone has a recent one, that'd be great!)

All comments welcome - cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I have closed this discussion because I intend to present the newer images soon, and will do so on the talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Oddly, the "cervix" label (12) does not seem to be pointing at the cervix. The labels for "urethra" (6) and "vagina" (7) seem to fall short. The label for "sigmoid colon" (9) could be better placed too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be very hard to get anything additionally out of this image. There is an image in Grant's anatomy that might be useful, but not really anything like this. My best suggestion would be to try and get someone to vectorise it. I'll supply some alternative images for the article soon. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Some alternatives or something to source a new image from:

Note, any of the images from Sobotta 1906 I can find and upload in higher quality on request. Currently there are so many I don't have time to get them all properly.

May be good sources to build a new image from.

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Just realised I missed this image (that I had uploaded myself):
Can be cropped so that it only has the top image (or the bottom one for that matter).
-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Several of the sagittal section images look good, although some have partially faded text. It may be best to use one that doesn't have labels, and add the labels yourself. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that can be fixed by uploading equivalent images from the 1913 edition. I wasn't sure if there was any point, but in that case I will do so. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Agree with choosing a labelless one and adding the words ourselves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've uploaded a much higher resolution image of:

I'm presuming this is the preferred image as it has no labels etc. and would be the best to modify. Do you think we also ought to colorize it in the same way as the current lead image is colored? I think it could be made to look pretty okay. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note:I got hold of a new 1906 source of Sobotta's with better scans, and all these images have now been updated. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other comments[edit]

  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "The extent of the dilation of the cervix is used by midwives and medics to assess the progress of labour." "Medics"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest, what was wrong with "medics"? Snowman (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Medic carries certain associations to the military (at least in the US), and I at least feel it's better to simply use doctor or physician instead. It isn't inherently wrong, just not entirely correct either. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not know that about its meaning in USA. Medic is simply equivalent to medical doctor in the UK. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Medic is not simply equivalent to medical doctor in the UK. The term "medic" is often used colloquially by Emergency Department staff, surgical staff and other non-internists to mean "physician", i.e. internal physician. (Personally, I don't like this terminology.) Also, once when I was at an Advanced Life Support course, I asked a guy which department he worked in. He told me that he was a "medic", which surprised me because I did not recognise him from the hospital. It turns out that he was a paramedic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Now that I have thought about this more, I would agree with User Axl. Medics could also be a colloquial term for medical students. I recall avoiding adding "doctor" and choosing "medic" for the introduction, because I thought "doctor" could include PhD doctor, but in context in the introduction it is clear that "doctor" means "medical doctor". Snowman (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It's just too informal anyway, and vague because informal. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 3: "Infection with the HPV virus can cause changes in the epithelium." "HPV virus" is a tautology. It may be better to spell out "human papillomavirus", at least on its first appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Structure", paragraph 1: "Part of the cervix protrudes into the vagina and is referred to as the ectocervix, and the part within the external opening and vagina is known as the endocervix." The latter half of the sentence does not seem right. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Done I changed the wording to be less ambiguous, it should be correct now. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not correct. The endocervix is the mucous lining within the canal (or, less commonly, the internal os). Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
User Axl is correct. The endocervix is to the cervix as the endometrium is to the uterus. The ectocervix is another name for the vaginal portion of the cervix, the visible part with a stratified squamous covering. Snowman (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Which is to be honest what I meant, but I understand the confusion. I'll try and clarify tomorrow. I'm not sure how all the sources define the myometric layer adjacent to the cervix. Is it a part of the cervix or not though? Our text claims it is, and then of course I see the reason for misunderstanding. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The cervix approximately a cylinder with a narrow channel along the middle, much of the wall of the cervix is a thick tough layer of smooth muscle, which is continuous with the smooth muscle wall of the corpus uteri. The supravaginal cervix is the part of the cervix that does not protrude into the vagina, which is what you seemed to be confused with. The vaginal part of the cervix is the part that protrudes into the vagina. I should add that I not sure if it is necessary to define supravaginal and vaginal parts of the cervix in the article, unless it helps to understand endocervix. I think that gives you enough information to have another go at re-writing it tomorrow with RS. Incidentally, it is not generally necessary to put ticks when providing feedback, because the person who raised an issue will usually cross-out his comment with strike marks when he is happy with it. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure it is really this clear cut. I realise I've confused endocervical canal with endocervix or endocervical, but I don't think I'm the only one to do so. For example: endocervical is ambiguous in the way I've been using it according to: [12]. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier. says endocervical = intracervical

