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.

Contents

Arts[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

Mika Häkkinen[edit]

Previous peer review

The previous peer review for this page only received comments for the first half of this article, and so I have re-listed the page because I will require a full and thorough review of this article before I make the submission for GAN and eventually go for FAN. I am happy to receive comments that might help the process become less difficult and which would be very much appreciated and helpful.

Thanks, Z105space (Talk to me!) 11:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2014, 11:23 UTC)----


Mami Kawada[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been improved greatly since the last peer review. Per numerous suggestions, such as those from the previous two peer reviews, I've added a musical style and influence section, which I feel is healthy enough. A few reviews for her songs were also incorporated into the aforementioned section. Finally, I did a full overhaul of the lede section, and it's now an overall overview of her career rather than just mentioning what anime she has performed songs for. There are still a few flaws I can see with the article, but these are more for reasons beyond my control (a lack of available information regarding her personal life, the article has no images simply because free images of her simply don't exist), etc. Nevertheless, I feel it's on the right track towards Good Article status. Any feedback and further suggestions are appreciated, but the main question is: is it ready for GA class? I want to nominate it only when it is fully ready. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say you can go ahead and nominate it for GA after this peer review. The article has by and far improved since the first time I looked at it, and it appears to be comprehensive based on the sources available for the subject matter. Any minor kinks can be worked out in the GAN process, but I'd say it is ready. Artichoker[talk] 00:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 05:32 UTC)----


2014 Philadelphia Phillies season[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is admittedly a behemoth, and I am looking for comments on how it can be more concise, where there is jargon not accessible to a non-baseball fan – ultimately, I would like this to be a GA or even FA at some point, but I have been so invested in this article since the beginning of the season, and need some outside input.

Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 18:51 UTC)----


Characters of the Drakengard series[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I am preparing to create a Good Topic around the Drakengard series, and since this is the most difficult article of the lot, I need input from other users. Two notes before anyone puts comments down. First: there are bound to be spelling mistakes, as this article is huge and I haven't had the time to go through section by section looking for spelling mistakes. Second: apart from those which are actually referenced, no English voice actors for the characters are available. It is a rather obvious gap in this article's information.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 December 2014, 13:10 UTC)----


Engineering and technology[edit]

Siddharth Shetty[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to improve the content and quality of the article. In spite of making a number of edits, this article has been flagged with issues - I really don't know why. Could you suggest the necessary changed, and guide me accordingly.

Thanks, RohansoodH22 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 December 2014, 16:50 UTC)----


Blended Space[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am new to writing Wikipedia articles. My classmate and I wrote this article together from scratch. We received advice from a subject matter expert and made some edits as per their suggestions but we could use a Wikipedia expert to make sure that the standards are being followed correctly.

Thanks, Lnk2128 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 December 2014, 20:57 UTC)----


Example-Centric Programming[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I've worked on a Wikipedia article and would like suggestions on additional content and verify that it is well formatted. Thanks, CEGarcia (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2014, 19:01 UTC)----


Transportation in South Florida[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because a few years after failing a GAN, I decided to improve it since it was a large but seemingly redundant article that was little more than a unified summary of several other articles. I would like to think that the direction I took it in could be a model for other "Transport(ation) in" articles, which I realized are for the most part surprisingly brief. It recently failed a FAR and a peer review was suggested. The FAR never got past apparent sourcing issues. It has many sources (and many claims) and some print sources have been added. I could add several more, but I don't want it to seem like a lengthy bibliography of loosely relevant publications was hastily added to make it look more "professional". Input from editors well versed in proper sourcing is sought.

Thanks, B137 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2014, 03:23 UTC)----


Windows 7[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to assist with the development of the article and would like to know what needs work.

Thanks, StewdioMACK (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: The lead goes a little too in depth individually listing the things that were added starting with "other new features", it seems like this should just be summarized by saying something along the lines of "several enhancements were added", possibly listing something, but not so much. B137 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 29 November 2014, 07:56 UTC)----


General[edit]

Kathy Duva[edit]

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

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 December 2014, 04:40 UTC)----


Luis Buñuel[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've worked on this article for quite a while now, along with many other wikipedia film enthusiasts, with an eye towards nominating it for featured article status. I'd be very interested in getting comments, suggestions, advice etc. Do you think this is FA material?

Thanks, Jburlinson (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 December 2014, 00:56 UTC)----


Jack White[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a stone's throw from being ready for GA consideration, but I really need inside input, since I am the primary editor, and really don't have much outside perspective. I've read this article so many times, I'm cross-eyed. I'm still working on finding references for the the fact-tagged statements. I also know some of the references need a touch more formatting help (which another editor and I made A LOT of progress on this week). Otherwise, any other things that could be fixed or improved, I just need a second set of eyes.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 December 2014, 15:27 UTC)----


Jeong Seon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to make this article better.

Thanks, Youkseo (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Good artice! It's great, because it has lots of pictures of Jeong Seon and I would like to know about his reputation or influence to modern society of Korea. Tksgk262 (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Uhmm, I think Korean (untranslated to English) caption of file should be fixed and cite needed template should be removed or additional citation should be added to article.  Revi 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 December 2014, 07:37 UTC)----


Spectre (2015 film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… The 24th James Bond film has just been announced, will start production on Monday, and of course is too recent and without data to get anywhere near Good or Featured status. But given this film series is a good topic, Spectre needs a peer review to get included and further its global domination plans. I'm willing to hear all comments and suggestions.

Thanks, igordebraga 01:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a mention of "35mm" film under Filming, and I added a non-breaking space between 35 and mm. Also, check the link for reference #17 as it appears broken to me. Otherwise, the article looks fine. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 01:31 UTC)----


Hunter (Björk song)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it a lot recently (it looked like this last month), and I'm interested in turning it into a Good article in the future —hopefully with your advice.

Thanks!, Bleff (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 December 2014, 07:44 UTC)----


Origami[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because Origamidesigner and I want feedback on how to improve it, hopefully to GA status. Any feedback would be great, as I am not a content creator and they're inexperienced as well.

