Wikipedia:Peer review

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

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

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

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

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

Arts[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

Josh Hutcherson[edit]

Previous peer review

I brought this article to GAN about a year ago and it was successful in that nomination. The end goal is a successful FAC. I attempted a peer review of this article before but it received not one comment of feedback. I brought it to FAC after that and received some helpful feedback, but nobody was commenting on it and it was eventually archived with no consensus to promote. I'm back again here for try #2, looking for some tips and ideas on how to best get this article ready to go for another FAC. Any and all help is appreciated! Gloss 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 October 2014, 21:08 UTC)----


Dota 2[edit]

Previous peer review

This article has been lingering on the verge of Featured Article status for what seems like ages now, but has not received thorough or specific enough input to allow us to cross that threshold. With every possible detail addressed on the talk page, it is time to open up a new peer review to help us grind out any possible inadequacy. JimmyBlackwing, CR4ZE, shall we begin? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I remember the overhead map of the battlefield with the turrets, etc. marked. Even though a reviewer complained about it at the FAC, I think that we have a good case for using the non-free content to illustrate the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I was the reviewer. The map adds nothing informative to those who don't play the game. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree. May I ask, do you play the game? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've played it before. I fail to see what the minimap adds for the average reader. There's no precedent for including minimap screenshots in FAs, and with good reason—to cover them in detail is blatant WP:GAMECRUFT. Tell me: how can such an abstract image add meaningfully to the reader's understanding of Dota 2? Why would we include a minimap shot in Dota 2 but not in an RTS FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"I've played it before." I have not played Dota 2. I humbly suggest that I am in a better position to judge how informative the map is "to those who don't play the game".
"I fail to see what the minimap adds for the average reader.... How can such an abstract image add meaningfully to the reader's understanding of Dota 2?" The map provides an excellent overview of where the opposing bases and towers are in relation to each other, and how the lanes connect everything.
"There's no precedent for including minimap screenshots in FAs." That's irrelevant to this article, unless you can demonstrate that there has been a clear consensus to exclude such maps. You have not done this.
"to cover them in detail is blatant WP:GAMECRUFT." Adding a photo of a map is hardly "covering them in detail". Moreover, none of the 13 points in the guideline that you quote prohibit the map. Your characterization of the map as "blatant gamecruft" is ridiculous.
"Why would we include a minimap shot in Dota 2 but not in an RTS FA?" If an RTS game always uses the same map, and that map is critically important in the gameplay and strategy, then there is an excellent case for including a map in that article. If you have a specific game/article in mind, please direct me to it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point. A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft. I never said that the minimap was gamecruft—I said that "to cover [a minimap] in detail" is gamecruft. And you need that much detail to give something this abstract meaning. Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past? There is no happy medium. The map has to stay cut. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 2¢: Dota 2 and dotalike concepts of lanes/ancients are better explained through images than through text. This said, you could easily make a free use mockup (rather than a fair use screenshot) of the playing field, as one would of a football or another sports field. With my cursory understanding of Dota, you'd want to show the major features of the map (lanes, towers, any specific physical landmarks) and nothing near the level of detail in the previous minimap ordeal. If you cannot do it yourself, try WP:GL/I. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar  05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd add that the {{overlay}} template should be avoided at all costs. Make a simple, color-coded image that can be summarized in a standard image description. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point." It's a highly relevant point. "Critically important" details certainly should be considered for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
"A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft." Utter rubbish! The previously-included image had a legend that noted the position of bases, towers, and a few other notable features. I suppose that you characterize that as a "gigantic legend". Even this so-called "gigantic legend" does not fit any of the 13 criteria listed at WP:GAMECRUFT. Yet you persist in using this label.
"Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past?" Despite your presentation of this very weak, circumstantial evidence as a rhetorical question, I note that you ignored my first criterion: if the game always uses the same map. From the time that I played Command & Conquer: Red Alert many years ago, I remember that each level had a different map. I suspect that remains the case for other RTS games. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The old legend was ludicrous—like something out of a Prima guide. Twenty-eight points of interest? Really? In a general interest encyclopedia article? Obviously falls under criteria 3 and 4: "Detailed instructions"; "Strategy guides and walkthroughs". We aren't here to teach people the 28 major locations on Dota 2's minimap. It's shocking to me that you would even try to defend the legend's size. As for the side points—irrelevant. Wavedashing is critically important in Super Smash Bros. Melee, but do you see a detailed breakdown of it in the article? No; it isn't even mentioned. It's impossible to play Flight Unlimited II without a working knowledge of flight instrument arcana, and yet those instruments are discussed only in passing. Likewise with minimaps in strategy games: they can be mentioned, certainly, but decoding their details is best left to a manual or strategy guide. Whether the contents of the minimap change has absolutely no bearing on anything.
  • In any case, I'm willing to accept Czar's proposed compromise: a stripped-down representation of the playing field, simple enough that it can be described without a legend. This would support the average reader's understanding of Dota 2 without veering into strategy guide ridiculousness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on this compromise, Axl? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 15 October 2014, 22:40 UTC)----


Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I am hoping that this article will one day become a Featured Article, but that's in the future. This peer review is so people can have a look at the article and suggest any ways that it could be improved, taking into account that two of the games haven't been released in the west and one hasn't been released at all. Any/all sensible and constructive comments are wanted and appreciated.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 October 2014, 15:12 UTC)----


2008 Summer Olympics[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC

Thanks in advance, NickGibson3900 Talk 03:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 September 2014, 03:44 UTC)----


Hatoful Boyfriend[edit]

I stumbled across this article a couple weeks ago. And I must say that I am impressed about its current condition. Looks to reach GA status with a few tweaks here and there. Hopefully this Peer Review can help step it in the right direction.

Cheers, GamerPro64 21:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

*Smash Bros. intro-style* Tezero Zeroes In![edit]

Alright, here I am. Normally I wouldn't consider PR necessary for GAN except for subjects one is new to editing or when one is a new editor, but since you're already here:

  • I can't actually tell what Bad Boys' Love is. Is it just a different story route you can select at the beginning of the game? An expansion? Peripheral materials?
    • Mentioned that it was a bonus storyline. Might as to expand on that fact more in the article. GamerPro64 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although Hatoful received much attention for its premise and surreal humor" - why is this apart from the other reception in the lead?
    • Removed it from the lead it wasn't exactly that important. GamerPro64 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Plot section seems to be on the long side. This is okay if it's just a long game, but be warned that you may be called out for this. The standard length for video game plot sections is about half to two-thirds of this, and you may be held to that standard.
  • "The series is released in visual novel format on the Adobe AIR platform, and takes place in a different universe than the game series." - source?
  • Why is there a table for one volume of the manga?
  • "ahead of Borderlands 2, succeeding 2011's The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and followed by 2013's BioShock Infinite" - ambiguous as to the ordering
  • There's a cite error on the citation "Dora".
    • Which citation is that? GamerPro64 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It's been fixed now; looks to have been caused by list-defined refs. (I really don't see why those are such an improvement if they cause very visible errors when the references are not used in-text.) Tezero (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 September 2014, 21:46 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

Animatronics[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently the focus of major editing by Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement and I believe it may be ready to be nominated as a good article.

