Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than one month.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
Intend to take this to FAC in the immediate future but have concerns with comprehensiveness (mainly themes) and tone to a lesser extent. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advanced, DAP💅 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it could be considered for featured list status and would appreciate any feedback prior to nomination. The areas I believe need attention are the lead and the references. I want to file the nomination in a few weeks. Thanks, Sunrise In Brooklyn✉ 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for a few months trying to get it as quality as possible, and I've come to sort of a standstill after scouring all the sources I could find, so I wanted to get outside voices. Ideally I want to try to get this up to GA status if possible, but I don't think it's quite ready for a GA nom yet, so I wanted to get feedback on preparing it for that.
I've listed this article for peer review because...GA attempt. typos, malformed ideas, anythihng that needs pointing out (besides more external sources for music ig) please do.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article I have worked on significantly, and would like to improve it further, preferably to GA in the very long term. The school has historical significance due to it's age (and origination of other schools from it) and the list of student, many of which are significant to german civil society as a whole. I am particularly looking for feedback on structure and sourcing, but content feedback would also be great.
The article was copy-edited back in February 2024 and passed a GA review in May 2024. My ultimate aim is to take this to FA status and I would welcome some detailed feedback and comments on its prose and sources as well as other aspects. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 17:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it requires reviewing by someone with more experience in topic who may see something I may have missed and improve the article.
Thanks, ChefBear01 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article about an important subject in the news, and I would like to ensure that it is accurate and unbiased.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble distinguishing between the two sites. I would also like to hear any other general feedback.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to go for my first ever Four Award, which inevitably means getting an article I created to FA status. I have gotten decent at getting my work through DYK and GA, but FA eludes me. I was wondering if I could have people critique my work the same way they would if it were at FA.
I'm interested in taking this page through the featured list process so that it can be a good model for this sort of competition-based programme. I want feedback on a couple of things:
Is this (or can it be) a list and not an article?
How should the results tables (which also serve as a list of episodes) be formatted, with accessibility in mind?
Is the structure of the prose clear? (Should some of "Background" be in the lead, or should content be reordered?)
I'm fairly confident the page is comprehensive and that everything is either sourced inline or implicitly verifiable to the primary source (the same way we allow episode summaries for fiction without inline citations). — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because i'd eventually like to nominate it for GA, but I am currently the only significant contributor and would like feedback from others.
Could you send me a copy of the The Sunday Mail article?
Emailed you.
I'm not sure calling them a "band" is correct when there are just the two of them.
Good point. Would you suggest moving the article to 'M2M (duo)'?
"bubblegum" should be "bubble gum"
"demo's" should be "demos"
Source 6 covers gold status in Australia, but not that it "charted at No. 2 in Norway and No. 4 in both Australia and New Zealand"
"Walt Disney Worlds Epcot park" should be "Walt Disney World's Epcot park"
"downpayment" should be "down payment"
"lucklustre" should be "lacklustre"
"songwriting" should be "song writing"
The ending was very peaceful, so it was not dramatic at all, but the time before it definitely led up to that. ... we started to pull each other in different directions" Remove the full stop.
Suggest swapping the image so they are both facing inwards.
Break the break up paragraph after footnote 29
So just confirming, you just wanted me to merge the two paragraphs?
No, the opposite. Split into smaller paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you comments Hawkeye7. Have a look at my replies. Freikorp (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Hawkeye7. I've now addressed everything. Have a look at the 'Break-up and solo careers' section. I also decided to get a better image of Raven, and ended up cropping an image which you happened to upload :). Also as above do you think the page should be moved to 'M2M (duo)'? Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a peer review would be much appreciated, as I intend for this article to reach GA status despite the small amount of sources around its subject.
Thank you! Bleff (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with the wikiproject of music but I found somethings that might be addressed to make it GA.Tintor2 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid unsourced sentences like the final one from "Background and production"
Same with the first paragraph of "release and reception"
Why is "release history" unsourced? Is it not necessary according the project's manual?
Also I started my own peer review here. I would appreciate feedback.
Comments by Jennica
I suppose the "References" section could be renamed and maybe even downgraded to a Bold header as "Works cited".--Jennica✿ talk / contribs 02:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dig deeper
In the lead, the 3 comments: "made no effort to promote the album..." "Virgo is now recognized as an essential release among house enthusiasts" and "considered by manyas the greatest album of its genre." are unusual statements and should each be supported with references. See MOS:LEAD for more info. I'm not a music expert, but overall I'd say it looks very good. Well done.Dig Deeper (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a lot of work on it and although I do not think it has enough content to be a B article I would like to see it in great shape and simply needing more content added to it.
I would merge the two versions section due to small they are.
"In 1989, The General was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". It made it into the registry in the first year it was enacted, along with such films as The Best Years of Our Lives, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Singin' in the Rain, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Sunset Blvd, and The Wizard of Oz." That is also unsourced.
Try formatting the two sources
Other than that, I can see this article becoming a GA if its issues are solved. Also, I made a peer review request here. I would appreciate any sort of feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 35mm, use 35 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 35 mm
To say it is one of the best movies of all time... a little misleading. I rephrased it slightly.
The lead should have more plot info. Just a couple of sentences, see the featured article The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) as a good example.
In the plot, it would good to give the reader a sense of the comedic part of the movie. Perhaps mention how his clumsy actions consistently serendipitously turn out to have positive results.
The references are good, but I think the bot has concerns about the variety. The article weighs heavily on 2 sources, try to balance this out.
A good candidate for a GA. A pleasure to review. Dig Deeper (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past couple of years, there has been a significant change within this article's grammar, punctuation, referencing, etc. This article is the sixth studio album by Kylie Minogue, whom I am a fan of and heavily dedicated to this (personal matters aside...). I have already achieved several GA with the corresponding singles, remix albums, and other releases from this album, and this article, to, is registered as a GA. However, since its change when it had achieved GA status, more facts and information started to flourish and it has slightly changed the article, for better and for worse. I am wanting to nominate it for FA, but first I need help in correcting any errors, grammar errors, spelling, formatting, etc. as much as possibly so I can achieve this. I would appreciate any comments below, soft or constructive, so I can improve it towards my goal (I do my editing and sight-seeing real quick, so once there's a comment, they'll bound to be a change). Thank you and ping me for each comment!
at producing and composing — "in production and composition"
polarized reactions — "a polarized response"
the sound and experimentation was commended — "the sound and experimentation were commended"
the public, whom were — "the public, which was" (collective nouns read better this way)
prompt further tabloid exploitation on Minogue and the album's behalf — "prompted further tabloid exploitation of Minogue and the album"
released from the album — "released off the album"
all which experienced — "all of which experienced"
Since the albums release — "Since the album's release"
as her lowest point of her career — "as the lowest point of her career"
Background and development
she took partial control over the project — "she took over partial control of the project"
music critics, many whom — "music critics, many of whom"
her move to dance music, and her development in maturity — "her move into dance music, and development in maturity"
according to Cave, he was interested — "according to Cave, he became interested"
In an interview for British magazine NME, she wanted to — "In an interview for British magazine NME, Minogue explained she wanted to"
the first track, which later remained unreleased, "You're the One" — "the first track, "You're the One", which later went unreleased"
recorded during one take — "recorded in one take"
that majority of the content — "that a majority of the content"
did not attend majority of — "did not attend a majority of"
the sickness of the labels head — "the sickness of the label's head director"
Because of this, Minogue took partial control over the project — "Because of this, Minogue took over partial control of the project"
the albums production phases — "the album's production phases"
the albums tracks — "of the album's tracks"
Composition
all whom influenced Minogue during — "all of which influenced Minogue in"
material on Impossible Princess were — "material on Impossible Princess was"
which resulted into — "which resulted in"
Marcel Anders felt majority of — "Marcel Anders felt a majority of"
writer Bence Illés, he wrote that — "writer Bence Illés wrote that"
Vocally, Cinquemani compared the singer's vocals to American singer — "Cinquemani compared Minogue's vocals to those of American singer"
Songs
Featuring "chaotic" arrangement — "Featuring a "chaotic" arrangement"
The Ages John Mangan — "The Age's John Mangan"
musical elements of Middle Eastern music — "elements of Middle Eastern music"
Britian — "Britain"
her relationship with her boyfriend — "the relationship with her boyfriend"
her career, and her personal choices — "her career and personal choices"
Written in Spain, "Limbo"'s sound — "Written in Spain, the sound of "Limbo""
compared to Bjork's single "Venus as a Boy", according to Cinquemani and R. Smith — "compared to Bjork's single "Venus as a Boy" by Cinquemani and R. Smith"
Titling and artworks
Titling and artworks — "Titles and artwork"
whom he had given it to one of her friends — "whom had given it to one of her friends"
the albums recording process — "the album's recording process"
to re-titled the album — "that the album be retitled"
Release
Minogue, discussing about the delays — "Minogue, discussing the delays"
but was postponed to May — "but it was postponed to May"
but was postponed again — "but the album was postponed again"
Consider removing the link for death of Diana, Princess of Wales as it was cited in the previous subsection
August–September 1997 — "August 1997" (Spencer died on 31 August 1997)
which was manufacture in Australia — "which was manufactured in Australia"
Consider removing the repeated wikilink to Compact Cassette as well
Singles
issued in the UK and United States — "issued in the UK and US" (consistency)
Critical response
Upon the albums release, it received polarized responses — "Upon release, it received a polarized response"
According to British author Sean Baker, whom wrote a biography detailing Minogue's life and career, he noticed that — "British author Sean Baker, who wrote a biography detailing Minogue's life and career, noticed that"
Willmott furthered wrote — "Willmott wrote"
new musical genres into the album, all that were outside of her previous work — "new musical genres into the album that were disparate from her previous work"
the production and repetitious nature — "the production and the album's repetitious nature"
Impossible Princess range of styles — "Impossible Princess' range of styles"
Awarding to four stars — "Awarding four stars"
the materials lack of — "the material's lack of"
he concluded "Brave — "he concluded, "Brave" (punctuation)
Commercial performance
minor impact on there record charts — "minor impact on the record charts"
it's final charting position — "its final charting position"
which has been recognized by British publications — "which led British publications to recognize it"
was noted by the lack of promtoional activity — "was noted for the lack of promotional activity"
titling changes — "title changes"
After a year of its release, UK Virgin Radio mocked the sales of the album — "After a year of release, UK Virgin Radio mocked the album sales"
Promotion and live performance
album was "selling better well" in Australia — "album was "selling better" in Australia"
didn't perform — "did not perform"
Impact
Since the albums release — "Since the album's release"
but lost to Unit by Regurgitator respectively — "but lost to Unit by Regurgitator"
Minogue was nominated was nominated — "Minogue was nominated"
her key re-inventions of her career — "the key re-inventions of her career"
from her fan base during its initial release, whom did not appreciate — "during its initial release from her fan base, whom did not appreciate"
according to Michael R. Smith from Daily Vault, he believed — "Michael R. Smith from Daily Vault believed"
were not present majority of the time to access the record, nor promote it properly — "were not present a majority of the time to access the record or promote it properly"
and has since resulted as her — "and has since become her"
positive critiques — "positive critique"
according to The Guardian's Tim Jonze, he felt the latter release saved her career — "according to The Guardian's Tim Jonze, the latter release saved her career"
her most misunderstood album in her career — "the most misunderstood album in her career"
Add italics to the two mentions of Impossible Princess 2
she may fear it "it would be — "she may fear it "would be"
it didn't exactly sell truckloads of album! — "it didn't exactly sell truckloads of albums!"
Other additional releases
Other additional releases — "Additional releases" ("other" and "additional" are synonyms)
I've listed this article for peer review because, in the Reger Year 2016, I would like to see article on his greatest choral work as good as it can be. I would like it to complete my work on the composer this year. Thankful for comments in the previous Requiem, I invite ideas for improvement.
Hi, I've started looking at Peer Review and found this. Very well written and interesting article. I'm no subject matter expert (or Wikipedia expert), but I've got some feedback should you want it.
Lead
"Reger structured the text in four movements, as a choral symphony, and scored it for a four-part choir, with often divided voices, a large symphony orchestra and organ, and additional brass players for the climax in the last movement when four trumpets and four trombones play the melody of Luther's chorale "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott"." is quite a complex sentence and I kind of lost my way inside it. Not being familiar with the content at all, did you mean
"Reger structured the text in four movements, as a choral symphony. It was scored for a four-part choir (with often divided voices), a large symphony orchestra and organ with additional brass players for the climax in the last movement when four trumpets and four trombones play the melody of Luther's chorale "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott"?
Or
"Reger structured the text in four movements, as a choral symphony for a four-part choir (with often divided voices). They are accompanied by a large symphony orchestra with organ and are joined by additional brass players for the climax in the last movement when four trumpets and four trombones play the melody of Luther's chorale "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott"?
Thank you for your comments and correction. I am no native speaker of English and like language improvements. I prefer the active voice whenever possible, so will try that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background
This is the background of Reger, not the Psalm. I haven't looked at enough to know if this is a standard heading, but maybe re-naming the heading might be appropriate. Composer or Max Reger even?
"A year later he began the composition." to "A year later he began the composition of Der 100 Psalm."
Background is a general term. The section is meant to explain briefly to those who don't know the composer how he came to write this. more later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History
I'm assuming he was born in 1873 and not 1973 ;-). I've corrected this already
Thank you ;) --GA
There's quite a lot of German here... Don't have a problem with that necessarily, but I'm really not sure that we need the original German of the dedication, particularly as it doesn't really add anything that the translation doesn't.
I'd like to ask others about that and leave it for now. It has some of the style of his writing, for those who know. If needed it could go to a footnote. --GA
If we're going to have the German text for the receptions, someone with a better knowledge of German than I do needs to look at the translation of the first quote. I suspect there are some colloquialisms that don't really work, 'sticking a listener to a wall' was never something I aspired to during a performance. Also I'd suggest leading with the translations with the German originals in brackets.
There was already a discussion of this translation on Ritchie's page. I wonder if some translation is in English literature about Reger that I don't know. --GA
Structure and Scoring
"In the final movement, an additional brass ensemble of four trumpets and four trombones plays the cantus firmus of Luther's chorale "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott".[1] Reger used Lutheran hymns in the tradition of Johann Sebastian Bach often in his work. He had written already a chorale fantasia on the hymn, Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott, Op. 27 in 1898."
to
"In the final movement, an additional brass ensemble of four trumpets and four trombones plays the cantus firmus of Luther's chorale "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott".[1] In the tradition of Johann Sebastian Bach, Reger often used Lutheran hymns in his work and had already written a chorale fantasia based on this same hymn in 1898.
I would do that if I didn't want to show Reger's slightly different rendering of the hymn. --GA
Erkennet
"Horns and trombones play first in unison three times the same note, which could be the sung as the first word, "Erkennet" (Realize)“
to
"Horns and trombones play same note three times in unison, which are also sung with the word "Erkennet" (Realize)“. (I'm not quite sure what was meant in the second half of the sentence. In anycase, it didn't read properly)
The Swiss quote is the formatted the opposite way to the German ones above (e.g. English with German translation in brackets). Whichever way is chosen, it should be consistent.
No, it's no translation in this case. Do you think a translation should be added? --GA
Hm, in which case I'm not entirely clear exactly how the text is structured then. "The Swiss musicologist Michael Eidenbenz, writing for the Zürcher Bach Chor (de), describes the section as mystical and reflective ("mystisch-reflektierend")." When I read it, I thought the ("mystisch-reflektierend") was a quote of what he said, and the "mystical and reflective" was the translation (in which case my previous comment applies). If mystical and reflective is not a quote, but a paraphrase, why is there a translation of the paraphrase? Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion, in anycase it stood out for me because it appeared reversed compared to the rest of the article. Scribolt (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation
The second translated quote "Expressivity instead of understandability, the intention of a shock wave making the audience a relief, relentless modulation, external opulence and inner calculated logic, the naive and unquestioned naturalness of his music", is another one which fails to work in English translated so directly. Needs to be re-written for comprehensibility.
As above, - wonder if there's a kind of official translation out there. --GA
Versions
"Hindemith "thinned" the orchestra, especially the horns, and the organ which reinforces the voices all the time in Reger's scoring, resulting in a lack of clarity for the polyphon passages. Hindemith used the organ only for climaxes."
to
"Hindemith "thinned" the orchestra, especially the horns. The organ, which reinforced the voices throughout the piece in the Reger's scoring resulting in a lack of clarity for the polyphon passages, he only used for the climaxes."
This has definitely been one of my favorite articles to work on. Very rarely do you get an individual level in a video game worthy of having its own article. Having passed its GA Review, I'd like to take it to FA status. As this would be the first video game level article to be nominated for FAC, I'm still not entirely sure on where the bar should be set. Any and all comments would be appreciated. I'm a firm believer in the saying "You scratch my back, I scratch yours", so if you review this article, I'll gladly repay the favor.
First, I just want to say that I think it is awesome you are aiming to bring something completely different to FAC. If this is successful and gets promoted to an FA in the future, it could really set a precedent and bar for future editors for working with video game level articles. So definite hats off to you on that alone. My comments are below:
At the end of the first paragraph of “Gameplay and plot”, I would specify that “no penalties” refers to the Achievement system and the overall game completion.
Done, but I'm a little worried that "overall game completion" might been seen as jargon. Any ideas on how to better phrase that?
I agree with your point. I would avoid the phrase "overall game completion" as I agree that it sounds too jargon-like. Maybe something like "their achievements and progress in the game are not penalized." Maybe "progress in the game" would be a simpler way of putting it, but you can let me know.
I have not played this level, so I read through the Kotaku article that you linked here to better inform myself about it. I found it interesting that the option to skip the level is “Yes, ask me later”. It might be helpful to add to your article that you may return to this level and play it even if you decide to skip it. Again, I have not played this level or game so I may be misreading this so feel free to correct me.
Not exactly. Every level in the game can be replayed, including "No Russian". I can see how that might be interesting if you had previously skipped it, but the Kotaku article never mentions this, so I can't include that bit of information. I could possibly cite the MW2 Instructional handbook, as it does mention that you can replay any mission, it just doesn't mention that you can replay "No Russian" even if you had skipped it.
No worries, it is fine as it currently stands then. I apologize for my mistake. I just wanted to make sure :-)
According to the Kotaku article, the message about skipping missions comes at the beginning of the single-player campaign. I would clarify this in your article, as I initially believed the option was made only available directly before the level itself, and not at the beginning of the campaign as a whole.
Done
The first sentence of the “Development” section should be clarified and revised. You clearly identify Fukada as the lead designer for the game, but the part about Alavi reads somewhat awkwardly to me at least. How was he more involved in the level’s creation? It may be better to say something along the lines of he was the main game designer responsible for creating/developing the level.
That was something that annoyed me about that PC Gamer source I used. In the interview, it says "No Russian was originally the brainchild of Steve Fukuda, but Alavi was behind almost every aspect of its creation, from scripting Makarov’s team to motion-capturing the animations used for dying civilians." It briefly mentions that Fukada thought of the idea, but then it cuts to how Alavi was involved in almost every aspect. It doesn't mention why Alavi was given the level, or why Fukada didn't flesh out the idea more.
Oh, that makes more sense. I understand how sources can be really annoying. I have read through the sentence again with your comment in my mind, so it is fine as it currently stands.
Could you clarify the last sentence of the first paragraph in the “Development” section? Alavi said he did not base the massacre on real terrorist attacks, but then you say he based it from news articles. This seems a little contradictory to me, as the news articles I am assuming would be covering real-life terrorist attacks. I could be missing something really obvious here though so again feel free to correct me.
Ah yeah, I can see how that might be confusing. That sentence has now been clarified
Thank you for the clarification.
@Famous Hobo: Everything else looks really strong. I look forward to seeing this be nominated for FAC. Let me know if any additional comments or clarification is necessary. Hope you found this to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments! I've addressed all of the issues. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo: Sorry for the delay in my response. I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if you would like additional comments or clarification. Also, feel free to message me when you put this up for FAC, as I would definitely be willing to help you out with that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, could you help with my peer review here? I know that it is outside of your interests, but I would greatly appreciate any help. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Anarchyte
Why isn't Steve Fukada mentioned in the lead?
Journalists have since discussed the importance of "No Russian" to the video game industry. Should this be "in the video game industry"?
It begins with the player walking out of an elevator with four gunmen,. Is the comma necessary?
The level is very graphic, as screams can be heard throughout, and the injured crawl away leaving blood trails. How about The level is very graphic due to the screams that can be heard throughout, and because the injured crawl away leaving blood trails.
Hope these ideas help, I might find some more things to comment on more tomorrow. Anarchyte(work | talk) 12:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Anarchyte! The only comment I didn't address was the Steve Fukada comment. The reason being is that Fukada, according to the source I used, was barely involved in the level's development. I think I mentioned this to Aoba47 earlier, but the exact quote from the source was "No Russian was originally the brainchild of Steve Fukuda, but Alavi was behind almost every aspect of its creation, from scripting Makarov's team to motion-capturing the animations used for dying civilians." It doesn't mention Fukada at all for the rest of the No Russian part of the interview. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the development section, I just included Alavi, since he was by and large the most involved in the level. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maplestrip
As promised on Discord, I'll have a look at it :)
In the gameplay/plot section, it says "The events of "No Russian" are also mentioned in ..." – I am unclear what the purpose of the "also" is in this sentence, as it the article doesn't say that the events in "No Russian" are mentioned in any other games. Shouldn't it just be "The events of "No Russian" were mentioned in ..."?
Yeah, you're right. Changed
The level was conceived by Steve Fukuda, which makes me assume that he wrote the level in order to fulfill the three mentioned tasks. But the article isn't written in that manner, and I recognize Fukuda isn't even mentioned in the Magical Wastelands article (is that even an RS? Looks like a blog). This leaves it very unclear what Fukuda's role was exactly. I mean, the PC Gamer article mentions that he has playtested the level, but in what manner did he "conceive" it?
For Magical Wasteland, since it is a blog, it normally wouldn't be considered a reliable source. However, the blogpost is an interview with Alavi, and was cited by Kotaku and PC Gamer. As for Fukuda's role, I think you read the top part of the PC Gamer interview. The top part of that page is talking about All Ghillied Up from COD4. Fukuda didn't playtest No Russian (at least not to my knowledge). Fukuda simply came up with the idea. Here's the quote: "No Russian was originally the brainchild of Steve Fukuda, but Alavi was behind almost every aspect of its creation, from scripting Makarov's team to motion-capturing the animations used for dying civilians." That is the only mention of Fukuda, and it doesn't go into further detail as to why Fukuda didn't do anything else with the level, or why Alavi became so heavily involved.
Ah, in that case, the use of that source seems proper. However, Fukuda is actually mentioned twice in the PC Gamer article: "Steve Fukuda sat down at my desk to play the first minute, and he replayed it for half an hour, ten different ways, and had fun each time. For me that was a real success." My use of the word "playtest" might have been an overstatement. I hate how difficult it is to understand what Fukuda did add to the level, but I'm not going to complain about that too much if the sources simply aren't there.
I think your still reading the wrong part of the article. The information about "No Russian" starts at the line "It starts not with a bang or the crash of a door being kicked in, but a whisper." Before that Alavi is still talking about All Ghillied Up, which was continued off the first page.
Ah, that explains my confusion! I was unaware it was the second page of an article. Sadly, this means we know even less about Fukuda's involvement...
Fukuda's name is misspelled, btw.
Whoops...
I think theguardian.com should be written in italics if you refer to it specifically as a creative endeavor ("writing for theguardian.com" rather than "as posted on theguardian.com", where it would seem more as a service). There was a whole discussion on this topic recently over at WT:VG and honestly, it can be rather confusing in these cases ^_^;
Done, I don't understand the rules either
"However, when journalists were able to play "No Russian" ..." seems very odd if you do not know how video game journalism works... and honestly, it even looks weird if you do. Weren't the journalists able to play the level very quickly? It's the fourth level of the game, after all. I don't believe the line is currently sourced.
I guess? I'll ask some of my friends if they have any suggestions, because I don't know what else I can say.
I have an issue with the grammar at "and instead make killing civilians an integral part to the story, and that the events leading to their deaths were organic.", but I'm not sure how to fix it. Maybe just remove "that"? I honestly really don't know...
Yeah, that does look awkward. Let me see what I can do.