Thanks, Origamite 02:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • Origami (折り紙?, from ori meaning "folding", and kami meaning "paper" (kami changes to gami due to rendaku) is the art of paper folding: this makes the opening line very hard to read—I'd move the etymological expalanation further down, or even have it only in the body. Something like this is sufficient:
    • Origami (折り紙 "paper folding"?) is the art ...
  • Unless you are citing something contentious, inline cites shouldn't appear in the lead, as everything in the lead should also be in the body (where it should be cited).
  • If the number of basic folds is small enough, you might want to include them in the lead; or at the very least mention valleys and mountains.
  • The principles of origami are also used in stents, packaging and other engineering applications.: is this prominent enough to be lead-worthy?
  • The body has an awful lot of uncited passages—even entire paragraphs. If you hope to get this article to GA status, you'll have to cite everything. If you manage to get everything cited, give me a ping and I can give the article a thorough copyedit. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 December 2014, 02:55 UTC)----


Family Feud (Australian game show)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve the article but need to know where to start!

Thanks, StewdioMACK (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am fairly new to editing so I am probably not much use but I did find another game show article which might be a good template for you to work from - The Chase (U.S. game show). The obvious issue, with the Family Feud article, is references but the content seems fairly good to me (if it can be backed up with sources). Give me a shout if you want any help with it though I am no use at being able to review! ツStacey (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2014, 01:27 UTC)----


Geography and places[edit]

Smooth Island (Tasmania)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel I've collected almost all the information on Smooth Island which is freely available online, even from the depths of historical newpaper achives.

I'm not sure what the next set of goals for this topic should be.

I'd appreciate specific advice on how I can improve the quality of the page.

I'd also like an independent assessment of the importance of this topic, if that's not too much trouble.

Thanks, jkokavec

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 December 2014, 08:15 UTC)----


2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because because I wish to nominate the article for a promotion. This is the initial peer review to to get an understanding of work needs to be done. Thanks, Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Some comments from a brief skimming: The article doesn't mention the 2004 earthquake at all; I think it's important to put into context how the earthquake served as a major test for the Indian Ocean tsunami warning system. The recent 2004 tsunami, the worst in history, was still relatively fresh in people's minds, and the prior events hugely affected people's and organisations' responses to the 2012 earthquake. (I'm not quite familiar with peer review; I'll leave it to other editors to comment on the other aspects.) --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2014, 11:08 UTC)----


Moon Lake Park[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to know how it looks so far. And if it's missing useful information typically found on a park page.

Thanks, -Fluous (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 14 December 2014, 01:56 UTC)----


Stanley Park, Blackpool[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've reached my limit on what to write! I haven't done much editing and so I really need some assistance from experienced editors to advice on improvements. I would love to get this to 'Good article' status if its worthy. I'm very passionate about Blackpool articles and if this goes well, I hope to write more! Any advice is much appreciated =)

P.S. I hope I have put this in the correct category?

Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 13:05 UTC)----


History[edit]

May 18th National Cemetery[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to make this article much better.

Thanks, Tksgk262 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is good article that are arranged very well. I can have some interest in this building. Good job, Youkseo (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out empty section, and Cemetery section might need more reliable, verifiable source, imo.  Revi 16:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 December 2014, 07:33 UTC)----


Horace Greeley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to take it to FAC and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 23:21 UTC)----


Bolokhoveni[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it should be chequed against WP:NPOV before its GAN.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Boguslavmandzyuk comments

Hi,

Good job with citing all of your sources.

Some room for improvement:

Lead section

The lead section should follow the guidelines at WP:LEAD. The lead section should give a general overview of the subject of the article without getting in too much detail and avoiding jargon. It should summarize what the article is going to discuss later.

For example,
Instead of "Based on their ethnonym, the Bolokhoveni may be identified as Romanians (who were mentioned as Vlachs in the Middle Ages); but the Hypatian Chronicle and archaeological research suggest that they were rather a Slavic people."
Consider something like: "The ethnic identity of the Bolokhoveni is not known; whereas the ethnonym identifies them with modern-day Romanians, archeological evidence and the Hypatian Chronicle suggest that they were a Slavic people."

Also, consider giving more of an overview of the article in the lead. For example, you may mention that they disappeared from all records in 1257 (I think this is a pretty important piece of information). On a side note, is there any literature or hypotheses about why they disappeared? What is the result of a genocide, a mass-migration, or perhaps just a cultural re-identification with the other groups?

Boguslavmandzyuk, thank you for your comments. I am really grateful. I changed the text and expanded the lead. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Prose

Much of the prose is confusing and difficult to follow if you don't read through the passages multiple times. The prose should be easy to follow and straight to the point. Guidelines include WP:TECHNICAL and WP:WTA.

For example, the following sentence may be easier to follow: "However, this identification is not without contradictions, because the Bolokhoveni's material culture was not dissimilar from the contemporary culture of the western parts of Kievan Rus'."
Consider avoiding double negatives and just saying the facts: "However, this identification is contradicted by archaeological evidence, which indicates that the Bolokhoveni's material culture resembles that of its contemporaries in western parts of Kievan Rus'."
Thank you. I changed the text. After the peer review is closed, I will request a copy edit. (I always ask for a copy edit before a GAN.) Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Section heading names

Wikipedia doesn't have specific very specific rules about section names, but the general practice is to name a section based on what conceptually similar articles name such sections. In this case, the "land of Bolokhoveni" is not a very common section name that can be compared to other similar articles. You may consider the following examples: the articles Bavaria and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth use the section heading name "Geography", while the articles on Prussia and Kingdom of Navarre use "Territory" and "Territory today", respectively.

Thank you. I changed the heading name. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Other than these concerns, this article looks very solid from a content and citation point of view.--BoguSlav 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 05:43 UTC)----


History of infrastructure development in Bathurst[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i have added considerable content and would like to receive constructive criticism of the article.

Thanks, Geez-oz (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 10:43 UTC)----


Richard III of England[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It was nominated for at, and then failed- rightly- a GA nomination, but, having taken the advice of the reviewer, hopefully it could pass this time- with the advice of other editors here helping it on its way perhaps? Many thanks from us to you now, and in advance...