I would not use the on-line free dictionary for mission critical tasks. Snowman (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
That online dictionary is simply a repository for other dictionaries. I have even linked the book it is cited from, so I don't know what you are referring to? Are you suggesting they are misattributing this to Mosby's Medical Dictionary, because my library carries that volume and I can bring the entire reference if you feel the need for me to do so, even for the purpose of this discussion. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I did not understand your comment, because I thought that the small text was an extra definition. I have not considered "endocervical = intracervical" in depth, but at first glace there does not seem to be anything wrong with it. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page in the free dictionary that includes the statement; "This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is ...". Any comments? Snowman (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On a lesser note, we're talking about the smooth muscle layers surrounding the cervix, what is the correct term? What term should we use?
Are they considered myometrium googlePubmed, myocervix googlePubmed [Book source], or should we name them at all?
Should we mention exocervix Pubmed 118 hits, wikt:exocervix. I realise this is pretty pedantic, but if we're aiming for FA maybe we need to define this? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not use the Witionary for mission critical tasks. Snowman (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
No, my reason for linking there is simply to show the article. If we find it isn't a proper term we should remove that entry. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[13] states the exocervix is to the ectocervix, what the endocervix is to the cervical canal. Relevant? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Netter's Essential Histology says the same thing (and is a much newer source). I'll look into clarifying this tomorrow. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Terminologia Histologica's definitions don't give me much clarity personally: [14] -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have amended the section we have been discussing. I think that it is important to give a good description of the anatomy; however, I think it is possible to go over-the-top with naming of parts. I do not mind defining them all, but I think that it is not necessary or helpful to include the obscure names. I would suggest calling the muscle of the cervix something descriptive and clear like the "muscular wall of the cervix" and using other descriptive phrases in a similar way. My Gray's does not have a specific name for the cervical muscle layer. I think that it is not important to define the word "myocervix". However, Gray's does use a phrase "isthmus of the cervix" and I think that this region should be included, because of its differences from the rest of the cervix. I am in two minds about including the word "exocercix" (the covering of the vaginal portion of the cervix), but I have put it in at present with a cn tag. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I added the Netter source, so no longer cn at least. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Fine. Thank you finding a ref. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Damn, I wasn't expecting this much debate over it. I have made a slight adjustment to the current text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The debate was about a raft of terminology. Thank you for fixing the minor typos. 11:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree about keeping it simple - the other thing we could do is have a footnote that mentions alternative names maybe. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have used footnotes ({{efn}} and {{notelist}}) in other anatomy articles and feel these offer a good way to cover specific, technical or nuanced content that may clutter up text and impact on readability for lay people. Such a note could read "Alternate names for these include..." --LT910001 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the best solution. The problem now is among other things that we define exocervix in the main structure section, where it really has more relevance is in the histology section. If you're all fine with it I will research the different terms and try to define all of them under footnotes. Terms I will be explaining:
  • Parametrium
  • Endocervix vs. endocervical vs. endocervical canal
  • Cervical myometrium, myocervix
  • Exocervix
Clarifying the terminology in the main text would be clutter, but I feel a short footnote and a link would be useful as some of the terms are being used in research. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of the convert templates are not suitable; for example 2–3 centimetres (0.79–1.18 in). 0.79 inches should be expressed as 0.8 inches while at the same time stating the range as 0.8 to 1.2 inches. Would it be best to write out all the convert template out in full? Snowman (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes-I am perplexed by this as I added the sigfig=1 parameter and it didn't work for some reason. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have just read the documentation for Template:Convert, and I think that I understand it a bit better now. I think it is better to use a "precision" parameter of "1" for the range of the length of the cervix, so that the conversion is presented to an accuracy of one decimal point. Snowman (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Structure", paragraph 3: "The cervical canal... can measure 7–8 millimetres (0.3–0.3 in) at its widest diameter in pre-menopausal adults.... Where no natural childbirth has taken place, the external os appears as a small, circular opening of about 8 millimetres (0.3 in)." It is odd that the widest diameter could be narrower than the external os. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The source for that is given at "Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer New York. pp. 185–201." Unfortunately, the page range has been given as a 16-page range, which is probably not consistent with WP:V, and might be difficult to verify quickly. I do not have access to the 4th edition of this book, but I have been looking at the 5th edition in Google books, which gives partial on-line access. I can not trace the equivalent likely updated page from the 5th edition without a narrower page range to work with, so I would be grateful if anyone could provide a narrower page range for the ref from the 4th edition. A large page-range like this from a book is likely to be questioned at FA. I have amended the article using the 5th edition and hope that I have sorted out this problem, at least for a first re-write of this part of the text. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Structure", paragraph 3: "The size and shape of the external opening and the ectocervix can vary according to age, hormonal state, and whether natural or normal childbirth has taken place." Is "natural" childbirth the same as "normal" childbirth? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we only use the terms vaginal vs. C-section birth, anything else sounds very unprofessional. In this case I'm quite sure these are being used as synonyms, and we should replace them with vaginal birth. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The cervix is fully dilated by any sort of vaginal delivery no matter if the birth is normal, natural, or abnormal. Just saying "vaginal delivery" seems adequate to me. I think that this line has changed meaning with a few copy edits and I can not be sure the "hormonal state" is mentioned in the source with the same context, or at least I think that the source should be double checked. I think that the influence of hormonal contraception may need a source, if included. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Structure", paragraph 5 describes three parts of the cervix: "the anterior and lateral cervix", "the posterior and lateral cervix", and "the posterior section of the cervix". While there is probably some overlap, I wonder if this is accurate. Would it be reasonable to say "anterior and antero-lateral parts of the cervix", "postero-lateral part of the cervix" and "posterior part of the cervix"? This would help to reduce the implication of overlap, especially between the last two categories. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll read the source and calibrate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted. I had not focused on this paragraph until User Axl raised this point. Yes, there may be overlap, so I would not simplify it in the way User Axl suggests, without solid RS. My 1995 anatomy book says that in the human the lymphatics within the cervix have been little studied, but more is known about that of baboons. I have not checked the current sources. However, my 1995 book refers to directions of lymphatic drainage rather than regions of the cervix. I interpret my sources as meaning that the lymphatics deep in the cervix drain to superficial lymphatics, which then drain off in certain [stated] directions, through the parametrium anteriorly and laterally and along the genitosacral fold posteriorly. If the term "genitoscaral fold" (a redlink unless I have a typo) is used in this article, then it would probably need a footnote. I could do a re-write using the directions of lymphatics drainage and the relevant lymph nodes, rather than regions of the cervix from my 1995 book, but I wonder if there is more recent information. When User Casliber has provided feedback on his reading of the sources and calibration, we should be able to advance the discussion. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking in the Cervix book that is online, one page is unavailable for viewing from me in Australia. I can't see in it where it talks about which areas of the cervix it drains at all. It does discuss the three channels. I have been meaning to go to the hospital library and have a look at a more detailed text and see what is written, but have been really busy this week. It does also mention they are poorly studied and drainage patterns do vary in some peopleCas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In "Structure", the last paragraph implies that the cervix is only open during the time around ovulation. However I presume that the cervix is also open around the time of menstruation? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Missing content

It's great to have such a collaborative endeavour on one of WP's anatomy articles. For FA I agree with Casliber that a section about the cervix in non-humans would be very appropriate. --LT910001 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted a note at the veterinary wikiproject...fingers crossed! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Society and culture[edit]

I am also trying to find any information about traditional knowledge of the cervix in non-Western cultures and societies, and any social and cultural beliefs or traditions regarding the cervix, something often overlooked in anatomy articles. --LT910001 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start and would value if other users had some idea where to find this content, so I'll just jot down some sources that may be used in the future:

  • Cervix in ancient Chinese culture [15]
  • Cervix in the middle east, approx 1000AD: [16]
  • Pessaries in ancient India: [17]
  • Cervix and birth control from Egypt onwards: [18]

Feminism & the cervix

I'm sure there are many more. Please add any relevant sources to the list. Only reliable sources will be used in the article proper, but other sources may provide a useful starting point for further research. --LT910001 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a fantastic idea - am just going to sleep now but will look later - {ping|LT910001}} I think this will be good material to add definitely, just read and go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The missing link - Cervical screening[edit]