Thanks, David Condrey (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points off the top:

Animatronics is the use of mechatronics to create machines which simulate animate life with lifelike characteristics[1

I'm not a fan of using one strange term to define another. I believe this could be simplified by removing "mechatronics", and introducing that elsewhere, likely here...

Animatronic figures are often powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means

Like... "Animatronic figures are mechatronic; powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means"

rather than artificial robotic.

Every animatronic device I've ever seen has dramatically unnatural movements. Is this really part of the definition? I ask, because neither of the linked cites make this claim.

Automated life in lifelike form is Animatronic. Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. The Slavic word robota (forced labour) was coined to describe the man-made workers central to Czech playwright Karel Čapek's 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots).[6] While robots, coined by Josef Čapek Karel's brother,[6] are used in industrial activity, "androids" (or female "gynoids") and animatronics play, entertain, teach, and amaze. With modern day labels for each, animatronic is typically reserved for non-humanoid lifelike characters; though humanoid characters can be considered animatronics, they can be labeled more precisely as robots or androids dependent on their function. All of these terms are a subset of the more general term “automaton”, coming from the Greek meaning “self-mover”.[7]

This doesn't really demonstrate the etymology of the term at all, it defines several similar terms but not this one.

I was under the impression that the term combined animated and mechatronic, while the wikionary defines it as animation and electronics.

That's a good start for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Query: What depth should I go here? GA quality, or right to FA? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:Hi Maury, thanks for your feedback. I'll address the issues you pointed out later this week (probably this weekend) and post again, afterwards. I think it would be reasonable to consider FA.. what do you suggest? David Condrey (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Totally, just be aware that I'll be extra picky as a result, and that it will take a while also. But no reason not to, it's a perfect article for FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and don't forget to ping me if I don't respond. I have about 20000 pages on my watch list (really) so it's easy to miss things... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey @Maury Markowitz:, I have rewritten and simplified the definition. Etymology is going to take me a bit more time to figure out. Currently it's written more towards explaining how animatronic is different than robot. But I will be looking for better sources and elaborating more on the animatronic term itself. Please let me know what else you've got.. thanks! Let me know what you think of the new definition. :) David Condrey (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, WP:FACR 3. calls for non-free images to be marked in their description pages (here on WP; non-free images aren't allowed on Commons) as being used in this article and a rational to be give for their use. The images here are File:Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.jpg and File:StanWinstonTRex.jpg. I'm confident the T-Rex one will pass as there is a verbal description of its size and lifelike nature that really needs that image to be comprehensible. The Lincoln one is a bit trickier.Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln has an article of its own, and Animatronics only says that this android was built and toured and its "[b]ody language and facial motions were matched to perfection with the recorded speech" - something which the image can't even illustrate since it's not animated (therefore can't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCCP 8: Context) ). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I replaced the images in question with similar images of similar quality if not potentially better quality since the originally used images were debatable.
@Maury Markowitz: Regarding the etymology of the word; I made some edits to the text recommended by @Sigeng: and separated the text to make it more clear but I think that the statement The word animatronic is a subset of the more general term automaton, coming from the Greek meaning self-mover is adequate. Please let me know if you have any further thoughts on it. I just haven't been able to find anything better yet. At this point I believe all of the comments you've mentioned have been addressed and I'm going to move on to @Sigeng:'s comments. If you have anything further please let me know. Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  1. Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. I think we're trying to say that "robot" was once a generic word that became specialized over time. People didn't use the word "animatronic" because it wasn't popularized, they didn't use it because there wasn't a need to be that specific.
  2. Early implementations: Clocks: consider adding an introductory sentence to the effect of "While functional, early clocks were also designed as novelties and spectacles." - To make it clear that we're not picking up clocks as being mechanical automatons, but the "amusement factor" of them.
  3. The construction begins by building the structure, by using internal structures that are often made of steel. Awkward wording especially repetition of "struct". Maybe: An animatronics character is built around an internal supporting frame, usually made of steel.
  4. Disney has an entire research team.... Omit "entire" or maybe find out a little more about the team to demonstrate its importance.
  5. Design section
    1. Put analogous comparisons in quotes, e.g. "bones", "muscles", not bones as they are not literal bones.
    2. While there are similarities to robotics engineering and biological systems, I wonder if the comparison is necessary. It may invite a nontechnical reader to carry the analogy too far, and also seems to suggest that these are the only designs. Animatronics with a very limited range of motion could be made out of styrofoam blocks with actuators rather than a skeleton frame, for example.
    3. I think the Design section would benefit from a diagram or animation that shows an animatronic skeleton/frame, some equipment on the inside, and flexible material on the outside, showing how the mechanical motion of the frame is made to appear lifelike through the flexible covering material.
    4. Caption for the image in this section should be updated to describe the animatronic as incomplete, or a demonstration of internals.
  6. I suggest finding a review from a prominent film critic rather than Rotten Tomatoes. (I checked Ebert, but he pans the overexposure of the dinosaurs, so you'll need someone else.)
  7. Rather than Students achieving a bachelors in robotics.... I don't know of bachelors in robotics as a degree; probably would be bachelor in robotics engineering or just mechanical engineering. Consider "Engineering courses relating to animatronics include:" A citation would be helpful here too. Also "foundational theory of robotics", "robotics engineering", "introduction to robotics" are fairly redundant.

Sigeng (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Singeng: thank you for the very thorough feedback. I've already implemented several of the points you layed out.. namely points 1 through 5. #6 regarding the usage of analogues I'm not sure of but I do think that the overall design section needs some work and think that this will likely come about in the improvement of the section as a whole.
I do very much agree that the section is in dire need of illustration but have been unable to find any adequate images currently on Wikimedia or on the internet. Though I did find numerous images I would like to use which are owned by a specialist in the industry. I actually just finished composing an email to him requesting permission to use his images. I've never emailed anyone before to ask if I could use their images.. hopefully I did ok. :)

Hi Mr. Nolan, I wanted to request if I may use some of your images on Wikipedia? I have been working on the Animatronics article featured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animatronics which is currently undergoing a peer review in order to be nominated as a featured article on Wikipedia. The details of the peer review can be seen here if you'd like to have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Animatronics/archive1 I was hoping to use some of your images which illustrate the creation of animatronics within the Design section of the Animatronics article. Your input on the actual details of the article would also be very much appreciated if you have the time your welcome to contribute to Wikipedia yourself or I'd be delighted to work with you if you would like to just let me know of any details you'd like to contribute. Thank you very much.