Thanks, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • General
    • Inverted commas: You need to look carefully at your use of inverted commas, for two reasons. First, you have a mixture of curly (smart-quotes) like ‘this’ and straight ones like 'this'. The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires the latter. Secondly, you are inconsistent about double -v- single quotation marks. Wikipedia's standard is double. I don't much like it, but them's the rules.
    • Wikilinks: there are far too many duplicate links from the article. I think I counted nine links to Anne Neville. The rule is a maximum of one link to any other article from the lead and another from the text; for captions of images the rule is waived and you can link any and all captions. There is a simple and useful tool here to flag up all duplicate links in an article: User:Ucucha/duplinks.
  • Lead
    • "The revolt collapsed and Stafford was executed at Salisbury near the Bull's Head Inn." – two points here: first, do historians usually call the man "Stafford" rather than "Buckingham"? (I may have had my expectation coloured by Shakespeare, who "Buckinghams" him throughout.) Secondly, is the name of the pub a bit more detail than we want in the lead?
    • "as the only one to have been killed on home soil since Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066" – eh? What about William II, Edward II and Richard II? If you mean "killed in battle on home soil" that's fair enough, but it won't do as it stands.
    • "Reformation" – worth a blue link, possibly?
  • Childhood
    • "a strong claimant to the throne of King Henry VI" – I think we could do with an "according to so-and-so" here, naming an authority for the statement.
    • "whilst at Warwick's estate" – "whilst" is a fusty, fussy word. "While" is shorter, more familiar, and better.
    • "older brother … elder brother" – probably best to be consistent one way or the other
    • Piping: King Henry VI but King Edward IV. The former is easier on the reader's eye, I think.
    • "his brother Edward the King" – reads rather strangely
    • "During the Earl’s life only George married Isabel" – how many husbands was she expecting? I see what you mean here, but it could be phrased better
    • "the Earl’s life … revolt against the king" – more inconsistency of capitals.
    • "In 2014 osteoarchaelogist Dr Appleby" – this is an example of an anarthrous nominal premodifier, otherwise known as a false title. It is widely admitted in AmEng, but is not used in good BrEng (though our own dear tabloid papers can't get enough of it). Adding a definite article before "osteoarchaelogist" will do the job. This, I'm glad to say, was the only instance I spotted of this construction, which you eschew elsewhere, to loud applause from me. On another point, if we know Dr Appleby's given name we should use it.
  • Marriage and family relationships
    • "pre-nuptial" – no hyphen, according to the OED
    • "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it?
    • "It has been suggested that the terms" – it would be as well to say in the text who has so suggested
  • Reign of Edward IV
    • "dukedom of Gloucester … Lordships of Richmond … Constable of Gloucester … admiral of England" – inconsistency of capitalising
    • "Once Edward had regained the support of Clarence" – I don't think we have been told earlier that he had ever lost it, and so this comes rather out of the blue.
  • Council of the North
    • "an off-shoot"– another word that the OED doesn't hyphenate.
  • War with Scotland
    • "Royal Court" – capitals needed?
    • Two more "whilsts" here that I think would be cleaner as "whiles"
  • Accession
    • "Although Richard III has been accused of having Edward and his brother killed, there is debate about their actual fate." – this seems rather short measure for such a key point. I wonder if you might perhaps add a sentence or two saying that the historians x, y and z say he dunnit and a, b, and c say he didn't" – or some such. I know you return to the matter in the reputation section, but what we have at the present point seems a bit light.
    • "He was convicted of treason and beheaded in Salisbury on 2 November" – here, if anywhere, is surely the place for the name of the boozer to whose mention in the lead I took exception, above.
  • Succession
    • "created earl of Salisbury" – unexpected absence of capital for earl here
    • "Dr Ashdown-Hill suggests" – this is the first we've heard of this cove, and a first name and a word of introduction seem called for.
  • Legacy
    • "his own vice-regal appointment" – no hyphen according to the OED.
    • "Richard himself became King" – capital K wanted? See the last sentence of the para
  • In culture
    • Pipiing of knights' titles: I find it worth the trouble of piping, so that Sir Laurence Olivier is shown as Sir Laurence Olivier: more work for the editor, but easier on the reader's eye.
  • Discovery of remains
    • Given that there is a whole article (a rather fine one) on this subject I think you should take the pruning knife to this section. In particular, the third paragraph goes at great length into minute detail that for this biographical article could, and I believe should, be compressed into two or three sentences, saying that the forensic evidence was conclusive but omitting the specifics. Those who want them can go to the other article. The fifth paragraph goes on a bit too. In short, this section runs to 1,354 words, compared with 770 words on the Battle of Bosworth and 849 on the rest of Richard's entire reign: that can't be right. See GAN criterion 3b: "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail".
  • References
    • Refs 36 and 145 look to be the same, and if so should be consolidated.
    • There are some bare URL links, e.g. 194–198, which should be fleshed out with the usual details, name, title, etc.
    • You are inconsistent with order of surname/given name in the refs: see for instance refs 106 and 107 or 136 and 137.

That's all from me. I enjoyed the whole article very much, and my earlier concerns about adequate citation have been thoroughly addressed. After some heavy cutting of the remains section this article should prosper at GAN, in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009[edit]

Looks like a lot of work's gone into this. Some thoughts from me:

  • "was King of England for two years, from 1483 until his death in 1485 in the Battle of Bosworth Field." - "two years" felt redundant here, given the dates that followed.
  • "symbolises the end of the Middle Ages in England. " - symbolises, or marks? (I'm not convinced it acts as a symbol)
  • "the 12-year-old King Edward V." - felt strange having "King" here, but not earlier in the paragraph.
  • "As the young king travelled to London from Ludlow" - the upper/lower case of "king" needs checking throughout; this is standing in for Edward, so needs to be capitalised
  • "and a number of accusations circulated" - could just be "and accusations circulated"
  • "his first cousin once removed." - this felt like excessive detail for the lead
  • "near the Bull's Head Inn" ditto
  • "Richard III's remains received burial without pomp" - "Richard III's remains were buried without pomp"?
  • I was surprised not to find more description of his reputation in the lead, given the controversy that often surrounds Richard.
  • I couldn't quite work out why there were three books listed in the Bibliography, given the range that were used in the citations. The further reading section seems to include works cited in the main article, which I think (?) runs counter the MOS guidance.
  • The 1840 edition of the Paston Letters didn't look like a reliable, contemporary secondary source; are there any modern historians who cite the same primary material that could be used instead?
  • Similarly, Hall 1809 didn't feel like a strong source.
  • I'd echo the comments above on the "Discovery of Remains" section - it felt very long.
  • I didn't get the significance of the picture of the bronze statue; statues aren't mentioned in the text, and it doesn't seem to be a particularly famous piece etc.
  • The Childhood section could usefully have a line or two explaining that Richard is born at the start of the Wars of the Roses, who the Lancastrians are etc.; it doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, but if a reader didn't know there was a war going on, and who the two sides were, the rest won't make much sense.
  • The section also needs to mention his date of birth.
  • Worth checking which numbers need to be as numerals as opposed to words ("seventeen" needs to be 17, for example)
  • "3D Printing" - should this be "3D printing"?
  • " battle of Barnet" - should be "Battle of Barnet"
  • "John Paston’s letter" - you'll need to explain who John Paston was.
  • "Constable of Gloucester and Corfe Castles" - if we're linking Corfe, worth linking GLoucester Castle as well.
  • There's a lack of consistency in how money is given, e.g. "£1000" or "£20,000"
  • I found the sequence of one paragraph sub-sections in the Reign of Edward IV section a bit jarring, to be honest; is there any way to structure as regular prose?
  • "Although Richard III has been accused of having Edward and his brother killed, there is debate about their actual fate." - I was expecting a bit more explanation here about this debate and what historians think Richard did - it sort of stops suddenly after this sentence.
  • It's worth making sure that you attribute the quotes used in the main text; "all that can be said is that the Royal army 'substantially' outnumbered Tudor's" for example, doesn't make it very clear who is saying the "substantially".
  • There's probably more that can be said about Richard's relationship to religion, and to the justice system; the ODBN entry (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/23500) gives an overview of this, and there's some more sources at the bottom of it on these topics.
  • There's a good range of volumes cited, but I'd also recommend Gillingham's "Richard III: A Medieval Kingship", an edited volume with some interesting pieces in it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors below above. Gillingham certainly seems an odd oversight! Also, re: the tech stuff like straight, curly, single, double quotes etc, is their any editing software available that could make the task of finding and replacing slightly less mind (and eye!) -numbing? Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. If you copy and paste the entire contents of the article from the editing screen into Microsoft Word you can do a global replace of single and double quotes easily. Make sure in "autoformat" and "autoformat as you type set" you have the "replace straight quotes with smart quotes" box unchecked.
  2. Spotting single quotes where there should be doubles can be made easier with the Word search button: look for [space]' and then run another search for ' [space]. That usually finds most of them.
  3. Once done, you can copy and paste back into Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 12:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that, very helpful. Now, on another matter, any views as to the addition of substantial new material at this point? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion from top to bottom of page. If you have substantial new material I'd urge you to add it. You can always invite reviewers back for a second bite. Tim riley talk 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Isanan[edit]