The whole screening passage should be re-written to talk about "screening" instead of "Pap tests" - an undesirable US-led way of looking at things. This will also save you from having to make up your minds how to capitalize pap/Pap - currently all over the place. It would be nice if someone could add more on the issue of the varying international starting ages at Cervical screening while at it. You might mention, as cervical cancer doesn't, falling rates in the developing world, which has "almost 70% of the global burden" (WHO World Cancer Report 2014, p. 466) as their economies and healthcare improves, and rising rates in some Eastern European countries. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Need to re-read this bit again in article (tired now) but warming to this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A good alternate solution. Could be a defined subsection in 'cervical cancer'. --LT910001 (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think "Cervical screening" could have its own section, rather than being subsection of "Cervical cancer". Snowman (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just chiselled out the nub of a section - would agree on it being separate as it is a big topic - the discussion also has to cover HPV and precancerous changes. Looking on google scholar and just typing in keywords is a bit frustrating as older articles keep popping up, but by following some links I have found [22], [23], [24], [25] and [26]. There is also page 333 onwards in the Cervix Book but it is amazing how quickly technology is evolving so I am careful to check for latest (and hence read the latest articles). There is alot about anxiety as well. Anyone is welcome to read and add content. I will try but might be caught up in real life chores soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that cervical screening has quite a lot of international variation, so writing a balanced short summary of it seems difficult to me. However, lets not forget the anxious and the "worried well", such as those women who are invited for annual smears for a while to follow-up a slight abnormality (perhaps mild or moderate dyskaryosis seen on the cytology test) which can eventually revert back to normal or alternatively can get worse. Also, I am sure that the concept of CIN was important, as well as the new nomenclature of SIL. Snowman (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I used the "The Cervix" book as a ref in the development section with the name <ref name=Cervix2006>. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we can use the source judiciously. It provides some global/consensus-type material. Specific figures might be better referenced with Review Articles though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have not used the WHO website as a source, but after a quick look it seems quite good to me. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Organising the screening and cancer material is a bit of a headache. I am going to bed and have no objection to folks trying to make the material flow better. More data needs to be added too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I am thinking about amendments to screening, cytology and histopathology. I have put down a solid "foundation stone" today (or at least that is the way I see it) with clarification of the functional SCJ, original SCJ and the transformation zone. I hope the new vocabulary will help a lot in subsequent explanation of pathogenesis, cytology and histopathology. I have made a first re-write of the histology section, but it will probably need a footnotes. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 has recombined the sections and upon reading it, I think they flow better this way and agree with the merge. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If screening was done for anything other than cancer than yes it would need a different section. There is screening for STIs but this is often not cervical and is not typically referred to as cervical screening. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that cervical screening as a separate heading or merged with the cancer section both work; but in the merged section I think that the heading should be something like "Cancer and cervical screening". Snowman (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
IMO we should keep the heading short. I am happy with cancer screening. Cervical is not really needed as that is the name of the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Names[edit]

At the risk of opening a kettle of fish, we are starting to give multiple names for things, a problem identified by Snowmanradio above. Examples include "external orifice of the uterus (or external os) " and "posterior labia (lip-shaped structures). ". I suggest that one name is picked, and alternate names are removed and defined in the sub-articles. Having more than one name is quite confusing, and in some instances such as "posterior labia (lip-shaped structures). " it feels like we are paraphrasing ourselves and ought to just choose a single title. --LT910001 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by opening a "kettle of fish" (or awkward situation). I do not see any risk of this developing into an awkward situation, because I anticipate that people can discuss this topic logically and objectively here. Excuse me, if I am not aware of previous discussion that may have taken place in WP Anatomy on this topic. Personally speaking, I would rather not made a rule for this sort of thing here nor on any other anatomy article. I think that some alternative names can be useful to know immediately and that a wait for a few clicks for clarification could be distracting. Alternative names can be seen in Wiki articles almost everywhere, so it is a concept that readers are familiar with and so this style need not be confusing. I would think that mentioning some commonly used alternative names once in the body of the article or introduction can be helpful to readers. I can envisage sometimes that it could problematic picking only one name to use. Many of the sub-articles have longish descriptive titles (for example external orifice of the uterus and vaginal portion of the cervix) suggesting that these are the commonly used names for these structures, and superficially these would seem to be the names to choose, if one name was chosen. Some examples of alternative names for discussion: Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that "anterior and posterior labia (lip-shaped structures)" could be rephrased. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have changed this phrase to "anterior and posterior lips". Does this need a footnote to provide the other names? Snowman (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes possibly, if it is used in more than a couple of sources. It is clearly confusing and "lips" is a better name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "body of the uterus (or corpus uteri)" would be one of the few Latin names I would include in this article, partly because "cervix uteri" is also included. I think that having the Latin names for both parts of the uterus is complementary. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with mentioning Latin once but can use "body" thereafter - do you mean "compulsory" instead of "complementary"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I did not explain that very well. "corpus uteri" and "cervix uteri" are names that are complementary to each other, and easy to understand. I did not mean to imply that using them is compulsory. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "external orifice of the uterus (or external os)". To me, this looks acceptable with its use of compact accurate language. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "vaginal portion of the cervix (or ectocervix)". To me, this seems to include both description and names, and it would be difficult to write it with fewer words. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The thick "fibromuscular part of the wall of the cervix (or myocervix)". To me myocervix is a rather obscure name and it is would be better to describe it rather than name it. There would be no harm in adding a referenced footnote for "myocervix" as an alternative name, but I think that it would not be particularly helpful. The word "myocervix" is not used in my version of Gray's (or at least I have not seen it). Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Its very likely it isn't used in Gray's, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Gray's isn't the only source out there, the reason I brought it up was because there are pubmed articles that use the terminology. That said it isn't normal terminology at all, so I would advise against mentioning it anywhere else than a foot-note (most definitely does not deserve an article of its own). If you're looking for sources for names you should be looking at Terminologia Histologica & Anatomica. I'm trying to find a source with a definition, not just usage so that we don't commit to WP:OR. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that you have presented a good case for putting the term "Myocervix" in a referenced footnote providing a RS is available. I noticed the term "myocervix" in a few papers, when I searched for it. I would anticipate that a new redirect could be made for "Myocervix", which would lead to "Cervix". I look forward to seeing what you make of it. Snowman (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that using "smooth muscle layer" is probably easier for the layperson to read than "myocervix" as the term is not particularly common - I am leaning towards that being in a footnote. Will check some more sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
For instance, this book appears not to use the term at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "The transformation zone, also referred to as the squamocolumnar junction, ...". The in-line ref provided is; "Daftary (2011). Manual of Obstretics, 3/e. Elsevier. pp. 1–16. ISBN 81-312-2556-9. ". I have verified that the ref says that the abrupt epithelial junction is called the squamocolumnar junction, but I have not been able to confirm that the source regards this junction as equivalent to the transformation zone, but perhaps I missed it. The cite has sourced a 17 pages (ie pages 1 to 16), which is too large for WP:V from a book. I have some difficulty with verification, and I have only focused on the likely sections on the cervix rather than reading all 17 pages. In other books and on the internet (? RS), I have found two definitions of the transformation zone, one as above and the other that it is the zone between the original sc junction and the current sc junction (ie the zone of unstable epithelium). Snowman (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I have used an alternative book references for the transformation zone. I will probably need to add some footnotes to explain the "original scj", "new scj", "functional scj" and transformation zone. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Headings[edit]
  • "Contraception" is currently a level three subsection under the level two heading "Function". I am thinking about moving "Contraception" to its own level two heading, because contraception does not seem to fit under the heading of functions of the cervix to me. Does "Contraception" fit under the "Clinical significance" heading? Snowman (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I see what you mean, but "clinical significance" makes me think of pathological processes. I thought it might be better as a level 4 heading under fertility. Incidentally, I think cervical mucus should follow on from fertility Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Those were just some my thoughts about where to move the contraception section to. As the article develops, it should be clearer where to move the contraception section to. A level four heading, under a level three "Fertility" heading would still be under the level two "Function" heading, which seems problematic, because contraception is not a function of the cervix. If "Contraception" was put in its own level 2 heading, then it would not be in the "Function" nor "Clinical significance" section. I have difficulty in interpreting "Hmmm", what does that mean? Snowman (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Does the "Structure" heading need any more subheadings. Such as "Gross anatomy", "Anatomical relations", "Enervation", or "Vasculature"? Snowman (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am worried that we'd have to have 3-4 subheadings which might make the section choppy to read/break up the flow of prose a bit too much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
To me, the heading "Structure" is not quite right for what is in the section. To follow on from your comment on the talk page, I presume that the heading can be changed from "Structure" to "Structure and anatomical relations" for clarity. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Childbirth" section is exclusively about humans. If the article is about "Cervix" in animals as well, then something could be added about birth of animals as well. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If we find out some thing specific it can be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be easy to find information from veterinary books and other sources. The birth article has brief accounts of birth in a few of the more common domestic animals and the dog. Also, what about signposting the "Birth" article as being the main article on birth at the top of a section on birth in the cervix article. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a case for splitting the article into "Cervix" (includes animals) and "Human cervix"? Snowman (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure other mammal cervixes are that notable - need to read up on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
From wha I've read so far, I don't think there's a case for it, but some more info on dual cervixes would be good for this article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Typically the main article is about humans with a section at the end called "Other animals" that links to a main article on "X in other animals". Renaming all medical articles to "Human X" is a bad idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Citation format[edit]
  • What style of citation format are we aiming for here. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
what parameters are you concerned about? Do you see two styles being used? I am thinking it is "Smith, John; Doe, John. etc." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see - the sfn template is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No this article is current written with the cite journal and cite book templates. That means without clear consensus we do not switch the entire article to another template format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I only meant using it for books for which more than one pagerange or pageref is used. For instance, if you look at Canis Major, the vast majority of refs are in that format you mention, but I've had to use several books for which different pages have been used, and the sfn allows this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Would prefer to use something that is compatible across language versions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Jmh649 Sorry, I don't follow - I am presuming that means the sfn template is not elsewhere, in which case what would you recommend? I have no strong opinions on this but would be good to resolve. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It is possible that other language Wikis might have {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} but not {{sfn}}. Having the ability to cite the same book multiple times with different page ranges is such a common issue, though, that I would hope other language wikis would be looking to implement sfn sooner rather than later - particularly now that all the common cite templates have been re-written in Lua, making translation of parameter labels a centralised task. Nevertheless, the functionality of sfn is essentially identical to that of {{harvnb}}, which - being an older implementation - might be more commonly implemented elsewhere. Have you heard of problems of incompatibility with harvnb, James? --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That one may work better. Rexx as you sound like you are good with templates am going to send you an email Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Jmh649 I am more than happy if you want to follow something that goes across wikis - keep me posted..or I guess I'll just see the edits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Introduction[edit]