I reworked that sentence. Hopefully it reads well now
Looks much better now :)
In general, I think this article looks amazing, and I don't have many comments on it. Save for Magical Wasteland, all the sources look good and are well-implemented. Lead section looks great, the image is perfect, everything seems good. Then again, I don't have much experience with FAs, so take all that as you will. ~Mable (chat) 10:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: Sorry for the late response. Responded to all of your comments. Will finish the remaining comments tomorrow. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good :) ~Mable (chat) 12:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting choice for an article, not many levels are notable enough but this one certainly is. I've got a few comments on structure and general wordsmithing, I don't really know the process and didn't want to start making alterations directly into the article, but I'm quite happy to if you want to see what they might look like.
Lead
Too long in my opinion. It contains the entire plot, in only slightly reduced form from the plot section. I'd suggest removing the playable characters name and everything after group.
It should mention early and prominently why the level is notable. What makes it notable is the controversy it generated, so I'd suggest removing the history of the how the level was created and focus on the fact that it caused a media frenzy.
I'd also make a few copy edits in there as well, 'cautious towards the levels content' is not great.
Gameplay & Plot
Remove gameplay from the heading, it only contains plot details.
'killing any remaining civilians' to 'killing any civilians they encounter'. Killing any remaining implies that they exectuted every living person in the airport
'The level is very graphic due to the screams that can be heard throughout, and because the injured crawl away leaving blood trails.' Remove. I find this a bit sensational. The level is not any more graphic than the rest of the game. If you really want something like this, you'd be better off focusing on the fact that is 'shocking' or 'disturbing', I'm sure there are some sources that state that they found it one of those things...
Development
As per the above, 'theguardian.com' is not good. Just use 'writing in the Guardian'
Additionally, I'd move the Jim Sterling sentence before the Keith Stuart one. Sterling is addressing the content of the level, as does the Telegraph source. The reference to Stuart merely refers to criticism of the level skip feature. You might want to move the Guardian quote to the para below instead, as there is also reference to level skip there.
Not sure if anything that helps you at all, feel free to utterly ignore it all :-) Scribolt (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scribolt: Thanks for the review! Sorry I didn't respond sooner, yesterday I was all over the place trying to finish three different essays, seriously! Anyway, now that they have all been turned in, I'll have a chance to look over and respond to your comments. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to quickly note that the reference is written as theguardian.com because it has a separate Wikipedia article from the newspaper proper. ~Mable (chat) 15:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Maplestrip. I'm new, but I'm pretty sure that in other articles with content sourced to the Guardian website, they don't make a distinction in the article text, same as the Telegraph, Independent etc. If that's a convention I'm unaware of then I stand corrected, it just really stood out for me when I saw it. Scribolt (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know the article existed and never used it either when sourcing to the website. I have no idea if it's a more proper way to do it, if it doesn't matter, or if The Guardian is better. I just wanted to point it out, as I was thinking the same thing during my review and decided against mentioning it. ~Mable (chat) 17:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note In the absence of any recent activity, I have made an extensive edit, based on my suggestions so you can see what I meant. I will not be at all offended if it is rolled back, but I believe there was too much repetition of non-essential content in the lead and the plot/gameplay section need some tightening. Scribolt (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FA. Andha Naal is a landmark film in Tamil cinema for being the first without songs and dance, which are otherwise formulaic in Tamil films. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
For the time being. Remaining at the FAC, if possible.
"It is the first film noir in Tamil cinema, and the first Tamil film to be made without songs, dance, or stunt scenes." -- scenes or sequences?
"It was critically acclaimed and was awarded the Best Film Award by the Madras Filmfans' Association and a Certificate of Merit for Second Best Feature Film in Tamil at the 2nd National Film Awards in 1955." -- Agreed. But, is it really necessary to mention an award in the lead which does not have an article of its own here?
I agree that unnotable awards shouldn't belong in the lead section, but I didn't add it. Guess the NFA is enough in the lead. Kailash29792 (talk)
"In 2013, Andha Naal was included in CNN-News18's list of the 100 Greatest Indian Films of All Time"." -- Where is the opening double quotation?
I'll add it, along with the source since it is a quoted material. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who played the role of Purushothaman Naidu? If possible, please find out.
WP:POISON holds good for two of Dhananjayan's books. He cannot be considered non-reliable in all other cases. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The lead role of the radio engineer Rajan was initially offered to S. V. Sahasranamam, who was removed...." -- Can we have a better word in the place of removed?
"When Balachander refused, Meiyappan demanded that the canned footage be burnt, but Balachander again refused, and instead allowed Ganesan's scenes to be reshot." -- Too long. Consider breaking it into two sentences.
"The film's final cut was less than 12,500 feet (3,800 m)— - shorter than most contemporaneous Tamil films." After an emdash, why is an endash being used?
File:Veena S Balachandar 1950.jpg is probably not PD-India. It may not be 60 years since the death of the photographer who may hold the copyright.
According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V Section 25), Anonymous works, photographs, cinematographic works, sound recordings, government works, and works of corporate authorship or of international organizations enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year. But since I do not know who the author is, except that the picture was published in the August 1951 issue of Gundoosi, I guess the picture is best removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the plot, generally name of actor/actress is introduced in brackets as in Pather Panchali.
There exists a cast section to list who played who. And if the actors are linked in the plot, they do not get to be linked in the "production" section due to WP:OVERLINK. That is why I prefer to not mention the actors in the plot section. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK if this is not implemented; if it is done similarly in other FAs.--RedtigerxyzTalk 13:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Rajan was about leave Madras in anticipation of the bombings." is unclear
Done I wrote, "Rajan was about to leave Madras in anticipation of the bombings". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are flashbacks used in the movie? The plot suggests that, though it is not said explicitly..
Yes, flashbacks are used in the movie. I do not describe them as flashbacks, so that the plot can stay in-universe. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, we need to state somewhere that for example, if Pillai is narrating the incident, it not just a long narrative but a flashback sequence. --RedtigerxyzTalk 15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See if it has been solved now. I have written in a way that if it is in past tense, it means it is a flashback. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The main theme of Andha Naal is patriotism." After reading the plot, I am perplexed by this statement. Is this is a mainstream view? It is referenced to Ganeshan's autobiography; seems to be his opinion, rather than a scholar's assessment or the director's viewpoint.
Do I write "according to Ganesan"? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check with the source. What does it say? It needs to be attributed; if it not a mainstream view.--RedtigerxyzTalk 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The film was later re-released after the announcement of the 2nd National Film Awards and became a box-office success" is confusing as we do not know what was announced. Only after reading "At the 2nd National Film Awards, the film won a Certificate of Merit for the Second Best Feature Film in Tamil", the former makes sense. Please resolve.
This source reads, "It was only after it won the 1955 National Award for Second Best Feature Film in Tamil, that the film was re-released and received more warmly by audiences". Since the source has three publishers – including the Directorate of Film Festivals – to indicate its reliability, can it be used? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doubting the fact; but just the comprehensibility of the sentence. The ref is clear when it says "after it won the 1955 National Award for Second Best Feature Film in Tamil"; but the article is unclear: how the announcement of the 2nd National Film Awards can lead to re-release and success? what was the announcement? Did it win something? are questions that remain unanswered until finally the article reveals that "At the 2nd National Film Awards, the film won a Certificate of Merit for the Second Best Feature Film in Tamil".--RedtigerxyzTalk 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Page 72 of Voice of the Veena: S. Balachander reads, Only when it was screened as a morning show, and after it won the National Award, did it attract a large number of young viewers. Still, it was not what may be called a 'box office hit'. So I guess I'll write that after its NFA win it was re-released and fared better. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Andha Naal won critical praise in spite of its poor performance at the box-office" is the same thing as "to critical acclaim,[48] but did not succeed commercially" Remove one of them.
I'm not sure if it is a newspaper or magazine. Is there any generic term for print news sources? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see Vensatry has described it as a monthly mag. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last para of reception has become a WP:QUOTEFARM.
I added the full quotes so that any other ambitious editor will further improve on them. Vensatry, do you know what to cut/paraphrase? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too many quotes for my comfort.--RedtigerxyzTalk 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* "The few films he produced, directed, acted, sang and composed music for, stand the test of time and are worth celebrating." [is understood] only when you read that Balachander is essentially remembered as a Veena maestro. This needs to be explicitly stated somewhere. --RedtigerxyzTalk 15:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)---RedtigerxyzTalk 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes. The source says, "His foray into Tamil filmdom was short-lived, as he chose to give it up to pursue his passion for classical music and the veena, which has become one with his name. Yet, he blazed a trail that left an indelible impact on a generation of film-goers, who remember his classics such as Andha Naal, Nadu Iravil and Bommai for their unconventional storyline and making. The few films he produced, directed, acted, sang and composed music for, stand the test of time and are worth celebrating." May I write the following? Although Balachander's career in Tamil cinema was short-lived as he quit it in favour of following a career in classical music, his daughter-in-law Dharma Raman wrote for The Hindu, "<already quoted>". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how neutral the praise of a close relative should be treated. I would use the ref only to state the fact his film career was short-lived. RedtigerxyzTalk 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the source seems better fitted at Balachander's BLP. I've removed it from here. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Andha Naal was released alongside another film featuring Ganesan, Kalyanam Panniyum Brahmachari, making him the first Indian actor to star in two films releasing on the same day"
Why is a FB post by an actor be considered a RS?
The ref does not say that "first Indian actor" part. It explicitly only says that Ganesan released films on the same day 17 times; 1954 was the first time he did it.--RedtigerxyzTalk 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mohan V. Raman is associated with The Hindu and is more of a film historian than an actor; nonetheless, I'll rewrite as per the source. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I no longer want to continue with this PR, I suggest it be closed. Kailash29792(talk) 12:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...actually, no. Since there was lack of activity and reviewers, I wanted this closed so that I could move forward with FAC (where reviewers will swarm). But after Vensatry convinced me that more editors could review this, I changed my mind. Kailash29792(talk) 16:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry has more knowledge of the NFA system than me and will be able to explain why. To my knowledge, the aforementioned category (at that point) looked like a parent category with the three certificates of merit being subsidiaries. Kailash29792(talk) 10:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any images or screenshots of the film? You can easily use in the plot section or the legacy or reception section.
There are, but not all PD-India images (older than 60 years) can be used since most are still copyrighted by the US. Kailash29792(talk) 06:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says it was a failure but if I am not wrong the article says it was a success after a re-release. It can be easily included in the lead to avoid confusion.
The opening points of the third paragraph are strong claims without any direct quotes. You may want to look into them. Maybe put some direct quotes, or rephrase to make them sound more factual.
There are three sources used in this para. What more do you want? Kailash29792(talk) 11:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I meant was it's really wordy. You may simplify the text to make it sound less turgid. NumerounovedantTalk 15:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Times of India compared" - The comparison has to be attributed to the writer not the publisher.
Shouldn't "conscientious officer" be in quotes as well?
The source reads "conscientious and serious". I believe "conscientious" is formal and normal enough not to be quoted. Kailash29792(talk) 11:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
"making it the first of seventeen instances where he starred in two films releasing on the same day." - Not sure how this is relevant.
I agree, I'll remove it. While I'm certain that the film's performance was affected by another film also starring him, the source doesn't say so.
"because the audience were not impressed by a film without songs." - the explanation really doesn't belong here. If you decide to keep this you may want to split the sentences.
Disagree. The subsequent sentences make it clear that the film failed big time because the audience was apparently not happy over the lack of songs/dances sequences. That's a vital point, IMO. —Vensatry(talk) 13:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I simply meant was it would read better as two sentences, it's obviously an important detail. NumerounovedantTalk 15:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
considered "revolutionary" - by who?
The Times of India doesn't say who, but the beginning of "Legacy" reads, "Andha Naal has been described by French film historian Yves Thoraval as a revolution in Tamil cinema for the absence of songs and dances", supported by a source which reads, "...accomplished a 'revolution' in Tamil cinema by shooting a film, which established his reputation as director, without any songs, Andha Naal". Kailash29792(talk) 11:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still going to need a reference here. NumerounovedantTalk 15:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"role as an antihero won critical acclaim; many critics said that Pandari Bai's role as the patriotic wife overshadowed Ganesan's performance." - You may need to split the sentences too, and use "however" to connect the clashing claims.
Are we sure that the director was delighted "with critics praising the performances of Ganesan, Pandari Bai and the other actors."?
the source reads, "he was not worried. He was delighted that he pulled it off, what with Sivaji’s understated performance that stole the show and support in just right measures from the co-actors, including a charming Pandaribai." Any alternative rephrasing possible? Kailash29792(talk) 11:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"such a publicity been made" - odd choice of words, "had the movie been promoted as a thriller"?
The text reads, "it criticised AVM for not publicising the film as a thriller; the magazine asserted that had such a publicity been made, the fans would not have been horrified by the fact that there were no songs in the film". I do not want to repeat words. But I've rephrased it. Please see.
"The magazine gave the verdict," - Again, the magazine didn't, the reviewer did.
Done since the reviewer was anonymous, I didn't mention their name. Kailash29792(talk) 11:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case one should rather use "A reviewer/critic/writer...", and the newspaper and magazine should not be directly attributed as the reviewer. NumerounovedantTalk 15:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Tamil magazine Gundoosi stated that" - Same.
This is an awfully long sentence, too wordy and colloquial. There is really no way the reader would understand any bit of it. Split, reword, rephrase.
"It asked" - No "it" didn't.
The same issue continues into the next review.
Great work on the article, especially on the plot and lead. I am a little concerned with the one-dimensional writing in the other sections, and you may want to bring in some variety in the way you begin sentences as lot of them start in s similar fashion. Will go through the last section soon. NumerounovedantTalk 10:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: I would like to make some minor changes, if you don't mind. Some points are hard to explain, so it will be easier to compare the two versions. You can always revert any changes and work around my edits. NumerounovedantTalk 15:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: I might make some minor changes, but it might be a while. For now it looks good. Good luck! NumerounovedantTalk 16:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind, as long as the text does not deviate from the source. Kailash29792(talk) 16:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has successfully gone through the Good Article review process, however is not yet at a standard to become a feature article. General comments would be appreciated, if you are willing to look for any other suggestions, that is welcome also. I am very active with this page if you need to contact me. @Casliber: and @Dweller: - if you are interested in continuing discussion begun at the Feature Article review, please feel welcome to do so. If not, I completely understand!
Just created this article over the last few weeks and am curious to get an outside opinion on it. Would like to nominate for GA, if others think that it's up to snuff. The article is fairly short, but considering that it's about a short film, length probably isn't much of an issue. The important points are covered. A little more production info would be nice, but I just don't think that are any more readily accessible sources to draw from, so hopefully what's included will suffice.
the
Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is going to need more development, first, before it is ready for a GA review. Some GA reviewers might find the topic to be too obscure for a GA article. I haven't had a chance to look at it in detail yet, but from a glace I see some issues that would need to be addressed:
Lead section (heading): Generally speaking, red links tend to look out of place in a GA or FA article, particularly in the beginning. That is not to say that every name mentioned in the article has to have a blue link, but the beginning of an article is the most critical place to set the tone. I would recommend that you create quality articles on Lauren Indovina and Lindsey Mayer-Beug. Right away, that would help establish the topic in some reviewers minds as potentially worthy of a GA article. The wording in the heading is going to have to be developed a bit further and the statements there about the reception don't make the topic sound interesting--there needs to be a better way in the heading of describing the critical response--it has to be accurate, of course, but just saying that "critical response has been generally favorable..." just doesn't seem quite sufficient. What is it about the piece that critics have deemed to be noteworthy and important, groundbreaking or at least interesting?
Very little is said about background and production (a lot more is needed): Much more needs to be said about the historical background and making of the film. While there is a Production section here, it is way too short. If reviewers are to consider this worth GA, then there is going to have to be enough said in sources to generate a lengthy and thorough discussion of background and production--GA articles are expected to be in-depth (and about in-depth topics). In my mind, the story of how a film or piece of work was created is by far the most important thing in an article of this kind and (esp. in a GA article), there should be a few lengthy sections dealing with all of those facets--and this kind of article is going to have to get up to at least 45-50 citations from reliable sources in order to be considered GA material. While there should, indeed, be a good plot summary (and the one here is of sufficient length), the text devoted to the background/production in a GA article should be at least three-to-four (maybe even five.. six) times longer that that devoted to a sufficiently detailed discussion of plot. Remember that most readers want to learn the story about the creation of a piece--most people are allergic to plot giveaways (and usually skip over the Plot section). Detailed plot summaries have to be there, but other things are way more important.
Reception: You could, maybe, put a star-rating box in the reception section, as I have seen in other articles of this type.
Those are just a few first thoughts, but I need to comb though the article and look at it and its sources in detail. I hope that you can find a way to get it to GA level (if that is possible for this topic). It won't be easy, but I do wish you good luck. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Garagepunk66: Thanks for the notes! I'll try to incorporate your advice to whatever extent possible. Like I said though, there aren't many more sources to draw from. And while I do understand that the dearth of coverage could be an obstacle on the path toward GA, there is at least some precedent for short articles passing, when those articles have been focused on short films - see Lupo the Butcher, which has slightly more production info, but not quite as much for reception. Even ignoring the plot sections, Fish Heads Fugue and Other Tales for Twilight is, I think, a little bit longer overall. The Lupo article also has twenty fewer references than Fish Heads Fugue. I'm not sure that number of references should matter anyway, nor level of obscurity, so long as the GNG has been satisfied. That said, I understand how even just a few more sentences in the production section could go a long way toward improving the article. Believe me, I've searched extensively, even using the Way Back Machine. There are a couple more sources that may be of some use, although I haven't had a chance to check them out yet (they're offline). Other than those, I feel that I've utilized pretty much everything that reputable sources have published about the topic. If that means then, that the topic simply can't attain GA status, then that would be disappointing, but I could accept that. Still, in my personal view, coverage expectations should vary somewhat, based upon the context of what is being written about.
As for reception information, I've added a brief statement to the lead, explaining what critics liked about the film. If you have any ideas of your own on ways to expand the lead, then I'm happy to incorporate them. A star-rating box wouldn't be possible, as none of the reviews gave stars, and an "Accolades" section is standard, as outlined at WP:Manual of Style/Film.
What are your thoughts on the prose? I'm not a very confident writer and would like to know whether the plot section is okay or if it still needs some work. Thanks again for giving your review! --Jpcase (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet had a chance to read it over carefully, but from the first glance things looked decent enough prose-wise. I could go back and comb through it in more detail and tell you if I see any issues there. And, I realize that there have been really short film articles that slipped through GA in the past, but those are lucky cases. Often articles of that type are vulnerable to being subjected to re-evaluation, and can be in danger of losing their GA. It is usually best to pick an article to work on that you think has the potential to become GA, and then after expanding to the point where you think it is ready, then have it nominated. But, even on non-GA articles you write, you usually want to make them the best that they can be for the sake of doing justice to the topics you have covered. There are many decent and keep-worthy articles that are not GA contenders, just simply because there aren't enough sources to get the article up to GA. That may be what the limiting factor is here for this article. But, you might find some good sources that yield a lot of info. You never know--a really good magazine article might come out or an incredible profile in a newspaper. In addition to writing tie-in articles on Lauren Indovina and Lindsey Mayer-Beug, you could include some of their biographical info. about them in this article--particularly biographical details leading up to this movie or connected to it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Garagepunk66: I may give GA a shot anyway...but you've given me something to think about. Perhaps you're right, and the article is simply too short. Right now, I'm still looking for an interview with the film's directors that was conducted by 3D World magazine. This archived webpage [1]makes mention of the interview, but so far, I haven't been able to find any webpage (even on the WayBack Machine) containing the actual contents of the interview. The publisher doesn't sell back issues from that long ago (the particular issue that I'm looking for was published in May 2006), and I haven't been able to find used copies on eBay, Amazon, or any other online retailer. So it's turned into quite the hunt! Hopefully, something will turn up eventually. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_29#3D World magazine #77 (May 2006) - Movers and Shakers and have contacted various potential leads. We'll see what happens.
As for creating articles on Indovina and Mayer-Beug, I may try to do so at some point. But in all honesty, their individual notability, separate from the film, is rather small - Fish Heads Fugue is the only "film" that either of them have ever directed. Both of them have since gone into advertising. In the past decade, Indovina has mostly worked on television commercials, although she also did the character design on an Emmy-award-winning music video for The Raveonettes[2][3] (who knew that music videos were eligible for the Emmys?) Mayer-Beug has also done some commercial and music video work, in addition to illustrating the covers for a few novels and being one of the animators to work on the opening title sequence of Across the Universe. Her entire portfolio can be seen here [4] In my personal view, I would say that they probably pass the GNG, but only barely. I agree that adding some biographical information on them to this article would be a pretty good idea, but currently, I don't have access to very much. Mayer-Beug's mother, Carolyn Beug, has her own Wikipedia page - she was an award-winning music video director herself and died in the 9/11 attacks, while returning from taking Lindsey to college. Something could perhaps be said about that in the article, if you think it's worth noting. The only personal information on Indovina and Mayer-Beug that actually relates to Fish Heads Fugue would be the brief comments included in this reference [5]. I tried incorporating this info into the article earlier, but couldn't quite figure out how to best phrase it. I may give it another go though. --Jpcase (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in time, it may become possible to find more sources to build up the background and bio--all it will really take is a couple of really good write-ups which go into the background... And, you can look for things written about Lauren Indovina and Lindsey Mayer-Beug--that could do a lot to help build up the bio. Look for sources that relate the context of the time period to the film--that can help. You cab be creative in scouting articles--trying to access info. By the way, I'm sure that it is a terrific film and I'd like to see it. Like so many things that are obscure, it has not received enough attention in the media--but hopefully time will correct that oversight. So, I wish you good luck. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Garagepunk66: Unfortunately, I don't think that there's anything more to be found online - unless there are some articles hiding behind paywalls that simply aren't appearing in Google search results. But hopefully the 3D World magazine will turn up.
It certainly is an interesting film, and worth watching if you enjoy creative design work - just don't ask me to explain it to you, haha. ;) Actually, you can watch it for free on Indovina's official website, here - scroll all the way down towards the bottom of the page, past all of the screenshots and gifs, until you see the image that I've included in the infobox (you'll see it twice; the first time is a simple screenshot, but the second time, you'll have an option to play the entire film).
I've expanded the production section a little bit, using the source that I linked to in the end of my last comment. I've also added a couple sentences about Mayer-Beug's mother, although I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is relevant enough for inclusion. If you have the time to give the section another look over, let me know what you think of the additions! I really appreciate all of the time that you've taken in following up with me! :) --Jpcase (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Garagepunk66: I've managed to squeeze a little bit more out of the existing sources. The 9/11 information is, I think, a little more justified now - the film is actually dedicated to Carolyn Beug and her mother, Mary Alice Wahlstrom (who also died in the attacks). The Production section is still on the short side, but quite a bit longer than it had been. Thanks for pushing me to keep at it! I might have let some of those details slip by otherwise. --Jpcase (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is definitely moving in a good direction. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Garagepunk66: I managed to get ahold of the 3D World magazine article, although it turned out to be nothing more than a slight variation on a source already in use. Still, it contained enough new info to help me make some final additions and alterations. If you have any final comments, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, thanks for all the help! I may go ahead and nominate this for GA, although I'm aware of your reservations. The production section certainly isn't "three-to-four times longer" than the plot, as you had advised, but the two sections are at least roughly the same length now. There are definitely GA-class articles shorter than this, and even if I get a no, there's nothing lost by having another editor weigh in.
I do have two remaining questions for you, both pertaining to neutrality - first of all, would you strongly oppose having the Accolades section reinstated? As I mentioned above, these are par for the course in film articles, and I feel that there's enough festival / awards information to warrant a separate section from general reception. Secondly, I'm tempted to use stronger language than "generally positive", when describing the film's reception in the lead. So far, no negative reviews have turned up, and while that may be somewhat expected for this type of film (if you're going to take the time to write a review for a six-minute student film, then that probably means you liked it), the current phrasing still seems like an overly tepid description for a multi-award winning film that's been called things like "technically astonishing", "a macabre feast for the eyes", and (newly added quote) "a gothic masterpiece". I find myself wondering whether it would be better to say something along the lines of, "Released to critical acclaim, the film has received accolades from several noted commentators..." or to simply remove the word "generally" and stick with "Critical reception has been favorable". --Jpcase (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would not use the word "Accolades" to designate a section--"accolades" does not sound neutral. You could have an "Awards" section, where the awards are displayed in a list format. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it improve in quality. The Astronomica is a criminally under-rated piece of Latin literature, written by a relative unknown by the name of Marcus Manilius. Given its fascinating subject matter and its quality, I'd love to see more attention given to it, and as a result, I would love for its Wikipedia page to be one of the site's best. I've tried to improve the page as much as possible over the past few weeks, but I would really appreciate third-party opinions.
