Jump to content

User:Parent5446 Bot/Task Lists/WikiProject Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Parent5446 Bot

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parent5446 Bot (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 17 June 2008 (BOT: Updating task list.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To-do list for User:Parent5446 Bot/Task Lists/WikiProject Ohio:


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Main listing
  • Cleanup : Ohio articles needing attention ( 80 )
    • Add city infobox to all town/city articles missing one.
    • Add appropriate bio infobox to all Ohio bio articles missing one.
    • Ohio articles needing cleanup
  • Expand : To Good Article status:
  • Featured article candidates :

    No results were found.

  • Featured list candidates :

    No results were found.

  • Featured sound candidates :

    Project Content template contains the following errors:

    • No content type parameters found

    Unable to generate results. See documentation for help

  • Good article nominations :
  • Geographical coordinates : Ohio articles missing geocoordinate data ( 56 )
  • Infobox : Ohio articles needing infoboxes ( 2 )
  • Maintain : flag Ohio portal
  • Map : Requested maps in Ohio ( 16 )
  • Merge : Schools, Articles to be merged in Ohiothe tool's wiki page
  • Photo : Requested photographs in Ohio ( 351 )
    • Add a picture to an article in the list of requested photographs in Ohio ( 351 ) (Most towns in Ohio are still on the list) or improve one of the articles with no images.
  • Stubs : Stub-Class Ohio articles ( 10,761 ), Category:Ohio stubs
  • Unreferenced : Unreferenced Ohio articles ( 7 )
  • Other :

Featured article candidates

There are no candidates at this time.

Featured article review

There are no candidates at this time.

FLC for List of Governors of Ohio


The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [1].

List of Governors of Ohio

Back again, following the promotions of List of Governors of Pennsylvania and List of Governors of New York, here we are again. A preemptive comment - yes, three governors were Postmaster General, but only one was when it was a cabinet-level office, which is why only that one is mentioned in the listing of higher offices. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see some images next to the main table of the governors similar to the New York and Pennsylvania articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • IMAGES! I knew I forgot something. I'll get to that. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article history [2]; were the images removed for a reason? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes; they were incomplete, and past FLCs have demanded images only be included in the table if we have all of them. Also, previous FLCs also wanted the bold links gone from the intro, which is why it and PA were formatted in that fashion (since I just reverted those, letting you know why.)
  • I'll either have to suspend this or ask folks to bear with me, but in my hurry to get the governor list up to snuff, I completely forgot about the lieutenant governor column. This'll take me a day or two to properly work out, since the state of Ohio, in its wisdom, seems to have chosen not to have historical information on this office available online. --Golbez (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I've finished up the Lt. Gov column and added a few more references, so I open this one back up. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice, well laid out, informative. Good job. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Comments

    Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Society (1969). Retrieved" — unlink the year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
      • You're going to have to take that up with the architects of the cite web template, I won't be blamed for their work. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "165-166" — use en dash per WP:DASH
      • Already done by someone else. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    Gary King (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comments

    • The H's and S's in the "Other high offices held" table should probably be centered like in the other governor Featured Lists
    • The page range in note [C] needs to have an endash, not an emdash
    • While it's obvious after a moment what it means, at first glance note [17] makes it sound like two terms were three years long; perhaps "thus, Pattison's term (completed by Lieutenant Governor Harris) was extended to three years" or something similar

    Otherwise, it looks very good. —Salmar (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