I would like to answer to Mr Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity (now removed, supposedly after your comment) was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. As for previous direct attribution of statement to Dr Ashdown-Hill in the Succession section, I agree "Dr" could be replaced with "John", just as Hicks is called Michael and not Prof in the previous paragraph. However, by replacing the direct attribution with a generic "It is possible" in that specific context as it has been done supposedly following Mr Riley's comment, it now sounds like that assumption (John of Gloucester being fathered during Richard's first solo expedition) still belongs to Hicks and Horrox and it is simply reported in Ashdown-Hill's book, whereas it is Ashdown-Hill's original research and speculation and I do not think it is fair to have it taken for someone else's work. I would therefore personally recommend it should be reinstated as "John Ashdown-Hill has suggested", or "Historian John Ashdown-Hill has suggested" Thank you for your attention Isananni (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I say! Mr Riley (or Tim as he prefers to be known) backs down humbly in the face of that. Tim riley talk 19:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim, I appreciate your understanding, am honoured to tell the truth. I will proceed reinstating the removed entries. Enjoy pedalling Isananni (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see this whole section removed, from "First degree consanguinity applied in the case of Henry VIII ..." right down to, and including, "if any objections were raised, they were found void and rejected" (followed by a reference from The Ricardian). There is a hidden agenda here - maybe two hidden agendas. Ricardians insist there was no illegality because they want Richard to appear squeaky-clean. Anti-Ricardians, meanwhile, obviously want to hint at him not being as pious as he is made out to be. The sentence "if any objections were raised..." absolutely must be removed, because there's nothing to suggest that any were; that is pure speculation, but also a sly way of suggesting that the matter was discussed and objections were dismissed. Deb (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
If Hicks'speculation is mentioned in the article, the corresponding counter assumption should also be presented as they are both supported by reputable sourced research. Alternatively both speculations should be removed to remain on neutral ground. It's quite the same as the previous peer reviewer suggesting all speculations on the fate of the princes should be presented, it's either all or noone, leaving the matter to a neutral "validity of their marriage has been subject of debate" Isananni (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually Deb objections to the validity of Richard's marriage to Anne were indeed raised or there would not have been need to include a "divorce clause" in the 1474 act of Parliament that settled the issue of Richard's mother-in-law's inheritance, as mentioned in the following paragraph. Clarence complained Richard had married Anne by force (ref, report in the Milanese State Papers), probably referring to when he had escorted her to sanctuary in St Martin as an abduction, when consent was essential for a marriage to be valid. It had nothing to do with problems of consanguinity that Clarence shared in the same degree with his own wife. So those objections were indeed raised and documentedly reported and must have been found void and rejected since Richard's marriage was never declared null and the "divorce clause" was never used Isananni (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, I think it should be "Ashdown-Hill has suggested..." as he's been previously mentioned in the article, whereas Michael Hicks hasn't. Deb (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's quite the other way round. Ashdown-Hill was not previously mentioned in the section, Hicks was, hence the necessity not to mix their work Isananni (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just double-checked. Actually, I think we are talking at cross purposes; I was referring to the paragraph on consanguinity, not the earlier paragraph about his illegitimate children. Deb (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah! JAH is not mentioned in the consanguinity issue, he hasn't done any research on that as far as I know Isananni (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Is he a personal friend of yours! Anyway, instead of getting bogged down in canon law, why don't you take a look at the bibliography section? It should reflect the works we cite but it only has three items listed. Or we could delete it since most articles seem to omit it. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I will have a look at the bibliography section as well asap, it should contain all works mentioned in the citations or be deleted as you suggest, I agree with you Isananni (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jumping in from the side... I'd argue that it either needs to contain all the works used in the article, or none. My preference (mild in this case) would be for the former, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Hchc2009, my thoughts precisely. However, I agree that, as Deb suggested the sentence "if any objections were raised..." absolutely must be removed, because there's nothing to suggest that any were, and it has already been seen to Isananni (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014

  • Succession
    • The reference to HVII’s grant of £ 20 to John of Gloucester lacks citation. I know it’s true, I read it somewhere too, but cannot trace the source (Parliament roll or whatever) to support the statement, maybe someone can help
  • Childhood
    • Paragraph on “The War of the Roses”

This paragraph was included following user Hchc2009’s suggestions that in its turn followed Tim’s suggestion to add a straightforward attribution in the text to the statement that Richard’s father was a claimant to the throne. In view to improve on conciseness and reader-friendliness, avoid repetitions, etc. my suggestion is to avoid attributions in the text leaving them to the due citation (otherwise all sentences should start with “Kendall, or Hicks, or Ross says, which is not exactly engaging for the average reader) and possibly reword the paragraph with something like: "Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...."