"With that being said" – woolly. If you're insisting on an absolute construction the "With" is otiose, and in my view you'd be better off without the whole phrase.
"by Italian humanist Poggio Bracciolini" – clunking false title. OK for tabloid papers, but not for an enyclopaedia article, I think.
"never reached the level of popularity as other Classical Latin epics" – there seems to be a word missing here: "same" before "level"
"Modern scholarship, however, has taken..." – there are 11 howevers in this article. All but the tenth strike me as unnecessary. Howevers have a maddening way of sneaking into one's prose and gumming it up, and a page full of them makes a wearying read.
Authorship and date
"Indeed, such confusion" – the WP:EDITORIAL "indeed" would be better gone.
"resembles that of other African authors.[6][2]" – citations should be in numerical order
"pointing out that Manilius" – not neutral: "pointing out" implies that what is asserted is a fact. Something like "contending that" or "suggesting that" would be safer.
"although Chris Brennan notes" – likewise.
Contents
"Book four—which Goold suggests that Manilius was using an Egyptian source for parts of this book, due to many of the topics discussed originating from Egypt." – I had to read this several times, and I don't think the syntax works. Something like "Book four—many of the topics in which originated from Egypt, leading Goold to suggest an Egyptian source" might be clearer and grammatically sound.
"deletrious" – probably should be "deleterious". (I think Deletrious is one the lovers in A Midsummer Night's Dream).
Style
"the Harvard University Press notes" – as with Chris Brennan, above: we need a verb that doesn't imply our endorsement of the assertion.
"(albeit metrically correct[2])" – rather oddly, in my view, the Manual of Style bids us put the citation after the closing bracket: (albeit metrically correct)[2].
"can be chalked up" – to an English eye, at any rate, "chalked up" looks a touch slangy for an encylopaedia article. Something like "attributed" or "put down" would be less jarring.
"principle purpose" – did Pingree really write "principle purpose" rather than "principal purpose"?
Completeness of work
Two more "notes" in this paragraph: not objectionable in themselves, I'd say, given the content, but you might consider finding another word for one of them, for variety.
Influences
"the famed epic poem De rerum natura" – not sure we need the rather WP:PEACOCK "famed".
"however evidence for this hypothesis is scarce and thus remains a mostly speculative—albeit attractive—postulation" – there is a word missing here: without an "it" before or after "thus" it is the evidence and not the hypothesis that is the postulation. Whether it is desirable to add the editorialising "albeit attractive" I rather doubt.
The "indeed" and "furthermore" in this para could beneficially go.
Active and passive – I suppose everyone likely to read this article will know about active voice and passive voice, but nonetheless adding a blue link to each would be the done thing.
Textual history
"courtesy of a scribe" – rather an unexpected phrase. Are you implying some gratuitous emendation? If not, perhaps simply "made by a scribe" might be safer.
"AD 1416–1417" – the Manual of Style prescribes the form "AD 1416–17" for such date ranges.
"A.E. Housman" – but he was "A. E. Housman", with a space between his initials, earlier. And he doesn't need linking twice.
Reception
"What is more" – another outbreak of WP:EDITORIAL that really ought to go.
"made it into the Medieval period" – another slightly too informal wording, I'd say. Perhaps just "survived"?
"Italian humanist Lorenzo Bonincontri" – another false title that could be cured by a definite article in front of it.
"it never quite reached the level of interest as other Classical Latin epics" – as in the lead, this needs tweaking grammatically. (As a purely personal preference, I try to avoid repeating word-for-word in the text what I have put in the lead, preferring to paraphrase it for the sake of variety. There is nothing in the MoS to support my view, and feel free to ignore it.) The Yet and indeed at the start of the para could advantageously be dispensed with.
"starting to take a more interested look in Manilius..." – seems a rather roundabout way of saying "starting to take more interest in Manilius..."
I enjoyed this article very much, though I think I'll stick to reading Housman's poems rather than venture on Manilius's. The article looks to me to be well worth putting up as a featured article candidate, and if you do so, please ping me and I'll happily look in at the review page. Tim riley talk 08:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thank you for looking over this (here are my changes), and you did a wonderful job finding and pointing out my screws-ups! I really appreciate this, and if/when I take this to FAN (I hope to!) I will let you know.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 18:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Caeciliusinhorto
"Despite this initial dearth of interest, modern scholarship has taken a renewed interest in the poem." The word "interest" is used twice in this sentence. Can it be re-written to avoid this? Unfortunately, I can't think of an obviously improved wording for the moment, but I'm sure there is one.
"Manilius's Astronomica is notable because the first extant work on astrology that is extensive, coherent, and for the most part intact.": you can lose "notable because" here without any loss of meaning: it's just puffery. (N.B. if you want to keep it, you're missing "it is" from the sentence).
"As to why, Green contends that 'the digression is very well chosen...'": I'd cut "As to why, ", so that the sentence begins "Green contends..."
"the Astronomica has also been noted for its peculiar (albeit metrically correct) style of writing": might be worth discussing what the metre is. The lead tells us that the poem is epic, so I presume that we're talking hexameters here, but articles should generally be accessible to a non-specialist audience who don't know a) what a hexameter is or b) that it's an epic metre.
"What is more peculiar, is that Manilius, throughout his work, repeatedly announces that he will examine and discuss the zodiacal nature of the planets; such a treatment is not to be found": this can surely be written more straightforwardly. For e.g. "More peculiarly, despite Manilius's repeated claims that the poem will discuss the zodiacal nature of the planets, no such treatment is found in the Astronomica"
And on that point, is there a source saying that this omission is more peculiar than the omissions that Housman discusses? While it seems more peculiar to me, it also reads like the Dread Pirate RobertsOriginal Research.
"contra to Lucretius": "contra" is a preposition; either "contra Lucretius" or "in contrast to Lucretius" but "contra to Lucretius" is ungrammatical.
"The work is famous—some might say notorious—for its bold handling of the text, its incisive commentary, and its merciless [...] invective against other scholars." No comment here; I just love Housman's intolerance of other classicists.
Here are the changes that I have made. Thank you so much for looking over this!--Gen. Quon(Talk) 20:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment by Johnbod
I won't add to these two sets of comments from experienced reviewers, but it looks close to FA-quality to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm prepping for that!--Gen. Quon(Talk) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A setting of Japanese poetry to modernist French music.
I've just made a translation of this article from the French FA. I don't pretend I have a native-level undertanding of French, nor expertise in classical music terminology, and would appreciate help cleaning things up. I probably won't nominate the article for FA, but still aim to bring it to that level of quality.
I've also corrected a couple of errors in the original, removed some PEACOCKery, and have tried to track down the original Japanese versions of the poems—I haven't had luck with threetwo of them, one of which (purportedly by Matsuo Bashō) has stumped others looking for it as well.
Hi CT. I wanted to help you find the one of the missing Akiko Yosano poem but unfortunately was unsuccessful. At first I thought this [[6]] was her complete works, and searched it for key words such as 秋 and 月 but unfortunately no poems came up that seemed to match the French. (Now looking at the title more closely, I think it may only be her complete "psalms", not necessarily her complete works, and from skimming the introduction I think it says poems were selected for the book—hence, again, not her complete works I guess.) I'm including the link here in case the poem actually is in there and I just missed it. But my other suggestion is, I see you live in Japan, have you tried your library system there for other of her poetry compilations that you could look for the poem in (i.e., even if not in your local library, maybe you can order some of her books from other libraries). That's what I would try if I were in your shoes. Good luck! Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp: Sorry, somehow I missed your comment until just now. Thanks for looking! I think I'll have to look into inter-library loans (never done one in Japan before). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly Turkey. Did you end up finding anything through inter-library loans? Just curious if you had any luck. :-) Moisejp (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp: No, actually, I haven't tried. One of these days I suppose I'll get around to it—I'll have to figure it out some day, because there are a pile of other books I'd like to get through inter-library loan. Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 08:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gerda
Impressive, thank you! Let's look closer. At a glance, it looks like an article about Japanese art, not French music. I suggest to tell people that it is a song cycle, and have no better way than this [ibox, removed, now in the article].
Lead
I would introduce song cycle also in the lead.
I would not link to flute, - too broad concept. If a link (but then also clarinet and piano), then perhaps Western concert flute.
I am surprised how much comparison with other pieced the lead provides, and how little on the music.
Stravinsky's piece was performed in French, - an English title seems misleading.
I generally like the layout of the TOC, but would prefer "Overview" to "Overview of the work". After reading, I will know if it makes sense to first have critical reception, then analysis. I usually have a text section (subdivided) and a music section (same, including instrumentation), compare FAC Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125.
Structure
I think I'd prefer the explanation of the dedicatees in prose before the titles, then only their names in the bulleted list.
How about Background before Structure, including East-West?
To be continued, need sleep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instrumentation
In the table, I would not capitalize nor link any instrument, - readers interested in such a thing will know, and it looks uneven. You may want to add the years of composition to the titles for people like me who jump at reading structured information rather than the prose.
Musical analysis
If this doesn't grow I would insert the two items to where the music is discussed further up.
Views on the composer and his work
... is a clumsy title, but I don't know a better one at present. Some of the content may actually be better in Background, to prepare for what comes. Reception is a commonly used header.
Thanks for the review! I was surprised to find this was still open. Do PRs not get automatically archived?
"I am surprised how much comparison with other pieced the lead provides, and how little on the music.": I didn't write the article—I translated it, and so I followed whatever structure there was in the original. You're right, of course, and I'll see what I can do here.
I've restructured the article quite a bit—what do you think of it now?
I think I've dealt with your other concerns. Anything else? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did! I guess at this point it's no point to discuss details of phrasing and titles of unwritten articles on pieces. Good luck, looks like an FA-to-be. - I removed the ibox here, to not have it twice in the inclusion count. - Yes, PRs eventually archive, but Der 100. Psalm took a long time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to make the article get to FA status. I have removed unreliable sources and added information (see the article's edit history). Any comments on writing styles / references / etc. are really appreciated.
I'd call it a good article at least. You did this article justice. :-) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brainulator9: Lol thanks, but my goal is to get this article to FA. Still not sure about the article's styles, grammar, language, etc. Simon (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
Comment:@HĐ: The article is a very informative read, but I have a couple quick questions/comments that may be helpful:
In the lead, you convey a lot of information in a strong and concise manner, but some aspects should be fully developed. For instance, what part of the song's "styles" are the critics ambivalent towards? Why did Thai television stations ban this song? What do you mean by the phrase "her 'real' persona", is this "real" persona about sexuality? Obviously, convey the information in a concise manner as it is the lead, but there are some incomplete thoughts here.
In a majority of the articles about songs that I read, the lead includes information about the song's lyrics and what they represent. This is not present in this article beyond a mention of the song as "an R&B and hip hop song" and a "down and dirty" song. I understand there is not one right way of doing an article so this is more food for thought than anything.
Eliminate "however" in the lead. It is a weak transition and not necessary as the contrast is already apparent between the two ideas.
The phrase "consolidate her popularity" sounds a little off to me. I understand what you are saying, but I think a different verb should be used here.
I would suggest introducing Mya, Pink, and Lil Kim for an unfamiliar reader. Obviously, not too in-depth as they only are referenced in this sentence of the article.
The transition between the sentence about the song being done in the vein of a Redman song to his appearance on a diss track to Aguilera sounds somewhat awkward. I get the connection, but I would advise tying these ideas together with a stronger transition.
In the final sentence of the "Development" section, who is the person/source describing the title as a reflection of the music video? I would recommend being a little more clear here, especially since you are using a quote.
Italicize Stylus Magazine
I would recommend either 1) moving the information regarding the release into the "Background section" and renaming this section "Chart performance" or 2) clarifying "reception" as "commercial reception" as the current section is somewhat unclear.
How did Shakira and Jessica Simpson disapprove of the video? This may not be necessary for the article, but it reads somewhat unclear. Also change "disapproved her image" to "disapprove of her image".
Why is the Sarah Michelle Gellar parody listed twice (both in the "Reception and legacy" subsection of the "Music Video" section and in the "Live performances and media usage" section). Since it is a parody of the music video, I would recommend cutting the sentence from the media usage section as it is too repetitive.
I would change the verbs in the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the "Live performances and media usage" section as the repetition of the word "included" is somewhat awkward.
Was there any critical response to Ed Sheeran's cover of the song or Stephen Merchant's lip-sync of it?
For the "Credits and personnel" section, I would recommend using the subsection headings "Recording locations" and "Personnel" to separate this section and make it easier to read. Something similar to what is done on the page for Rihanna's S&M.
I hope my comments are helpful. Remember I am still very new to Wikipedia so take these comments with a grain of salt, but this is what I noticed when reading through the article and comparing it to FA music pages. This is what I gathered from a single reading so if you want more notes, feel free to ask. (I apologize for the length of this message ><) Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to Aoba47 by Brainulator9
@Aoba47: Since I've been on the website longer, I can give my thoughts. Anything I don't mention I fixed.
The R&B styles were specified, so there.
The real persona is the one that hadn't been fabricated by Aguilera's manager. This was explained earlier in the sentence.
Hesitant to add the Lady Marmalade info due to being unnecessary thanks to context, but OK.
Nothing wrong with what exists for the transition.
Aguilera said that quote, so I fixed it.
Well, it is the same concept, so... any ideas for "included"?
No reception that I know of.
Not necessary since there's not much to split up.
The length's fine, since it's helpful. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help in any way. Good luck with taking this to GA and FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks! I just fixed the overuse of "included" (and "performed") in that section. So... it looks like the page is complete, pretty much. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brainulator9: Anytime! This page is definitely ready for a GAN and I am more than positive it will pass that relatively quickly. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the expectations for a FA (I am still pretty new on here so I still have to familiarize myself with the criteria), but I suspect that it is also very close if not already on the level expected for an FA. Again, good luck with this article. I can tell a lot of work has been put into it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brainulator9: I am glad to hear it! And thank you for the link! I previously attempted to nominate a page to become a FA without much success so I definitely need to familiarize myself more with the criteria. :-) Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Christmas Carol is an annual favourite for many people, either as the source novel, or through one of the many film and television adaptations. The background to the novella is nearly (but not quite) as interesting as the story itself. I hope to take this on to either GA or FA after review, and I look forward to hearing the comments of others as to how this could be improved toward that goal. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really nice article. I'm pretty sure it will become a GA but there are some things that might mention reviewers:
Shouldn't the characters be written under bullet points like
"*Scrooge"
"*Ghost"
I don't think that's the right form for novels. I know it's used in all film articles (for listing the actors that playthe parts, but not for characters in a novel. - The Bounder (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also the plot section doesn't look that long so I suggest to remove the staves.
In reception I would avoid using too many quotes and instead paraprhasing it. I'm speaking from my previous past experiences with reception sections.
Additionally, in the section, look for similarities and/or contrasts between reviews to make a small point.
Other than that, the article looks really good. Also, I would appreciate if you could take a look at my own peer review. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments: I'll go through them in more detail shortly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the tagged suggestion of splitting the article. An article about a play and an article about a real person are two very different things, and it is very awkward to have them joined together.
The list of scenes should be rewritten to a more conventional plot summary.
The section titled "Dulcitius and feminism" doesn't seem to have much to do with feminism. Perhaps it should be re-titled, or is there more material available to expand the discussion?
I did some MOS-based copy edits to the punctuation and capitlization.
This is an interesting item and a lot of my article work is on older plays (usually not quite this old!), so I would be happy to help you work on the article beyond peer review if you would like.
I agree with previous suggestions that the extent of the biographical info about Hrosvitha's life is unnecessary given the existence of another page about the topic. Beyond that, the page would benefit from a section for a synopsis of the play. While it's useful to have the scenes outlined there isn't any clear summarization of what the play is about or why it is, as noted in the lead, comedic in nature - this explanation is also absent from the Dulcitius as comedy sub-heading. At the same time, it's interesting to know that the play was written in the style of Terence, but if a reader doesn't know anything about that playwright they would have to click into the page for that work to understand the reference. A review of the lead and a consideration of how they align with WP:LEAD guidelines would also help. There is information presented - specifically that Agape, Chionia, and Irena are sisters - that isn't clearly outlined in the remainder of the page. I hope this helps with page revisions moving forward! I have a page submitted for peer review right now, as well, and would appreciate any feedback. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been wondering whether this article could be listed as a FA due to its large amount of real world information. I have several doubts like the prose, somethings need better explanation, words requiring italics, or that the chapters' references might take too much weight.
I'd like to comb though this article when I get some time, but from a glance, it looks well-done. I haven't had experience working with animae articles, so I don't know what things FA reviewers would be looking for--I guess a lot of their criteria depends on the particular topic. But, my first impression is that it looks like a nicely developed and well-crafted article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Garagepunk66's analysis. And at my knowledge, there is none problem of weight. --Crazy runner (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
While I can tell a lot of hard work was put into this article and strongly believe there is potential here for a great FAC, I have to disagree with the last two comments and say that a lot of work needs to be done here. As someone who has never seen or watched this series before, I found myself confused in a lot of spaces.
Lead
Since you refer to his clothing in the article, is there any way to get a fully body shot of him as the infobox picture?
Put the date in which D.Gray-man manga chapter 1 was published in the infobox.
What does (Hallow) mean? This is not addressed in the article.
Reference 1 (http://pro-baobab.jp/ladies/kobayashi_s/index.html) is dead and needs to be replaced with either a new source or an archived version of this source. The same comment applies to Reference 25.
There is a lot of information being conveyed in the first paragraph, which may be overwhelming for an unfamiliar reader. For instance, I am not sure what you mean by “the Noah” or “Innocence”. I would recommend looking over this section to make sure all the ideas are clear.
Change “Allen was created based” to “Allen was based”
The phrase “who hair Hoshino lengthened to create Allen’s designs” reads very awkwardly. I would recommend revising this to make the sentence flow more coherently.
Who designed Allen’s garment and appearance to reflect this? Was it Hoshino or someone else who worked on the manga/anime? Make sure this is clear?
The phrase “Hoshino was pleased with his maturity” is very vague. What about his maturity pleased Hoshino? What aspects of the character reflect his maturity? Again, be specific. I know this is addressed in the main body of the article, but avoid vague language in the lead to avoid potential confusion or misinterpretation.
In the sentence “Reactions to Allen’s character have been generally positive”, clarify who is receiving the character positively. I am assuming that you mean critics, but it is not clear. Also, what about Allen was received positively?
Change “Allen’s character” to either “Allen” or “Allen’s characteristics” . “Allen’s character” sounds odd, and makes it sound like Allen has or created his own character, when you are directly referring to him.
Again, who is praising his character design and his personality in comparison to other manga protagonists?
Characteristics and appearances
I would recommend moving the “Characteristics” section after the “Creation and conception” section as it is somewhat awkward to lead directly with this rather than the “Appearances” section.
Define “Innocence” as I still have no idea what this means (I have not read anime or seen the manga so I honestly did not understand this point). You define it as "the weaponized form of an object" and later as objects "scattered across the world", which does not to help me understand what this word means in this context.
This phrase “When Mana died, Allen attempted to resurrect him through a man known as Millennium Earl turning Mana into a demon known Akuma who sliced Allen through the left eye” reads extremely awkwardly and needs to be revised. You are trying to say a lot in this sentence so I would recommend splitting it in two.
As someone who has never read or seen this, the summary leaves very confused in several spots. I do not understand the meaning of “Akuma”. You seem to rely on the Wikilinks for “Noah family” and “Millennium Earl” and other characters to inform the reader, rather than explaining their relationship with Allen. I am also not sure what the term "Exorcist" means in the context of this series. Go through this section again and identify all the areas that address content specific to this series, and make sure it is fully explained. This seems like a great summary for readers familiar with the series, but for someone like me, it needs work.
In the “In other media” section, do “the first”, “the second”, and “the third” refer to the video games or the light novels? If you are referring to the video games, move the sentence about Allen’s appearances in light novels after these statements for clarity.
Revise the sentence about the song as it read very awkwardly. It is important information, but needs to be reworked.
@Tintor2: The "Creation and conception" and "Reception" sections are much stronger than the "Appearances" section. They still require a copyedit to weed out awkward phrasing, but all of the elements. I will not add comments about those sections as I do not want my comments to be too long or overwhelming to deter other people to comment as well. Overall, the main area I would think about while improving this article is clarity. Make sure that all of the information is accessible to any audience (not just those already familiar with this series). If you need further comments or clarification, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm a bit sleepy now, so I'll work more on this tomorrow. I've tried working a bit on the lead. About the image, the full shot has half of his body crossed with the D.Gray-man logo. The first volume has his initial Black Order clothes but again he is not fully shot. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I tried addressing your comments, but I can't find the second dead reference. I don't know what should I add to the lead to expand who are the Noah. Also about images, I found this image and this [7] which I think might be more suitable since those are clothes he wears more often. The two anime series has more illustrations for Allen but I think we should use primary images. Regards and thanks. Feel free to add more comments.Tintor2 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: I came over to take a look at how was going and if I could help address any problems. If the image needs to be replaced, I have a copy of the series' artbook, and I can see if it has a suitable replacement image. I'd just need a clear idea of what the current image is lacking and what a new image needs to address. I could also help with the clarity issues as best I can. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TenTonParasol: I meant for my comment about replacing the infobox image to be more of a suggestion than a requirement. I would think it would be helpful to have a full-body shot of the character as the character's clothing seems to be important to his design (it is even mentioned in the lead), and it may be beneficial to provide a clear image that shows that to the reader. The image in the infobox is good, but I just wanted to offer some ideas for improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: The second reference seems to be working now, so it must have been an error on my end. The lead is fine with the content as it currently stands, and I would suggest focusing on the "Appearances" section makes sense to those unfamiliar with the series. I believe this would make an excellent FAC, so I do not want to sound too discouraging. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I tried rewriting some parts from appearances and splitting long sentences. Should I request a copyedit from the guild? Also, I leave @TenTonParasol: to decide if she wants to change the image.Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: A copyedit is always a good idea. I always found the guild to be extremely helpful so I would strongly recommend that. And I would agree with whatever decision @TenTonParasol: makes about the image. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2 and Aoba47: Mmmmmm, that does sound like a reasonable rationale to have a different image, though. I'll go through the art book later and see if there is a really good image. If so, I'll change it (eventually). If there isn't, then I'll just leave it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TenTonParasol: No worries, the image is fine as it currently stands. I just wanted to offer a suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47:, a copyeditor has just finished editing the article. What do you think?Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: The article looks great! Good luck with the FAC, and let me know when you nominate it so I can provide my input there as well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give time to @TenTonParasol: to wait and do the nomination since she also did a lot.Tintor2 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Warbrick was a 19th century rugby footballer who organised and captained the 1888-89 New Zealand Native Football team. I'm hoping to take this article to WP:FAC sometime next year. It's been a Good Article for a couple of years now, and I think it's close to being ready for FAC, but want any feedback I can get before nominating.
Following the tour he also criticised the impartiality of the English referees - umm, isn't impartiality a good thing? Don't you mean bias/partiality..? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Natives played a total of 107 rugby matches, including 74 in the British Isles, and the tour remains the longest tour in rugby history - see if you can reword so only one "tour" in sentence...
I'd add some more details about his death, if they can be sourced.
Otherwise looks in order...a nice little read. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I'll try and address those points. I appreciate the time you took to read and comment. Thanks. -- Shuddetalk 15:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted an opinion of an experienced user before nominating it for FA status. Please @ping me if news concerning this may appear.
Overall this is a very well-written, informative article. Here are some 'Reception' section suggestions:
First sentence: "Unlocked debuted at number 21 on the Japanese Oricon Albums Chart, selling 3,859 copies in its first week."
Second sentence: How many weeks did it take to fall from 39 to 83? I also think it's redundant to have "Japanese Albums Chart" in this sentence as it's already clear from the sentences that come before and after it. I would prefer to see wording like this: "Over the following (three?) weeks, sales continued to decline as the album fell to number 83 on the chart."
Third sentence: "higher" is redundant because "climbed" already describes an upward movement. Also, "on the week ending on 7 October 2014" can be tightened to "for the week ending 7 October 2014".
Fourth sentence: "after 17 non-consecutive weeks" is clear; "spending" is not needed.
Later in the section, I would say "Dijei Zasin of music website Pop Shock described", and then "He praised" instead of "They praised".
X Factor should be italicized.
In the 'Promotion' section:
Change "sophomore" single to "second" per MOS:POPMUSIC.
Reword "The most successful track of the record on the Japan Hot 100" to "The album's highest-charting single on the Japan Hot 100"
"The album's fourth single, "Give Me Your Everything", was launched on 27 August 2014." - change "was launched" to "premiered". Also, the release date in the infobox says 20 August 2014. Which one is correct?