      • All done, not necessarily by me. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks good, support —Salmar (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment I must admit, I like the list alot, but one thing really confused me: why are the in-line citations in letters not numbers like every other article I have ever seen on Wikipedia? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I think somewhere along the lines the citations and the footnotes got swapped around. But that's my best guess. Is this intentional? Drewcifer (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Yes. See the other featured governor lists. The prime reason for this is that we don't have two true classes of footnotes available with the ref tag. Ideally, I would be able to <ref group='footnote'> for the table notes, and use <ref group='citation'> for the citations for the notes. Unfortunately, while the group parameter does exist now, we can't nest them, which defeats the whole purpose of splitting footnotes from citations. So until such capability is supplied, I see no way to totally separate footnotes and citations except to use both <ref>s and {{ref}}s. The way I do it has been to use <ref>s for the footnotes, and {{ref}}s for the citations; List of Lieutenant Governors of Wisconsin, a related list done by someone else, flipped this around, since if that one was done that way, it would have run out of letters. So, long story short - this is the best way, at present, to separate footnotes from citations. I would love to be able to use all ref tags, but since they cannot be nested this is not yet possible. --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

    Support: I like the way this list was organized! I have just one suggestion:

    Oppose—Cr 1, 6.

    • Many folks will find it strange to think of military and naval forces of a US state. Can it be more explicit, further down, rather than privileging this claim right at the top? Why are both words linked?
      • Why? Because it was the template I copied. I'll link specifically to Ohio National Guard.
    • "six out of"—which word can go?
      • Fixed.
    • an election.
      • Fixed.
    • removed/moved
      • Fixed.
    • MOS breach in piping of OHS ref., among others. See en dashes.
      • You're going to have to clarify this, what do you mean by "MOS breach in piping"? --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The old "noun plus -ing" grammatical problem: "11 days after the governor preceding them resigned". Euuuw.
      • Fixed, I think.
    • Etc. Needs a careful copy-edit throughout (not just these random examples), preferably by someone fresh to the text.
      • I agree, more eyes are always good. Like yours! --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Why no brief explanation of the parties/party names? They seem to have evolved during the period covered by the table.
      • That's actually a good idea, explain the major shifts in party power over the years. (Though really the only major shift was to the Republican Party in the 1850s; everything else has been due to the growth and death of parties)
    • Strickland pic badly interfering with the table; so is the Cox pic. Others elbow into just the right-most column. Rather large pics, some of them. Why not put more of the pics in the lead and move the mini-list there down? TONY (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) PS Check MOS on right-facing portraits. TONY (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I work on a huge monitor so such picture/table issues escape me; however, I shrank my window and still saw no specific problem with Strickland and Cox. What problems are they causing? As for rather large pics, I think that's for the user to decide, isn't it? I used to force pics in these tables to 130px but now I leave it to the user's specifications. What resolution are you running at, so I can see what you're seeing? As for the MOS, I'll take a look at that now... OK, I see, though I chose the pictures based primarily on availability, and secondarily on notability. If I switch to use only left-facing photos, I'll have to change a few of these to possibly inferior choices... --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
    • Golbez, it's a very good list, as usual.
    • I've taken the liberty of following WP:IMAGES and made all the images upright thumbs. This means they're all the same size, regardless of their original size/orientation etc.
      • Oh. Well. Nice to know that exists, then, I'll make use of that in the future. :)
    • I feel that the text in the Governors section (e.g. "New York ceded its claim in 1782") could use citation.
      • Good idea, since looking at state cessions et.al. this seems poorly sourced. Done.
    • Now, incomplete sentences (fragments) in the notes. Strictly speaking fragments shouldn't have periods. What do you think?
      • I think it's cleaner to have them all have periods. I think the current image MOS is that if you have one image with a full-sentence caption which requires a period, it's best to put periods at the ends of all the captions, even if they are fragments (I could be very wrong on this but that's what I recall); I see no reason to not do the same with footnotes. :)
    • Higher offices held table. Very expansive. I'd force the col widths as on my display (only 1280 wide), the Term col looks ridiculous - almost three times too large with the dates crammed up on the left hand side.
      • Or, I could simply get rid of the width enforcement, I see no reason it has to be 100%.
    • Strickland looks like he has an em-dash in that table - ranges should be en-dash (and maybe you could add "Present"?)
      • But shouldn't open ranges have emdashes? Either way, it's -present now, though I prefer an emdash! :P

    That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

    • All fixed. --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

    There are no candidates at this time.