    • Mention to change of attitude towards Middleham estate in adulthood

In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)

  • HVII’s expenses on Richard’s tomb

I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)

  • Marriage and family relationships – referral to Anne Neville’s article

May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section

  • Bibliography and Further Reading

The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19. I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should books that are not mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index, so I hope someone can help there.

Looking forward to your opinion Isananni (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The bibliography usually contains the books and articles cited in the article, so Wilkinson's work (see fn 160) would usually be in there. Format wise, the bibliography and the further reading section are usually in the same format, but there's no official rule that they have to be. I'd perhaps advise asking a quick question on the talk page seeing if anyone minded you using a common format, e.g. surname first, for both sections. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Same issues are reported in the talk page too. I listed quite a few books that are mentioned in the article (references section) but are neither in the bibliography nor in the further reading (Wilkinson, Markham, Ashdown-Hill, Cheetham, etc.), and some more books are not mentioned in the article but could be interesting to add like e.g. Annette Carson's Richard the Maligned King, or Peter A Hancock's Richard III and the Murder in the Tower. Some books used for references in the article are not strictly on Richard e.g. we have 3 books on the Wars of the Roses, 2 on Anne Neville, 2 on Edward IV (including Ross' one in the Bibliography section). My personal opinion is that these books should only be listed in the references but not in the bibliography/further reading section (for which I suggest a merger in 1 single section) and that articles should not be listed other than in the references Isananni (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
My initial thought is that this sounds a sensible solution to achieve consistency. Deb (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

I looked at just the lead section.

  • "Richard was struck down in this conflict, making him the last English king to die in battle on home soil since Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.": I'm not getting a hit on this in the text below the lead. I think you might be trying to say two things at once here, that he was the last English king to die in battle on home soil, and the only English king to die in battle on home soil since 1066, when Harold was killed.
  • If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 24 November 2014, 22:33 UTC)----


Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor[edit]

After a lot of referencing and cleanup work, I have hit a bit of a brick wall and could use further input on possible flaws and additional improvements (a few more refs are still incoming, but the content should be OK as is). I would like to get this article atleast to GA. Any kind of feedback is welcome, some special areas of concern are: 1) Is the article structure OK (logical and accessible)? 2) Is the content understandable for a layman? Which points are unclear or confusing? 3) If any reviewer feels like it, minor tweaks to my suboptimal non-native English would be greatly appreciated (the article had a GOCE review a while ago). But of course I'll try to implement any feedback myself as well. Thanks for any suggestions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • "was emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, reigning as German king from 936 until his death in 973." This could be taken to mean that king and emperor are the same thing. I would suggest "was king of Germany from 936 to 973 and Holy Roman Emperor from 962 to 973".
  • Rephrased. GJ
  • "In control of much of central and southern Europe, the patronage of Otto and his immediate successors caused a limited cultural renaissance of the arts and architecture."This does not sound quite right. Maybe "Control of much of central and southern Europe gave Otto and his immediate successors great wealth, and their patronage caused a limited cultural renaissance of the arts and architecture.
  • The causes are more complex. Relative peace and stability, some economic growth, the revival of the imperial Carolingian idea as well as formal "patronage" probably all contributed to this development. I am not sure, how to summarize this in 1 sentence. GJ
  • Tweaked that one to avoid an absolute statement of causality. A lot of details and influences of this "renaissance" are unknown or a matter of theories, and not really suitable for the lead (the later renaissance section needs a bit of expansion and/or clarification). GJ
  • "died of natural causes in 973." I would leave out "of natural causes" as superfluous.
  • Agree, replaced with place of death to keep the length of this part. GJ
  • "Conrad persuaded his younger brother Duke Eberhard of Franconia, the presumptive heir, to offer the crown to Otto's father Henry on his deathbed." I found this confusing. Perhaps "when Conrad was on his deathbed, he persuaded"
  • Removed the deathbed part. Most chroniclers note the persuasion part, but the details and time of this agreement vastly differ. No reason to give Widukind priority here. GJ
  • "After his death, his lands and wealth were to be divided between his four sons: Thankmar, Otto, Henry, and Bruno.[11] Departing from customary Carolingian inheritance, the King designated Otto as the sole heir apparent without a prior formal election by the various dukes.[12]" This is contradictory. In the first sentence the kingdom is divided, in the second it is not.
  • Lands and wealth refer to his "private" possessions, f.e. his family estates and wealth, excluding the royal fiefs and possessions connected to his office as King. I'll try to clarify that with another source. GJ
  • Timeline and succession details were a bit convoluted. The succession was decided in 2 steps: an informal one without much written evidence in 929, confirmed and secured in a formal Diet several years later shortly before Henry's death. The other 3 sons "only" got estates and treasure. It should be clearer now after the rewrite. GermanJoe (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "King Æthelstan of England sent Henry his two half-sisters Eadgyth and Ælfgifu". The identity of the second half-sister is uncertain. SeeÆthelstan#European relations.
  • Fixed, many thanks for spotting this one (linked the wrong sister). The mentioned sister is Eadgifu of Wessex (or "Edgiva"), covered by the source (Beumann, in Schutz). She is also noted in the Aethelstan article a bit earlier in the text. GJ
  • There is confusion about Æthelstan's half-sisters. The number of them, their names and which one accompanied Eadgyth are all disputed. It definitely was not Eadgifu. She married Charles the Simple in 919 and was the mother of King Louis IV of France. I would just say Æthelstan sent two of his half-sisters and Otto chose Eadgyth.
  • BTW I took Æthelstan to FA and a genealogy expert insisted on saying that the name of the second sister was not known. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Eadgifu was widow at the end of 929 and her retreat to England is also disputed, she could have been presented to Otto as possible bride. However this detail is not important for Otto's bio and I'll took it out as suggested - until historians do agree on it :). GermanJoe (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to his biography, Vita Mathildis reginae posterior" His biography, not his mother's?
  • Changed to "her". It contains biographical information about the whole family, but it's still her biography. GermanJoe (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, Otto had to settle a dispute with Duke Eberhard of Franconia, the brother of the former king Conrad I of Germany. After the rise of a Saxon to kingship, Bruning, a Saxon noble in the borderland between Franconia and Saxony, refused to swear fealty to any non-Saxon ruler." This is confusing. 1. Not a dispute with Eberhard, but between Eberhard and Bruning. 2. You have not stated that Eberhard was non-Saxon, and that Bruning owed him fealty.
  • 1. Clarified. 2. He is Duke of Franconia, being Saxon would be really exceptional for him (especially the difference between Saxon and non-Saxon was still noticeable in this period). I tried "Frankish Duke of Franconia", but that sounds odd. Regarding the fealty: Widukind isn't clear here, whether this was a new fief or an old relation between Bruning and Eberhard. It's probably an old fief and Bruning rebelled against his former overlord. But Widukind isn't specific about it - I can't clarify that with the available source. GermanJoe (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "freed Otto's brother, Henry, from imprisonment there". You have not said that Henry was imprisoned.
  • Removed unnecessary detail. Henry was almost always in trouble, either against the King or against enemies of the King (when he just reconciled with him) or just against other nobles, time permitting. The detail is a bit out of scope for Otto's biography. GermanJoe (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the valuable feedback, Dudley Miles. That's the kind of errors, an editor just doesn't see anymore after months of looking at the same article over and over. I'll try to fix those points, or explain in more detail where necessary, tomorrow. GermanJoe (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • All points above addressed, either tried to fix or explained in more detail. GermanJoe (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More comments