"The accompanying controversial music video". To avoid repetition, I would change it to simply, "The accompanying music video", because the controversy is introduced and discussed in the sentence after this one.
""Vanilla Chocolat" was released on 24 December 2014 as the fifth song from Unlocked" - change "song" to "single". Also, the release date in the infobox says 5 December 2014. Which one is correct?
A bonus single only made available for purchase on the German version of the record, "We Wanna", featured fellow Romanian recording artist, Inna, and American reggaeton performer Daddy Yankee. I would reword it like this:
"We Wanna", a bonus single available only on the German edition of the album, features fellow Romanian artist Inna and American reggaeton performer Daddy Yankee.
Great work on the article so far! Gongshow talk 21:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gongshow: Sorry for the late response, but I am in holiday in Hațeg, Romania, and in this location I finally have internet. I have done everything; thank you for the lovely review. If there will be an opportunity to revenge on you by also reviewing smth, I will do it. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AJona1992
I'll be more rigorous in my review for Unlocked since your goal is ultimately FA.
Immediately in the lead section there are "recorded by" and "recording artist"; album and song articles over at FAC are criticized for having two very similar words in one sentence.
Fixed
The prose is also a bit weak (sorry), for an example "It was made available for digital download" could be rephrased to "It was made for digital consumption" or "It was commercially made available through digital music outlets".
Fixed
We don't need to know Alexandra Stan's discography in the lead either, pick between the two albums you have already and explained in the article body that were two releases prior to Unlocked.
Fixed
Do we know which songs the producers in the lead wrote? (does not need to be included in the lead; just a question for possible improvements)
They did not contribute on that many songs, so their including isn't a big deal.
I feel that the word premiered is more associated with films and TV episodes than music releases, try release or even physical consumption if you did not use the term for its digital format.
Fixed
For the second para of the lead, try changing it to "Musically, Unlocked encompasses the EDM and dance-pop styles of her previous material, it consists of using instrumentation previously explored in her work; songs such as "Kiss Me Goodbye" and "Give Me Your Everything" makes use of Bhangra and Caucasian music, respectively."
Fixed
What do you mean by "issuance, retrieval"?
It is to mean that she is literally free from a pressure and that she has found herself, respectively.
Ok, so instead of using those adjectives, I rewrote the sentence: "Lyrically, the album approaches themes on liberation (of which pressure?) and rejuvenation", but I am still unsure of using those as well. What did the sources say exactly? A lot of the songs in the album are more on finding love, partying, and contentment. – jona✉ 00:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: I said not to implement the two rephrased terms because I am unclear of what the sources said about the lyrics/themes on the album. You're better off with reverting it back to its original until a source review is conducted at FAC and they can further assist (if needed) to fix that sentence. Also, you should have exhausted all resources Wikipedia has to offer; getting a second WP:GOCE/REQ doesn't hurt you, requesting a FAC mentor who can assist you with the review, as well as asking WP:REX with help on providing sources you may not have access to which in turn can help expand the article. Hope for the best in your second FAC, I'll have it on my watchlist – jona✉ 12:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More to come – jona✉ 21:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'll have another look and have it done by tonight or tomorrow. Best, – jona✉ 17:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to link Romanians in the lead
Fixed
I thought changing it to digital consumption would be better but I'm not feeling it for the lead, so lets try something like "It was released digitally on 27 August 2014 through Victor Entertainment as a follow-up to Saxobeats (2011)."
Fixed
The second sentence should be rephrased along the lines with "She took part at the inaugural international songwriting FonoCamp in 2013, where she further worked on material featured on the album."
Fixed
Remove "with it" (lead; second para, first sentence)
Fixed
The second sentence needs to be plural, change "make" to "makes"
Not fixed Well, actually "make" is correct:
The songs (they) make
The song (it) makes
Ah I see it now. No changes need to be made there – jona✉ 16:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the RIAJ are an authoritative source, saying "according to them" is unfitting (and I believe I was the one who said to do it anyway lol). Since the units are solely based in Japan, just say that it sold that much in that country with Japan linked to the RIAJ.
Fixed
Generally in album articles, editors leave out where the album was recorded in the infobox like 4 or are added in its own section like Aaliyah but there are other FA album articles like Formula, Vol. 1 that does so it's just an option to either remove it, re-add it to its own section, or leave it alone.
Fixed
If only "Kiss Me Goodbye" uses Bhangra music, then there's no need for it as a music genre in the infobox which should only be a summarization of the definitive genre heavily used or if available check Allmusic and use that
Fixed
According to Allmusic.com the recording is electronic and pop rock which should be used in place of the other genres you have in the infobox. – jona✉ 16:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a comma needed after "Saxobeats (2011)" and remove the comma used before the "Mr. Saxobeat" (first para of the first subsection; first sentence) – jona✉ 00:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change "material featured on the album" to "material featured on the recording"
Fixed
In the last sentence of the first para in the lead, end the sentence and start off a new one with information about her signing a recording contract with Fonogram Records; avoid the word "new".
Fixed
I see why you wanted to break the sentence up in the second para since it a runoff one. Tweak it to say "it consisted of" (using a semicolon) or continue using a comma and change it to "which consisted of".
Fixed
Please see my previous comment above about the themes explored in the album for possible improvements.
Fixed The source in Romanian tells the exactly same words as standing before your comment in the lead
Background and development
Avoid the word "new" in this section
Fixed
Remove "following this"
Fixed
Instead of saying "first single" replace it with lead single
Not fixed It was not promoted as its lead single, but was released the first. Well, from the sources, I don't know which one was the lead single or if there is one.
"Romania, held in Azuga" - you could just say Azuga, Romania
Fixed
Recordings and artwork
Remove "the" its redundant (first para; first sentence)
Fixed
During interviews, she expressed that the lyrical content of "Thanks for Leaving" refers to her recovery following her violent incident with Prodan, making the song very personal to her change it to In an interview, she expressed that the lyrical content of "Thanks for Leaving" is personal and refers to her recovery following her alleged violent incident with Prodan.
Fixed
You can just say genres or better yet say the recording drew influences of various genres including...
Fixed
"was a photograph" continue using past-tense here; remove "a" and rephrased photograph to photographed by
Fixed
Promotion
Remove "in order to" and replace it with "To promote the single" (fourth sentence)
Fixed
Avoid the words "launch" and "premiered" when talking about music releases
Fixed
"was again" change to "was also" and only use his surname Mokhtar following the first time you tell readers about him.
File:Vanilla Chocolat (Sample).ogg fails WP:SAMPLE where it says "samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." and use a "quality setting of 0 (roughly 64kbit/s)"; currently the sample size is at 83 kbps which is larger than the 64 kbps allowed on Wikipedia and the sample should be reduced to 19.7 seconds per the rule of thumb. This, along with the fact that you only copy-paste the same rationale used for the single article to the album article, will not be acceptable over at FAC. So, (1) you need to cut the size to 64 kbps, (2) you need to reduce it to 19.7 seconds, and (3) you need to add a better rationale use for this article and not copy-paste what is already used in the single's article.
Fixed Changed it with a picture; everything else which has to be done with the file is to be changed soon my be
File:Cherry Pop (Sample).ogg also fails WP:SAMPLE; it currently stands at 73 kbps and is over the 10% length which should be 19.1 seconds. Also the same thing above with the rationale usage, it needs to be different than the one you previously used in the single's article.
Fixed same as above :)
File:Unlocked International.jpg is ok
Credits and personnel
Change songwriter to composer
Fixed
What is a vocal sample? Does it say that in the booklet?
In "Little Lies" there's a "ey ey, still little lie-ie-ie-ie-ies..." sampled from some of Burges works. Yes, it is included in the credits as "vocal sample"
Avoid overlinking (hair stylist)
Fixed
Why is Grano in the production section and not in the vocal section?
It's a pseudonym for DJ Andi, which was worked with her on the song for a Romanian liberty parade two years ago.
@AJona1992: Done all and responded to some of your comments. Thanks for you review; I'm going to review your GAN within the course of the new week. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article, with some more work on the basis of suggestions from experienced editors, can be nominated for being recognized as a Featured Article.
Okay, so I'm not at all a subject-matter expert on this subject, so what follows are some neophyte suggestions that might assist in making the article more accessible, and some other stylistic bits.
Prose:
Vedanta (IAST, Vedānta, Sanskrit: वेदांत) or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Indian philosophy. It represents the divergent philosophical views of more than 10 schools—all developed on the basis of a common textual connection called the Prasthanatrayi.—These two lines on their face seem contradictory. It's one of six schools, but it represents more than ten schools? I suppose the clarifier is that it's an orthodox school, but it's a bit unclear here what the relation of those ten mentioned schools is—does Vedanta represent beliefs from more than ten schools synthesized into its own thing, or are those ten schools basically organized under the Vedanta orthodoxy?
The Prasthanatrayi is a collective term for the Principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.—you should briefly explain what the Principal Upanishads et al are, such as "collective term for the philosophical texts Principal Upanishads" or such.
From a style standpoint there's a lot of work that needs to be done, especially regarding WP:DASH—you've got hyphens with spaces in places of em dashes, or en dashes instead of em dashes, etc. Something to keep in mind and try to clean up.
In general I think the article needs a few more signposts and clarifying text for the lay reader. A lot of proper nouns are introduced without an explanation as to what they are, and readers should never have to link away from an article in order to get the gist of the text presented in the article itself. This is a pretty fundamental issue throughout the skeleton of the article, as well—the article is organized around Nondualism yet never explains what Nondualism is, which given its multiple uses is particularly troublesome.
I think reorganizing this article would help, as to me it seems counterintuitive that the "Vedanta philosophy" section and the part that lists commonalities between the different schools of thought comes after descriptions of all the schools and after the history of the movement.
In terms of organization, I looked for FA-class philosophy articles and found Anekantavada, which I think might serve as a useful template for organization.
Varying interpretations of the Upanishads and their synthesis, the Brahma Sutras, led to the development of different schools of Vedanta over time of which three,[15] four,[16] five[17] or six[18][note 3] are prominent—if the sources disagree in how many Vedanta schools are actually prominent, probably better to streamline this rather than throwing out specific numbers.
References
There's stray inline Harvard referencing in the article such as Gaudapada (c. 6th century CE),[44] was the teacher or a more distant predecessor of Govindapada,Michael Comans (2000, pp. 2,163) alongside the more common Wikipedia use of reflists. This should all get standardized.
I really can't speak to the vast majority of source as to their relevance and prominence/appropriateness.
Images
The images in the article need a once-over to verify their free usage. Images like File:Ramanuja embracing Lord Varadaraj.jpg and File:Shri mahaprabhuji.jpg assert free use as being the uploader's own work, but they're clearly photographs or scans of other work and we need to know that base content is in the public domain. File:Shri Madhvacharya.jpg asserts public domain via the age of the author, yet has no author information for the tag to be legitimate.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA (and possible FA) one day. Since this is basically listing many criticisms and rebuttals of those criticisms, I thought it would be best to have someone else read over this article and see if anything is too POV. I have also, to the best of my ability, gone over everything to make sure that it reads well and that there are no typos, but a quick look-over would also be great.
I might be a while as I'm busy the next few days, but I hope to be helpful. 18:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I'm in no real rush with this project, so you can take your time!--Gen. Quon(Talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
The lead has a heavy amount of citations. Could these be moved to the article about the book, or the body of the text? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the citations aren't really necessary, as what they are sourcing is covered (and sourced) in-depth within the article itself. I have removed those. At the same time, I've kept the citations for the direct quotes.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 15:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that edit. I like the use of the image and the caption about it, the article is well summarised by it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background
This section looks good. One problem is with the image caption. What is written under the image makes it sounds like it is questioned if Joseph Smith translated the papyri or not, but the vibe I'm getting from the main text is that the quality of the translation and not the authorship is what is questioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is, "Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, which he claimed was translated from Egyptian papyri"? I'm trying to say that Joseph Smith wrote the book, but he said he translated it (and evidence suggests that this is not the case).--Gen. Quon(Talk) 17:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So Joseph Smith undisputedly wrote the book? It is the person who translated it which is questioned? If so then a simple change from he which he claimed was translated from Egyptian papyri to something like from a Egyptian papyri which he claimed he translated will do. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Smith wrote the book, which he claimed to have translated. Most scholars believe that he did no such thing (that is, translate from Egyptian-to-English), although almost everyone is in agreement that he created the English 'translation' (if that makes sense). It's rather confusing.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 03:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem a bit confusing, but I think the new caption that you added succinctly explains it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis and translation of the papyrus by Egyptologists
To improve this section perhaps we could clarify about the Great Chicago Fire. The use of a question mark indicates that their is doubt that they were destroyed in it, what do the reliable sources say about this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the chart to read "Presumed lost in the Great Chicago Fire". This is also what Ritner 2013, pp. 61–66 suggests, and he's the one who is cited at the top of the chart, after "Status".--Gen. Quon(Talk) 17:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section looks good. Only improvement I could suggestion is if you could include an image, perhaps of the relevant verses. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a page from the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". How does that look?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 17:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Facsimile No. 2 has a further information section linking to its' own article, does one exist for the other facsimiles? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case the sections for the individual facsimiles seems good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other criticisms
This is a plural but only one one other criticism is given. I was initially thinking that is a small issue and was thinking of making it singular, but I wonder if you can think of a better title. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Scripture-based criticism", as I think that better summarizes the (rather short) section.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 17:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, small world. I literally just requested a peer review of a Mormon topic I've been writing about, and before I started that I didn't know anything about Mormonism and this article was one of the ones I read during research. I remember thinking it was really well written, so even though it wasn't related to what I was writing I still read the whole thing.
Well thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to look over this.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Since its publication in 1842, the Book of Abraham has been a source of controversy. Non-Mormon Egyptologists, beginning in the late-19th century, have disagreed with Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles. " <-- I think this is far too weak. One of them said "It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations", and none of them said that Smith was even close to correct.
I changed it to: "Non-Mormon Egyptologists, beginning in the late-19th century, have heavily criticized Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles, with many claiming that his interpretations are entirely inaccurate."--Gen. Quon(Talk) 22:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery of papyri and their sale to Joseph Smith
Is it possible to include more information about how Smith translated it? How did he come up with the phonetic values, or is this unknown? (I mean, this is Joseph Smith we're talking about here, someone "known for tall tales"...)
I'll have to check the sources I used, but I have a feeling that the exact system hasn't been preserved. But then again, the 'paperwork' that suggests how parts of this book were constructed are in existence, so maybe scholars have considered this topic.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis and translation of the papyrus by Egyptologists
It seems strange to me that you included three different translated sections, but maybe this was unavoidable. Would it be possible to put translations by different people of the same section together? That would be quite interesting, as it would show independent Egyptologists in agreement about the translation (or not).
Not a bad suggestion (perhaps like something with the facsimiles?), although I will point out that the first block quote is just a summary of the recovered papyrus, whereas the next two are translations of two separate parts of that very same papyrus.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Early criticism of the facsimiles
I really think this section could benefit from a (perhaps highly) abridged Decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs...when I read this it wasn't clear to me at all how much these early people knew vs. us today vs. what we don't know. I know about the Rosetta Stone of course, but the road from finding the rock to translating the whole language could not have been a straight line.
Good idea. I'll look into that, as I'm honestly not really that knowledgeable on how it all went down.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I was reading this section, I was quite confused, probably because of my own ignorance never having read Smith's BOA. Earlier sections said that the originals were lost in a fire, but we know what they look like? So, it must mean that they were published in the Book Of Abraham, so what exactly was lost in the fire, why couldn't Egyptologists translate everything?
The originals for Facs. 2 and 3 were lost. The original for Fac. 1 was later discovered, and a reproduction of the source for Fac. 2 was later discovered in the Kirtland Egyptian papers. The only thing that is totally unaccounted for is the source of Fac. 3. I tried to make that a little clearer with this edit.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scripture-based criticism
Don't get me wrong, interesting and should def. be included. However maybe not stand alone, it would work better as a subsection due to its length.
I have modified the article so that there are two major sections: "Criticism of the book" and "Defense of the book". The former section now includes "Scripture-based criticism" as a sub-section. Does that work better?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 23:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defense of the book
"For many years, Hugh Nibley, for instance, preferred the argument that the Sensen text has two meanings: one that can be determined by standard translation, and another than can only be divined with something like the Urim and Thummim, or a seer stone." Maybe reiterate some info from "The "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar"". This isn't like the Book of Mormon, there is abundant evidence Smith was trying to do this in a pseudo-academic way. We don't have a dictionary/grammar of the BOM after all.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean to reiterate that this argument seems to be rather poor/weak, given all that we know?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 23:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These things are all very small, and if they were ignored the article is still excellent. Note that I am a very new contributor with no GA's as of yet, so take my advice with a grain of salt also! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do really appreciate your comments, and no worries about being new. Your comments have been very helpful and have made me rethink and rewrite sections that I now see aren't all that clear.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 23:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An image would be nice. See WP:LOGOS for more info using logos. Subheadings and paragraphs with only one sentence are not ideal in my opinion. I would recommend merging or expanding some of these lonely sentences. There is an excessive number of references for an article this size. See WP:Citation overkill for more information on selecting references. Hope this helps.Dig Deeper (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSLEAD, the citations should be removed from the lead section and added to the relevant sections in the text. The lead should summarise the article and should not state any information that is not repeated and covered in more depth in the text; the citations are thus more appropriate in the text.
Sourcing looks good to me apart from one (small) point. There are lots of news articles as sources, and very few have the journalists name with them. I have seen that some, like the DAWN sources, do not give the name but I am sure some do.
An image of the politician would be nice, but I am no expert on files and fair use etc; this may not be possible.
A listing at WP:GOCE may be favourable to tighten up some of the prose - or the GA reviewer may also help with this.
Apart from this - it does look like a good article covering the topic in good depth. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheMagikCow: thank you for reviewing this. I've removed the references from lead and moved them to relevant sections. I think the lead summarize the article well but if you see otherwise, please let me know. I will try to fix it. I've added missing author names in news piece references. A free licensed photo has been added. Couldn't found any better. I'm not good at CE so I have made a request at WP:GOCE. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any other major issues here. Perhaps a little more detail about what he did in office - but if there is none that it not a problem if nothing notable happened. Apart from that it's all OK I think! Great job and I do wish you all the best at GA; and if you need any help just give me a {{ping}}! TheMagikCow (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheMagikCow: Regarding what he did in office, I wonder whether this is what you meant? --Saqib (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2016, the IMF confirmed that Pakistan's economy was 'out of crisis' [8]According to the World Bank, poverty in Pakistan fell from 64.3% in 2002 to 29.5% in 2014.[9]Pakistan's fiscal position continues to improve as the budget deficit has fallen from 6.4% in 2013 to 4.3% in 2016.[10][11]The country's improving Macroeconomic position has led to Moody's upgrading Pakistan's debt outlook to "stable".[12]
Its just a case of if there are any more details about what he did in office: policies, speeches and stuff like that. If there are none - don't worry. It is just that a GA has to be comprehensive so any major omissions would be a fail. The text you gave does not really fit in the scope - the artciles don't mention him specifially. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I couldn't find anything substantial that mention the subject of article. --Saqib (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheMagikCow: copyediting has been done on this article [13]. What do you think of it? --Saqib (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great - I think all should be in order at GA. I can see no obvious reason for a failure there. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheMagikCow: Thank you for your time giving it a review. could you please close this peer review request for me. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few preliminary comments from a scan of the article:
A couple of sections seem heavy with block quotes. You should consider for each case whether an extended quote is really needed. If you can convey the information with a shorter quote and/or paraphrase, that is usually better.
It's great that there are many images available to illustrate the article, but in the "Modern era" section there are so many that they seem to be crowding the text. Consider removing some images or perhaps spreading them out more.
There are spots that stick out as "sea of blue" -- mostly lists of people's (blue linked) names. Since almost every section has a "main article" type link that would contain additional detail, this type of listing is of questionable value here. See if you can cull the examples to just the most prominent. This will also give you some space to give a bit more description about the ones that remain, so readers have more context.
For FA you will need to pay a lot of attention to your sources and to style/formatting issues. Currently the references list is a bit messy. Most seem to be using the "cite book"/"cite web" templates, but they aren't consistent about things like using the 'first'/'last' name fields vs. using 'author', and there are some other formats, including bare URLs. I'd suggest going through every refnote to clean it up. This will also give you a chance to verify all the links and consider whether each source meets the highest standards of reliability, as will be expected in an FA review.
That's it for now. I'll try to give the article a closer read, but I can't claim any subject matter expertise, so most of my comments will probably be about higher-level issues such as the above. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…Maile66, Mark Miller and I are interested in getting this article to FAC status. Please help us with any outside opinions on further expansion and clean up to get this to FAC status. There is much to be written about Liliuokalani but for a Wikipedia entry we have hit most of the points get it there.
Finish. All footnotes are now currently Harvard reference link to books or newspapers which have been reformatted for consistency. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, "Fixico, Donald L. (2007)" does not appear to be specifically cited, so it should possibly be moved to the Further reading section
I have been working on bringing this article up from start-class and I would like to get it to GA-class. Any suggestions, advice, or comments regarding the article would be appreciated. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I only have a few very minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
is there a relevant page number or range for the Ruigui source?
are there publisher/work and accessdate details for the "Suiyuan 1936: Images of the Anti-Japanese War by Missing Photographer Fang Dazeng" web citation
I would suggest making the "Books" and "Journals" headers third level headers under a second level "References" header, or changing "Books" to "References" and "Journals" to "Further reading" (as it isn't currently cited specifically)
the External links are slightly inconsistent in their format. For instance compare "TIME Oct. 23" with "TIME, Dec. 11" and "TIME Magazine, Feb. 12" etc
there is one dab link that should be sorted: "Chahar"
suggest linking "Kuomintang"
currently the infobox seems a little lop-sided (i.e. the division between the belligerents which is usually in the centre seems to be too far to the left), is there a way to fix this? Possibly if you use break tags?
instead of a largely empty "Order of battle" section, I suggest changing this header to "Opposing forces". You could still keep the main article link, but could provide a few short outline of the strengths and units etc
some of the information in the infobox does not appear to be in the body of the article, eg. 45,000; 16,000; 19th Army etc". This could be included in an Opposing forces section if you chose to go down that path
Thanks for looking it over, and the other articles I posted on the military history assessments page. To address the points: with the Ruigui source I am not sure of the page number, it was used on the original article and they did not have any page number there. I don't have any way to access it and I do not know Chinese in any case. I added more details, including dates, to the photographer source, and changed formatting of the sources. I also changed the link names for the TIME Magazine so they are more organized and consistent. I specified the link to Chahar and linked to Kuomintang.
For the infobox, I am not sure what you mean. It seems to be in the center on my computer. I will also expand to the order of battle section and include some of the infobox information in it.Romanov loyalist (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I'll do more copyediting if you bring the article to A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" It consisted of: "several 75-mm naval guns, some 37-mm pom poms, 5 heavy anti-aircraft guns and a few 13-mms". --> "According to McCarthy, it consisted of: "several 75-mm naval guns, some 37-mm pom poms, 5 heavy anti-aircraft guns and a few 13-mms".
"McCarthy records, it consisted of:" Done? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Lieutenant General Richard K. Sutherland, MacArthur's chief of staff": probably need to use MacArthur's full name and position here as it is the first mention of him in the body of the article
"26 November 1942 as follows." – should probably end with a colon instead of a full stop
This is the end of a sentence, not a continuing list of punctuated text ultimately ended by a full-stop? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that it is really a stem sentence, but I'm not going to die in a ditch over it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I. I asked for a third opinion from a resident grammar Nazi and will go with that. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not any kind of Nazi. As to the colon versus period, both look fine to me. But there's a typo there, I think, where "as at" should be "at" or "as of". Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Horii was posthumously promoted from Major General to Lieutenant General" --> "Horii was posthumously promoted from major general to lieutenant general" per WP:MILTERMS
"The reinforcement in late December was from Yamagata's Brigade. The date of this reinforcement reported in the Center of Military History publication appears to be in conflict with other sources." --> "The reinforcement in late December was from Yamagata's Brigade. The date of this reinforcement reported in the Center of Military History publication appears to be in conflict with other sources which provide the date of X"
Does edit clarify as other sources provide differing but similar dates? See also para before for details. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could create a second level heading called "Casualties", which could then include "Prisoners", "Evacuation" and "Number of Japanese killed" as third level headings
Done - though not certain if "Casualties" quite fits. Perhaps "casualties and losses". I take your point but prisoners aren't casualties? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties and losses is indeed a better solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in solid shape, and provides useful coverage of its topic. I have the following comments:
Much greater use could be made of Adrian Threlfall's book Jungle Warriors. The article (rightly) places emphasis on the poor training of the Allied troops and mistakes made by the commanders, but this was only part of the story. As Threlfall demonstrates, their jungle warfare doctrine was woefully inadequate, meaning that even if the troops had been fully trained this training wouldn't have been terribly useful. Similarly, poor doctrine and training also led many otherwise-competent officers to make bad decisions during this battle.