    There are no candidates at this time.

    Good article nominations

    GAN for William Henry Harrison


    GA Review

    This review is transcluded from Talk:William Henry Harrison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

    I am reviewing this article. Detailed comments will follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Here are some preliminary points:-

    • Lead: I have corrected "Columbia" to "Colombia" in the lead, and have improved the link to presidential succession. I have also inserted extra commas as necessary.
    • To get rid of the large white space under the "Early military career" subheading, you need to relocate the image William H. Harrison.jpg to under the "Congressman" heading. This is actually a more appropriate location, since the image is apparently dated 1800, when his congressional career began.
      • done
    • I note that the formats of virtually all your in-text citations are incorrect. The correct form is (e.g.) "Hall, p. 2" or "Hall, pp. 10–12" using the ndash in the page range. You have also constantly misspelt Whiting as "Whitting".
      • done

    I am now working through the text, more comments soon.

    Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, you responded quickly to the above. Here is a bit more.

    • Early life
      • The section title is a misnomer. It's much more about family background. I recommend you change the title to "Family background and childhood". Burwell Bassett should be described as “Congressman”.
        • done
      • The education details are inaccurate. This may be from a poor selection of sources – citation [4] is to a particularly weak source ("White House Kids"). Please consult a reliable source. I think you will find that Harrison briefly studied medicine under Benjamin Rush in Pennsylvania, during the 1790-91 period; he did not study medicine at Hampden-Sydney College.
        • done - And a bit more added from using Union 1812 as a source.
      • His mother had not died "years earlier”". She actually died in 1792, a year after his father’s death. Check with a reliable source.
        • done
    • Early military career.
      • The following references do not appear to support the statements for which they are citations: [6] Hall, p. 28; [7] Hall, p. 21; [8] Hall, p. 22; [10] Hall, p. 44; [11] Hall, p. 53; [12] Hall, p. 54.
        • replaced
      • Harrison's verbatim quote about drunkenness, and the information about four-fifths of deaths due to alcohol, are not cited anywhere.
      • removed

    On a more general note, ancient sources such as Hall, Whiting, and Burr should be treated with great caution. Historians weren’t too bothered with accurate detail in those days, and were often pursuing a subjective agenda—Hall’s history reads like a paean of praise to Harrison. There must, surely, be more modern histories against which you could check your facts?

    Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree about the older sources, I've only used those to establish dates and events. For the things open to interpretation like his presidency and governorship i've used more modern sources. Strangely, I've been unable to find much recently published information on his early life. Charles Edward 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am going to head to the libary to try and find a couple new books on WHH with which to reference anything that may be lacked. Charles Edward 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    I've returned with three books that look promising. I am going to proceed to reword the the sections and move them over to reflect the new refs and replace the old ones. Charles Edward 22:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    That sounds an excellent idea. Some more review material:

    • Congressman
      • Where does that date March 4, 1799 come from? It’s not in your cited source. My own source (a general reference book called The Book of Presidents) says that he was elected in September 1799, took his seat December 2, resigned May 12. Please check with a reliable source.
        • It would appear we have a discrepancy here. I have one source (the one currently cited) from Congress saying March, and another in a book showing October. I am inclined to beleive Congress's site as they would seem more authoritative.
      • It would be useful to briefly explain Harrison’s position in Congress as a “territorial delegate”. He could present bills, speak, but not vote.
        • done
    • Governor: I’ve tidied up the prose in this section, and dealt with some commas. My chief concern still lies with the sources. [19] Whiting. P. 7, gives hardly any of the information in the section it’s supposed to be citing, and the style of Whiting’s prose is, even more so than Hall’s, of a gushing and uncritical character—it cannot be considered as in any way reliable.
      • new sources are supplied, wording adjusted to reflect it
    • General: In view of what you say above, I won't commenting on the Hall and Whiting sources from now on. I think I’ve made my views on them clear. I have continued to copyedit the text, making minor adjustments.
      • The first brief paragraph of this section, which deals with Tecumseh and Tippecanoe, should be expanded to form a section of its own, perhaps entitled "Tecumseh and Tippecanoe". Tippecanoe was, after all, the pivotal point of Harrison’s career, and it propelled him to the presidency. It’s worth some more mileage. The section called "Tecumseh’s curse" could be merged to form a final paragraph of the Tecumseh and Tippecanoe section.
        • done
      • When you say "Harrison was authorized to march against the confederation…" who authorized him?
        • done - Secretary of war
      • The remainder of the "General" section should be retitled "Army General" (the word “general” on its own is a bit misleading).
        • done
      • Harrison didn’t "resign from the army" and return to his governorship. He merely delayed accepting his appointment as a brigadier-general in the US army for a few days, until he was appointed north-west commander in place of Winchester. He was promoted to major-general on March 2 1813.
        • done
    I've found a good book on his military career and reworded the military section to reflect the new source and removed the old refs. I've also sectionized Tecumseh as you suggested. I can make it bigger if you think it should be. I also addressed the other two comments. Charles Edward 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    My remaining review comments follow. I'll wait for you to have a stab at these before I say more.

    • Tecumseh’s curse: As a matter of interest, why is it Tecumseh’s curse, when it was laid by his brother? And is it part of the myth that the Prophet somehow knew that Harrison would be elected president in 1840?
      • That s just what the reference called it. Probable cause know one can say his brother's name.. haha. And the whole this is most likely made up after Harrison died, i find it pretty hard to believe otherwise.
    • Senator and Ambassador: this section should be called "Congressman, Senator and Ambassador"
      • Can you confirm 8 October 1816 as the start of his US congressional career – seems an odd date.
        • he was elected to fill the term of a dead congressman, so it was midterm. Date is on the congressional bio.
      • Have you got a source for his unsuccessful attempt at the Ohio governorship?
        • source is congressional bio, done
          • The "Senator and Ambassador" title is wrong; this section deals with time in the House of Representatives, Ohio state senate and an unsuccessful run for governor, as well as his senate and ambassadorial roles. On thinking about it, rather than adopting my earlier suggestion I think you should retitle the section "Public Office", and incorporate into it the first stray sentence dealing with his appointment as an Indian commissioer. N.B. this sentence has a reminder on it to improve sources. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Changed, done
    • Private Citizen
      • Do you have a title and publication details for the Dawson biography?
        • Couldn't find it, removed statement.
      • His 1836 run for the presidency should not be dismissed so briefly. Here are the results:
          • Martin Van Buren (Democrat) 764, 198 votes, electoral college 150 (15 states)
          • William Henry Harrison (Whig) 549, 508 votes, electoral college 73 (7 states)
          • Hugh Lawson White (Whig) 145, 352 votes, electoral college 26 (2 states)
          • Daniel Webster (Whig) 41,287 votes, electoral college 14 (1 state)
          • Others: electoral college 11 (1 state)
          • It can be deduced from the above figures that the chief factor in Harrison’s loss was the split in his party – three separate Whig candidates. There’s a story here that should at least be touched on, in any article on Harrison’s life. The campaign poster of Harrison is from the 1836 campaign.
            • I wrote a section on this campaign using a couple of online sources.
    • 1840 election campaign: this section is OK, except that its appearance is ruined by the images. If you do as I suggest and write a short section on the 1836 election, then the portrait poster can go into that, leaving the poster of accomplishments, somewhat reduced in size, with the 1840 election. That should improve appearances. Incidentally, it reads oddly that the result was a landslide, but the popular vote was very close. You must qualify, and say a landslide in electoral college terms (234 to 60), and much close in the popular vote (53% to 47%).
      • shrunk image, i am going to work on an 1836 election section.