If he authorizes permission I will add some of the images from his gallery to the section as well as any other details if he would like to offer any additions to the article as an expert in the field.
The rest of the points you've mentioned I'll address later. If you have anything further please let me know and thanks again for the very thorough and great feedback.

Pending closing[edit]

I'd like to ask if anyone else would like to provide feedback on this article before I close the review process. Unless anyone else has any feedback regarding this article I will be closing the peer review once I've finished addressing the points which have been mentioned thus far. Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually just got into a rather severe motorcycle accident yesterday and only have the use of 1 arm at the moment so whereas I had planned to get this finished up this week, I may have to postpone for a couple weeks while my arm heals. Just wanrted to let it be known so you don't think I've disappeared. Its just difficult to do anything efficiently when typing 1 handed. I'll be back! David Condrey (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Geez, feel better! I intended to get back here sooner but got caught up in my own FA (are you SURE you want to go to FA?!) and only returned here now. I'll do some more reading/tweakjng this week.

Ok, I've done a bit of re-arrangement in the LEDE to gather related items together. I'd like one more paragraph there - after long experience I find that 3 or 4 paras is almost always the right number. But for now I'd like to concentrate on this:

Animatronics is the use of electronics and robotics in the creation of puppets which simulate life.[1] Animatronic creations include animals (including dinosaurs), plants and even mythical creatures.

I'm not sure what, if anything is bothering me about this. But I was thinking...

Animatronics is a branch of robotics that involves the creation of puppets which simulate life.

What say you all? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 September 2014, 09:19 UTC)----


General[edit]

R U Professional[edit]


R U Professional passed through multiple stages of review including AFD, DYK, and successful promotion to WP:GA quality. Looking for some helpful input on ways to further improve the article. Thanks for your time, — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Notices left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 October 2014, 19:18 UTC)----


I Could Fall in Love[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…it failed its last FAC and it would be helpful to know if it needs more work before renominating.

Thanks, .jonatalk 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 October 2014, 18:45 UTC)----


Freedom Planet[edit]

Freedom Planet is what you'd get if that quiet emo kid you sat next to in Trigonometry, who never stopped drawing Sonic characters and anime dragons on his or her assignments and wore the same beat-up Chiodos T-shirt every other day, suddenly got serious after high school and decided game development was what he or she wanted to do. I got the demo back circa February or March and picked up the full game on release day, and I recently put it fourth on a Facebook list of my top ten games of all time - no regrets whatsoever. Despite the occasionally cheesy voice acting and writing, I find it rather sweet and adorable - as well as highly replayable and invigorating. Now, what I want is for the game's article to reflect this esteem as much as possible via a successful FA nomination, so drop a few thoughts here if you don't mind.

Oh, and I know the Reception section has zero organization; I'm just endlessly waiting for some kind of feedback on a few sources - the discussion's at WT:VG/RS if you're interested in helping! - before I rewrite that, so I know what exactly it is I'll be working with. Don't let that distract you; there may well be plenty else to critique.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 October 2014, 04:40 UTC)----


Gernatt Family of Companies[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article is a lengthy, well written, decent sourced article on a local company. However, I still do not know if it complies with the notability guidelines.

Thanks, Dekema2 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 16 October 2014, 22:30 UTC)----


Triumph International[edit]

Is the topic large enough in scope/sources to qualify for FA? If so, what improvements are still needed to make it worthy of an FA nomination? CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 15 October 2014, 14:42 UTC)----


Meg White[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I working on getting all the White Stripes related articles at least to good article quality. I realize this article is not quite there, but I've made strides to add sources and flesh out the complete story of her career, and since I am pretty much the only editor working on the article (other than the occasional bot) I would like a second (third, fourth...) set of eyes to weigh in on weak areas.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 October 2014, 17:23 UTC)----


Meineke Car Care Center[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I posted suggested changes to this page, which is currently flagged for inadequate citations, to its Talk page on 9/9/14. I have disclosed a COI (someone connected to the company asked if I could clean up the page). Because of the COI and because the edits are extensive, I would like to have my edit request on the Meineke Care Care Center Talk Page reviewed so changes can be made to take care of the verification issues.

Thanks, HollyQ (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 October 2014, 16:20 UTC)----


Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, and want to get out any obvious flaws ahead of that. It made GA two months ago, and had a thorough copy edit.

Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Some observations:
  • I believe Khan sang in Chakde! India ("Ek Hockey Doongi Rakh Ke"), Don ("Khaike Paan Banaraswala"), Mohabbatein ("Aankhen Khuli"), Baadshah ("Main To Hoon Pagal"). Some of these songs were quite successful, I think. Don't you want to have something on that?
Are you sure that he sang, or was it more like talking/rapping. Is this very important, since you are already talking about the length? BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • His career as a producer is strewn all over the article and it is very difficult to figure that part out. Can you streamline that part somewhat?
There once was a producing section, but it seemed to duplicate info already spread throughout, so it was removed. Since he usually stars in the films he produces, it would be hard to mention those films only in a separate production section. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is way too long - over 100 KB prose and 8,000 words. Check WP:SIZERULE. There are a few things that can be done:
    • Shorten long sentences. Example: "1996 was a disappointing year for Khan because the four films he appeared in were critical and commercial disappointments." > "In 1996, all four of Shahrukh Khan releases flopped critically and commercially."
    • Make the prose a little less verbose would also help in places. Example: "disowns him for marrying a girl (Kajol) belonging to a lower socio-economic group than his family" > "disowns him for marrying a poor girl (Kajol)".
    • Eliminate some stuff that are trivial in comparison with the big and important information. Example: "After the release of the film, Khan took a six-month break from acting, during which he said he "just enjoyed the feeling of being sad"."
  • The two section - Artistry and Wealth and popularity. Why do you need entire sections for these? It is well understood that any major film star from any major film industry would have some artistry, wealth and popularity (unless there is seriously different story to tell). That part is already covered in the body of article, and whatever is necessary, though there can't be much essential stuff in these two sections, to keep can be integrated into the rest of the article.
More forthcoming. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is really not what I was hoping to here. I am about to add more info, particularly in the early life section, since I got a copy of Chopra's book. There is just a lot to say about the world's biggest movie star. Its going to be hard to trim, but I will try, particularly in the sections that you mentioned. My previous FA Priyanka Chopra, was accepted with 7798 words, compared to this one currently at 8628. Let's see what other have to say. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 October 2014, 01:08 UTC)----


Katrina Kaif[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently failed its GA review. Since the review, I have edited the article to try and fix the main issues (that a lot of the sentences are too long (with too many colons) and that the article comes off as too hagiographic). Anyways, I'd like to get some opinions on the article, so that I can get it to GA, or even FA status.