I welcome the comment. It is a complex issue. Well trained and battled hardened troops could achieve significant gains, making up doctrine as they went. The issue was to suppress or neutralise attacked positions and those positions supporting them. Logistics, appropriate resources and command pressure all confounded the problem. I could make a number of observations about more appropriate equipment but these are all hindsight. I have made comments as you indicate in the "Aftermath" of the main article but would welcome any further improvements you might offer here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is highly critical of US Army officers, but the performance of most of the senior Australian Army officers was also somewhere between reckless and incompetent. Threlfall discusses this, and Garth Pratten's Australian Battalion Commanders in the Second World War should also have useful information at the tactical level.
Sorry but I am not seeing what you mean? The lead refers to Sutherland's initial intelligence and the pressure applied by MacArthur. Happy to discuss more? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"While lack of training and the availability of time able to be committed to this are clearly responsible for the criticism levelled at the 32nd Division, McCarthy contrasts this with what had been achieved earlier by the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in a similarly short time." - this sentence is a bit unclear. Again Threlfall notes that the AIF was also not ready for conditions in New Guinea and took heavy casualties as a result, and it seems unfair to compare combat-hardened formations with a green formation.
I'm surprised that there isn't a section on the training and equipment of the AIF.
I haven't seen anything in the sources to warrant it. The AIF, while not trained for jungle warfare, was trained and experienced - many in the recent fighting along the Kokoda Track. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"most serious of General MacArthur's failings, he never got out from behind the desk to find out what was going on" - is this guy serious? While MacArthur didn't visit Gona-Buna, he regularly appeared at the front lines of other campaigns - sometimes recklessly so.
The source levels this criticism wrt to Papua and the Phillipines though this changed as the war progressed. I have tried to clarify this.Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The battle of Buna (commonly referring to the Buna–Gona–Sanananda area) was one of the bloodiest battles of World War II" - as above. This battle was pretty small scale compared to the Eastern Front (where battles which resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities and the destruction of entire divisions were common), or even the major battles of the Pacific War. I wonder if this is really a reliable source?
"More than 3,000 Papuans worked to support the Allies during the battle" - a short section on these men seems in order. It's worth noting that most were forcibly conscripted.
Changed text to conscripted. Don't see enough in the sources. All the good stuff is about Kokoda. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article briefly notes, but doesn't really cover, the amalgamation of Australian units which suffered heavy casualties. The (miss) use of the 7th Division's cavalry regiment as infantry could also be discussed: this was a pretty desperate expedient.
Have you looked at the main article? Sources say 2/7 Cav had trained as infantry and were subsequently designated as commando. It was the last available without stripping other defences. These things are discussed in the main article as the battle develops and puts these things in context. What do you suggest? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised by the strong criticism of the 25-pounder. This gun remained the standard artillery gun for the Australian Army for the remainder of the Pacific War, and it was well-regarded from what I've read. It also seems to have been successful in Burma and even Malaya, so it doesn't seem to have been intrinsically unsuited to jungle warfare as the article suggests. Is the issue that the gun wasn't suited to the particular circumstances here and/or the Australian forces didn't know how to properly employ it?
I am only reporting the sources. Perhaps delay fuses is a factor? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A key feature of the Battle of Buna–Gona was that the Allies did learn a lot of lessons from what went wrong during it: doctrine, training and equipment were improved, and this was a low-mark of the careers of officers who went on to lead highly successful campaigns (even the much-maligned MacArthur and Blamey - who gets of a bit light here at present - never did anything this bad again, and by mid-1943 were leading highly successful campaigns). This presently isn't really covered.
Again, this is raised in the 'Aftermath' of the main article. Is this sufficient without duplicating it here? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou @Nick-D for your time in reviewing the article. I would like to get some more feedback on this an the other articles before I address these comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D Adding some feedback to your comments as I go at this time as only AR has added further comment. I thank you again for your feedback and hope that we might collaborate to improve the article. I will say, that while your comments are very valid, I am not certain how I can use them? You may have access to sources that I don't. I welcome further discussion as I address your individual points and any edits you might add. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, nice work, just a few comments/suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, "The Allied advance on the Japanese positions at Buna–Gona was..." probably best to provide some dates here for context
" It is estimated that the Australians deployed in excess of 7,000 troops": who has estimated this? For instance, "Smith estimates..." or something similar
See note. This is my estimate based on simple (though somewhat fuzzy arithmetic - therefore not WP:OR?) in the absence of any number in the sources being identified. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
""In almost two weeks of fighting they had failed to score even one noteworthy success." --> the quote should be attributed in text. For instance, "Milner writes, "in almost two weeks of fighting they had failed to score even one noteworthy success.".."
Done
"Unfortunately, the dye was more...": it's best to avoid words like "unfortunately" as they create the impression of a point of view
I've listed this article for peer review because Vlad the Impaler's personality and rule has always been subject to scholarly debates, often coloured by emotions. Consequently, I think the neutrality of the article about his life should be peer reviewed before its GAN.
This sfn reference is malformed. The year parameter is occupied by a page number (the template expects years to be four digits so is treating the page number as a name). I expect that the correct year value is 1991 but because I cannot know if the page number is supposed to be 217 or 218 or both 217, 218, I have not repaired it.
Also, Harmening in §Secondary sources is not used so may not belong in this list.
Trappist the monk, thank you for your copyediting and also for your above remarks. I fixed the problems. Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article's title bugs me to no end and in the past I've suggested it be changed. It is very Anglo-centric and a term used by his enemies. The article should be re-named to a neutral name used by himself at the time of his life. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remarks. Sorry, I do not understand why do you think that the translation of his Romanian name ("Vlad Țepeș") is Anglo-centric? According to my experiences, Vlad the Impaler is his common name in books published in English. Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Vlad the Impaler" seems like an Anglo-centric and POV term. Just call him by his actual name. Note that name in the article of course. "Vlad Țepeș" is fine. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like, if in the year 3000, Wikipedia had an article called "Obama the baby eater". And it was okay because that's generally how he was known in the language of the Wikipedia. It's a bit silly. The article should just use a neutral name that he was called at the time, rather than something promoted much later that is slanted. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand why the Romanian translation of the Ottoman expression for "Vlad the Impaler" is better than the English translation of the same name. Does Obama habitually eat babies? Does reliable sources commonly refer to him as "Obama the Baby Eater"? Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Borsoka is trying to say is that "Vlad Tepes" is actually a Romanian translation of the nickname the Turks give him. "Tepes" can be traslated in english as "the Impaler", so I think the bias towards its use in this article's title is unsubstantial: of course, maybe I'm wrong. Talking of Obama, I think we're really going off the topic. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone extensive revision over the past several months to improve overall content and presentation of information. The topic is of significance importance and I believe it is a candidate for good article, or possibly, feature article status. Any and all input as a means of achieving either rating would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Dnllnd (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a well-researched, comprehensive and attractive article on a very important subject. I think it needs a little more clarity on the importance of the subject, particularly for readers outside Canada.
I'd like the intro to talk more about the rift between natives and non-natives and to capture what the controversy is. This isn't something everyone always agreed was bad or that everyone knew about (I was about 12 when the last school closed and never heard a word); much of the work lately has been to raise awareness and reconciliation
Comments on writing (generally good!):
I'd avoid : and ;s- "cultural genocide: 'killing the Indian in the child.'" would read better as "cultural genocide, by 'killing the Indian in the child.'"
Should be written in Canadian English- ("centred" rather than "centered" under History header)
Headers lower case: "Religious Involvement" should be lower i
Inconsistent use of "%" and "percent"
Vatican section- "The audience was funded"- say what?
History between 1945 and 1969 appears to be lacking- no developments? Not even proliferation in schools?
References appear to be thorough, a combo of secondary and some primary (the Commission report) where appropriate
"Details of the mistreatment of students were published numerous times throughout the 20th century. Following the government's closure of most of the schools in the 1960s, the work of Indigenous activists and historians led to greater awareness by the public of the damage the schools had caused, as well as to official government and church apologies, and a legal settlement." - Citations? (high priority)
"At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease." - Citation? (low priority)
" It continues to operate today as the Blue Quills First Nations College, a tribal college." - Citation? (low priority)
"In March 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The Foundation was provided with $350 million to fund community-based healing projects addressing the legacy of physical and sexual abuse. In its 2005 budget, the Canadian government committed an additional $40 million to support the work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation." - Citations? (high priority)
"The ADR process was created by the Canadian government without consultation with Indigenous communities or former residential school students. The ADR system also made it the responsibility of the former students to prove that the abuse occurred and was intentional. Many former students found the system difficult to navigate, re-traumatizing, and discriminatory." - why would dispute resolution be re-traumatizing or discriminatory? I realize I'm asking for a lot of detail for a summary, but would a subarticle be appropriate?
Media portrayals section- a header with no text
I'm a bit out of step with what constitutes a FA or GA in history and legal articles today. Ten years ago this would be featured. Today, with a little polishing, I think this would be worthy. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ribbet32: Thanks again for the feedback. I think I've addressed the bulk of what you flagged, but will continue chipping away at things over the next while. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating as a WP:Good article. I've worked on the article a long time, since it was a stub, and made a lot of edits but feel like I'm now going round in circles. I think it's nearly there, it just needs a bit of a polish. All and any comments are welcome though.
Thanks, Ykraps (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by AustralianRupert
G'day, I'm sorry that this has taken so long to get a review. I think this is because the bot that normally lists peer reviews is down. I have now manually added this to the history subpage, so it should show on the main peer review page, where it will hopefully gain some more attention. Anyway, I took a quick look and have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, is there an OCLC number for the The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume I, 1797–1799 work? For books that don't have ISBNs, an OCLC number can usually be found at www.worldcat.org
I searched for an OCLC number but couldn't find one but I now see that the dates in the reference are for Volume II. Dates changed to 1793-1796 and OCLC number added. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, "Medals of the British Navy and how they were won": this should probably use title case capitalisation: "Medals of the British Navy and How They Were Won"
Agreed. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the Reference list should probably be sorted alphabetically by author's surnames, hence Richard, Woodman is out of sequence
Well spotted. And the first and last names were reversed. Done, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
missing full stop: "The French had in fact passed close by in thick fog, two days previous on 17 May"
"Spanish Armament and the outbreak of war" --> "Spanish armament and the outbreak of war" (per WP:Section caps)
I understood "Spanish Armament" to be a proper noun, hence the capitals. I've had a look at Google Books and use of capitals is a bit mixed so I'm not sure now. I'll change to a lower case a for the time being.--Ykraps (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that's probably all I can add right now as it is late here and time for bed. Thanks for your efforts with the article. Sorry my comments aren't very in depth, but ships aren't my forte. I've advertised this peer review on the main Milhist page and the Ships page, so hopefully it will get some attention now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and help with getting a wider audience. I was considering shutting the review a few days ago, because it hadn't garnered any interest.--Ykraps (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Pinging a few of Milhist's resident ship experts. @Parsecboy, Sturmvogel 66, and The ed17: If you chaps are free, would you mind offering a review on this one? Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
One glaring issue to me is the fact that we have essentially no information about the ship's Spanish service. And the one section on the ship's Spanish service is mostly written from the British perspective. The section on Cape St. Vincent barely mentions Fenix at all.
Well I can't disagree with you there but unfortunately the only sources I have access to are either American or British, and both tend to look at things from the British perspective. I did look for Spanish sources but couldn't find any; there is no corresponding article on the Spanish Wikipedia [[14]] for example but even if there was, me Espanol es no bueno! Fenix is mentioned twice, once when she is attacked by Defence and again when she strikes to Bienfaisant so not a lot no, but again, sources are sparse. I have included details about the battle because I am usually asked to, when I've put other articles up for various reviews but I guess it could be pared back, if you think it's too much.--Ykraps (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is primarily from the British period, shouldn't the article be titled HMS Gibraltar?
The article was already named as such when I found it.[[15]] I was in two minds about requesting a move. I think the naming conventions refer to "significant careers" and I thought 31 years in the Spanish navy was significant and left it as it was. I don't feel strongly either way though.--Ykraps (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A general point: a number of ships are introduced but aren't described. A rule of thumb I (and others like Sturm) follow is to always mention the ship type on the first occurrence of a ship's name.
Okay, I didn't think it necessary when the ships are linked, but I'm happy to go along with the style.--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point: you have The Siege Cuddalore" linked.
Do you mean, it ought to read "The Siege of Cuddalore"?--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might convert the distance given in leagues. It's not a common unit of measure and nautical miles would be more readily understood.
I can't find any style guidance on this so I have converted to nautical miles simply because the calculation is easier. I tend to assume that distances at sea are nautical miles but if that's not the norm, let me know.--Ykraps (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Warren’s squadron was called upon to relieve the British garrison at Porto Ferrajo; under siege since the beginning of May 1801.[59] The arrival of the British ships on 1 August, caused the two French frigates blockading the port to retreat to Leghorn.[60] The two frigates were later brought to action on 2 September. Pomone, Phoenix and Minerve recaptured Succès and destroyed Bravoure after she had run aground." - this is unclear, in part due to the lack of introducing vessels as mentioned above. Is Succès the same vessel as HMS Success (1781)? Make this clear.
There is a footnote explaining this but I guess it could be better written.--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think now--Ykraps (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Comprising Renown, Gibraltar, Dragon, Alexander, Généreux, Stately, of the line, Pomone and Pearl frigates, and brig-sloop Vincejo;" - need a verb here or else reword to lose the semi-colon.
I have put details of the squadron in a footnote to make this clearer.--Ykraps (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When war broke out again in May 1803," - between whom? Not all readers will be experts on the Napoleonic Wars ;)
There are links to both the Napoleonic Wars and the Treaty of Amiens but I guess it doesn't hurt to mention belligerents.--Ykraps (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When Captain John Halliday assumed command..." - of what, Gibraltar?Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I have clarified this.--Ykraps (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, thanks for your comments. I hope I have understood them correctly.--Ykraps (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be titled under HMS Gibraltar. :-)
Parsecboy made the same point. The guidelines talk about significant careers and Fenix had a significant career in the Spanish navy, although very little of it features in the article. I don't feel strongly either way but I will log a move request shortly.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there nothing on Fenix's pre-1780 career? Was it just laid up in ordinary?
This is something I'm working on now but I'm struggling to find reliable sources. The Spanish article says that after her construction in Havanna, she sailed for Cadiz and from there undertook a number of missions in the Straits and the Med. It doesn't elaborate except to say that Fenix was part of a squadron of ten ships of the line sent to collect King Carlos III from Naples in 1759. She was laid up for a long time at the Arsenal de la Carraca from 1764-1769 and prior to her capture in January 1780, she was serving in the Med. However, the citations don't seem to support this. But I may be struggling because my Spanish is pretty poor.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some reliable Spanish sources and added all I can reference. I have had a Spaniard look at it and she is sanquine my translation is accurate.--Ykraps (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there too much detail of the battle of Cape St Vincent? It brings in other ships that aren't mentioned elsewhere, so I wonder if it could be shortened to focus on Fenix's role in the battle.
Parsecboy also made this point. As I currently have nothing else to add, focussing on Gibraltar's role would shorten the section to a couple of lines. I will give this some more thought and hopefully I'll soon have a bit more to add.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a good go at shortening this section. I find reviewers differ about how much background is needed to place the ship's role in context so it's not an easy thing to get right but see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following the outbreak of war between the Dutch Republic and Britain in December 1780, orders were sent from London to seize the island - orders were sent to who? Also, when did Gibraltar join Rodney's squadron? (I assume? The ship isn't mentioned there)
The source doesn't say. Presumably it came from the governments' hastily convened war cabinet, via The Admiralty. London covers both.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't read your comments properly. Rodney received the orders and I have now made this clear. I presume that, as Commander-in-Chief of land forces, that Lieutenant-General Sir John Vaughan would have been given the same orders but this is not clear in the source. Rodney, as C-in-C of the Leeward Islands Station was admiral of the fleet so Gibraltar would have been under Rodney since arriving there towards the end of 1780. I will have a think as to how I can clarify that.--Ykraps (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's as far as I was able to get tonight. Overall, the article needs a pretty good copyedit. Might I suggest contacting WP:GOCE? Best, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ed17, Thanks for your comments. I haven't been ignoring them, I've just been rather busy with work commitments.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new article I've written on a very important topic for Ottoman history, I'm interested in knowing if people find it readable and informative, what deficiencies it might have, and what it might need in order to reach good article status. Given how it's a new article, there's no particular section that needs special attention, rather the article as a whole.
I made some edits to the article, mainly to the lead section. Looks very good overall. Well referenced. Good images. My only recommendation would be to consider moving Political narrative and Government topics near the top. These topics tell a story and are more engaging than things like demographics and economy.Dig Deeper (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, nice work with this article. I only took a very brief look, sorry, as the topic isn't one I know anything about (I have advertised this peer review now on a few different Wikiprojects, so hopefully someone else will come along and offer some comments that are more insightful than mine). Anyway, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there are a few areas where the referencing could be improved, for instance:
this appears uncited: "A naval campaign led to the capture of Tunis from the Spanish in 1574, and a truce was signed in 1580."
same as above, the sentence beginning: "Following the dramatic demographic growth of the sixteenth century..."
same as above, the sentence beginning: "After the outbreak of the Khmelnytsky Rebellion in 1648 Cossack..."
same as above: "Due to the increasing role of imperial women in political life, this period is sometimes referred to as the Sultanate of Women."
same as above, the last part of the first two paragraphs in the Crisis and adaptation sub-section
same as above, "The push for territorial expansion under the Köprülüs reached its apex in 1683 with the Siege of Vienna, which ended in Ottoman defeat."
"1541–68" (and various other date range renderings): following a change at MOS:DATERANGE, this should now be "1541–1568"
"File:Seyh-ül-Islâm.jpg": I suggest cropping the black border off this image to make it more visually appealing
Anyway, that's it from me. Thanks for your efforts and good luck with taking the article further. (I believe that it would have a good shot at GA so long as you can get a thorough peer review). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to obtain ideas to improve the article on a relatively lesser known but important figure. The aim is to get ideas to improve it to GA or FA level. Many thanksrueben_lys (talk·contribs) 07:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I shall give the article a couple of more readings. But on the meantime, I suggest that you expand the use of sources, particularly recent ones. A quick look at Google Scholar (here) shows that there are a few available. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 21:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be unreferenced: "The publication also acquired popularity in Pondicherry."
appears to be unreferenced: "The National fund scheme was initiated of which Madam Cama was the biggest contributor with (then) 5,000 Francs. The funds were strictly regulated to fund revolutionary activities in India, as well as fund Savarkar's trial."
"Strachan 2001" appears as a short citation in the References, but not a long citation in the Literature section
same as above for "Chirol 2006"
is that an ISBN for the Ashraf & Syomin work?
same as above for the Kaye, and Subhramaniam works?
title case capitalisation: "Anarchist portraits" --> "Anarchist Portraits"
same as above for "Edward Heath made me angry"
same as above for "The History of Doing: An illustrated account of movements for women's rights and Feminism in India"
same as above "M.P.T. Acharya: His life and times : revolutionary trends in the early anti-imperialist movements in South India and abroad"
are there further details for Ref 49? e.g. accessdate and title information? Also, when I click on the link it seems largely blank...has the information moved, or is it part of a sub page of that page? If so, I suggest re-aiming the citation
"India, Persia and the middle east" --> "India, Persia and the Middle East" (proper noun)
needs a reference: the paragraph ending with "Acharya himself sought to focus on organising recruits for the intended revolution. A prime target was Turkey, which had a substantial Indian presence, both Hajj pilgrims and as Indian residents."
"In 1918 Acharya moved to Kabul to join Mahendra Pratap's mission to the Emir to declare war against British India": probably could add a link to the Third Anglo-Afghan War here
this appears to be unreferenced: "This was the beginning of the end of Acharya's associations with the international Communist movement."
the last part of the two paragraphs in the Anarchism section need citations
I've listed this article for peer review because I have improved the article quality so would like rating to be reviewed. Its my first wikipedia article!
{{doing}}Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the long delay. Things got crazy in the real world. Anyhow, some thoughts on the article:[reply]
The use of Irish templates for proper nouns in this gets kind of out of hand and interferes with reading. I would strongly suggest axing them and putting wikilinks where crucial, because this is the English Language encyclopedia.
Likewise, there's extensive use of italics, and it confuses things rather than making it clear. Are they being used for foreign words, emphasis, or all of the above? See MOS:ITALIC for some guidance on this—probably the biggest takeaway is don't use quotation marks along with italics for emphasis.
For such a short article, it's very dearly missing some context that makes the text flow better and contextualizes just why this person is worth an article. The article mentions He was probably a close associate of Caillin, as they were siblings in the same Túath, and travelling companions when Nisi died. yet doesn't tell me who Caillin is, and doesn't mention anything about the possible dates when he died. If some of this info is missing, then it's probably best to tell the reader so they aren't feeling like they're missing the complete story. As it is, the article says they stayed at a guy's house and he killed him, with no indication as to why that was or if anything happened to him afterwards.
Attribute quotes when you use them, such as This patronage would help the viability of "a famous monastic settlement at Fenagh". If it's not important who said it reword the sentence to remove it.
When was the Book of Fenagh written?
File:E124055.jpg seems like it's being use for extraneous decorative purposes (it's not actually the subject getting brained with the axe.) I don't necessarily think you can't have this image, but it probably shouldn't be in the infobox and should be more clearly labeled so people aren't confused about what it depicts.
Overall it could use a prose overhaul and some additional information to assist readers who aren't intimately familiar with Irish folklore or terms. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article was successfully nominated GA two years ago, and has undergone significant improvements since then. I think it's close to reaching FA quality, and would like some feedback and suggestions on how to get there. I'm also open to collaboration. For those who don't know, Tom Wills was Australia's first celebrity sportsman, and is marked high-importance by both the cricket and Australian rules football WikiProjects. His life off the sports field is also fascinating and unique in the history of world sport.
@HappyWaldo: G'day, I'm sorry that this article hasn't had a review yet. I believe that the issue stems from the PR bot being down, and not transcluding the review on the main PR page. I have manually done this now, so it now appears. I have also posted notifications at the Cricket, Biography and Australian Wikiproject talk pages to hopefully generate some comments. These sorts of articles aren't my forte, but I will also try to post some comments today. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AustralianRupert: sorry, only really minor comments from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
at five paragraphs, the lead is one paragraph too long per WP:LEAD, I suggest trying to merge one somehow
Does the first sentence really count as a paragraph? I suppose I could merge it, but imo looks better as is. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there are a couple of harvn referencing errors being identified by this script: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. These relate to the citations for "Hay 2008", "De Moore 2011", "HibbinsRuddell", and "Pennings2011"
probably best to attribute this in text: "Contrary to legend, Wills was never housed in a lunatic asylum" --> "According to de Moore, contrary to legend, Wills was never housed in a lunatic asylum"
Perhaps this is better: "Contrary to legend, there is no evidence of Wills being housed in a lunatic asylum". - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would attribute the quote "perhaps even madness" explicitly, especially since it seems a little speculative (perhaps?)
Several historians have made the same assessment: that Horatio sometimes comes off as unhinged in his diary. Does this piece of speculation require in text attribution when it is quite popular? Also thanks for the help. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Shudde
Only drive-by at the moment. You have a number of Harv errors with the referencing (see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for the script I'm using). Hopefully I'll have time to read the article properly and provide some more feedback in the next week or so. -- Shuddetalk 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "During his tenure as the newspaper's editor, Horatio met Elizabeth, an orphan from Parramatta." is a little jarring because up until then Horatio had only been mentioned as an infant. Maybe have a lead into this, such as "Horatio lacked much formal education, but was apprenticed to his step-brother Robert Howe,[16]. After taking over as the newspaper's editor, Horatio met Elizabeth, an orphan from Parramatta."
Agreed, will figure something out. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the information in note D not just included in the main text. "Deadly conflict" is a little vague, and I don't know why the elaboration of this is in a note when so many other details are included in the main text. The main reason I ask this is because of the "Cullin-la-ringo massacre" section -- having a bit more on his father's relationship with Aborigines included in the main text makes sense.