  • "Liudolf's sole right to the throne would not have been militarily enforced." or "would not have to be militarily enforced"?
  • Removed, see above. A peaceful transition is the obvious goal of this meeting, no need to spell it out. GJ
  • "widow of the fallen Gilbert, Duke of Lorraine" I would leave out "the fallen".
  • Done. GJ
  • "But it was not until 950 that the powerful vassal accepted Louis IV as king; both opponents did not fully reconcile until March 953." Who reconciled to who?
  • "... with each other." My bad, I thought this could be omitted here - changed now. GJ
  • " Burgundy was originally a part of Middle Francia," No change needed, but was Middle Francia the same area (approximately) as Lotharingia?
  • Lotharingia was only the northern part of Middle Francia, which was a very short-lived realm, stretching from Frisia all the way south to Burgundy and to Northern Italy. GJ
  • "Boleslaus' brother Saint Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia". I do not think the title "saint" is appropriate in this context - "brother and predecessor, Wenceslaus I" would be clearer and repitition of "Duke of Bohemia" would then be unnecessary.
  • Done. GJ
  • " After this initial invasion of Bohemia, the war deteriorated" deteriorated does not seem the right word - petered out?
  • "multiple ambassadors" Multiple is an odd word in this context - perhaps "on several occasions"
  • "Byzantine Empire" This section is confusing. In the lead you say conflict with Byzantium solved by marriage of his son, but here you refer to good relations and a failed marriage which you have not previously referred to. Presumably this is in different preiods, but needs explaining.
  • "As Otto was finalizing actions to suppress his brother's rebellion". Giving the year would be helpful.
  • "The submission of the West Slavs allowed the Germans to extend their control into Eastern Europe." This confused me. The heading says that the section is about the eastern Slavs.
  • The tribes were member of the West Slavic group of Slavic people, but "Eastern" from a German point of view. Removed the confusing "West" here, not all West Slavs were defeated anyway. GJ
  • All previous 5 points rephrased and (hopefully) clarified. GermanJoe (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

More comments

  • "had been subdued by Otto's father Henry years before." years before is vague - a date would be better.
  • Done. Date added, rephrased and sourced campaign info. GJ
  • Liudolf invaded Italy at the request of Adelaide's relatives and to strengthen his position against her? Also the details about relatives in this paragraph are excessively complex for a peripheral speculation.
  • This one is problematic. Nobody really knows for sure, why Liudolf invaded Italy on his own, so historians offer a few theories on the possible background. Without detail this would be impossible to understand. If I leave out those theories completely, Liudolf's actions would become even more confusing to readers. Do you have an idea to solve this situation? GJ
  • I would spell it out. It is not known why: historian a suggests b and historian c suggests d. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarified a bit differently: Trimmed details down to necessary info, rephrased motivations to a list of possibilities, merged first 2 paras. GermanJoe (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Henry influenced the Italian aristocrats not to join Liudolf's campaign." Persuaded would be a better word than influenced.
  • Not done. "Persuaded" seems too strong here, sources only mention some kind of influence from Henry, but are vague on the exact details. GJ
  • "angry at his son for his inconsiderate and independent actions." Sounds POV. Why inconsiderate?
  • Removed. In hindsight it seems obvious, that this invasion wasn't the smartest idea, or just not well-prepared. But agree, that it has a slight POV tone. GJ
  • "Despite Otto's plans to claim the imperial title, trouble arose in northern Germany," Why despite? I would leave it out.
  • Trimmed and rephrased. GJ
  • "clerical election became a mere formality in the Ottonian empire" No change needed, but were clerical appointments made by real elections before Otto's time? In Anglo-Saxon England they were always controlled by the king.
  • The situation was a bit more diverse than the quote implies, both before Otto and during the Ottonian dynasty. Some clerical institutions had the privilege to appoint their own leaders and successors. Others were greatly influenced by the interests of neighboring lords or other powerful clerics, or of course of the King himself. The candidate's popularity with his brothers and colleagues also played a role. In general Otto greatly increased the royal influence on such matters and the dependence between church and state, other factors were diminished but not completely removed. Occasional "independent" (atleast in theory) elections or nominations became even more rare. GJ
  • "The city was also the seat of Archbishop Frederick of Mainz, who acted as the spokesman for the rebels and offered himself as a mediator between Otto and the rebels, who quickly arrived in Mainz." Frederick supporter of rebellion and mediator? And who arrived quickly?
  • Trimmed and rephrased for clarity. Initially he was a neutral mediator in that case, but he was frustrated, when his suggested agreement got reversed later. GJ
  • "Otto's actions at the Diet prompted the people of Swabia and Franconia into civil war against their king." I assume against Otto? Perhaps "Otto's actions at the Diet provoked the people of Swabia and Franconia into rebellion."
  • Done as suggested. GJ
  • "but Henry's provocation during the meeting caused the negotiations to break down" What provocation?
  • Sources are not really clear on this one. Seems like he started a heated dispute, probably insulting or belittling the other lords (they were rebels, but still some of the most high-ranking German nobles). "Provocation" is intentionally vague here; historians mention, that it was Henry's fault somehow, but don't know exact details. GJ
  • "After a costly battle, Liudolf agreed to end hostilities against Otto." Costly and indecisive?
  • Done (removed). This part was intended to refer to the losses of the whole rebellion as reason for negotiations. Removed it as too detailed and confusing. GJ