Thanks :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 12:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 October 2014, 12:43 UTC)----


John Johnson (footballer)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to make it to the FA.

Thanks, RRD13 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 October 2014, 10:37 UTC)----


Santa Cruz Parish Church (Maribojoc)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review for comments related to possible FA nomination in the future Thanks, Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 October 2014, 06:42 UTC)----


Beau Ideal[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done quite a bit of work on it. Being an older, lesser known, film, the research was somewhat difficult, but incredibly enjoyable. I'm very interested to know what others think of it, and how it can be improved to be taken to either a GA or FA status.

Thanks, Onel5969 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 October 2014, 22:34 UTC)----


Alanis Morissette[edit]

Previous peer review

I'm submitting this article for a peer review request because I would like to hear others' opinions on how to take this article to the next grade up and eventually make it to a FAC someday. Thanks, Turn➦ 08:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff
  • I see a lot of sources in the lead. It is better if the lead is a summary of the article text, and most of the sources are there instead.
  • There are too many one line paragraphs, making it look like a bullet list in some places. Try to add some more info, group related things together, and make it flow more like a story.
  • Some larger paragraphs appear to be totally unsourced.
  • Sometimes sources appear in the middle, rather than the end of the paragraph, making it appear as though the second part is unsourced, which it may or may not be, but that's the impression you get when scanning it.
  • The last external link seems to not even be about her. In any event, reviews are better off incorporated into the article.

(Peer review added on Friday 3 October 2014, 08:27 UTC)----


Larisa Iordache[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently rated as Start-class, and I think that it should be rated higher. Please leave your opinions as to what rating you think this article deserves.

Thanks, Riley1012 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Onel5969[edit]

Okay, this is definitely at least a C-class article.

  • First, the lead is too brief. It needs to be fleshed out slightly to more accurately reflect the content of the entire article. This could be the largest reason it's sitting at Start class.
  • The personal section is also brief. What are her parents' names? What was the grandmother's name? Where was she born? Where did she train in her early years?
  • The Junior Career section needs to have a brief intro statement. Why did she decide to actively compete at this time? Who was her coach?
  • 2010 reads like a bullet list, rather than a prose section. It simply tells the results of the three competitions she was in that year. Did nothing else happen during these months? Why did she choose these three events? Did she not compete in others, and why?
  • Same issues with 2011 reading like a bullet list. Same questions, too. In addition to those, there are others. Why was she chosen as a guest at the French competition? When did she make the Romanian team? Any info on the Romanian team trials?
  • Also, in general during these two years, who was her coach? Her choreographer?
  • In the Senior career, again there needs to be an intro section. Why did she move up from Junior to Senior? Whose decision was it? When did it occur?
  • 2012. A little better (due to the paragraph on the Olympics), but still mostly reads as a bullet list. Were the early meets all as part of a Romanian national team? If so, how was it selected? (I'm wondering if these were tune-ups for the Olympics). It might also help (in these senior years) to mention who she lost to in some of these meets.
    • The quote from Belu in May is good, the article needs more of that.
    • The Olympic paragraph is the best paragraph so far. However, how did she develop the foot injury? When did she? After the competition was there any information about how it actually effected her performance? On the whole, this paragraph could be greatly enlarged... she led her team to a third place finish. Who finished first and second? The inherent drama here is missing, even though she was injured and still managed to help her team.
    • After the Olympics, did she simply rest the remainder of the year? If so, was it due to her injury?
  • 2013 is the best overall year, being the least year which sounds like a bullet list. In the Qatar event, was that as part of a Romanian team? If so, how did they finish (my guess it was individual). The European Championships is the best overall paragraph in the entire article. Still, it ends too abruptly with that last sentence. Who beat her in the floor? Who did she beat in the beam?
    • When was the Anadia World Grand Prix? Where? The single sentence is grammatically awkward.
    • At the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, who were her rivals? Who finished ahead of her bronze medal finish? And was the bronze in the All-Around, or only for the Floor? The description of her competition is nicely done, although at times it is grammatically awkward.
  • 2014 is woefully brief. The prose that is there also needs to be worked on. The section needs to be expanded, who did she compete against? Where were the competitions held? When were they held?
  • The infobox is good, as is the table regarding her competitive history.

On the whole, I can see that this article is definitely a C level article. The prose needs work overall. It's well cited, and the pics are nicely done, and have no copyright issues. Some final points:

  • Article needs expansion overall, their are no segues between years. A personal life section would be interesting as well (where does she live?). Discussion should be included about her coaches: when she was with each one, why she changed coaches.
  • I also think that the article is weakened by ignoring the rich history of Romanian women's gymnastics. It shouldn't be a large part of the article, but I feel it definitely should have a part, I mean, this is the country that produced the first 10.

I hope this helps. I don't know a whole lot about women's gymnastics (or gymnastics in general, for that matter), other than watching it every four years. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject will add notes.Onel5969 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 October 2014, 00:32 UTC)----


Nativity (Christus)[edit]

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

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

The writing is excellent, it flows nicely, the images look great (nice size), and it's a joy to read.

Lead
Yes, thanks for the fix. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Description
  • Joel Upton isn't linked, so should we say who/what he is?
  • "which is described as having "no counterpoint in previous art": which X describes as ...?
I've identified Upton. The second person seems to be a professor, but haven't dug enough yet. It's a big claim and so, yes, I agree it should be properly attributed. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
All done now with these. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Will continue later. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Iconography
  • "Christus's membership in the Confraternity of the Dry Tree, which he joined in 1462": the source (Sterling 1971, p. 19) says it's not known when Christus joined, just that he and his wife are listed as members in 1462.
  • "Adam's third son Seth whose quest" --> Adam's third son, Seth, whose quest"
  • Burning bush --> burning bush
All fixed. I added a note about his membership in the Confraternity. Hopefully it's helpful. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Composition
  • Say who Lawrence Steefel is?
  • Holy Family: upper case or lower case ("space inhabited by the Holy Family" and "They also function to surround the holy family").
Fixed these. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dating and condition
  • "Furthermore, the softer facial types utilized in the Nativity are typical of Christus's later work, suggest a date in the least later than 1450 and 1455." Needs to be tweaked to "and suggest a date," or "the softer facial types utilized in the Nativity and typical of Christus's later work, suggest a date ..."
  • "Bouts and van der Weyden 'merely expand the narrative' in their use of ...": I would say who is being quoted.
Thanks for these catches. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Provenance
  • Minor thing, but I wouldn't link Berlin and Madrid, or if they're linked, link Washington too.
  • I was a little confused when I read the last paragraph about how it came to Spain, in particular why that should be such an issue.
Still working out the last paragraph. I might be on thin ice and am trying to decide whether to remove it. We don't know who commissioned the painting, I got a little interested when I realized it came out of Spain at about the time of the Spanish Civil War, tried to dig to see what I could find, but found very little. I've strung together what I have found - he might have worked in Spain or Italy, about a third of his paintings have come from Spain or Italy, but then again we do know he had foreign patrons in Bruges so maybe they were commissioned there. If this seems too much of a digression to you (or anyone else) then I can trim it out. I'm on the fence about it. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've found a little more information and have fleshed this out. I've decided it's worth keeping - 1930 was an interesting period in terms of buying art, moving it out of Europe, lining up buyers, etc. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A few suggestions:

  • "To avoid export taxes, and, because it was becoming more difficult to send European paintings to America, the Duveens chose ..." I would remove some commas: "To avoid export taxes and because it was becoming ..."
  • But perhaps simplify it further. The source says that it was becoming harder to remove paintings from Europe, but this one was sent by that route only to avoid the tax. So perhaps try something like: "To avoid the export fee payable had the painting been sent directly to New York, the Duveens chose a circuitous route – from Madrid to Germany, then to Paris and on to America." Otherwise the circuitous route is a bit puzzling.
  • Next paragraph: "At least eight of Christus's paintings" → "At least eight of his paintings" to avoid the repetition from the previous sentence.
  • "have come from either Italy or Spain.[44] giving credence": comma after Spain
  • "giving credence to speculation he spent a period of time Italy or Spain" → "giving credence to speculation that he spent time in Italy or Spain."
  • I would remove the comma after yet in the final sentence.

The section reads much better after your additions. It's a nice way to finish the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin for the suggested wording, which I've used. That section went in a bit quickly. I'll probably tweak a bit more this weekend after re-reading the sources. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Images

I've played around with different window sizes and browsers, and the image placement and size looks good every time. The only odd thing is that, in one of the browsers, File:Petrus christus, natività di washington 03.jpg in the gallery is a different size from the other three images. But I can't see any reason for that in edit mode.

I've unpacked the gallery. For some reason I'm seeing it display at different sizes every time I load the page. Can't figure out why it's doing that or how to fix. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

All in all, a wonderful article, and an excellent idea for TFA at Christmas. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks so much for reading and for these comments - they're very helpful. I'd like to spend some time re-reading sources for a couple of points, in particular the bit about Spain. I seem to have lost my train of thought there! At any rate, I'll get to it in a few days and thanks again. Victoria (tk) 00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Best of luck with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Belle[edit]

  • The scene of the nativity traditionally takes place in a stable not a shed and since there are horses stabled behind Mary (who, btw, seems to have just chucked Jesus on the floor) is there any reason for saying shed?
I think I've clarified this. St Bridget's vision was that the birth took place in a cave; in northern art of this period instead of a cave it's shown in a shed or hut. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There is absolutely no contradiction between a building being a stable (function) and a shed (type of construction), and no reason not to use the word. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No, but the exclusion of stable seemed a bit weird. The story of the nativity is a little less romantic when the innkeeper tells them they can sleep in the shed ("but move the garden furniture and my bike out of the way and be careful not to knock over the creosote") Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, we could have "stable, depicted as a wooden shed within a ruined stone building" or something - the ruin symbolizes the Jewish religion, as no doubt some sources say, as well as the ciborium mentioned below. The present text doesn't quite say that the doorway and the wall at rear are intended as parts of the same building - surely the case, and some sources must cover this. Btw, Ainsworth, Maryan W. (1994). Petrus Christus: Renaissance master of Bruges. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780870996948.  - is fully online from the MMA. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "annunciation" for announcement is archaic unless referring to "The Annunciation" (which you aren't here); and if it is before the announcement of the birth to the shepherds, how come they are leaning in at the back? ("What's going on in there? Did you just throw that baby on the floor? Need any wool? Got anything to tell us, you angels? Lovely cut of lamb there for you; 3 shekels."). Two of the shepherds look like they are lighting a bong, but I don't suppose that's very likely.
Tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"Annunciation to the Shepherds" is the technical term in art history for their scene, & there are a number of other Biblical "annunciations" in art history - see Annunciation (disambiguation) for some - though this is rather technical vocabulary. As for "these shepherds are emotionless and unaware of the miracle unfolding before them, which implies the scene occurs before the Annunciation to the shepherds", personally I think this is most unlikely to be the artist's intention, and Upton is over-elaborating. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I've rolled it back, [1]. The link to the Annunciation to the shepherds probably does the job. I think what Belle is asking, and what I've wondered myself, is how do we know it's before the annunciation (which all the sources say) and I found Upton's explanation vaguely interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In 1930 Max Friedländer attributed Christus, remarking that "in scope and importance, [it] is superior to all other known creations of this master." What does that mean? I can't understand it without more context and it doesn't seem to be mentioned again in the rest of the article.
Removed. Seemed interesting when I read it, but it doesn't fit where it is. Thanks for noting. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "When Adam delved and Eve spun" Why quote John Ball here? The image does look quite fitting as Adam is delving and Eve spinning, but did Christus base it on Ball's speech?
Dunno. Maybe Johnbod does; added here. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No of course he is not using Ball, but Ball is the familiar expression in English of the traditional medieval roles assigned to A&E post-Expulsion, also used in the painting, and most other medieval depictions. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought straight description would be better here to prevent those like me imagining some non-existent connection to Ball and those that don't know Ball wondering what it means. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
One might expand it, but I think Ball is very apposite and well known. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the "(top)" doing in the list of scenes on the arch? And the last scene isn't from Genesis. (God looks very boring as he banishes Cain; it's like he's been woken up while having a nap after dinner; is there anything on this mundane representation of God without halos or crowns or angels or general god-paraphernalia?)
Same as above. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Top explains that this is the top of the arch. The last scene is from Genesis 4 on the primary & more likely explanation of what it shows. In this sort of context, and limited space, a simple depiction of God is not that unusual, as in this for example. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the "(top)" is unnecessary as we are already going from left to right. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever, but personally I think the difficulty many people have in relating prose to images should never be underestimated. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The two uppermost reliefs on the arch, which have a central focus and function as keystones, bring attention to the juxtaposition of Old and New Testament themes. The reliefs also function as a temporal device, leading the viewer directly to the moment of Christ's birth and mankind's redemption, which occurs below in the shed." Isn't the juxtaposition of OT and NT made by the fact that they point down to Jesus (so they aren't "also" functioning as a temporal device, because that's what they are doing in the first sentence). If you can work out what I'm trying to say there you get 10 bonus points.
I think it's slightly different in that the left scene shows sacrfice (NT), the right sin = punishment (OT), *and* they point from the OT world to the new below. Hard to explain; I've tried to clarify. Let me know if it's any better. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Sacrifice is pretty popular in the OT too. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll put more in above when I get round to it (how casual of me; like I'm the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and can't find time for Wikipedia. Cancel my one o'clock and get me Morrison on the line; I don't care if he's showing investors round the new site in Dubai, I need answers before the markets open, etc.). Belle (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought it was an ox, but it's hardly mentioned in the sources (if at all) for some odd reason. I think the shed is from St. Bridget's version, but I'm answering before I've had another look through the sources; I've wondered about that too. I've also thought it odd that the shepherds just happen to be loitering but are unaware - I have difficulty explaining that they see an infant, but aren't aware they're in the presence of Christ. Will give it another go. Good catch, btw. And thanks for looking. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Johnbod and Belle and sorry for not responding earlier. I've been slammed at work, haven't been feeling well, and had zero time to back get here. I've decided to let the PR close because I'm not sure I'll have the time/energy to get this through FAC for Christmas. In the meantime, while I'm here, a few responses:

  • Re: shed - I think that's sorted, but when I can get back to editing will have another look. I think of a stable or barn as larger and less broken down.
  • Re: John Ball - maybe it was just fatigue but I'd forgotten he was the person who made that speech during the Peasant's Revolt. Anyway, I'm thinking about the point, and want to check the sources. That language is in Hand but is not used so specifically in the other sources.
  • Re: "top" - I'm on the fence. BUT - my big concern is that since I started the page a year ago or so I've moved the descriptions of the Old Testament reliefs a number of times. In the end I took them out of the iconography section and decided to fully describe the reliefs in the "Description" section. I've honestly not read through fully in weeks so couldn't say right now if there's repetition or not, but my preference is to avoid it. When I get time, a chance, back to editing, I'll have a look.
  • Re: Ainsworth - yes, thanks JB for pointing me to her book. It's being used (I've had it for a fairly long time) and I think I've scraped most of what exists of other sources off Jstor and the various other places. I would like to get Charles de Tolnay's book (a lot of the others mention him), and Panofsky who suggested the last relief was of Seth, and is disputed by others. But I haven't been able to get either. Probably with more time I could find and have sent in from a distant library and I suppose that's as good as an argument as any for holding off. Thanks again to both of you and to SlimVirgin for taking the time to read and review. Feel free to keep commenting until the review closes. It's been extremely helpful and certainly pointed to some weak spots and holes in the article. Victoria (tk) 12:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support' I think at FA standard, even if some points may want touches. I have made a few edits. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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


Geography and places[edit]

Greythorn Park[edit]

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

Comments from Onel5969[edit]

Okay, a short article, which for the most part is well written.

  • The lead. Short, and does not reflect a summary of the article's contents.
  • The history never says when the park was created, unless it's 1951, but it's not specified. The rest of the history is very well written. And it is also a bit sparse, jumping from 1951 or 1954, to 1976, and then nothing beyond.
  • The description of the park... oh, wait, there isn't one. This is the biggest problem with the article. How big is it? Expand on what's included in the lead... what are it's borders? Expand on the brief description in the infobox. Give a prose description of the facilities. Who maintains it?
  • The access to the park needs a citation.
  • Clubs and groups is fine.

Well, I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful! Takerlamar (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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


History[edit]

Mary Dyer[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to elevate it to featured status

Thanks, Sarnold17 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 19 October 2014, 01:05 UTC)----


Warsaw Uprising (1794)[edit]

Previous peer review

The article used to be a Featured Article since 2006. However, with time Wikipedia grew more serious and the referencing style used in the article quickly became obsolete. In 2009 the article was demoted, mainly due to insufficient in-line citations. As the original author of most of this article I recently decided to update it and perhaps improve it back to FA status.

In October 2014 I completely revamped the referencing system, added plenty of in-line citations, added additional references to statements that could raise concerns, applied various MoS fixes, added OCLC numbers to pre-ISBN refs and so on. However, since most of the article was written almost a decade ago, it might need some more love. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be highly appreciated.

Thanks, //Halibutt 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 18 October 2014, 21:26 UTC)----


Glur's Tavern[edit]

I've listed this article on a historic tavern for peer review because I need help with two technical questions: NRHP Infobox formatting and rotated display of a Wikicommons image.

Thanks, Heritager (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Peer Review is not the appropriate place for seeking technical help. Try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 October 2014, 22:28 UTC)----


Walther von Brauchitsch[edit]

After working on this article for almost a year, and getting it to GA-status, I believe it's worth FA-status.