I could integrate the note into main text. I think I created it because I did not want the family section to be mostly about Horatio. This is an article about Tom after all. So I tried to keep things concise. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have a note after "Rugby School XI" simply because non-cricketers will have no idea that's the nomenclature used to refer to a school's cricket team.
I would include a brief explainer of what is meant by a thrower, and why this is such a big deal -- especially as the term "scandal" is used very soon after, and also because understanding this is so important to also understanding the later section "No-ball plot and downfall".
"He won fame for his performances and played with the leading cricketers of the age, as well as royalty." -- this is quite a statement, can it be expanded upon?
Sure. Tom is mentioned as playing alongisde royalty in the libertine cricketer section. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" most notably when rules were passed over to allow him to compete against Oxford" -- this isn't quite clear to me, although I can infer what it means. Maybe clarify.
Yeah will fix. Cheers for the drive by. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I added the following items to the to do list. I suppose I should have posted them here for comment first. Sorry.
If decide to show Line of Proclamation in 3-1-1781 map, consider changes made to it by Treaty of Fort Stanwix and Treaty of Lochaber.
Agreed, this should be discussed and researched before any changes made, it can be a complex subject. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
maps for 8-16-1812 and 9-29-1813 say "administered by West Florida"; should be "by U.S."
Should it? West Florida appears to have maybe been in charge during that short time, if it was administered by the U.S. then there would have been no need for military action. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of West Florida ceased on 12/10/1810, so that entity was not in charge of anything after that. And any areas to its east that remained in the control of the Spanish Province of West Florida would be said to be administered by Spain.
The U.S. military occupied several parts of West Florida at different times beginning in 1810. An occupying force, in my opinion, administers the area it occupies.
Spain never relinquished any claim to any part of West Florida until the 1819 treaty ratification in 1821.
Status as of 8-16-1812: Spain claimed and the U.S. administered Areas II and III, while the U.S. claimed and Spain administered Area IV.
Status as of 9-29-1813: Spain claimed and the U.S. administered all of Areas II, III and IV.
Area II was the land of the Republic of West Florida, which was occupied and annexed by the U.S. on December 10, 1810. From then on, Area II was administered by the U.S. After Spain was militarily defeated by the rebels (admittedly, a very short battle) in September 1810, Spain still considered Area II as part of its Province of West Florida continuously until 1821. So while Spain claimed Area II, the U.S. occupied it and administered it.
Areas III and IV, the lands between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers, were also part of the Spanish Province of West Florida and were also claimed by the U.S. from 1803 on. Area III was occupied by the U.S. military in 1811 and thus annexed de facto. In 1811 and again in 1812 the Americans proclaimed jurisdiction over Area IV while Spain still held it; however, the U.S. did not occupy and annex it de facto until April 1813.
So at the date of admission of the state of Louisiana on April 30, 1812, in the unorganized territory (Areas II, III and IV), the U.S. controlled Areas II and III but not Area IV.
Likewise, two weeks later, when West Florida between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers was assigned to Mississippi Territory, Area IV (but not Area III) remained under the control of Spanish Florida. In other words, only part of the U.S.-claimed portion of West Florida east of the Pearl River remained under the control of Spanish Florida.
From April 1813 and later, none of U.S.-occupied West Florida west of the Perdido was administered by Spain, although Spain certainly claimed it.
Thanks; I don't know how I did it but I seem to have completely missed that, yeah, these frames are long after the Republic of West Florida ceased to be. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
change May 1, 1915 map to show Punta Paitilla in Panama
But when did Punta Paitilla become part of Canal Zone? --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The peninsula that contains Punta Paitilla (except for a tiny piece of the tip of the point) was part of Canal Zone from inception until May 1, 1915, when Panama City was de-enclaved. The whole peninsula then became part of Panama. In the months after July 12, 1918, the U.S. took back all of the peninsula again.
I see... But, when should I show it as part of Canal Zone? "in the months after..." is not the best description. ... You know, stuff like this really makes me lean toward taking out Canal Zone, except the broad strokes, and leaving the specifics to another article, like with the bancos. It may require more detail than this article is designed to give. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I advise to show it on 7-12-1918, because on that day the U.S. expropriated 2.6 of the 50 hectares of Punta Paitilla; that area was quickly increased to the full 50 hectares after the U.S. surveyed it in 1918 (unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine the exact date of that next 1918 letter to the Government of Panama). This particular entry is already in the table with no map and could stay the way it is, in my opinion. In fact, as the table stands right now, there are entries for all the changes involving the Canal Zone. The only necessary modification for Punta Paitilla is on the map for 5-1-1915. I do not think it's necessarily required to introduce new additional maps for Canal Zone. The only new map I would highly recommend is for the case immediately below. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added to to-do. --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The area of 3168 acres annexed west of Rio Chagres mouth should appear as CZ territory in the 4 maps of the Canal Zone following August 21, 1918.
What would it look like? Do you have an image? Is this the culmination of the several 'too small to map' entries, or are those placeholders until a map can be made? (And, to be honest, this could probably warrant a separate "Territorial evolution of the Panama Canal Zone", with all of the changes and annotated details that are much too fine for this map) --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image. The area is the northwestern part of the Zone extending to Piña. It is one "big enough to map" area added to the Zone on August 21, 1918, combined with a "too-small" triangle area added on December 8, 1915.
1848-7-4 Should the borders of Mexico's ceded departments of Nuevo Mexico and Texas be shown from Mexico's perspective, rather than showing Texas to the full extent of its U.S.-claimed area? That is, Nuevo Mexico was larger than is shown because it included much of the land that Texas had claimed.
There are two bits to look at: What the U.S. claimed before the cession, and what they had after. Before, they claimed Texas and bits of three other states; after, they had Texas, the bits of three other states, Alta California, and Nuevo Mexico. So the cession map is accurate, as it only included the territories, but the Texas maps could maybe get a little more exposition. Any suggestions?
I was thinking that, from Mexico's point-of-view, their cession of Nuevo Mexico looked like it does in this map. Mexico no doubt considered none of its department of Santa Fe de Nuevo México as being part of the U.S. state of Texas. With the Texas annexation in 1845, the United States inherited Texas' unenforced claim to the east bank of the Rio Grande (which was successfully resisted by Mexican forces in 1841), a claim disputed by Mexico until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I'm still not clear on the issue; all that matters is that land was claimed by the U.S. and Mexico, and now is no longer claimed by Mexico. The map appears, in that regard, to be accurate? --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. Ok, I've thought about this. When the Republic of Texas became a state, the U.S. inherited its claim to all land east of the Rio Grande. As stated later in the article, "Texas had little to no control over the area outside of its eastern quarter."
I'd like to see a modification to the international maps of 12-29-1845 and 6-15-1846. It would be to show on those two maps the divide between the areas controlled by the Texas (i.e., U.S.) and by Mexico. I think you could show this the same on the maps for both days (for as you said, we do not track day-by-day gains in war).
The area controlled by Mexico would be noted as, "Claimed by Texas (U.S.); administered by Mexico." What do you think? Jeff in CA (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1858-12-3 The Howland Island maps' subtitles show the later date of 1859-9-6.
1859-7-6 Kentucky/Tennessee - Question: I would imagine this is the date that the change was given effect by law. Did the surveying team's result have the force of law? Was this the date it was ratified by both states?
Unknown when it was ratified; my best source ([17]) references a book I don't have access to. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1861-1-26 change map (Louisiana) - says "Unionst" area
1867-8-28 - Question: Had Midway Atoll been previously claimed by the Kingdom of Hawaii?
I'm guessing not; it had no inhabitants until it was claimed as a guano island. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1870-7-15 The words "disputed border with United Kingdom" (i.e., British Columbia) are confusing without indicating the border endpoint for Canada and the U.K. Aha! Is that what the thin solid red line is for? (If so, that line does not appear to be perpendicular to the 141st meridian, as I believe the current border is.) Is there a way to make this clearer?
Yep, that's the red line. I can add a line pointing to the areas, and making it the right angle is difficult due to, well, the angle. I've made a fix. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like this better. Thanks.
1901-3-23 Could there be pointers to the islands of Cagayan de Sulu and Sibutu? The article at Sibutu mentions also Cagayán de Jolo as the last Spanish possession.
Don't know about Jolo, maybe it's a typo for Sulu in that article. Please check the new version of the map; when going through and redoing the Pacific ones, that one was particularly nasty. I tried shading in the ceded area, but as you can see, it's difficult to snake an indicator line over into that corner. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the shaded areas make it very clear now. Thank you for all! Jeff in CA (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1924-6-5 - s/b 1924-2-1; According to the 1924 Annual Report of the Panama Canal Governor (https://ia601406.us.archive.org/3/items/annualreportofgo1924cana/annualreportofgo1924cana.pdf , original page 13) the basin for Madden Lake "was transferred from Panama to the United States as provided in Article II of the HayBunau-Varilla treaty and incorporated with the Canal Zone, effective February 1, 1924."
Added to to do.
1946-7-4 s/b Commonwealth "becomes" or "became" on the change map
Comment: Mississippi-Alabama border between March 3, 1817 and July 19, 1820:
When Congress created the new state of Mississippi and the Alabama Territory in 1817, the northwest corner of Washington County was used as the primary reference point for setting Mississippi's eastern boundary. South from the point, the bottom leg initially ran due south (at about 88.4575°W longitude) to the Gulf of Mexico and very close to the east side of Pascagoula Bay. The maps show the boundary at the angle that went into effect in 1820. Here is an image. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on 4-11-1955 map text:
Instead of stating, "Corridor ceded to Panama" on the map, it should say, "Panama's corridor re-aligned." Jeff in CA (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Iazyges
"Unorganized territory" is not a name; it simply means Congress has not passed an organic act" Should explain what an organic act is.
"While the U.S. exerted some military control over Cuba," Wouldn't occupation work better?
Probably. Modified.
"Wartime and post-war occupations by the United States of foreign territory are not noted unless they involved formal annexation. For example, the U.S. military occupied several countries in Central America and the Caribbean for many years during the Banana Wars, but as there was no annexation, this is not noted. Furthermore, while there was a civil government created for some areas after World War II, like the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1953 to 1972 and the American zones of occupation in southwest Germany, West Berlin, and Austria, these were never considered part of the United States and are omitted." Perhaps another list of all lands occupied by the USA should be made?
Perhaps, but that's well beyond the scope of this article.
"April 4, 1781 The Vermont Republic claimed what was called the "East Union," consisting of some towns in New Hampshire. They never gained control over the area.[6][7][8][9] & "June 16, 1781 The Vermont Republic claimed what was called the "West Union," consisting of some additional towns in New York. They never gained control over the area.[7][8][10][11] The specific date this occurred is unclear; sources suggest June 16, June 26, and July 18." Did anyone ever recognize vermonts claim to them or was it only ever them?
So far as I know, Vermont was never recognized by anyone.
"The Congress of the Confederation declared that the land that Connecticut has claimed in northeast Pennsylvania (and, unknown at the time, a small sliver of New York) was part of Pennsylvania, thus attempting to end the Pennamite–Yankee War.[16] While conflict would continue for some time, this was the end of formal claims by a state government." Perhaps a link to the continued conflict if it is a different article from the war?
It's not; the Pennamite-Yankee War was the whole thing.
"The government of Franklin held some control over the area, and even petitioned for statehood, but would only last a few years." Perhaps mention how the potential state ended?
It does, in the section about the end of Franklin on February 1789.
"At the time, it was simply referred to as the federal district." This isn't at all related but i find this hilarious.
"The Kingdom of Great Britain united with the Kingdom of Ireland, renaming itself the United Kingdom.[61]" Why is this here?
Because it changes the international dispute map, which previously said "Disputed with Great Britain", but "Great Britain" is no longer the name of a country.
"The garrison at Fort Detroit surrenders, leading to the United Kingdom occupying Michigan Territory.[88]" All of michigan fell because of that fort? it could be better phrased.
Pretty much, yeah; Michigan Territory was very sparsely populated, and the UK appears to have claimed the whole of Michigan Territory after the fall so it wouldn't necessarily matter if they held control over it.
"The region of northern New Hampshire disputed with the United Kingdom declared independence as the Republic of Indian Stream.[119] While tiny, it does appear to have maintained some control over its territory." Better wording as declared ITS independence perhaps.
I disagree but I'll add commas.
"Spain recognized the independence of Mexico, thus ending their involvement in the dispute over Miller County, Arkansas.[127]" was spain active in attempting to get miller county after they lost mexico?
Probably not.
"With this decision, Miller County was no longer disputed with Mexico and Texas." & "Proper surveying was conducted along the border between Arkansas and Texas, and the area claimed by Arkansas for Miller County was held to not belong Arkansas.[133]" What?
Can you elaborate on your concern?
It is phrased weirdly, perhaps held before the law to not belong to arkansas, because held to not belong sounds weird.
I didn't want to say "held to belong to Texas" because it was disputed with Texas and Mexico, so I simply wanted to say "wasn't part of Arkansas". --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "it was decided that the areas was not a part of arizona, but texas and mexico still disputed it" @Golbez:. Iazyges (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it says that in the international dispute line for that day, 'no longer disputed with Mexico and Texas' --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The State of Deseret dissolved itself, its functions and territory largely having been superseded by Utah Territory.[168]" was the state of deseret ever recognized as a state of the US by anyone?
Nope.
End of constructive criticism. Iazyges (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; hope you don't mind that I bulleted your remarks. I've responded to each one in turn. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool, thans for replying. Iazyges (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"between the Courtney family (earls of Devon since 1335)"... "this was not confined to just the (more well known) antics" - I don't think the brackets are adding much here, you could just use commas. I'm not sure about some of the later bracketed bits either - again, commas might be softer.
Is "antics" the right word?
" while the king remained unfit" - worth checking out WP:JOBTITLE for the capitalisation here.
"The incapacitation of Henry VI by mental illness in 1454 had led to the recall to court of Richard of York, his closest adult relative, who had been banished to his estates after a failed rebellion in 1452, and his appointment to govern England as Lord Protector and First Councillor of the realm while the king remained unfit." - a monster sentence!
The quotes should be in double speech marks (as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS)
Consistency of "south west" and "south-west"
"including military marches which led to them both being summoned before council." - I was uncertain how a march would end up in summons... Might be worth clarifying
" the Family seat of the Courtenays" - capitalisation of "Family"
"Powderham Castle, west front, viewed from under the Victorian gatehouse. The leftmost tower dates from 1390–1450 as does the main high central block, which originally housed a full-height great hall. The central entrance tower was built between 1710-1727. The single-storey projecting room built between the two towers, with three tall gothic-style windows, is the Victorian Dining Hall.[39]" - unclear what the post "great hall" bit is adding in this particular context
"and Baron Bonville in the south-west of England" - a particular baron? More than one baron...?
"William Bonville" - link on first use
"Coat of Arms of Sir William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, KG" - not sure you need the KG here
"Michael hicks " - capitalisation of Hicks. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This prevented, by preventing recogntion, an official inquest being held into Radford's death." This final bit of the para appears uncited at the moment.
Some of the quotes are still in singles, by the way! :)
"with the Cathedral" - consistent capitalisation
"Martin cherry" - "Cherry"
"and Bonville ally, Sir Philip II Courtenay (d.1463); " - consistency of use of death dates in line (this seems to be the only one)
"The fight at Clyst" section - the brackets should really be converted to commas here
"However decisive devon's victory had been, " - "Devon"?
"The King was inacpacitated," - sp
"One Chronicler states that following his defeat," - capitalisation
"as the protectorate was soon to come to an end:" - colon should be a full stop
"Commissions of Oyer and terminer were issued in August" - capitalisation of oyer?
"but both parties to the feud were effectively elimiinated through the wars over the next few years." - "effectively"? or "killed in the wars"? They both seem to have died... Hchc2009 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done and hopefully caught all thse bloomin' quote marks! Thanks for your help, Hchc2009, much appreciated! If anything else occurs to you- FortunaImperatrix Mundi 17:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod
The lead is too short, and many paras need splitting. Key points currently emerge slowly from the rather dense lower sections - who was Yorkist & who not etc, the range of dates we are talking about, etc. It's currently a harder read than it should be.
Probably the first bit of "Background" should go to the lead, and the 2 sub-sections get promoted to full sections. Most of the 2nd isn't actually "background" but the feud itself.
I'd move the Clyst map up to the top.
I suspect some links are missing; Bastard feudalism should be worked in somewhere.
The very first sentence needs rearranging.
Unless the battle is merged, it should have a "main", no?
"His will was executed by some of the most important men on the Queen's council..." I don't think executors are said to "execute".
The quality of referencing seems excellent. I don't much care for the repetitious way they are formatted, but it is perfectly valid.
As Hchc2009's comments show, the writing could do with rereading and polishing. The prose doesn't always flow well.
Query: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: G'day, per the peer review instructions here, PRs should be closed when an article is nominated for GA. As this article is currently a GA nominee, do you wish for me to proceed with closing this review, so it can be archived? The bot that usually does most of the work is down, but I believe that I can do it manually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: G'day, just to clarify, do you wish it to be closed? If not, I will try to advertise it a bit on various Wikiproject pages to try to get more input. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Nothing heard, as such I have advertised the review on the WP Devon talkpage now. If there aren't any further reviews in the next two weeks, I propose that this review be archived so that a potential reviewer can concentrate on the GAn without potentially competing reviews here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: yeah thanks very much for your attendance here: tbh I'd forgotten about it. Indeed, somehow I even missed the second review above, so there was no way I was expecting it to be open nine months later! Ironically a GA has just started- don't hold out much hope for it though, unfortunately. Cheers mate, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 02:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good luck with the review. I will archive this one on 25 Jan if there haven't been any further reviews. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured Article status prior to the 100th anniversary next year. At this point I am specifically looking for feedback regarding how to ensure that this article meets the requirement that it should be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (WP:FACR 1.c.)
The article seems very comprehensive to me, representative of relevant literature, and in compliance with WP:POV. However, there are very few (only two?) Arab and Palestinian sources cited in the article. Perhaps, in order to avoid POV accusations because of the touchiness of this topic, it's best to add a few more citations of Arab and Palestinian sources, if they exist and are on par with the quality of the existing citations. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Based on the above comments, and those of User:FunkMonk, there are the sources I propose to add:
Nice, I was going to suggest Edward Said as well. Good to have respected writers from all sides. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the next step would probably be to incorporate the new sources. One issue I noticed that may become a problem at FAC is the amount of long quotes used here (including in the source section). Due to copyright issues, you should probably select the most relevant quotes, and summarise the rest. Also, there should probably not be long quotes in the intro, which is just supposed to be a summary of the article. Also, the non-citation text in the source section should rather be placed in a footnotes section. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those rare cases where I'm going to disagree. The quote in the lead is only one sentence, and I think it serves the purpose of clearing up some of the mythology about the Balfour Declaration. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the quotes can be demonstrated to be in the pubic domain, there may not be a problem. But still, I think the intro needs to be longer, regardless of the quote. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: thanks again for your comments so far. I have been working on the referencing - it is still work in progress, so please don't review now. I wanted to check one thing with you before I continue though - are you comfortable with the way I have dealt with the quotes in Balfour_Declaration#Notes? I have moved these quotes out of the Citations section, and if this format works for you I will move the rest in the same way.
With respect to copyright issues and fair use, I have been reviewing the various scholarly quotes in light of the Berne Convention's Right to quote, and I am working to ensure that whatever quotes remain represent the minimum required for the purpose. Given the controversial nature of this topic, these quotes serve to provide full clarity as to the views of these scholars, strengthening a reader's confidence in the veracity of the article as a whole.
I think that's fine! FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a bit of duplicate linking throughout as well, I just noticed. Notify me once you have expanded with the new sources and are ready for a read-through, Oncenawhile. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query: @Oncenawhile: G'day, this review seems to have come to a natural conclusion as there haven't been any edits since 23 December 2016. If you would like, I can close it and archive it for you. Please let me know if this suits your intentions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert, I was rather hoping to keep it open so that I can request further comment once I have completed the latest round of changes to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll leave it open. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March 2017 Update
Since the brief initial review in September, I have:
added 44 (forty four) sources to the bibliography all of which are linked to throughout article
improved the flow and breadth of the article by adding a subsection on Progress of the War in late 1917, and two subsections on the other two components of the Declaration (Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine and Rights and political status of Jews in other countries)
significantly improved some previously unclear components, having first made significant amendments to corresponding articles (e.g. McMahon–Hussein Correspondence and Balfour Day)
added further detail around the War Cabinet discussions leading up to the Declaration, given that they represent the only known discussions of the group of people who formally authorised it
deleted or moved into notes a number of unnecessary inline quotes
What I am aware I have yet to do is:
broaden out the lead paragraph into a more fulsome summary of the article
remove duplicate linking (and guidance on how to do this in an automated fashion would be appreciated)
I would now appreciate comments on the body of the article. Once that has reached the appropriate level, I will work on the lead.
Good to see! I'll give it a read soon, until then, the easiest way I know of highlighting duplicate links so they can be removed is this script:[19]FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. I have removed the duplicate links. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome article, and beautifully written. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about the details to comment, but I wonder if Sykes's personal history, travels and interest in Turkish affairs should not be mentioned? At the moment all the article says about him is "Cabinet Secretary", and the footnotes mention a letter, but it seems he played an important part in the affair. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You make a good point - I have added more on Sykes (and Picot). Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: sorry, not a topic I know much about, so I can only offer some nitpicks. Anyway, hope these help: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"subsequent decades — from 1916": emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH, either that or covert it to a spaced endash
this should be referenced: (the sentence ending) "...whose efforts to gain international support for his ideas were not to succeed in his lifetime."
same as above for: "In the final text, the word that was replaced with in to avoid committing the entirety of Palestine to this purpose."
this should be referenced: "At San Remo, as shown in the transcript of the San Remo meeting on the evening of 24 April, the French proposed adding to the savings clause so that it would save for non-Jewish communities their "political rights" as well as their civil and religious rights. The French proposal was rejected."
"p. 251-270Shlaim quotes": needs a space or some sort of punctuation
same as above for "p. 325Friedman quoted"
in the Bibliography, is there an OCLC number or ISBN for the Meinertzhagen work? (they can usually be found at worldcat.org
same as above for the Antonius, Cohen, Gelvin, Lloyd George, Stein, and Weizmann (1949) works?
Thank you. I have made all these amendments. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FunkMonk
Ok, I'll start adding comments as I read along. As a sidenote, it is interesting that Walter Rothschild was involved, who I have written about in quite a few article myself, latest example being Rodrigues parrot. He needs to be linked and presented in the article body, by the way.
Done I had added a summary backstory on Walter. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are some terms that are not linked at first occurence (Palestine, Zionism), and others that are not linked at all (evangelical Christian, WW1), but could be. Perhaps check throughout.
"The background of British support for an increased Jewish presence" Seems "reason for" or "basis for" would make more sense than "background of" here?
I think the interposed sentence in the first sentence of Background is a bit long, which makes the entire sentence a bit confusing. Perhaps move it to the end of the sentence instead?
"on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, Weizmann's efforts picked up speed" Perhaps make clear before this that Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, within Ottoman Syria.
I'm still a bit concerned about copyright issues with some of the many long quotes in the notes section from more recent, non public domain sources, per WP:Quotes, but let's wait and see if others bring this up during FAC.
Done As promised above, I have reviewed the various scholarly quotes in light of the Right to Quote, and am confident that the remaining quotes represent the minimum required and are fair use. Given the controversial nature of this topic, I consider these excerpt quotes serve a very important purpose, providing real clarity as to the direct views of these scholars, strengthening a reader's confidence in the veracity of the article as a whole. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One a separate note unrelated to copyright, I think some of the quotes could easily be summarised in the article body, which in some places seem like it needs in-text elaboration, but instead refers to a note.
Done I have brought a couple of additional quotes into the body. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go too much into the images, but it seems the Balfour image[20] in the infobox has somewhat questionable info on the Commons page. The declaration itself is also very blurry compared to the source image, perhaps make a new composite and upload over the old one.
Done replaced with simple picture of the declaration. After all, the article is primarily about the letter, not the signatory. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and territories which were not purely Arab were excluded by McMahon and Hussein" To clarify this, I think it should be made clear before that there was an "indigenous" Jewish community in Palestine, and that European Jews had already been immigrating to Palestine in large numbers by this time. You mention the third aliyah later, but I think the first and second could be mentioned as well.