    • Shortest presidency: this section is OK after some copyedits. The sentence about the daguerreotype looks out of place in the middle – would be better placed at the end.
      • I moved it to the legacy section
    • Legacy
      • Tyler was a Whig who abandoned the Whig agenda, and was disowned by his party. He was not a "long-time Democrat".
        • according to the ref [3], tyler was a democrat until 1832 and became a whig in 1834., i will add that in.
          • OK, he was a "former Democrat" rather than a "long-time Democrat". The text should clarify this.
            • done
      • How did the principle of presidential succession established by Tyler change after 1963?
        • The 1963 amendment dealt with the finer points of succession by clearly defining in what situations the Vice President was Acting President and in what situation he could become President, - None of those situation have ever happened - so really it didn't change anything so much as it clearly outlined the the procedures.
      • The trivia about Benjamin Harrison’s umbrella could easily be omitted.
        • removed
      • The section peters out into a series of single-sentence paragraphs. These might be combined in some way, with a bit of forceful prose, to make a suitable ending to the article.
        • reorganized it a bit, i think it looks better

    Finally, in an article on a president I would expect to find the following information:-

    • Date of marriage
    • Minimal information on wife’s family background
    • Number of children (ten, since you ask, 6 sons and 4 daughters)
      • I located a good amount of info and have added it, I could not locate Anna's date of death, but will keep looking.
        • Anna died 25 February 1864, aged 88. I have included this in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    To summarise where I think we stand, assuming that the above fixes are made: The prose isn’t bad now, it's pretty comprehensive, its neutral and stable. The referencing is the main outstanding problem, so let’s work on that. I may also come up with a few other ideas for improving the article.

    Cheers! Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    P.S. Can you write "done" after each point as it is dealt with, so that I can keep track? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    I am going to leave the Hall source for the info on Harrisons time in columbia, the dates are backed up by the congressional bio, but I cannot find any other source that establishes what happened there. I am also leaving burr for the references to his return to private life for the same reason, i cannot find another source on those years. All the other references from whitting, burr and hall have been removed. If you think the sources are not good enough I can try to pare down those sections to reflect what can be established without them - not much other than the basic info.
    The new sources you have introduced look a lot moe authoratitive. If you should take this article to FAC, however, you may find further challenges on sources.
    Thanks for your very thorough review! I agree referencing is the primary issue, I think I have corrected most (not all) of that now. I have also addressed some of the other issues. There are a few left - I will need to do a bit of reading before I can properly add the other information. I will try to get to the rest tommorrow. Charles Edward 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Remaining issues

    • A paragraph on the 1836 presidential bid
    • consider reducing the 1840 image to improve the section's appearance
    • make Tyler a former Democrat
    • incorporate the family details somewhere in the article.

    When you have responded to these I will do a final sweep to pick up odd strays in the text. I think you will then have a pretty complete and creditable article. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    I am doing my final read-through now. The article is in good shape and will pass GA. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have completed my review of this article. In my opinion the article now meets all GA citeria. The prose is of good standard, the article is comprehensive, and the referencing now appears adequate, having been significantly improved during the course of this review. There ae no problems with neutrality or stability.

    Advice: If the article is to be taken forward to FAC I strongly recommend (a) a thorough copyedit by one of Wikipedia's specialists, (b) a peer review and (c) further attention to references, to weed out and replace any remaining dodgy ones.

    Congratulations on a worthy Good Article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    GAN for Paul Tibbets


    GA Review

    GA toolbox
    Reviewing
    This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Tibbets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

    Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

    Comments
    • the article is well referenced; there are no dabs; and the images seem correctly licenced, although they lack alt text (not a requirement);
      "checkY I know I should add ALT text, but they make it a painful experience. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • there appears to be one dead link: [4]
      checkY Repaired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • date format inconsistency, for instance consider "February 23, 1915" and "22 January 1946";
      checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "he became assistant for bomber operations of the Twelfth Air Force" --> "assstant for bomber operations" doesn't quite sound right, should it be "the assistant for bomber operations";
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • " In 1927, when Paul was 12 years old, he performed his first flight; he was dropping..." --> " In 1927, when Paul was 12 years old, he performed his first flight, dropping..."
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "at the Hialeah track" --> should this be linked to Hialeah Park Race Track?
      checkY Yes. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "Tibbets qualified for the Aviation Cadet Training Program" --> do we know what he had to do to qualify?
      checkY "Candidates had to be between the ages of 18 and 22, have a high school diploma with at least 1.5 credit hours worth of math, and have graduated in the top half of their class." In practice, there were far more volunteers than positions at this time, so the bar was a bit higher in practice. But having attended a military school, had some college education, and gained a bit of flight experience, Tibbets was ahead of the pack. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • the second paragraph of the Early military career section seems out of sequence, for instance it mentions 1940-41 before his marriage in 1938;
      checkY Re-organised paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "where he was engineering officer" --> "where he was the engineering officer"?
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • inconsistent spelling: "MacDill" v "McDill";
      checkY Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "It had been hastily assembled to meet pressure for an early deployment" --> "It had been hastily assembled to meet demands for an early deployment";
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "the overall mission was hailed a success for its ability to reach a target against stubborn opposition" -->"the overall mission was hailed a success because it had reached the target despite stubborn opposition";
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "He chose Tibbets and Major Wayne Connors. Tibbets flew Major General Mark W. Clark while Connors flew Brigadier General Lyman Lemnitzer to Gibraltar" --> "He chose Tibbets and Major Wayne Connors. Tibbets flew Major General Mark W. Clark to Gibraltar while Connors flew Brigadier General Lyman Lemnitzer"?
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "started to appear on the front pages of all American and world newspapers" --> "started to appear on the front pages of many American and world newspapers"?
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "An interview of Paul Tibbets can be seen in the 1982 movie Atomic Cafe" --> "An interview of Paul Tibbets appeared in the 1982 movie Atomic Cafe";
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "...as well as "Men Who Brought the Dawn" episode of the Smithsonian Networks War Stories (1995)..." --> "as well as the "Men Who Brought the Dawn" episode of the Smithsonian Network's War Stories (1995)..."?
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • inconsistent capitalisation: "Deputy Director for Operations" v. "deputy director for the National Military Command System";
      checkY De-capitalised Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • there are a few duplicate links reported by the duplicate link tool: Tinian; General (United States); Carl Spaatz; Hunter Air Force Base; MacDill Air Force Base;
      checkY unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "United States government apologized to Japan" (the link here probably should be removed and moved to an earlier mention);
      checkY unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • second comma: "November 1, 2007 at the age of 92" (after "2007").
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

    AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

    • Thanks for making those changes, Hawkeye. They look good. I'm happy that it meets the criteria. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    GAN for Columbus Blue Jackets


    GA Review

    This review is transcluded from Talk:Columbus Blue Jackets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Started June 12/08

    • The article seems to pass all the 'quick fail' criteria. I'll be starting on the detailed review of the article for the other standards shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafschik1967 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm making notes as I go with this review, I'll post a note when completed so it is clear.

    1. Well written?: I think a general once over would help clean up a few clarity issues with the prose. It might help to have a new set of eyes on the scene, just to pick out things that were understood by the writer but not expressed clearly. A few examples below:

      • After the Cleveland Barons left, Ohioans had to wait about twenty years to fulfill their hopes for an NHL team.
        • Maybe just say when the Barons left, and how long it was - 'about 20 years' is vague
      • The May referendum failed, but as Columbus' hopes for winning the bid were thinning, Nationwide announced on May 31, 1997, that it would be financing the $150 million arena
        • Run on sentence, and just generally not clear and concise. I'd try 'Columbus' hopes for winning the bid were slim after the May referendum failed, but Nationwide announced that they would finance the $150 million arena on May 31, 1997.
      • Just minor things like that. Not a major issue, but some cleanup is needed.