Thanks. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Although not mandated by the process, I suggest to expose the article to the WikiProject Military history A-Class review first. The likelihood of find a subject matter expert who can also help you improve the content of the article is much greater than at the more generic FA level. The decision is of course is yours to take. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I believe the article meets the FA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments from AustralianRupert
  • G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article so far. I have a couple of quick suggestions/observations:
  • at six paragraphs, the lead doesn't conform with the guidance in WP:LEAD which asks for no more than four paragraphs - I suggest merging a couple
  • I suggest having the article copy edited from start to finish before taking this to FAC as a quick look found a couple of issues: perhaps you could list it at WP:GOCE and see what the kind souls there can do to help?
  • in the References you use "Biesinger 1967" but in the Sources it is "Biesinger, Joseph A. (2006)" --> are these the same works? If so, please adjust one of the years so they are consistent. If 2006 is the reprint date, you could use the "origyear=1967 |year=2006" parameters in the cite book template if you wish to;
  • in the Personal life section, I suggest moving the sentence starting "They were divorced in 1938..." to appear after the part where you introduce Charlotte Rueffer as this will help the section flow chronologically;
  • the Legacy section seems quite awkwardly worded - particularly the first paragraph, but additionally the two other paragraphs do not seem to flow as part of a narrative. Is there a better place within the article that you could work these descriptions in so that they are discussed a little more seemlessly and have a bit more context to these opinions?
  • anyway, good work and good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and suggestions, AustralianRupert. I have implemented some of your suggestions but also declined a few, such as the copyedit suggest, as the article has already been looked over by many editors for different purposes. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Halibutt
  • Hello there and thanks for your hard work. The article is indeed quite nice and informative.
  • While this is not mandatory, I would suggest restructuring the article a little. I would consider turning some of the sections into sub-sections. That is, create a ==Biography== section and attach current sections 1 through 6 to it as level 2 subsections (===Early life=== and so on). This makes the table of contents cleaner and also simplifies the article a little for people who drop by to look for particular piece of information. I decided to be bold and did it myself, see if it works.
Excellent point, I would impelemented it myself, but I see you already have. :) - JV
  • Before taking the article to FAC I would consider limiting the reliance on William E. Hart. The book is pretty old and it was published during the war, so I'm a little worried about its' status as a reliable source. While using old sources is fine, FAC reviewers might question this one.
Well, there is a bio-book on Brauchitsch from 2001 I have access to. However, I decided to use Hart instead precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion). - JV
  • In the case of on-line sources without page numbers it is a good practice to mark paragraphs you are referring to. Paragraph numbers, first couple of words, any system would do. This is particularly important in case of long articles similar to the one from Eurozine, where one would have to read through all of it to verify your sources. Not practical.
If you click on the Eurozine link, you can just press Ctrl + F and you can type in "Brauchitsch" and every time his name is mentioned in the Interview, it will be highlighted in yellow. That was how I found it, which I believe is good enough? - JV
  • The later stages of his life are definitely under-represented in the article. It only briefly mentions his complicity in German war crimes and doesn't even mention that he was a witness during the Nuremberg trials, nor does it mention his internment in New South Wales.
Island Farm was located in New South Wales. I suppose I could change "in a British military hospital" to "in a British military hospital in New South Wales". I will add some comments about him witnessing at the Nuremberg trials right after responding to all your suggestions. - JV
  • Some wikilinks are misleading. For instance a link labeled "William E. Hart" leads instead to the publishing house that printed one of his books.
Hart does not have a Wikipedia article, so I directed "William E. Hart" to the publishing house that published his book. If it's a big deal, I can just remove the link. - JV
  • All in all, I believe it is a good start, but I'm afraid the article is not yet FA-ready. //Halibutt 22:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
In a few minutes I will have implemented all of your suggestions. THEN I'm sure it's FA-ready. And thanks for all your input, Halibu. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Hawkeye7 (talk)
Done. - JV
  • He married his second wife, Charlotte Rueffer, shortly after his divorce with Karstedt. Suggest "his divorce from Karstedt"
Done. - JV
  • Any idea how many brothers and sisters he had?
Six. He was the second-last. - JV
  • Where was he born? Add this.
Birth place added. - JV
  • A "housekeeper" is someone paid to manage a household. Are you sure you don't mean a "homemaker"?* Worth mentioning that two of his brothers also became generals?
Changed "housekeeper" to "housewife".
  • "By the outbreak of World War I in August 1914" Link World War I
Done. - JV
  • "He would be in the very thick of The Great War from start to finish." Kind of encyclopaedic. Consider omitting the sentence. And no need to capitalise "the".
Tweaked. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch saw more than twice as much action" By what measure?
Tweaked. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch was awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class and ended the war with the rank of major." Link Iron Cross. And major. All the military ranks. Actually, he was promoted only once in four years of war. Not all that impressive, and at odds with the claim that he was not unnoticed.
I disagree. Brauchtisch was a staff officer during the war and the Iron Cross was not something you easily got, so did not remove or reformulate anything. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch managed to avoid sanction." I don't understand this.
After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles said Germany could only have an army of 100,000 men. Because of this, hundreds of thousands were dismissed, relieved, or in any other way, kicked out of the military. By writing "Brauchitsch managed to avoid sanction" it means he managed to avoid being dismissed. - JV
  • " 11th Army District " -> "II Military District" Note that it was the second, not the 11th.
Fixed. - JV
  • " to transfer to the staff office of the 2nd Artillery Regiment" Delete "office"
Done. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch was named Chief of the East Prussian Military District and Chief of the 1st Division in Konigsberg In 1937." Chief -> commander
Fixed. - JV
  • " So when the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Werner von Fritsch, was accused of homosexuality" Link the Blomberg-Fritsch Affair
Done. - JV
  • "Koch was known as somewhat of a dubious gangster " I don't think "gangster" is the right word here.
Replaced "gangster" with "crook". - JV
  • "Hitler appointed Brauchitsch the new army chief,[4] on the recommendation of the Army High Command." Link Oberkommando des Heeres
Done. - JV
  • "In the final months before World War II" Link World War II
Already linked earlier in the article. - JV
  • "ordered that Commissars were only to be shot if their anti-German sentiments were "especially recognizable"" Link "Commissars"
Done. - JV

Looks reasonably good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you comments and suggestions, Hawkeye7. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 October 2014, 15:54 UTC)----


Gelou[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially rewritten based on academic works and it needs to be checked against WP:NPOV criteria.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Oncenawhile
  • Great article and interesting topic. My suggestions below
  • The first picture in the article should be a representation of Gelou himself, not a map. Whether imaginary or not, I assume representations of him exist?
  • Many of the key sources are unavailable online, so for the more contentious refs, I suggest including a sentence of quotation as support
  • The lead should be longer and should summarise the article more closely
  • The "Gelou in modern historiography" section needs some improvement to its structure:
    • "have always" in the first two sentences should be more specific
    • It reads like a "pros and cons" list. I suggest that the first paragraph becomes a simple summary of the historiographical debate(s) - i.e did Gelou exist. Then rather than having two paragraphs with one "for" and one "against", have paragraphs focusing on the specific areas debated by the scholars, e.g. motivation to invent, similarity to local names, other proven or claimed examples of similar inventions.
  • Oncenawhile (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, thank you very much for your above comments. I highly appreciate your throughful review. Based on your comments, I expanded the lead and tried to modify the last section ("Gelou in modern historiography"). Unfortunatelly, I cannot add a picture of Gelou, because I have no information of such a picture. Sorry, I do not understand your suggestion about sentences "of quotation as support": in most cases, the article itself contains a quotation. Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
From the Chronicon Pictum
@Borsoka: Is this a picture of Gelou? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it is a picture of Gyula III, a Hungarian chieftain ruling in Transylvania a hundred years after the Hungarian Conquest. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What about one of the seven pictured at Seven chieftains of the Magyars - according to Simon of Kéza one of them may be Gyula?
Separately, are you sure Gelou is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article? It might be better to be consistent with Gyula (title), Gyula II and Gyula III. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The Gyulas (or one of the three Gyulas) and Gelou are not identical. Gelou was a Vlach prince fighting against the Magyars, while the Gyulas were Magyar chieftains. Gelou is mentioned under this name in the academic works cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah ok. Given everything we know about Gelou was written by Magyars, and given that Gyula (title) is a generic title, surely this connection should be made clearly in the lead. I assume the academic works mention this? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • László Péter: "Who ruled Transylvania for a period during the tenth century until his defeat by King Stephen. Just as Anonymus derived Salan from the phonetically analogous Kalan, so too did he create Gelou from Gyula."[2]
  • Endre Haraszti: "In some of the Chronicles, this Gyula, or Gylas appeared as "Gelou, dux Blacorum"[3]
  • Béla Köpeczi: "While it is evident that Anonymus had converted honorifics into the real names Gyula and Horka, the source of the name Tétény is less clear: he may have borrowed it from a Hungarian family's legend, or from the locality, on the Danube, called Tétény. Gelou was an authentic personal name as well as a toponym that is noted in the chronicle: the fortress of Gyalu, at the confluence of the Szamos and Kapus rivers. This Hungarian name, of ancient Turkic origin, occurs as a toponym in other regions of Hungary as well. Curiously, Anonymus did not choose a royal castle — such as Kolozsvár or Doboka, both proximate to the scene of his story — for the seat of the Transylvanian Blak leader. Instead, he opted for the Transylvanian bishop's castle at Gyula — perhaps because it was the closest major fort in relation to the Almás River and the Meszes Pass, and because it sounded similar to the leader's name, Gyalu."[4][5]
  • [6]
Hopefully the three quotes above are helpful and could be added to the article. Also, on a different subject, may be worth adding this: Pál Engel "After Gelou was killed by the Hungarians in a battle near the River Somes, his subjects elected Tuhutum, one of the 'seven dukes', as their prince."
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, thank you for your above comments. Could you provide the exact sources of your above citations? I would like to use them to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka, I have added the links above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if you have time, i'd be very grateful for your thoughts on Wikipedia:Peer_review/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"/archive1. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 October 2014, 02:57 UTC)----