Done This sentence has now been removed as unnecessary detail (it is currently still in the lead paragraph, but I propose to remove in when creating a proper summary). First Aliyah is now linked in the Early Zionism section. FYI the "not purely Arab" point in McMahon's discussions wasn't intended to infer Jews, but rather the fact that the Palestinian population is very diverse (they are Arabic speaking, but so are Lebanon, the Alawite region and Alexandretta which were definitely excluded). Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So they are talking about areas that were excluded from being part of mandate Palestine? I think that's what made it unclear for me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what they referred to then? Palestinian Christians and Druze mainly identify as Arab, and I'm pretty sure they were seen as such by the Europeans. Other than that, there would be Jews, Armenians and Samaritans identifying as non-Arab.. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This genesis is the statement in the letter that "The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded." Attempts to extrapolate this to include Palestine have led to the argument that Palestine was not purely Arab as well, so must have been included. Clearly the "so must have been included" is a logical fallacy, but that's not the point we are discussing. The point is that those that make the argument that Palestine was "not purely Arab" are really trying to say that it is "just like Lebanon and the coastal provinces of Syria". This then comes down to the question of "what is an Arab", or more precisely "what did McMahon think an Arab was in 1915". Oncenawhile (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought I had deleted the second comment after I realised it may have referred to areas outside Palestine. Anyway, it would seem the wording was left ambiguous by the writers to leave wiggle-room. Seems contentious enough to be discussed in the article somehow? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a lot on the subject and contributed much to the information at McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence#Debate_about_Palestine. The Toynbee quote in the blue box is particularly interesting to read. I concluded that there are just too many contentious areas about the M-H letters, and that these details don't matter to the BD article - what matters with respect to the BD is that the British government changed their views on M-H, the whole M-H matter was widely debated for many years, and either way the Arabs considered it to be a betrayal. All of which is now in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You link to Christian Zionism as further information, but you earlier state this had little to do with the actual British motivations? If you want to keep it, I think it should be elaborated upon.
You write Herbert Samuel's name in full many times, whereas other people are only referred to by last name after first mention. I think you should do the same with Samuel.
"noting that the exclusion of Hebron and the "East of the Jordan" there would be less to discuss with the Muslim community." With the exclusion of? Seems something is missing.
Done (I removed the source as it is too broad in scope so there were only a couple of small and undifferentiated paragraphs on the Declaration). Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The geopolitical calculations behind the decision to release the declaration were debated and discussed in the following years." No citation at the end. There should always be a citation at the end of a standalone paragraph.
"The cabinet believed that expressing support would appeal to Jews in Germany and America, and help the war effort;[48] they also hoped to encourage support from the large Jewish population in Russia.[49]" This seems to simply summarise what was mentioned in the former paragraph? Seems redundant.
There are a few sentences that are also standalone paragraphs, would perhaps look better if they were merged with nearby, related paragraphs. For example, why is the following sentence separated from the one before it, which seems to be about the same issue? "In addition, the British intended to preempt the expected French pressure for an international administration."
"was made "due to propagandist reasons." What is meant by this? I assume you mean because it would influence American and German Jews, but you don't state this specifically.
"In his Memoirs, published in 1939, Lloyd George further elucidated his position." What is the point of mentioning this without elaborating?
Done I have now explained - this was their first meetings, and created a legend. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Explication of the wording has been sought in the correspondence leading to the final version of the declaration." Why present tense?
Confirmed Technically this is the Present perfect continuous tense, which is focused on the past but also implies the action is continuing. The research into government records to explain the Balfour Declaration will likely continue for some time to come. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Rights and political status of Jews in other countries" Is this section header really necessary? It doesn't really seem to cover the text within it, which appears to still be within the scope of the earlier title, "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine". In fact, I had a hard time even connecting the title with the content.
"It had proven impossible for the British to pacify the two communities in Palestine" If there were clashes, it could be mentioned specifically.
"from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland." This is only stated specifically in the intro, but it should also be stated in the article body. There should not be any unique info in the intro.
"a 1939 committee set up to consider the Correspondence concluded that the British Government had not been "free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine". Only mentioned in the intro.
"since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears" Seems something is grammatically wrong here.
Confirmed This is verbatim from the Palin Report. I have double checked and it is correct. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There could be some info on transferral from Ottoman to British rule over Palestine, when it happened, etc.
Done (added re Herbert Samuel's appointment as High Commissioner following OETA rule) Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be mentioned in the long term impact that there was not only violent conflict between Jews and Palestinians, but that the violence also became directed against the British authorities.
"often referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict"." Only stated in intro.
Done (now in Longer Term Impact) Oncenawhile (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though it may seem obvious, the intro should state this declaration lead to the foundation of Israel.
Ok, but to maintain balance it should equally refer to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the intro is missing some key points, and as mentioned elsewhere, it should summarise the entire article. The Palestinian problem seems to be missing from the article body as well, unless it is Easter-egg linked somewhere. Should be mentioned under long-term impact. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That should be it, if you have comments for a specific point, it is probably best to place it right under the relevant bullet point than after the entire list of points, to make it easier to see what refers to what. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is superb - thank you for the thorough comments. I will do as suggested and make comments under each point. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: just to keep me going through the hard grind of perfecting this, please could you let me know what you think the next steps should be once the above comments are satisfactorily processed? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, when the article body is done, it is important to get the intro to reflect it as accurately as possible, so you don't run into problems like the one there was on the talk page. But I think you will be ready to nominate for Good Article (a good step on the way to FA) once the issues above are fixed, and then go to Featured Article. I suspect others at FAC will ask you to cut down on the quotes, but we will see. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FunkMonk: thank you. FYI the article made GA status just under a year ago. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, can't believe I missed that. I think you could go for FAC after finishing my issues then, unless you want some more opinions here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A thing I always do before FAC nomination is to request a copy edit.[21] It is good with some fresh eyes looking at the text, and it can help get the text even further away from the exact wording of the sources. The wait is pretty long, so if you want to, you could list it for copy edit already. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, thank you. I will do so. Oncenawhile (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, I assume you want to nominate this as today's featured article on the anniversary date? Then I'd advise you to nominate it for featured article at least two, maybe three, months before the date; the process usually takes a month or more. And the today's featured article nomination itself also takes some time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, and appreciate the timeframe guidance. I would like to nominate it in the next few weeks. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange this article suddenly attracted the attention of so many editors at the same time. So it will of course be more difficult to make it completely stable in time for copyedit and FAC, but should be possible if the issues are sorted out quickly. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It feels to me like all of the issues raised on talk have now been resolved, with the expection of adding a couple of paragraphs on the mandate history. Then I just have one more of your comments to fix (re the "Jews in other countries" protections). And then the lead paragraph. So almost done. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot one point - the debate around the footnote. The ANI has just been closed. There were some interesting points being made in there, including a number of admins who share my view that short footnote quotes from secondary sources are of great value to Wikipedia. I would appreciate any thoughts as to how to achieve a clear consensus either way on this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the problem is, for every editor, there is another opinion... You should prepare for the same discussion perhaps starting over again once you hit FAC... But by that time, you'll at least have previous discussions to refer back to. And by the way, my own first FAC, Rodrigues solitaire , consisted heavily of old quotes as well... There was also a long discussion about it, but in the end, they were kept, and it's easier to get your way when they're in then public domain anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The copy edit seems to have commenced, so may be a good idea to tie up the last loose ends here soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE Copy-Edit
Hello, Oncenawhile – I have finished copy-editing Balfour Declaration. It was generally quite well written, so most of my edits were minor, and many of those were simple formatting changes such as changing a hyphen to an en-dash. There are just a few things I'd like to mention:
1) You have several acronyms throughout the article that I did not see spelled out in full at first mention. I don't know where they are now. Just scan the article looking for sets of three or four capital letters in a row, and you'll find them. If you can't find them, let me know and I'll look for them. I think there are at least three. You should spell out the entire phrase (such as name of organization or government agency) at first mention, then put the initials in parentheses after it. After that, you can use the initials (all caps).
Done I have added Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and Union of German Jewish Organizations for the Protection of the Rights of the Jews of the East (VJOD). Onceinawhile (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the letter was published in the press one week after it was signed, on 9November 1917.
The previous paragraph only speaks of drafts; the explanation that the declaration was contained in a short letter was way back at the beginning of the article, I believe; and the word "declaration" is used thereafter. Readers might be confused by the phrase "the letter" in this sentence. You might think of a way to clarify this. You might, for example, either change "the letter" to "the declaration", or you might add descriptive words to the phrase such as "Lord Balfour's letter to Lord Rothschild", or "the letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild that constitutes the declaration/became known as the Balfour Declaration", or some other words.
Done I have changed to "declaration". The explanation of letter vs declaration is now given at the beginning of the previous section. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3) In Secondary sources notes, I saw
(a) "jewish" spelled with lower-case "j", in note xvi., and
(b) "jewry" spelled with lower-case "j", in note xx.
I just wanted to be sure those were the spellings in the sources and not typos.
Done Thanks for identifying these - I have corrected them. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4) Note 175 contains the quote that is given several times, the one with "It produced a murderous harvest, and we go on harvesting even today" at the end of it. The quote in the article itself, in Balfour Declaration#Long-term impact and notexxiv. in secondary sources look all right, but the way it is punctuated in Note175 in Citations does not look right. It has two sets of double quotation marks at the end. It appears to be a quote within a quote. Usually, at least in prose, when there is a quote within a quote, the one in the middle is put into single quotes, but I don't know if that's the right thing to do here. Miniapolis What would you do with the punctuation here?
Done I have removed the text from note 175 (now 176) - it isn't needed. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5) I'm not sure "declaration" needs to be capitalized after the first mention of the Balfour Declaration, or at least after the first mention of "Balfour Declaration" after the lead. Now, it is capitalized throughout. I capitalized a few instances for consistency, but I've got to ask my colleague Miniapolis what he or she thinks. If Miniapolis thinks it does not need to be capitalized in such phrases as "the declaration", I will go through and change them to lower-case.
Confirmed Thanks for making these changes. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6) In Note n. in Primary sources, you have "Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, m.p." Shouldn't "m.p." be capitalized, for "Member of Parliament"?
Confirmed This is a direct quote from Sokolow (a key participant in the issuance of the declaration), so I have left as is. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's all for now. – Corinne (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I see my edit summary says "Date format by script" or something like that. I don't know why that appeared; I must have pressed something without meaning to. – Corinne (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Corinne: thank you very much for this thorough review. I have moved your comments here (from my user page) and will comment here. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the generic "declaration" shouldn't be capitalized. All the best, Miniapolis 22:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering nominating this at FAC, so beforehand I opened this peer review in order to make the transaction as smooth as possible. I own two books (which I got from a grant) and think that I should make the most of them. I just need a general idea on what direction I need to take this article in before I nominate. Thanks! JAGUAR 12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead appears to be a comprehensive summary and suitable introduction to the article, however claims such as "it is the United Kingdom's only island city" and "Portsmouth is one of the world's best known ports" need to be cited in the article.
Added citations. JAGUAR 13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added citations in the lead but in my experience FA reviewers would rather have the same claim somewhere else in the article & the citation added there.— Rodtalk 11:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry I misunderstood that one as I thought you were still referring to the lead. I've moved the "island city" citation to the geography section, although I must point out that the "one of the best known ports" sentence is meant to act as a summary in the lead. I think the idea that the city was one of the most important ports is mentioned in broad strokes throughout the history section. I can remove it or rephrase if you like? JAGUAR 22:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that now.— Rodtalk 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would include "Palmerston Fort" where "fortifications" is wikilinked.
Agreed, altered. JAGUAR 13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says "Portsmouth was the most heavily fortified city in the world" but in the text we have "one of the most heavily fortified towns in Europe" & "the most fortified port in the world". Consistency in the claims made is important.
I've just checked the Pevsner book again and it does say "city", so I changed it to "city" in the body. JAGUAR 13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment should have said that one claim is "in Europe" (in Stuart to Georgian) & the other is "in the world" (in Industrial Revolution to Victorian & Lead). I would suggest going with one or the other throughout.— Rodtalk 11:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. I've changed it to "the world" for consistency. JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a grammar expect but I think the sentence "The city has several mainline railway stations that connect to London Waterloo, amongst other lines in South East England, while Portsmouth International Port is a commercial cruise ship and ferry port for international destinations" could be split into two and the railway lines reworded for clarity.
Split. I don't know if I can mention the specific railway lines without cluttering the lead but I did reword it to southern England instead of South East England, as the lines connect to cities like Bristol and Salisbury. JAGUAR 13:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History
My Anglo-Saxon isn't up to much, but does "Her cwom Port on Bretene 7 his .ii. suna Bieda 7 Mægla mid .ii. scipum on þære stowe þe is gecueden Portesmuþa 7 ofslogon anne giongne brettiscmonnan, swiþe æþelne monnan" tell a story? as the next sentence starts "The story is related.." & I don't know what story we are referring to.
This was copyedited a few times so it no longer makes sense now. I've changed this to "Winston Churchill in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples relates the story that Portsmouth was founded by Port, the pirate". JAGUAR 13:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A pedant (not me) might suggest that an event in 1001 could not be construed as "threatening the English with extinction" as some have suggested that the disparate kingdoms within England were not unified until 1066 (but that is a debate I'm not going to get into).
I know what you mean, but that is exactly what is said in the book The History of Portsmouth! It says "In short, by their merciless and successful ravages they seemed to threaten an extinction to the English name and nation; for not only all the southern parts were were overrun by the foreign Danes, but the northern countries were peopled by the same nation". The book was written 1817 and has colourful language (I'm not a linguistics expert but the manner of speaking back then seemed very different). I'm not that knowledgeable on early English history but it sounds like the Danes were wiping out the native English in both the north and south, so the historian attributes it to "extinction". I'm not sure what I could it to... if I nominate this for FA soon then I'll be sure to put this in the disclaimer! JAGUAR 13:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who described the army as "one of the finest armies that had ever been raised in England"?
The author himself and his colourful language. Should I rephrase it or cut it? JAGUAR 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I presume "the author" relates to Lake Allen? If so I would have something like "The historian Luke Allen described it as "one of the finest armies that had ever been raised in England"" (or similar) so that we have the attribution of the quote.— Rodtalk 11:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, done! JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "scourged" may need some explanation (presumably not Scourge).
Another old word. I changed this to "attacked". JAGUAR 21:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. JAGUAR 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"canal that linked" could be "canal to link"
Changed. JAGUAR 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to the end of the section "Stuart to Georgian" but running out of time. I can continue later if these sort of comments are useful?— Rodtalk 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: thank you so much for the comments! I would like to submit for FAC soon but I am unsure if this would outright fail for some reason. Your comments were very helpful, if you want to continue I would really appreciate it! JAGUAR 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a further look but it will not be until Sunday at the earliest.— Rodtalk 21:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand "military bases from an inland attack" I thought the attacks would be coming from the sea & note the following sentence. Some of the Palmerston Forts did have guns pointing out to sea - why were the Portsmouth ones different?
My understanding was that Palmerston Forts always had their guns pointed inland, or at least the books I have assert the ones in Portsmouth were faced inland. Hewitt's A Portsmouth Miscellany states "they seemed, to say many people, to be the wrong way around. They had their armaments pointing inland rather than out to sea". From personal experience I have never seen any of their guns near Portsmouth pointed toward the city, so I think the ones in Portsmouth are different. JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Portsea Island Company" be worth a redlink?
"generating £5000 a year" could be "generating an income of £5000 a year" as my initial thought was that we had moved on to electricity generation.
True, added JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"depot ship" could be worth wikilinking to Depot ship as I wasn't really sure what this meant
Me too. Added JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How serious was the 1835 earthquake? if it just rustled a few trees was it a significant piece of history?
This is a good point. I think it was a minor tremor (as are all in England) and shouldn't be worth mentioning. If it was significant then I would have thought it would have damaged buildings etc and not be mentioned as a one sentence factoid in the books! Removed. JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Stramshaw" worth a redlink. I've never heard of it. Was it a separate village which became a suburb?
Me neither, I think it was either a once forgotten hamlet or old surbub. A simple Google search doesn't raise anything. Added a redlink JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding it but if a search finds nothing it might not ever become an article so may not be worth it.— Rodtalk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We get the first mention here of "The Mighty Chain of Iron" a tudor innovation which might be worth a mention in the Norman to Tudor section.
I'm not sure how I can mention that in the Tudor section if it's part of the city's coat of arms which was designed in the 20th century? JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if based on a defensive boom which was constructed in the tudor period it could be linked into the paragraph "In 1539... Southsea Castle..." as part of "Over the years, Portsmouth's fortifications were rebuilt and improved by successive monarchs." If you can find any more info about it.— Rodtalk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read the online source (the defensive boom isn't mentioned in the books I have) and it gives some good detail on it, so I've moved the sentence to the paragraph you suggested. Thanks, that was a good idea! JAGUAR 22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense but there is some problem with the reference which appears in the text as external links etc.— Rodtalk 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could be my reading but "After the war, much of the city's housing stock was damaged..." doesn't quite read right as I assume the damage occurred during the war not after it.
Good point. Rephrased JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm never sure about the "s" on "to build new accommodations". Should accommodation be plural?
Yes, I think the plural should be used in this case JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK - as I said I'm no grammar expert, buut I don't think so (and nor does my wife - who is better at grammar than I am).— Rodtalk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't too sure in the first place, so I've removed the plural. It's one of those things that you can think about in a different way and it can change the way you think about a word! JAGUAR 22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "Shipbuilding jobs fell from 46% of work in 1951 to 14% in 1966" is this 46% of the workforce or 46% of the work carried out?
46% of the workforce. Tweaked. JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were they the UK or worldwide headquarters of IBM (which I thought was American), Zurich Insurance Group (headquarters in Zurich)
UK headquarters for certain, rephrased JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It says European in economy section see comment below.— Rodtalk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I accidentally made that change to Zurich instead and got confused. Corrected. JAGUAR 22:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who dubbed the Tricorn Centre "the ugliest building in the UK"?— Rodtalk 12:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC officially, and everyone unofficially! Reworded for clarity. JAGUAR 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
In the infobox we are told "Area. City & unitary authority area 15.54 sq mi (40.25 km2)" this could be repeated in this section.
Actually I've just done some checking and can't find seem to find any sources to back this up. Should I remove it from the infobox?. JAGUAR 22:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the infoboxes generate population & area data from other sources & automatically calculate population density etc, but I'm not an expert in the template syntax behind them. I think finding a figure for the area would be useful with the discussion about population density in relation to London & other cities.— Rodtalk 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right as the data must be collected somehow. I hit in Google "Portsmouth area square miles" and the answer came up straight away. I spent some times looking but can't find a good source anywhere. JAGUAR 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google is probably pulling that figure from the wikipedia article. I would ask at Template:Infobox settlement or on WP:UKGEO how the figure used in the infobox is collected/generated.— Rodtalk 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Portsmouth is situated primarily on Portsea Island, although parts of it have expanded onto the mainland in recent years,[4] and Gosport forms a borough in its own right immediately to the west" could be split in two.
Is "Kingston Cross" a landmark, crossroads, residential area or what?
It's actually a road junction (which is funny because I was just there yesterday!), so I hopefully made this clearer. JAGUAR 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got a bit lost in the names of the lakes - any chance of a map to clarify?
I couldn't find a map of the lakes themselves, but the best I could do was to look at them on Google Maps. I wonder if it would be copyright to screenshot/edit it and upload it on Wikipedia? JAGUAR 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the oldest reserves" I presume this relates to a Nature reserve? If this is designates as a national or local this could be mentioned (and cited to the designation document).
"dominates the skyline in the northern part..." northern part of what?
The northern part of the city, as Portsdown Hill is situated in the very north of the city's boundaries. Rephrased JAGUAR 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Climate data for Solent MRSC" what is MRSC?
A weather station, although it doesn't say was MRSC stands for. I've rephrased to make this clearer. JAGUAR 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wp has the dab page MRSC, but a bit of googling suggests it is at Lee-on-Solent, coastguard station / hovercraft museum.— Rodtalk 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the sea temperature recorded?
The source doesn't say where the temperature was recorded. Even so, I'm not sure where I would put the prose? JAGUAR 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Demography
Is the "South Hampshire area" referred to the same as South Hampshire?
Yes, reworded JAGUAR 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I a confused by "Portsmouth's long association with the Royal Navy means that it represents one of the most diverse cities in terms of the peoples of the British Isles". Presumably this relates to " has seen many people from across the British Isles move to Portsmouth to work in the factories and docks" but the two sentences are separated by the explanation of "non-white communities" so I'm not sure.
"Diverse in terms of the peoples of the British Isles" means that the city has a diverse populations with people from the British Isles, including Irish, Scottish and Welsh etc. And the next sentence is relating to the city's non-white population who are associated with the Royal Navy, so both sentences are similar as they both relate to the navy I think. JAGUAR 16:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we using "2007 estimates" for ethnic groups when we use the 2011 census for the total population?
The 2007 census was carried out by Portsmouth City Council themselves and is the only source where I can access precise ethnicity breakdowns, whereas I can't find such figures in the national 2011 census. JAGUAR 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There might be something in this or this you could use.— Rodtalk 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that the table is from 2009, not 2007, so I corrected the figures. While the fact sheet is from the 2011 census, it doesn't display an accurate breakdown of ethnicity like the 2009 census Portsmouth City Council conducted, and if I get rid of that then I think I would be cutting down on some amount of detail. JAGUAR 21:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I had no idea how to get that information. I kept trying to get something through the official 2011 census but couldn't find anything. Anyway, I've applied that information now. JAGUAR 12:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Government and politics
Conservative, UKIP, Lib Dem etc are wikilinked but Labour isn't.
Linked (not biased or anything!) JAGUAR 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, linked JAGUAR 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Economy
I don't see evidence for the claim that "tenth of the city's workforce is employed at Portsmouth Naval Dockyard" in Ref 171
In the third bullet point on the table it says "A tenth of the city's workforce is employed at the Portsmouth Naval Dockyard, where BAE is based" JAGUAR 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why IO didn't spot that one.— Rodtalk 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the specific restaurants listed "of note"? Do they have Michelin stars or some external validation - otherwise it could just be the places I like.
Oh my, I didn't add this! I didn't even see this in the article until now. Don't know when that was added. Although I like the addition of new content I've removed it all as I don't think it's notable enough. JAGUAR 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have "European headquarters" of IBM & Zurich Insurance Group (see comment in Post-war above)
I think I've got it this time. To clarify, Portsmouth is home to the UK headquarters of Zurich and the European headquarters of IBM. JAGUAR 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cascades Shopping Centre & Gunwharf Quays shopping centres are in both 1st & 2nd paragraphs mixed with the port etc. I would just have one paragraph relating to "shopping"
Done, I think. I've merged it into the second paragraph. JAGUAR 20:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. JAGUAR 20:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incest & necrophilia may be worth a link (and I don't think I have ever written that sentence before)
Portsmouth is a lovely place! Linked JAGUAR 20:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not supposed to be an advert!— Rodtalk 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Education
When was the University of Portsmouth "ranked as the top modern university in the United Kingdom in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings" & can you give a reference
I completely reworked and corrected this to "The university was ranked among the top 100 modern universities in the world in April 2015" (number 85 to be exact), and gave two new references. JAGUAR 20:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reference is needed for the "17-acre Highland, or Eastney, Cemetery" (which also seems to have a stray comma)
I had to get rid of this sentence because after archiving the source I discovered that Eastney cemetery wasn't mentioned, although it did confirm that Milton Road Cemetery had 200 burials a year, so I kept that part in. JAGUAR 20:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book doesn't mention who it was named after, nor even does its official website give any hint. However, Lord Frederick FitzClarence was once the governor of Portsmouth so I assume it's highly likely the pier was named after him. I've mentioned in the article. JAGUAR 12:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Didn't know an article existed! JAGUAR 12:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do we define "vast" about Southsea Common (there are much larger grassland areas elsewhere)?
I thought that 480 acres was quite "vast" considering there is limited space on Portsea Island, so I think that was partially the reason why I wrote it like that. But I know what you mean, so it's probably best to remove it. JAGUAR 12:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Religion
I see information about a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Raf 152 but not the claim that it is "one of a few British cities with two cathedrals" (I can think of several)
I couldn't find anything to back this claim up, so I restructured the opening of the section. JAGUAR 13:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. In the first para the Anglican cathedral developed from a chapel built in 1185 but in the 2nd para it developed from a "12th-century chapel built by Jean de Gisors" are we talking about the same building? - of so can we combine the mentions?