I have closed this segment as a consensus was achieved in the interests of moving forward and focussing efforts on other areas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • There are some niceties of the terminology for the introduction. CIN is a form of cancer, but not a form of invasive cancer. Cervical screening can detect cancer of the cervix at a stage prior to invasion. The text that is relevant here is: Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
1. "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer" - this would mean that screening would only detect HPV changes, because CIN is a form of cancer. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
2 "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of invasive cervical cancer" - this would mean that screening would only detect HPV changes and pre-invasive cancer. Which is correct, because CIN is cancer, but not invasive cancer. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • With regards to vaccination, a vaccination does not stop viruses from entering the body. An infection does occur, the memory within the immune system boosts the relevant antibodies within about 2 days, and so the infection does not become serious. The terminology for discussion here is as follows: Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
1. "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, can be given to prevent HPV infection." - not accurate. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
2. "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, can be given to combat HPV infection." Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I provided good edit summaries and it looks like I was reverted twice over this by User:Jmh649 using TW as if I was a vandal, which is not consistent with acceptable use this function of TW, because it is reserved for vandalism. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Why did you not join the discussion here? [27]. Anyway I can watch this and we can discuss here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I did not see the discussion over there and you did not inform me about it. Nevertheless, I would like to talk about it here as the article is being shaped here. Snowman (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. First comment "CIN is a form of cancer". Not exactly. CIN is a neoplasm but not a cancer. This is not the greatest source but it is correct when it states CIN is not cancer As I wrote on the talk page cancer is by definition invasive. Check out the definition by the NCI [28]. CIN is not cervical intraepithelial cancer but cervical intraepithelial neoplasm. This is why it is an N and not a C
  2. If we read about what the Template:Main is we find that "This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised" This section is about the role of the cervix in childbirth it is not a summary of childbirth. Thus main article for it would be "Childbirth and the cervix"
  3. Does the HPV vaccine "combat" which implies treats HPV infection once establish? As far as I am aware the answer is no. If you have a high quality ref that shows otherwise happy to look at it. The evidence we do have is that the CDC says prevents HPV and the NCI and FDA also say prevents HPV infections