Jefferson–Hemings controversy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… it has the potential to become a Good or Featured article

Thanks, Monkelese (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 October 2014, 20:35 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Carrot[edit]

This is a level 4 vital article on an common vegetable. I'd like any suggestions on how to improve this article for GA and ultimately FAC. Thanks in advance, Sasata (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Could've sworn I saw this at GAN or FAC recently. Huh. Anyway, here are some overall thoughts:

  • The amount of etymology in the intro is probably unnecessary and should go in History instead.
  • The lead's too short and doesn't summarize the page adequately. I'd prefer three paragraphs: perhaps one about carrots' basic physical, chemical, and biological properties and history; one about their use for humans and nutrition; and one about their cultivation, preparation, and economic value. Something like that.
  • Some of the sources look unreliable, mainly plantea.com and carrotmuseum.co.uk. In general, museums and interactive portal-like sites aren't the most reliable; try to replace as much as you can from gardening and botany journals, stuff like that.
  • History could definitely be expanded.
  • Description should probably be split into subsections.
  • There aren't a whole lot of food GAs or FAs, but try looking at Cabbage and Saffron for a general idea of how this article should be structured and fleshed out.

Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these or for more advice - and maybe drop a few comments at Czech language's PR if you have time. Tezero (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 September 2014, 14:59 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

St James the Great, St Kilda East[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because despite the work done on the subject it remains listed at a "start class". This parish is unique in many ways: the smallest geographical parish in Melbourne (if not Australia), its history from the closed St John's Theological College, its survival despite cultural changes in the area, particularly since World War 2. I really want this article to be a good resource, and welcome comments.

Thanks, Adamm (talkcontribs) 00:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


A few notes from Peripitus. I can't find any significant material missing. It needs more inline referencing and copyediting.

  • There a quite a few unreferenced paragraphs. From the context I assume that they are sourced from articles in the references section, but they do need inline references to back up factual statements.
  • A few common word structures to avoid: "also" is almost always redundant as is "A number of"; "recent" or "currently" should be replaced with a reference to the time in question.
  • The lead and history section seem to allow readers to be confused about the division between the the parish founded in 1914 and the physical church in 1915. Perhaps something like "St James the Great is an Anglican parish and associated church in the City of Glen Eira, Victoria, Australia." Then some edits to make it clear which bit refers to which entity.
  • Has the church been consecrated ? Did this happen in June 1915 or was that just the date of the first services in the new building.

- Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 October 2014, 00:00 UTC)----


Social sciences and society[edit]

Twink (gay slang)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I feel this article has reached a good stage. I feel the article has reached B grade, for LGBT studies, also how the article stands on Gender studies if the article needs more work and if so what could improve the article?

Thanks, Pennine rambler (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:LEAD says the article should be a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. The lede intro is therefore a bit too short right now. — Cirt (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks, I think it is to early for a peer review on reflection.--Pennine rambler (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 October 2014, 20:18 UTC)----


Peter Aduja[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like others to provide suggestions to edits, prior to nominating this article as a good article.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 October 2014, 21:11 UTC)----


Economy of Iran[edit]

Previous peer review

Hi, I don't think it would hurt to have a peer review to see what is still needed to bring this GA article to FA status.

Thanks, SSZ (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

I honestly thinks it looks nice., but here:

  • Some of the sources appear unreliable (e.g. #49, #50, InfoMine).
  • Some, like, 49 and 50, need publishers in their citations. #254 needs a title and URL.
  • With others, the publishers need to be formatted correctly, e.g. "Parsi Times" instead of "Parsitimes.com". In general, don't use ".com"s and such in the source's name (not to be confused with the URL; there it's fine obviously) unless they're an actual part of the source's name, ideally in the logo. (For example, Pets.com is fine, but not IGN.com.)
  • I think the prose looks fine from a very cursory skim, but if there's one niggling complaint that's almost impossible to anticipate and yet is a frequent cause of oppose votes, it's prose quality, so consider getting a copyedit just in case.
  • Macroeconomic trends, the section, is a little over-loaded with short and choppy paragraphs.

Tezero (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 September 2014, 21:40 UTC)----


Lists[edit]

List of television stations in Mexico[edit]

Listed for peer review as a precursor to a possible FL candidacy. I know self-noms aren't such a great idea here, but the changes I've made have propelled the quality of this list to be much higher in currency and formatting and I want to tidy it up before getting it nominated for FL.

The list is produced using an innovative use of transclusion from tables in 32 other lists, a concept that User:revent considered. The list preparation involved a tedious, three-week-long cross-checking of Wikipedia information against Mexican government sources along with a completely new table format across all 32 other lists. When this was done, the massive nationwide list, which was further out of date, was replaced with the current transcluded format.

Looking for advice about content and format. There are some TV callsign redlinks that should be redirects, and also some redlinks for articles about various Mexican localities that do not have them. A disambiguation/redirect fixing bot should really be run across the state lists, too.

Thanks, Raymie (tc) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of 'attribution', the technique of using transcluded parts of other articles like this is used in quite a few of the 'events by decade' article, that assemble themselves from the 'events by year' ones. Not all do, but a lot of the ones for the 16th at 17th century. Reventtalk 05:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Raymie: Can you please add a {{Complete list}} hatnote with the date of the source you used to verify the list? Reventtalk 05:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Raymie (tc) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 October 2014, 04:21 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]