    2. Factually accurate?: Well cited, from a variety of sources. Switching to a two column reference list would shorten that section of the page up a bit.

    3. Broad in coverage?: Seems consistent here with other NHL team Good Articles.

    4. Neutral point of view?: Seems fine.

    5. Article stability? No recent issues evident from the article history

    6. Images?: Lots of logos being used - not sure if this is necessary. Also, the jersey pictures seem redundant with all the logos, especially considering they are under 'fair use' They are on other team pages though, so for consistency's sake I understand their inclusion. Arena pictures, or other players might be a nice addition, but not a deal breaker.

    • As this is my first GA review, I have asked another reviewer to take a look at what I've done here. I don't want to make final judgments until that is done. Leafschik1967 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The lead is relatively short (see WP:LEAD) and doesn't seem to cover the article in whole.
    • Is there really no more Team Information available?
    • Check that ALL references include publisher info outside of the URL title (if using cite web, you need a publisher=)
      • Per request on my talk page, clarifying... sorry if I wasn't clear. Basically, and to take a random example, ref 2 (url) doesn't have a publisher listed. If you're using {{cite web}} (click the link for lots of info about that template), you need to fill in the publisher field, eg. |publisher=NHL would be it in this case. Does this clarify a bit? giggy (:O) 09:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Are sites like hockey-fans.com reliable?
    • hockeygoalies.org - reliable?

    giggy (:O) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    With that input in mind, I have placed the article on hold. It requires some work, but I think it is manageable to get it to GA status. Leafschik1967 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • General comments. The headers are improperly capitalized. Only proper nouns should be capitalized. There are also numerous manual of style variations. Dashes don't conform to WP:DASH; the lead section uses line breaks to separate paragraphs for some reason; way too many sections in the "history" section, particularly for such a young team; "Franchise individual records" contains lots of needless capitalization; only full dates should be linked. "Team information" and "Franchise individual records" are completely unsourced. These is a very general statement about the article- there are many more specific problems. I wouldn't pass this article in its current state. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and getting some outside help on it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Did not pass requirements After taking into account the comments offered by other editors (thank you very much, BTW), this article does not pass the requirements for a GA. Many of the concerns raised have been addressed, but there is still the issue of the 'Team Name' section having only one reference that doesn't seem to adequately cover the content included. Also, while publisher information was added to the references, they are still haphazard - some have publisher wiki-linked, some do not, there is a red link in the references as well. I think the article is close, and reads very well but with these issues not fully addressed, I don't think it meets GA criteria. Good luck next time. leafschik1967 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

    Peer reviews

    PR for Cleveland Indians


    Cleveland Indians

    I know the lead may need work, but what else is there? Lorty 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


    • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
    • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
    • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
    • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
    • Whoops, some more:
    • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
    • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
    • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
    • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
    • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
    • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
    • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
      • Starting randomly at 1994-2001: A new beginning, of the 1940s and 1950s; The 1989 motion picture the "The" should not be capitalized
      • era at Cleveland Municipal Stadium, 76-86, which first comma unnecessary, and era is inappropriate as it was a period of one year
      • teams newly found success - missing apostrophe in team's
      • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
    • This article might not be neutral and may be controversial in factual accuracy. Please make sure it is WP:NPOV, not WP:POV, by fixing potentially non-neutral sections and providing references to verify assertations. While it isn't extremely bad in terms of POV, there are some worrying statements like "found the light at the end of the tunnel" "hardly dampened the teams newly found success. Without losing a step", which seem a bit pro-Cleveland Indians.
    • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    PR for Marcellus Formation


    Marcellus Formation

    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review to help move it from GA to FA status. I'd appreciate any help of feedback.

    Thanks, Dhaluza (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marcellus Formation/archive1.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Parent5446_Bot/Task_Lists/WikiProject_Ohio&oldid=219834186"