To make discussion go smoothly please provide references for all medical states per WP:V. Per the comment regarding TW I am not under the impression that it is used just for vandalism. I reverted your edit assuming good faith. Per WP:TW "should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used" and I agree that I should have used a better clarified edit summary. However I had made a detailed talk page comment here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, a revert with combined with edit summary "Yup it is not cancer I agree", see your edit is not ideal. The edit summary did not say that anything about the discussion you started on the talk page, which I was not aware of until you linked it on this page. I note that you report that you should have used a better edit summary. Snowman (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I had not included references in the discussion initially while I explore other users knowledge of the relevant issues. Specialized references will be needed, because the concepts are not particularly well explained in the mass media and in patient information leaflets. See Carcinoma in situ. CIN is a spectrum, the severe end of CIN is a form of carcinom in situ. CIN (at least grade III and some of grade II) is cancer albeit in situ cancer. CIN I can be due to a number of causes. I think that it will be important to retain the concept of carcinoma in situ in the article, and I anticipate that it will be expanded upon in the article as it develops. Snowman (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • A great example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Yes the first part of the Wikipedia article got it wrong when it stated "is an early form of cancer" but then it corrected itself "most doctors will refer to CIS as "pre-cancer", not cancer".
    • On page 34 of this document says "dysplasia: Cells that look abnormal under a microscope but are not cancer. LSIL, HSIL, and AIS are all forms of cervical dysplasia." Than if you look at page 36 it says "Cells of the uterine cervix that are moderately or severely abnormal and may become cancer. It may also be called moderate dysplasia, severe dysplasia, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-2 (CIN-2), CIN-3, or carcinoma in situ." [29]
    • Carcinoma in situ is not cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We would be looking for an accurate statement of the pathology and cell biology, and there is plenty of time do to this. This topic may be easy to misunderstand and there may be some misinformation out there. There is some information on the Cancer Research UK website, which is worth thinking about, but it might not be RS for the Wiki; their website says; "If you have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), it means that cells inside some of the ducts of your breast have started to turn into cancer cells." To me this means that carcinoma in situ is cancer, albeit not an invasive cancer. This is this sort of think that User:Wiki CRUK John will be interested in. Snowman (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"Starting to turn into cancer cells" means that they are not cancer yet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The Cancer UK webpage goes on to say that "Doctors use various terms to describe DCIS, including pre invasive, non invasive, or intra ductal cancer." Snowman (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That is breast cancer not cervical cancer. In this one type of "carcinoma in situ" there is some controversy regarding whether or not it is cancer. Per this book "Researchers and doctors disagree about whether DCIS is even cancer." [30] Doctors use language poorly all the time. That is why we base stuff of reliable sources rather than say me :-) Anyway this is of topic. 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I said I am happy with the removal of the word "invasive" - as tautological. Alternately we can think of both CIN and Ca as unwanted, hence "cancer" can cover both if taken broadly. Either way better without "invasive" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced about the removal of the word invasive. I welcome the opinion of User:Wiki CRUK John about "carcinoma in situ" as described on the Cancer Research UK website. I would also welcome his opinion about today's modifications of other wiki pages on the concept of carcinoma in situ. The relevance to this page is that cervical screening detects abnormal cervical cells, the severely abnormal and severely dysplastic forms of which arise from an area of carcinoma in situ of the cervix, which is likely to be reported as CIN II or CIN III (older classification) or high-grade SIL or HGSIL; see University of Michigan website, CRUK about cervix, and CRUK about VAIN. Snowman (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll ask, and come back on this. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually that last link is to U. Michegan, not CRUK. I tried to boil this down into a simple query I could email to the expert, but rather failed. You are welcome to have a go at that. The CRUK cervical page linked above has "Carcinoma in situ means that some of the cells of the cervix have cancerous changes. But the abnormal cells are all contained within the surface layer of the cervix. Carcinoma in situ is not a cancer but in some women the changes will develop into a cancer after some years" which seems fully compatible with the current version of carcinoma in situ. There's clearly some cloudyness with "carcinoma / not a cancer / cancerous" but I think the bottom line is clear, on WP and the CRUK site. I'll ask next time I'm face to face with one of the right people. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I have discussed, and opened a section at Talk:Carcinoma#Carcinoma_in_situ_redux.3B_ducks_in_rows. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes agree this is very confusing nomenclature. To understand it one needs to get a couple of major oncology texts and spend a few weeks reading. One cannot try to use language / deductive reasoning to figure it out. A "carcinoma in situ" is not a carcinoma. A carcinoma is a type of cancer. Pre-cancer is not cancer. Cancerous changes are changes that are similar to those that happen in cancer but does not mean cancer have been reached yet. Some of our Wikipedia article are wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I expect that the article will eventually be expanded with more cervical cytology, and so I think that it would be useful to think about CIN at a cellular level, or at least with language that is consistent with the cellular level, and as CIN encompassing a certain range of changes that could correctly be called a type of carcinoma in situ. The book quoted above says on page 323 that HSIL (that essentially equates to CIN II and CIN III) incorporates "carcinoma in situ"; see Chang, Alfred (2007). Oncology: An Evidence-Based Approach. Springer. p. 323. ISBN 9780387310565. . Also, the Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary (2010), Eighth edition, page 129, gives this definition of "cervical intraepithelial neopasia (CIN)" as cellular changes in the cervix of the uterus preceding the invasive stages of cervical cancer. I would think that the best sort of books for this are cytology and histopathology books. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been thinking about "prevent" - I guess what can be said is that it doesn't prevent exposure but prevents infection (i.e. disease), so am happy with "prevent" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • With regards the vaccination; It is worth thinking about the phrase "Some health effects caused by HPV can be prevented with vaccines" in the introduction at www.cdc.gov (again not RS for the wiki). The article is careful to avoid saying that HPV infection is prevented by HPV vaccination. It is about how vaccines and the immune system works that makes it impossible for a vaccine to entirely prevent an infection. The best that an active vaccine can do is to provide immunological memory and to enable quick production of clones of plasma cells to produce an appropriate antibody and fight off the infection within a few days, rather than the slower first-time immunological response which will take about 8 days to manufacture antibodies in quantity, although interferon is naturally produced sooner to combat viral infections. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes the CDC is a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. It produces "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". The page you linked to was not the page I linked to however. See [31] were it says "Both vaccines are highly effective in preventing the targeted HPV types, as well as the most common health problems caused by them." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Infections can be sub-clinical. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Sure but that is neither here nor there. If there is still dispute regarding if the CDC, FDA, and NCI are reliable sources we can take this to a notice board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I am not disputing those as RS. We are discussing how to write the introduction using RS, what the RS say, and differences between RS. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Ah. Well what does "(again not RS for the wiki) " right after the ref from the CDC mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
              • That was my accidental mistake - I had not seen the website before. I have put a strike through that. I apologize for accidentally giving the wrong impression about that website. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, given we're trying to get the intro right, I reverted these two sentences as the combined sentence is not very long - separated it makes the flow very wooden. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The HPV vaccine is not even designed to give protection against all HPV infections, because there are about 80 to 100 strains of HPV and the vaccine only combats a few of these strains that tend to lead to suspicious viral changes in the cervix. All the other types of HPV infections including those that cause warts are not prevented by the vaccine. The current phrase "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, can be given to prevent HPV infection" is misleading; for example, it could mean that the vaccine also protects against wart inducing HPV viruses, which is wrong. HPV only gives protection against the targeted HPV types. The body of the article has it correct by saying; "Vaccines against HPV, such as Gardasil and Cervarix, also reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, by inoculating against the viral strains involved in cancer development.[40]". The introduction should mirror the article. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio are you going to start providing reliable sources? This discussion is not productive without them. We are not here to decide how we think things should work. We are here to reflect reliable sources.