More comments

  • "Using the civil war as a cover," How did they use it as a cover? Were they not rather just taking advantage of Otto's weak position?
  • Done, used "Taking advantage". GJ
  • "Previously stripped of his ducal title, Liudolf's allies within Swabia had been persecuted by Otto's followers." Sounds like a non-sequitur.
  • Agree, removed that sentence - the allies part is somewhat self-evident. GJ
  • "The Hungarians knew of the kingdom's civil war and its internal weaknesses" I think you have already made this clear. I would just say they took advantage.
  • Done as suggested. GJ
  • "The Hungarians possibly feigned a retreat in an attempt to lure Otto's men into breaking their line in pursuit," I doubt whether this is significant enough to be in the article.
  • Removed as theory detail. I also weakened the defeat's magnitude a bit - it is unknown, if the defeat was a complete rout. GJ
  • "was able to further consolidate his position throughout present-day Central Europe." I would delete "present-day" as superfluous.
  • Done. GJ
  • "This left Otto's third son by Adelaide, the two-year old Otto, as the kingdom's new heir apparent." Why not Liudolf's son Otto?
  • Otto II was not the only candidate left, albeit the closest choice - rephrased. GJ
  • "Several other influential Italian leaders intervened at Otto's court with similar appeals". Intervened does not seem to me the right word.
  • Changed to "arrived", they travelled to Germany to ask for help. GJ
  • "After the Pope agreed to crown him as Emperor". Presumably the Pope agreed to crown Ottot in return for aid, but I think you need to spell it out.
  • Not done. That's very likely, but exact details of the deal are unknown. It would be OR to spell it out in my opinion - readers can draw that conclusion themselves, based on the evidence. GJ
  • "the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy were unified into a common realm, later called the Holy Roman Empire." What was he emperor of at the time and when did the title change? How did it relate Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire?
  • Some sourced information about this can be found in Holy Roman Empire. The continuity, or lack thereof, between the Carolingian Empire and the new Ottonian realm is a popular topic for disputes, but would be beyond the scope of this article. GJ
  • "Despite this confirmed claim, Otto never ceded factual control over those additional territories." Factual does not seem the right word - maybe real?
  • Done as suggested. GJ
  • "Being sieged at San Leo, Berengar II surrendered in 963." Being sieged?
  • Oops, that should be besieged - changed. GJ
  • " In February 964, at the provokations of John XII," What does this mean?
  • Removed. Vague out-of-scope detail (typo too). Allegedly, John XII had his followers and friends lobby against the new Pope in Rome. GJ
  • You refer several times to the views of the Roman people, but the article on John XIII says Roman nobility, which sounds more likely. I doubt whether the ordinary Romans had a say.
  • Not sure, that "Roman nobility" is more precise here. The Roman nobility was divided into several competing factions and not powerful enough to rule without additional support. They made the decisions and pulled the strings to further their agendas, but usually not against the will or mood of the common populace. The general "Roman people" including the nobility seems more fitting for this somewhat chaotic situation in Rome. GJ
  • I'll try to address those very helpful comments in the next few days. GermanJoe (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Just an idea: Would you mind, if I move remaining questions and suggestions for future improvements to a separate text section? A "final" to-do list of open points would be better to work on. Of course I'll try to address as many suggestions as possible immediately, but some more complex issues and rewrites may need to be postponed till I get more sources. GermanJoe (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem how you arrange things.
  • "With this new relation between East and West, the conflict over southern Italy was finally resolved" new "relation"? perhaps "rapprochement".
  • Done (after looking up "rapprochement" ...). GJ
  • Many thanks for the thorough review and your helpful comments, Dudley Miles. I'll finish most points asap and will put a few of the more complex questions, needing more research, on my to-do list. GermanJoe (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Remaining open points (moved from Dudley Miles' comments for clarity) GermanJoe (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • "The nobility found it difficult to adapt to Otto, as the kingdom had never before followed individual succession to the throne." "the kingdom had never before been inherited by a single individual" might be clearer.
  • Noted. Will improve/rewrite this part. GJ
  • "Otto refused to accept uncrowned rulers as his equal." This seems superfluous in view of your previous remarks.
  • Noted. Will improve/rewrite this part. This section, like the later "German Church" section, still contains a few bits of essay-ish analysis from the de-Wiki translation, which shouldn't be that detailed in an encyclopedic article (imo). GJ
  • "Beginning in the 950s, Otto changed his internal policy and began to use the Catholic Church as a tool of his dominance." What was his policy before?
  • Noted. See above, the whole "German Church" section needs more work and references, it's on "to-do". GJ
  • General point: There is a good deal unreferenced in the article. This needs to be fixed.
  • Agree. I already added 80 references to the initial version, but some areas still need a few more, see my compiled checklist at User:GermanJoe/Otto I workshop for pending additional improvements. Although my main concerns are prose and content - referencing is "just" tedious routine work :). GermanJoe (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "had initial success in driving the Slavs back across the Elbe River, but it remained difficult to hold his position." Not sure about this. You say remained difficult, but you have not said there was a problem in the first place. He managed to repel an invasion across the Elbe but the Slavs threatened to invade again?
  • Rudolf of Upper Burgundy forced to flee Italy? Why was a ruler of Burgundy in Italy in the first place. This needs clarifying.
  • "The Byzantines opened peace talks with Otto, despite his expansive course." "expansive course" sounds odd and I am not sure what it means/ Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.

  • "Matilda": I don't know about Germany, but in England at the time, you couldn't turn around without bumping into a Matilda, and it's a hard slog for me to read histories that list all of the women as just "Matilda". I don't know the answer to this problem, but consider something like "Matilda (of Ringelheim)".
  • If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dank: All improvements to my unusual English are welcome, thank you. Unfortunately it's difficult to choose another name for Matilda. "of Ringelheim" was sometimes used in outdated popular history, but is misleading (see Matilda article for details). Afaik, the surname is never used in modern historians' works. The only alternative would be Saint Matilda, which sounds odd for an article about her secular family. Anyway this Matilda is the only "Matilda" in the main text aside from a briefly listed daughter in "Family"; there should be no problems with identification here. GermanJoe (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Your English is better even that what I usually see at FAC, which is saying something. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 24 November 2014, 14:19 UTC)----


Bhimsen Thapa[edit]

I have been working on this article for a few months, and I have reached a point where I need to step back and have someone not involved take a look. I ultimately wish to nominate the article for GA. I understand that there are still a few biographical details I need to add (such as his administration), however I would like to have someone's opinion on:

  • Adherence to the requirements of neutral point of view
  • Adherence to the requirements of formal tone
  • Grammar and other aspects of correct use of language.