It is quite confusing. The first source states it was built in 1185, but the second says "around 1180". Not quite sure what to do here if they give conflicting dates. The first paragraph talks about the original chapel itself, and the second paragraph talks about the cathedral which evolved from the original chapel. 1185 is in the 12 century, is it not? JAGUAR 13:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still think they are talking about the same origins and would therefore combine the mentions, possibly into something like:
.... The city's first chapel, dedicated to Thomas Becket, was built by Jean deGisors in the second half of the 12th century.[1][2] The chapel was rebuilt and developed into the the parish church and then Anglican cathedral.[3][2] It was damaged during the Siege of Portsmouth in 1642, but after the restoration of the monarchy the tower and nave were rebuilt.[4] Significant changes were made when the Diocese of Portsmouth was established in 1927.[5] It became a cathedral in 1932, and was enlarged, although construction was halted during the Second World War. The cathedral was re-consecrated in the presence of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother in 1991.[6]
The Royal Garrison Church was founded in 1212 by Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester. After centuries of decay, it became an ammunition store in 1540. The marriage of CharlesII to Catherine of Braganza took place in the church in 1662. After the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig in 1914, large receptions were held inside the church. In 1941, a firebomb fell on the roof, destroying the nave.[7] The church's chancel was saved by servicemen shortly after the raid; however, replacing the roof was determined to be impossible due to the large amounts of salt solution the stonework had absorbed over the years.[8]
^Hewitt 2013, p. 150. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHewitt2013 (help)
Thank you so much! Added. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Siege of Portsmouth is mentioned & linked here but in the section Stuart to Georgian although the use of the harbour is discussed the term Siege of Portsmouth is not used.
Good point. I went back to the Stuart to Georgian section and rephrased the sentence in question to "Parliamentarian troops were sent to raid it by land in the Siege of Portsmouth". JAGUAR 13:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been a church for centuries & a cathedral since 1932 it must have been re- consecrated in 1991.
The naming of the ferry company could be more consistent. We have "Acciona Trasmediterranea" which redirects to Trasmediterránea, "Acciona" which is not wikilinked to Acciona & then "AT". I presume these all relate to the same company but it is not clear
It's all the same company, so I've used "Trasmediterránea" throughout for consistency. JAGUAR 13:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eastleigh is wikilinked on the 2nd usage not the first
Ocean Sound was linked but it redirected to Heart Hampshire. I've linked Heart Hampshire instead. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Future developments
I'm not sure about "future" sections in these articles as they can quickly become out of date as plans change (and some of it already seems historical - 2008, 2009 etc). Much of the material could be in "economy" or similar sections
I agree. The future developments section was originally triple the length but I was forced to move some content to the economy section and delete a couple of paragraphs altogether. @Rodw: before I continue with this point, do you think I should move the entire first paragraph to the economy section (as I'm sure the new aircraft carriers are vital to the city's shipbuilding/naval industry) and delete the second paragraph? I think the second paragraph is outdated as the building plans in question are over seven years old... JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Move the aircraft stuff into economy & move any bits about Gunwharf Quays & Admiralty Quarter Tower which aren't already covered elesewhere into shopping or residential paragraphs & then delete the rest.— Rodtalk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved both paragraphs into the economy section. The first paragraph about the aircraft carriers belonged in the economy section and the second paragraph about planned buildings is now merged in the middle of the section. I hope this looks OK. JAGUAR 13:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Babcock Babcock" is that really the name of the company ( or just a typo)? Possibly Babcock International?
That was an embarrassing typo. Fixed and linked. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable residents
"..of noted authors. Most notably.."I would try to reword so that noted & notable are not quite so close together
Changed the first "noted" to "famed". Thankfully there weren't that many uses of the "notable" in the section. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures
I am not a picture expert however:
File:George VI inspecting the crew of HNoMS Draug.jpg says it is public domain under Norwegian copyright law, however as it was take in Portsmouth this may not apply (NB I'm not a copyright expert but have been challenged on this sort of thing at FAC)
I don't know much about copyright either, but I think if the picture in question is over 70 years (in the UK at least) then it should be in public domain. I've changed the licence to match those of others taken in Britain during the war. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is 70 years from the death of the artist/photographer or date of 1st publication, but the tag on it now seems OK if tha is what other government photos from the same period use. If you go to FAC it will include a review of the images copyright status.— Rodtalk
Many of the images are set to "|250px|" rather than "thumb" which is discouraged as it stops autoresizing for those with different screen sizes (see: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size)
Yeah, I wasn't too sure about this. I've always set images to "250px" across all of the articles I've written as it's usually the best size for me, no matter what screen I use. I've gotten rid of all of the "250px" sizes in the images, although the "thumb" parameter is still there. I hope this looks OK. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again I hope this looks OK. They look very small for me, but that could be my widescreen monitor. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The aerial photo in geography is still set to 300px & may be chalenged but I suspect you can argue that for the level of detail to be seen this is needed.— Rodtalk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is considered good practice (although not a requirment) to have "ALT" descriptions of images for blind and partially sighted users who use text to speech translators (see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images)
I forgot about this. I've just added alt descriptions throughout. JAGUAR 18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Spinnaker Tower 2014.jpg could have "|upright" included to reduce the effect on the surrounding text and pictures
Archived. JAGUAR 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 62 "Pompey, Chats and Guz: the Origins of Naval Town nicknames". gives 404
Archived. JAGUAR 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 73 "John Pounds Memorial Church" gives an unobtainable link to me
Archived and fixed the website and publisher too. JAGUAR 19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 84 "Portsmouth's Coat of Arms" gives a broken link response (info may be covered by Ref 83). There also seems to be extra quote marks around the title in this ref
Just realised theseare duplicate refs! I've removed one. JAGUAR 19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 88 "Portsmouth Guildhall bombed during WWII" (Portsmouthnowandthen) gives an unobtainable page
I've archived ref 88 (I've linked it as the numbering will have moved around by the time I post this), and moved it to a more appropriate sentence as my book covered the sentence this was originally sourced to, so this was possibly a mistake on my part. JAGUAR 19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 93 "Southwick House" gives unobtainable
I checked to see if this was reliable before I archived it, but discovered that its author was a once prestigious journalist so it should be OK to keep. Archived. JAGUAR 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 126 "Solent Geology" the authors name is normally presented first
I removed this along with its entire sentence as the source didn't back most of what was said about the schools' redevelopment. JAGUAR 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 248 "The Top 100 Prep Schools by Key Stage 2 Tests" is broken
Archived and added publisher. JAGUAR 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 320 "Portsmouth clinch promotion and championship" is broken
Archived, but I had to remove most of the sentence because it didn't back most of it up (always for the best). JAGUAR 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 337 "Wightlink Ferries" seems to redirect & may not support the info about the car ferry
I've archived it and it seems to be OK, to my surprise. All I want it to mention is that it offers car ferries to the Isle of Wight, as the sentence it's meant to be backing up is short. I hope this is OK, if not I'll be happy to remove it. JAGUAR 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 340 "Continental Ferryport" is broken
Archived and added publisher. JAGUAR 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 369 "End of the line for monorail plan" is broken
I couldn't find an archived version of this anywhere so I was forced to cut this. Speaking of which, I'm open to deleting the monorail paragraph as a whole as it seems outdated. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the particular services but if these sorts of major infrastructure developments are serious then they may be worth keeping in.— Rodtalk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 385 "New carriers being built at Portsmouth base" is broken
Created a new archived link. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 391 "Admiralty Quarter, Portsmouth" is broken
Archived. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 394 "Number One Portsmouth Planning Information" is broken
Removed. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 412 "James Callaghan" is broken
Strange that Number 10's official website went down. Archived. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 417 "Geeta Basra – Biography" is broken
Removed. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 418 "Bollywood actress in Portsmouth" is broken
Archived. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 426 "Katy Sexton Bests Sarah Price as Both Women Break 100m Backstroke Commonwealth Record at British Trials" is brpoken
This one couldn't be archived so I removed it. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the bibliography "Mitchell, Garry (1988). Hilsea Lines and Portsbridge." might need a publisher
Just discovered that it was self published. I don't know how to add a publisher for that? Unless I just add his name again in the publisher field? JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I would put the authors name as the publisher as well. Self published works can meet RS - particularly if the author is a noted expert in the field.— Rodtalk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added him as the publisher. I never knew you could do that... JAGUAR 14:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General
You might want to use User:Ucucha/duplinks on the article it shows quite a few wikilinks which are linked multiple times & check webchecklinks for broken external links
Generally I think it is an impressive piece of work. Most of the issues I've highlighted above can be fixed reasonably easily, but the sheer number of them may put off some FAC reviewers (although I'm sure they will find other things to comment on). Hope these are helpful.— Rodtalk 17:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Rod! I owe you a big one. I have addressed all of your points so far however there are still a couple of issues outstanding which I will try to clarify tomorrow, including the ones about the map of the lakes and Portsmouth's area in square miles. All that archiving tired me out so I'll take another look at this tomorrow morning if that's OK. JAGUAR 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have done lots of good work on it. I've added a comment about the "future developments" section. There are also quite a few duplicate links showing with User:Ucucha/duplinks, but I can't think of much else to suggest for improvements at the moment. It would probably be worth asking someone with good copyediting skills to take a look as grammar is definitely not my thing.— Rodtalk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for the late reply as I've been a bit busy lately. I've been asked on the status of the Portsmouth grant and I said I would send the books back, even though this was before you started reviewing it! I reckon I could get away with sending it to FAC without the books, as from here on out any remaining future issues would only be on the prose and existing sources, so I wouldn't need to add more content. Thank you once again for the excellent review! I'll have to return the favour if you need an article reviewing at FAC etc. I think the two outstanding issues here is the lack of map of the city's lakes and the city's area data? JAGUAR 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I hope the review has been useful and picked up some issues before FAC (although I'm sure the reviewers there will find more). I didn't know anything for a grant for books but I'm sure many of them would be available from local libraries etc. Good luck.— Rodtalk 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it broadly meets the FA criteria but I'd like some additional comments before I submit it for a full FA review.
I made a few changes to the lead. Overall looks pretty good. Please update the 7 dead links (indicated in ref section).Dig Deeper (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting article, on an attractive building. A few thoughts.
Lede
I think the convention is not to have cites in the lede as all of the information it contains should appear in the main body of the article, and be cited there.
"The building is currently owned by the University of Southampton" - is "currently" necessary? I appreciate a change of ownership may be on the cards.
"The architecture of the existing structure has been attributed to .. " - "The building has" or even "It has"?
"..with the gardens and landscaping attributed to Lancelot "Capability" Brown, the house is close to the River Itchen and Monks Brook" - Do the second and third clauses connect, or should the third clause be a separate sentence?
"The manor was owned and occupied by a long series of families and people" - not sure what a "long series of families and people" is. "The manor has had a series of owners, including...." perhaps?
"a Gregory de South Stoneham (or Gegory de Stoneham)" - Gregory in the second appearance? DoneWaggersTALK 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"its design has been attributed to Nicholas Hawksmoor" - I wonder if a slight caveat would help the reader. HE/BLBO both say "almost certainly", quoting Pevsner (p=581). But your sentence is entirely accurate. DoneWaggersTALK 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"He was commissioned by George, Prince Regent to travel back to France while the two countries were at war in order to obtain a particular material the prince desired for a waistcoat" - not entirely sure this sentence is necessary to a history of the house. If it is, then "George, The Prince Regent", or just "The Prince Regent".
Done. I agree it's slightly off topic for the house itself, but struck me as such an interesting little aside that I couldn't resist keeping it in. I suspect we will have to remove it for the article to reach FA status though, sadly. 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
"With Southampton being attacked, the halls of residence were also under siege" - Not literally! "At risk", perhaps?
Yes, that's much better. DoneWaggersTALK 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"regarding the state of the building itself, with damp wardrobes, rusty bath plugholes, stained baths and generally "damp and squalid conditions"" - a little too much detail, perhaps? Maybe, "regarding the state of the building itself and its "damp and squalid conditions". DoneWaggersTALK 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The key part of the master plan is to refurbish and change the use of the Listed Building as a conference facility" - I understand it's a quote but should it be/is it "to a conference facility"?
I've changed it to "The key part of the master plan is to refurbish and change the use of the Listed Building [to enable it to function] as a conference facility.". WaggersTALK 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
"which is supported by an entablature decorated with triglyphs and modillions" - as a general comment, I wonder if the architectural detail is a little specialised at times. While you've provided links, three in one clause is asking a lot of the reader. "...supported by a decorated entablature"? DoneWaggersTALK 10:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The door itself is placed centrally with a coved, moulded architrave above and 45-degree corbels decorated with acanthus supporting a cornice with round brackets and a carved keystone. The door is glazed and a Doric porch of modern brick covers the doorcase." - A little more detail on the door than is required? DoneWaggersTALK 10:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grounds and gardens
"landscaped some time after 1722 by Lancelot "Capability" Brown" - is this [22] a better source than the inaccessible Times?
Yes, I've kept the Times and added this one. HGT is an excellent resource. WaggersTALK 11:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interior
The main quote is very long and may cause issues at FAC. Is it needed in its entirety?
"The interior is panelled to dado level" - surely not the whole of the interior? I think the HE/BLBO entry is referring to the staircase hall.
"an early 18th-century staircase" - Pevsner thinks it has been modified ""in part at least an original feature but which has almost certainly been remodelled."(p=582)
While we're on Pevsner, his description of the remodelling of the house over the centuries as "disconcertingly sensitive" making it difficult to know what's Hawksmoor and what's not, is rather nice and may be usable.
I think that's it. Hope it's helpful. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Fayetteville page has been on the cusp of being a good article before. The city is a landmark in Arkansas, and I'd love to see the article's greatness match the city's. Scrutinize to your heart's desire. I believe more content can be added; I'm just unsure what can be added.
Sorry for the late review Hair. These are some issues I found:
Avoid using citations in the lead unless you are using controversial information
Is it possible to split the lead into a third article? It would avoid making the text clash with the infobox.
Some paragraphs are unsourced like the ones in like in "Settlement through Antebellum period". Per WP:Verifiability everything requires references.
In Geography there is clash between text bosses and images. I would suggest removing the image and paraphrase it.
There are more sections with unsourced paragraph.
Hope this helps. I'm pretty sure the article will become GA material once every section is sourced. I also have my own peer review here and I would appreciate if you could provide feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article to FA. However, I have not made any FA articles. Could anyone give comments/help/guide me? Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I checked your article and found some things that might bother reviewers:
There are too many images. Even if they are free the clash a lot with each others as well as the text.
The lead has some citations. See WP:Lead; unless you are citing controversial info, I recommend you removing them since they are mentioned in the body.
Avoid short paragraphs like the ones from Expansion to other platforms.
You could also combine or expand some sections from Functionality like Design which is really small.
Same with Technology and updating.
In Regions and languages, I would suggest removing the flags. They are quite redundant as we already see country right next to them. Also, they could be WP:Undue weight
Lastly, some citations are lacking accessdate.
I hope my comments helped you. I also put a peer review here so I would appreciate you could give me feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tintor2. Sorry for not being able to peer review yours. Only just noticed it, and I'm not the best content creator. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring this article to GA status. I think this would be the first good article about a gaming peripheral or mouse. Any comments, whether they be in-depth or simply passerby comments will be appreciated! Anarchyte(work | talk) 08:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by The1337gamer
Haven't read through the entire article. I may add more comments at a later date. I think the last paragraph in the lead should be tweaked a little.
All of the Nagas received positive reviews from critics and reviewers, except the Naga Epic, Naga Hex, and Naga Hex v2 which received mixed reviews.
Saying All of the Nagas and then making three exceptions seems almost contradictory. I would rephrase or scrap this sentence. You could replace with a sentence that highlights some of the positive qualities of the well-received mice.
"as well as possibly a World of Warcraft race with the same name" - just to clarify, what is the race called? Razer or Naga?
"All of the mice have a polling rate of 1000Mhz" - I think the 'H' in megahertz is capitalised?
At a first glance I think some of the article's paragraphs seem a tad disproportionate in length. I'd recommend expanding the reception paragraph of the lead somewhat and merging a couple of paragraphs in the reception section
What do you suggest I merge? Each paragraph talks about a different mouse.
On second thought I think it should be OK. I should have crossed out that comment once I realised it talked about a different mouse each time. JAGUAR 11:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"with twelve being on the left side of the mouse, with a switch on the belly of the mouse that maps them" - repetition of 'with'
"It was also released with an interchangeable side panel and the ability to change the color of the lights" - the source mentions that it has 16 million different colour combinations, so it could be worth mentioning here
"A redesigned version of the Naga, called the Naga Molten" - redesigned version of which Naga? The original one? They all have Naga in their name so it can get confusing
"allowing all the buttons to be programmed and that information to be stored online.." - double full stop
"Also released during 2012 was the Naga Hex, the first mouse in the series to have only six side-on buttons. Each of the buttons was programmable" - this could be condensed to Also released in 2012 was the Naga Hex, the first mouse in the series to have only programmable six side-on buttons
"It is the first iteration in the Naga series to have a maximum DPI of 8200" - DPI is already linked in this section, so it should be unlinked here
"The Razer Naga had a positive reception" - mention that this is the first mouse (if the reception section goes in chronological order)
"Ben Kuchera, of Ars Technica, another tech news site, called it a "niche product"" - seems redundant, try Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica called it a "niche product"
"with the buttons that are unappealing to people who do not play MMO games" - this could also be better phrased to stating that the buttons were unappealing to people who did not play MMO games?
"Stuart Davidson of the hardware news site Hardware Heaven thought that the Naga was a fantastic mouse when all things were considered, although it was let down by the limited options for driver customization" - this needs to be in quotation marks or paraphrased
"The redesigned version of the Naga, called the Naga Epic Molten, received positive reviews for its design" - is this going to be expanded?
No, that sentence simply states that the new design received positive reception. Besides the design, everything else is the same, as said in the history section.
"Critics had mixed feelings about the Naga Epic; many thought the price was too high" - try Critics had mixed feelings about the Naga Epic, with many believing the price was too high
"The reviewers at PC Magazine called the Epic expensive" - thought that the Epic was expensive
"Mathew McCurley of tech blog Engadget" - not necessary
"and the wireless capability of the mouse and said that if "you're interested in trying something new, give it a shot."" - and stated that "if you're interested in trying something new, give it a shot". It's just that the next sentence repeats "he said"
"with the only the Value receiving a rating lower than a 10 at 9/10" - 'value' should be in quotations and de-capitalised
"Stuart Davidson praised the comfort of the mouse" - Davidson's review could be expanded upon slightly using the source
I'll take a look when I have more time.
"he Naga 2014 received positive reviews, with many reviewers liking the comfort and the feel of the buttons" - try enjoying to mix things up
"He noted that the button arrangement may take some time to get used to" - should be in quotes
(edit conflict × 3) @Jaguar: Cheers for the review. I've completed all of the suggestions and left a couple comments/questions above. Anarchyte(work | talk) 11:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Anarchyte: that's what I could find during my first read through. I hope that this helps make the future GA review smoother! Sorry for the edit conflicts. JAGUAR 11:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Misc.
There's a fair amount that can be rephrased in the lede. This should be an introduction to the topic—the mice, their popularity, their noteworthy features.
The mice are, in order of release: the Naga, Naga Epic, Naga 2012, Naga Hex, Naga 2014, Naga Epic Chroma, Naga Chroma, and Naga Hex v2. The first four versions have DPIs of 5600 and 3.5G laser sensors, the next two versions have DPIs of 8200 and 4G laser sensors, and the most recent versions have DPIs of 16000 and 5G laser sensors.
Think about how you can phrase this such that it isn't caught up in jargon. Do we need all the names of the individual mice, or is that not important for the lede? Do we need the specific DPI numbers in the lede? (Where would they be necessary, and why would a reader compare between the two?) What do those DPI numbers represent—are they on par with other gaming mice or is there anything noteworthy about them? That's more of where you should be heading. Also avoid phrasing that creates more questions than it answers (e.g., "is believed to be" by whom?) czar 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I've added info about DPI and polling rate. I'm not sure how I'd rewrite the lede if I removed all the content, and I think it'd be good to include it anyway, though I'm open to suggestions. Anarchyte(work | talk) 11:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know the sources better so I can't offer wording here
The first four versions have DPIs of 5600 and 3.5G laser sensors, the next two versions have DPIs of 8200 and 4G laser sensors, and the most recent versions have DPIs of 16000 and 5G laser sensors.
What is the import of this statement? This reader's eyes glazed over and I don't know what another reader should get out of the sentence. Is the reader supposed to make a comparison? Because most won't know the difference between the three DPI numbers, at least. Phrase it however you would summarize it. Perhaps something about how their precision increased over time and why? Anyone who wants specifics is reading further than the lede. The other questions above should help guide too czar 14:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also is Hardware Heaven a reliable source? By the way, the article looks complete enough for GA—this is just about improving the article past that low bar at this point. Some editors will have more GA review comments than others, etc. czar 14:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I've cut down the DPI specifics in the lead, and regarding Hardware Heaven, I can't find any discussions about it. Should I open a discussion on WP:RSN? Anarchyte(work | talk) 03:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you want—usually it's enough for two editors to not find a source reliable (it has no editorial standards, staff/policy page, etc.) Process for the sake of process is anathema. I still think the DPI part in the lede reads like jargon. Are they considered high DPI? What do those numbers and the differences represent, as phrased for a reader unfamiliar with the subject (thus whey they're coming to read WP)? czar 16:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I've removed the DPI content all together, along with the polling rate info from the lede. In the reception section I've removed all the reviews from Hardware Heaven as I couldn't find any "About us" or staff pages. Anarchyte(work | talk) 06:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The1337gamer, Jaguar, and Czar: Thanks for your help on the article. I'm closing this discussion and I'm going to nominate it for GA. Anarchyte(work | talk) 09:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because while this is a GA, there may be some prose and style errors present in the article as much of my focus while improving the article was summarizing the research, not the quality of my writing.
Making my way through the article; this looks in good shape. Some comments below.
I'd suggest linking to Big O notation the first time you use it.
A related point: most people won't know that notation, so could it be avoided or explained in the lead? I can imagine many readers wanting to learn about binary search without having a maths background; if we can introduce the technical terms gradually that would help. Non-technical readers aren't going to get to the end of the article, but they should be able to get through the first section or two, if they're motivated.
Why is the information in the performance section about pre-storing certain locations in an invisible comment, rather than a note or part of the text? It seems like useful information.
You explain the floor function, but by that time you've already used it in the algorithm. It's linked there, but it might be better to avoid using it in the algorithm, so you can explain it on first use. In the algorithm just paraphrase what it does.
Similarly you explain "amortized" on second use.
I see you're using "log" for log2, after defining it in the lead. Unless the sources don't do this (perhaps because "log" always means "log2" in the literature?) I think the subscript would be helpful. In any case the information should be repeated in the body, since the lead shouldn't contain anything not in the body.
Any reason not to put the arguments in parentheses in expressions such as "log n - 1"?
"no search algorithm that is based solely on comparisons": how about a footnote that links to an article about algorithms that are not based solely on comparisons? It's not immediately obvious what these might be, but perhaps the information doesn't belong in the main text.
The Judy array sentence isn't really very informative as it stands; if these are worth mentioning, a few more words of description would be helpful. Also, the sentence is unsourced as is the following paragraph, and at least one later paragraph.
I'd suggest thickening the line in the Fibonacci search illustration; on one of my two screens (1920 x 1080) the line looks OK, but on the other (1280 x 1024) it's almost invisible.
"interpolation search is slower than binary search for small arrays, as interpolation search requires extra computation, and the slower growth rate of its time complexity compensates for this only for large arrays": does Knuth give any specifics on the minimum array size at which interpolation search becomes more efficient?
In the history section, I'd rephrase the mention of fractional cascading -- you describe it in the paragraph just above so it can be referred to as something the reader has already been told about, rather than as something that needs an explanation.
I found the note about the overflow bug in Bentley's (and other) implementations fascinating, particularly because I read Bentley's original article thirty years ago. I'd suggest changing the start of the following paragraph to make it clearer that you're about to explain the problem; as it stands I thought the new paragraph was going on to another topic till I was halfway through it.
@Mike Christie: "A related point: most people won't know that notation, so could it be avoided or explained in the lead?"
Er... that's tricky. It's a fairly involved subject, and more to the point it's absolutely basic computer science, which a lot of people interested in this subject matter would already have encountered. (Admittedly binary search is also absolutely basic computer science, so that sets something of an upper limit on the expertise of the readers.)
What I think would read better is to keep the clutter out of the lead and not try to explain the (tangential issue of the) notation there. Rather, since binary search is the textbook example of an O(log n) algorithm, I'd postpone the description to the section on "performance" which describes its performance at greater length and the describes O() notation in terms of that.
![[7]](http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/dgraymansp/images/2/2c/51J2UPyd7XL.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150129235858&path-prefix=es){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gws_balfour_01.jpg){kind=link}