"inoculating" is not combating. Reliable sources do not use combating. This sort of terminology is used by the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that you have not provided adequate RS to say that HPV vaccine can protect against all HPV strains of the virus including the wart forming strains, as the phrase "can be given to prevent HPV infection" implies. Normally, the introduction reflects the main body of the article, but your amendment of the introduction is not consistent with the paragraph about vaccination in the "Cancer" section, which specifically states that the HPV targets specific strains of the virus. Here is a reviewed article on HPV and vaccination at www.cancer.gov. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I never said "protect against all HPV strains" and the phrase "can be given to prevent HPV infection" does not imply that it protects against all cases / strains.
We say that the measles vaccine "can" prevent measles even though it is not 100% effective. We say morphine "can" help with pain even though it doesn't 100% of the time. We use English in medicine like this all the time.
The ref you have provided states "Both vaccines are highly effective in preventing infections with HPV types 16 and 18. Gardasil also prevents infection with HPV types 6 and 11." It does not say "combates HPV" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that the induction can be improved from what it is now? Perhaps, something like; "HPV vaccination protects against the strains of HPV that are most likely to lead to cancer of the cervix". Snowman (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with "can be given to reduce the risk of cervical cancer" or "can be given to reduce the risk of HPV infection". What I objected to was the word "combat". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should soon sort out what to put in the introduction with a number of constructive edits building upon the previous edits. I will amend the article, so please re-phase my English if it does not turn out clear after the first re-write and then I will have a look at what you have put, and so it until a satisfactory line is made. Alternatively, you can do the next first amendment. Snowman (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
We should probably get consensus here first before making the changes. And have someone else make the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I expect that the amendment can wait a day or two while a consensus is formed. Should it also say that it is usually given to schoolgirls? What about: Snowman (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • "HPV vaccination, developed in the 21st century, protects against the strains of HPV that are most likely to lead to cancer of the cervix". Snowman (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, are very effective in reducing the risk of cervical cancer."Snowman (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not a fan of "can be given" as that implies optional, whereas both are part of established screening programs (i.e. one has to opt out not opt in) - I'd say "HPV vaccination protect against HPV infection and hence reduce risk of cervical cancer" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
To build upon that, what about; "HPV vaccination protects against the main carcinogenic strains of HPV infection to reduce risk of cervical cancer". Snowman (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes I like that, Jmh649, what do you think of the last one? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A couple of things. Snowmanradio is editing very aggressively. I placed a notice on his talk page that he had hit three reverts. Today he has continued and possible make a forth within 24 hours. I would recommend that his next edit be him reverting his changes.
  • IMO the lead should be written in simpler language. We should not be trying to cram everything into a single sentence as well this may be fine for those who speak English as a native language and are highly educated, those from other countries and with a less academic background may have difficulty with the complicated syntax.
  • IMO we should go with "HPV vaccines reduce the risk of cervical cancer. They were developed in the early 21st century." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that your suggestion is a good idea, and would be a fine alternative. However, some people like longer sentences. I completely deny that I have been editing aggressively. I think that User:Jmh649's use of TW should have been used with a better edit summary, even if I was not been working on the page. User:Jmh649 has modified the same line, which needed re-phrasing, twice times, without putting in the required extra meaning. I would rather work to improve the page. My second edit to the page was not a revert, but followed the general format as indicated by User:Casliber and User:Jmh649 in discussion on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure we can take this to the 3RR board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be grateful if User:Jmh649 corrected his comment on my talk page and above, because he has miscounted the number of reverts and edits I have done to this line within the last 24 hours. I have made one revert and one constructive edit to the line in the last 24 hours. The word combat had been on the page for a number of days. The word combat had been on the page since 11 June 2014 added by this edit of mine. Who is being aggressive to who? Snowman (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
People tend to get blocked for a day after the forth revert, not the third. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we knock off the talk about the revert boards? Any admin seeing editors gaming 3RR is within their rights to block if they think the editors are gaming it - back to the topic at hand: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Call it what you like Cas but there are issues here. Snowmanradio was informed that he may be at 3RR. He was given the opportunity to self revert (which is not something that is required) and he declined. This is not called "gaming 3RR" this is called trying to improve the editing environment of this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It could also be argued that the four cover different aspects so they are not four reverts of the same thing. In any case, we are trying to discuss below and reporting there is punitive not preventative. Outside opinions are being sought and will allow us to settle this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • First, James, these two pairs of sentences "HPV vaccines reduce the risk of cervical cancer. They were developed in the early 21st century." and "The cervix (Latin: neck) or cervix uteri is the lower part of the uterus. It is part of the female reproductive system. " are too short - they do not help the flow of prose and come across as wooden. I do think that in the interests of crisper prose we can split "HPV vaccination, developed in the early 21st century, protects against infection from the main carcinogenic strains of HPV to reduce risk of cervical cancer." into two sentences though. I will ask for some opinions from prose writers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See here so let's wait. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "The cervix (Latin: neck) or cervix uteri is the lower part of the uterus and forms part of the female reproductive system." (don't like hence, which isn't a common word for non-native speakers), and "HPV vaccination was developed in the early 21st century. It reduces the risk of cervical cancer by protecting against infection from the main carcinogenic strains of HPV"? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree do not like "hence" either
How about "It reduces the risk of cervical cancer by preventing infections from the main cancer causing strains of HPV" No need to say carcinogenic and the majority of the refs say protect thus we should to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this version - it's long enough for me and I agree that cancer causing is a good/accessible substitute for carcinogenic. Also happy to lose "hence" which is hence redundant....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I also agree with using the last suggestion. The lede of any article aiming for FA needs to be concise and simple to read, without being as Cas puts it: "wooden". If we really are aiming for FA we shouldn't be rushing this review, making hundreds of edits in a single day, and I agree that this type of editing may be seen as very aggressive. If we are to reach consensus we can't have one user dominating this discussion, and we need to go slow enough so that everyone's voice can be heard. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine with this version also. But this thread seems to be going on in 2 places now.... Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes this should really be on the talk page IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I am more than happy to close off this section in hte interests of keeping this page manageable and discussion productive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 June 2014, 02:12 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Oxford English Dictionary[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I submitted it as a Featured Article Candidate and the consensus was that my nomination was premature — the article is good, but as-yet not Featured Article standard because of issues with copy, structure, and referencing (as regards the last, I’m fairly sure I can provide a citation for any claim in the article, and that the main thing that needs doing is adding the ref tags in appropriate places referring to existing sources). (Relisted after the bot closed the last one because the FAC was still technically ongoing, then waited 14 days to comply with the rules).