Thanks, (Manoguru (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC))

Quick comments from Nikkimaria (not covering the whole article)

  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be at least 3 paragraphs
  • This topic is likely to be unfamiliar to many readers, so it would be worthwhile to go through to make sure all your terminology is adequately explained and sufficient background/context is included
  • Only the first word of headings should be capitalized, unless there are proper nouns
  • "Rana Bahadur's youth had been spent in pampered luxury which had made him incapable of running either his own life or the country" could be more neutral in tone; same with "it signaled how treacherous his reign was going to be", "discontented of his wanton and capricious behavior", "elaborate intrigue was set in motion"
  • "inevitable death" is unneeded - "death" would be sufficient
  • Dissidenting is not a word in English - suggest either "dissident" or "dissenting". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I will try to keep these in mind while making the revision. Manoguru (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 23 November 2014, 06:08 UTC)----


Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]

Fock state[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made few major edits to this page and wants to know whether the article is still in the same quality standard as before.

Thanks, Indranil1993 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2014, 19:23 UTC)----


Japanese serow[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC. I have no background in biology—I began the article when I heard there were serows in my city, which made me curious about them.

Thanks, Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 December 2014, 02:13 UTC)----


Camas pocket gopher[edit]

This is a fascinating rodent, only found in Oregon. I've built this page up from a stub and eventually would like to propose for FA status. I've worked with the maproom to get the distribution map. I also had to do some major leg work to get suitable images, obtained by permission from an ecological non-profit organization in Oregon. Questions that I have include whether to stick with the common name (Camas pocket gopher) or the scientific (Thomomys bulbivorus). Since most of the literature refers to the scientific, that is what I have stuck with. I have done my best to avoid close paraphrasing and stick to WP:MOS, but I am still not the most experienced editor. Copyedits and even comments on how the sections are named and the article is structured would be appreciated.

Thanks, Gaff ταλκ 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 20 November 2014, 22:28 UTC)----


Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been several months since the end of the Synod so it should be stable. I also think it is in pretty good shape, and would like to eventually bring it up to FA status.

Thanks, Briancua (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 December 2014, 19:22 UTC)----


The Fourteen Infallible[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I mean to promote it to the featured level.

Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

I really know nothing about the subject:

The second paragraph of Concept of Ismah should be expanded and have dates in AD for ease of non-muslim readers. Is there any contradiction or alternate views? How does it relate to Sunni Islam? are there discussions over the differing views?
Surely there is some scholarly discussion about it somewhere?

(Peer review added on Tuesday 2 December 2014, 06:58 UTC)----


Social sciences and society[edit]

Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014[edit]

The 2014 Scottish Labour Party leadership election was held in the wake of the independence referendum, and following some internal upheaval within the organisation. I've worked on this right from the beginning and think it has potential for GAN, or even FAC, where both elections and Scotland are underrepresented topics. I've listed it for peer review because I'd like some feedback on the content and some suggestions on what else might need to be included. I've used the GA New Zealand Labour Party leadership election, 2011 as a template for this, so will probably add details of frontbench team appointments, and I'll run it through GOCE before putting it forward. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 December 2014, 17:37 UTC)----


Oxford College of Emory University[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it pass the Featured Article candidacy process. It failed the last time around because the article needed another person to read through it and catch errors that I, as a contributor to the article, wouldn't notice. I appreciate any and all help that I can get!

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 December 2014, 21:57 UTC)----


Bill Cosby in advertising[edit]

Previous peer review

Hi all! This is a GA-status article, but a previous request for peer review went unnoticed. I'm interested in getting this article to featured status, now that the topic is relatively dormant. Not to editorialize, but I doubt Mr. Cosby will be endorsing much in the next little while, so the article should remain largely stable.

Thank you in advance, I eagerly await your input,

Zanimum (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 December 2014, 21:30 UTC)----


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)
I think the article is a bit young for a peer review as well. I copyedited it a bit though to help with the effort.Esprit15d • talkcontribs 19:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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


Lists[edit]

List of Indian violinists[edit]

If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that I've changed it significantly. I have referenced all names, all pictures are from Wikipedia themselves and I've put them all into a table. I want to get this list to very good standard. Kindly let me know the necessary changes/mods that maybe needed to get this list to the highest rating possible.

Thanks, D437 (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Stfg
  • I've copy edited the lede for better grammar and flow.
  • The sentence "Indian violinists have performed concerts all over the world and have achieved a lot of fame and success over the years" is puffery and isn't verified by the source given. Suggest removing it as it doesn't give any real information.
  • The references need filling out to provide more details. Just a URL and a title are insufficient. I suggest using the {{cite}} templates.
  • I haven't checked all of the references, but the following are unacceptable:
    • FN6 (B. Sasikumar Profile): appears to be his own web page, and McAfee SiteAdviser warns of "risky behaviors"
    • FN9 ("Dwaram Venkataswamy Naidu") Wikipedia page, not allowed as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR
    • The following, being the subjects' own web sites (if they are really notable, you should be able to find suitable references in the articles about them):
      • FN7 (Balabhaskar Profile - Official Website)
      • FN10 (Embar Kannan - About)
      • FN24 (Lalgudi Vijayalakshmi - Profile)
      • FN31 (N. Sivanandan - Profile)
      • FN33 (Official Website of Sangeeta Shankar)
      • FN38 (V.V. Ravi - Profile)
      • FN39 (Vittal Ramamurthy's Official Page)
Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 December 2014, 07:32 UTC)----


Robert Mitchum filmography[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Featured List status and anything would be helpful. Thank you!

Thanks, LADY LOTUSTALK 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 December 2014, 16:07 UTC)----


List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners[edit]

Previous peer review

I listed this list last year for peer review, to some feedback. We worked on that feedback, and now the list has all the things needed, with more information, nicer look, some photos, etc. I was thinking of nominating this article for a FL, as from what I can see it has met all the criteria. So I want to know do you have any suggestions to improve the list.

Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 December 2014, 18:35 UTC)----


List of people from Cardiff[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get additional review before submitting this as a Featured List Candidate.

Thanks, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2014, 10:24 UTC)----


National symbols of Sri Lanka[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take another step on article writing and I'd like to nominate it for WP:FL.

Thanks, AntonTalk 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments from Blackknight12
Good work.
  • At first glance looks good, but could use a few more references for each of the unofficial symbols.
  • I'm sure there is a official national dress and dish...
  • Including national colours would be goo too.
  • The lead of the article should be bigger, with more of a historical background and so could the development section.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 2 December 2014, 08:06 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

References[edit]