DavidPKendal (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 July 2014, 20:24 UTC)----


Nirmala (novel)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to upgrade the article to a GA status..

Thanks, The herald 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 June 2014, 16:28 UTC)----


Bleach (manga)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a GA status.

Thank you for your time, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

Looking at it quickly, I would say it tries to represent too much information when there are separate articles or lists it could be placed in instead. Look at the soundtrack. That's just terribly painful for the eyes. There's a soundtrack article for that. It happens in most sections. Aside from that, (Not part of the GA criteria) I'm a bit concerned about the themes sections. I don't understand why the article is listing an individual's opinions on the series ("Drazen says this is a reminder to the audience to not abandon the old ways or risk the spirits taking offense and causing problems in the world."). I would strip that, and keep what the author says inspired him to create this and that in the series. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 June 2014, 12:06 UTC)----


Philosophy and religion[edit]

David Jewett Waller, Sr.[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to FA in time to run it on the main page on the subject's 200th birthday (January 26, 2015).

Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 June 2014, 00:07 UTC)----


Mythology of Australia[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on expanding the page as part of a university assignment. Any advice or tips on things to improve would be great, and I'd also like to add some pictures as well if possible. What's the best way to go about adding them?

Thanks, Jessica13317845 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Sotakeit[edit]

As you say, the article needs a lot of expansion. Compare this with other articles on similar subjects such as Inca mythology or the featured article Greek Mythology.

You need to expand the lead section:

  • How is the mythology of Australia attested. Written sources? Word of mouth?
  • A brief history of its evolution. From aboriginal through to modern urban legend.
  • 'details of popular legends differ from place to place'. This needs to be expanded on.

Content:

  • I'd perhaps reformat the article, and as you expand it this will probably become even more important to stop it becoming unesecssarily 'list like'. I'd definitely try to include a 'history' or 'development' section, then maybe a section of 'aboriginal beliefs' and 'colonial beliefs', including details on sources.
  • The article mentions 'deamtime' in the lead. This needs to be expanded on. From what I read of the 'dreamtime' article it is a central part of Aboringal Australian mythology.

Referencing:

  • Some of the references, e.g. http://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/b/bunyip/, wouldn't be considered reliable. I'd look on Google Books etc for better sources.
  • The references need to be better formatted. You haven't included anything other than the URL. Ideally you need access dates, authors, publication dates, publishers etc (see here).

Images:

  • Images would obviously help the article. It's worth using some images from related articles. Yowie has one you could use, and Dreamtime has a nice one in the lead (for advice on actually using images on Wikipedia, this may be of some help]].

Sotakeit (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 June 2014, 13:20 UTC)----


List of Russian saints (until 15th century)[edit]

This article represents Russian saints from the early years until the 15th century. Another part will be created about saints since the 16th century, so I am not sure whether the content should be repeated then.Tomcat (7) 12:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sotakeit

Language/grammar:

  • Great Martyr/megalomartyr (великомученик) – one who died of a most crude martyrdom. Unsure of your meaning here? Do you mean 'a particularly violent martyrdom'?
    • Reworded
  • A clergy who died for his faith. This should be 'a member of the clergy who died for his faith'.
    • Done
  • Monkmartyr. Not being an English word I would place this in quotations, as two seperate words, as you have done with 'Great Martyr' and 'New Martyr': 'Monk Martyr'.
    • I reworded to Monk Martyr
  • For the entry on the Apostle Andrew (first on the list), I think an explanation of what is meant by 'Natural canonization' is necessary.
    • This means that traditional Christian denominations automatically list Apostles as a saint
  • I may have missed where the explanation is, but the numbers given as 'period in which the saint was canonized' don't seem to mean anything? '1', '7', '5' etc?
    • The third paragraph of the lead explains this
  • I'd think about rewording the heading 'Short description reason for canonization' as it doesn't read very well in English. Perhaps 'Short description for reason of canonization' or simply 'Reason for canonization'.
    • I clarified, it meant Short description and the Reason for canonization

Content:

  • In the first paragraph of the Hagiology section, I think the sentence 'The Russian Church became less depended by the Constantinople Orthodox Church over the years' would be better placed at the start of the second paragraph.
    • Moved
  • In the second paragraph of the Hagiology section, I think 'made way for' is more idiomatic than 'made way to'.
    • Done
  • Perhaps an explanation of what is meant by 'Fool-for-Christ' as you have done with the other Saint Titles?
    • Explained, although I am not sure if it is understandable

References: Not speaking Russian, I'm unable to comment on the vericity of most of the sources used and although not strictly nescessary I'd look to find some more English sources. Also, some parts are missing references:

  • The whole first pararaphy of the Saint Titles section has gone unreferenced.
    • Added a reference
  • In the table, some of the text under 'short description reason for canonization' needs to be referenced. For example non e of the four paragraphys for 'Hieromartyrs Ephraim, Basilius, Eugenius, Elpidius, Agaphodorus, Epherius and Сapiton of Chersones (4th century)Священномученики Ефрем, Василий, Евгений, Елпидий, Агафодор, Еферий и Капитон, епископы Херсонесские' are referenced.
    • Most of the text is based on Lives of Saints, the references are listed below the article.

Sotakeit (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tomcat. Over all a very interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. In regards to 'Fool-for-Christ'. How about something like: 'One who deliberately flouts society's or Christianity's conventions, hiding his piety from the word in order to avoid praise, in service of Christ'? Sotakeit (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is too long. --Tomcat (7) 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 June 2014, 12:18 UTC)----


Church of Satan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article lacks any appropriate academic sources. It reads mostly from a bias of personal investment (there's for example nothing on how the Church of Satan has been received by society, nothing on its judicial bankruptcy, etc). It would be unthinkable for an article on the Catholic Church to be reflective only of how it thinks of itself and that same commitment to objective analysis should be applied here. There's been a number of external studies done on the Church of Satan. Why not include some of those?

Thanks, Hermetic Pilgrim (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sotakeit

From what you've said, it seems you're already aware of the main issues. I know nothing on the subject, so I can't pass opinion of the veracity of the content, but here is what I picked up on what can be improved:
  • You're right. The majority of the sources are either a) publsiher/authored by Church of Satan members/leadership or b) derived from interviews with members/leadership. The article needs to reference other outside sources to give a more balance view.
  • Several statements obviously needing sitation
  • Other texts, such as The Satanic Bible, also by LaVey, serve the most specifically as a reference for Satanic dogma.
  • The Church of Satan evaluates active members for the Priesthood by their accomplishment in society
  • A Satanic funeral for naval machinist-repairman, third-class Edward Olsen, was performed at the request of his wife, complete with a chrome-helmeted honor guard.
  • Maybe more of a personal preference, but for citations such as number 22, it may be better to split it into a seperate 'Notes' section (as here).
  • Refs numbers 10 and 11. What are they? Books? Websites? Interivews? Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 June 2014, 17:03 UTC)----


Social sciences and society[edit]

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman[edit]

I would like some objective feedback about the current state of the article; comments on its format and/or neutrality are welcomed. Any suggestions for improvements would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, KeithbobTalk 19:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 6 July 2014, 19:08 UTC)----


Universal Credit Rating Group[edit]

I've listed this article (even if it's only a stub) for peer review because I wanted to create it, being sure of its public utility, but I have little experience in Wikipedia editing and want to be sure. Moreover, I think it's now ready to remove the bot's copyright warning (because I re-wrote a previously pasted text), but I prefer that will be decided by someone else.

Thanks, Antonio nn (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 June 2014, 00:28 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

List of Rosario + Vampire characters[edit]

I am submitting this for peer review so I can get recommendations and feedback in preparation for nominating this for FLC. One of the main concerns that was brought up during the assessment to B-Class was the structure of the character list so I want to get ideas on how to make that better. The content in the article itself is fairly mature now that the series has concluded back in April. Thanks for your time! -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 July 2014, 22:05 UTC)----


List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

I would appreciate feedback on this list because I want to take it to FLC. I'd particularly like to hear thoughts about the length of the lead, and the navigability and arrangement of the table. Thanks, CR4ZE (tc) 04:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 3 July 2014, 04:45 UTC)----


Mayor of San Diego[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it is close to being at the level where it could be a featured list like Mayor of San Francisco, but I want to make sure that I'm not missing anything before submitting it as a featured list candidate.

Thanks, mcd51 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence: "The Mayor of the City San Diego"—should there be an "of" in there? —Designate (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 June 2014, 15:04 UTC)----


List of viscountcies in the peerages of Britain and Ireland[edit]

I'm aware that some of the list still needs to be referenced, but I'm mainly interested in feedback on non-list sections of the article, particularly the lead - perhaps tips on the writing style, if it's referenced well enough, and even content (whether its pertinent to the list, or even if you think it could do with expanding) etc. I'm editing this with a view to nominating it as a featured list and don't think it's too far off. Thanks Sotakeit (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 June 2014, 13:25 UTC)----


Jimi Hendrix discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first step towards becoming a featured list candidate. It covers Hendrix's original recordings and is separate from the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography submitted previously. It has been completely revised with the addition of new sections and many new sources within the last six months and more recently, thoroughly fact-checked. In response to comments regarding the posthumous discography, this is now extensively referenced with inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies.

Comments have also been made about tendentious editing and vandalism to Jimi Hendrix articles. As one of the most popular rock figures of the late 1960s, Hendrix articles attract a lot of attention, both good and bad. However, they now seem to be relatively stable—Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced have been promoted to Featured Articles and additional Hendrix articles ("Little Wing" and Band of Gypsys) are nominated as GAs. I have the resources to make this a featured list and look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make it happen.

Thanks, Ojorojo (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut[edit]

Infobox

  • "Singles as sideman" and "Albums as sideman" do not work when you click on the down arrows.

Intro

  • Jimi HendrixJimi Hendrix; quite often I see on Wikipedia that a person's name is put in bold only in the main article and not a "subsidiary" article (i.e. a filmography or discography).
  • "Prior to his rise to fame, he recorded several singles as a backing guitarist with American R&B artists, such as the Isley Brothers and Little Richard. Beginning in late 1966, he recorded three best-selling studio albums and several singles with the Jimi Hendrix Experience. An Experience compilation album and half of a live album recorded at the Monterey Pop Festival were also issued prior to his death. After the breakup of the Experience in mid-1969, some of his live performances at Woodstock and with the Band of Gypsys, as well as a Band of Gypsys studio single, were also released." → "several"; "some of" − Why not list the exact numbers? Also, the formatting of the Shadwick citations is inconsistent.
  • "Hendrix's albums and singles with the Experience were originally released by Track Records in the UK and Reprise Records in the U.S." → "Hendrix's albums and singles with the Experience were originally released in the United Kingdom by Track Records and in the United States by Reprise Records". Spell out the names of the countries the first time you mention them.
  • "UK"; "U.S." → Use either UK and US or U.K. and U.S.
  • Footnote number 7 is not formatted properly (i.e. the page number)

Albums

  • Peak chart positions: Other → Why the notes? Why not make columns for the charts? Also, put one or more citations for these columns and not just the list of sources at the bottom.

Hendrix as an accompanist

  • Change the sub-headings from "singles" and "albums" to "singles as sideman" and "albums as sideman" so that the infobox arrows will work properly.
  • Put the albums before the singles so the listings are consistent with Hendrix's main body of work.
  • "I Don't Know What You've Got but It's Got Me" → The chart positions are aligned to the left on this single only while all the rest are centered.
  • Albums and singles: Why not list the names of the artists in a separate column so that they appear more prominent?
  • Albums: Why not list the songs Hendrix performed on in a column rather than regulating them to footnotes?
  • Album details: Why are these in a separate column here when the main albums by Hendrix as well as the singles have details listed below the titles?

I hope these suggestions help. Jimknut (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 June 2014, 21:40 UTC)----


Lana Del Rey discography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured list status in the future and would like to know what I could do to make the article better.

Thanks in advance, Littlecarmen (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo[edit]

In looking over the lead, one of the first things that catches the readers' attention is the extensive use of inline citations. One sentence has 10 refs and 7 sentences have 3 or more. The inclusion of so much detail seems to run contrary of the goal of a lead, that is to "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, emphasis added). As is pointed out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, "A well-written lead section is of particular importance to stand-alone lists that feature little or no prose in their article body". The lead should be an overview of the article and touch on the highlights. Thus, it would be better to include statements like "It is Del Rey's best-charting single to date, peaking at number one in three countries and being certified Platinum or better in four" rather than detailing the specific countries and awards. Likewise, "Born to Die reached number one in nine countries and received Platinum awards in fifteen" rather than listing the countries. This could be handled with a single reference to an artist bio or similar article without having to cite multiple refs for each country and award. The reader can refer to the body of the discography for the specifics. It may be beneficial to review FL discographies of similar artists for ideas about the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I have improved the lead a bit. Littlecarmen (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 June 2014, 15:52 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]