The review department of the Chicago WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope.
This department provides a convenient collection of Chicago content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:
- Featured article candidates
- Featured article review
- Featured list candidates
- Featured list removal candidates
- Non-article featured content candidates
Several other discussion types use transclusion friendly discussion. Below you will also find external discussion for
- 1 External peer review
- 2 Featured article candidates
- 3 Featured article review
- 4 Featured list candidates
- 5 Featured list removal candidates
- 6 Non-article featured content candidates
- 7 Good article reassessment
- 8 Articles for deletion
- 9 Illinois
- 10 Good article discussions
- 11 Archives
External peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA. This article has already had a peer review and recently passed GA. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make it more comprehensive and how to improve the prose.
- No need to rush...I have other ways of keeping myself busy. :) Good luck on your FAC, by the way. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for being so understanding - this looks pretty good to me, so here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.
- One thing that is sometimes hard to do is to provide context to the reader about things the author is familiar with. I am fairly familiar with the Chicago area, but was not that sure where Lisle was. A brief description would help (x miles west of the Loop / downtown Chicago) or a map with a dot would help too.
- I also was confused by mentions of the college, but no real resolution on what happened to it - it took me a little searching here, but I assume it is what is now known as Benedictine University in Lisle. The article mentions the university as the site of buildings The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues., and in terms of a scholarship at the academy, but I think it needs to explicitly say what happened to the college after the academy split. I realize that this article on the Academy, so it need not be a lot of detail, but some is needed.
- The map is nice, but I am guessing the Census does not show buildings (only streets and water), so the source for those needs to be given explicitly - this will be checked at FAC.
- The capitalization of College and Academy by themselves seems a bit odd, though it is done consistently as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions says if it is the generic word (college, academy) by itself it should not be capitalized.
- The lead just seems sparse to me - especially the second and third paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to make sure every header is in the lead somehow - are Demographics and the Christmas Drive there?
- I mentioned the Christmas Drive a little bit, but the Demographics section is already somewhat covered in the lead. ("Benet's average ACT test score has exceeded statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students have gone on to college after graduation")
- The language is decent but I noticed a few rough spots reading - I will try and come back and point some more out soon, here is one to start
- Classes began on March 2, when Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street for four months. FOur months in one day? Wow that's concentrated teaching! Perhaps Classes began on March 2, and for the next four months Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street. would be better. I am also not sure students can be remedial - I thought classes were? Could be wrong
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- More from Ruhrfisch
I will try to point out language that needs work here, as well as any other issues that I notice
- Lead It was founded in 1887 as the all-boys St. Procopius College and Academy by Benedictine monks in Chicago, who also operated the St. Joseph Bohemian Orphanage, which along with St. Procopius later moved to Lisle, approximately 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago. Could this sentence be split into two? As it is now it is quite long and complex - I would start the new sentence after the word orphanage. Also could the year(s) for the move(s) to Lisle be added to provide context?
- Capitalization of college? The orphanage closed in 1956 to make room for St. Procopius Academy, which then separated from the College in 1957. (In Internet Explorer you can search for a word and it highlights all the matching terms in yellow - might be worth checking caps on college and academy this way)
- Tweak sentence Sacred Heart merged with St. Procopius Academy in 1967
on the St. Procopius campusto establish Benet Academy [on the St. Procopius campus].
- Also, any idea where the name "Benet" came from? a ha - here it says Benet is an English form of Benedict
- Unclear Benet's performing arts program stages multiple musicals ... I think it would be clearer to say Benet's performing arts program stages a musical annually... perhaps saying since when
- Need to be consistent on names - in the text it is "Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict..." but the image caption is just "Abbot Nepomucene Jaeger" (no John). I also wonder since St John of Nepomuk is not well known in the US, if a link would be in order?
- Suggested reoganization Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict was the pastor of the parish[.]
, which served approximately 16,000 to 20,000 parishioners. Chicago at that time had the largest Czech population of any othercity in the world outside of Prague and Vienna. Roughly 50,000 Czech immigrants were served by the three Czech parishes of Chicago, which included [16,000 to 20,000 parishioners at] St. Procopius.
- The source says they were teaching high school classes then, so I would clarify that in Only a two-year [high school] program was offered at the time; the college offered its first four-year high school program in 1904.
- Might flow more smoothly as
The first Bohemian abbot in the United States,Abbot Jaeger[, the first Bohemian abbot in the United States,] founded a Bohemian monastic community in 1894...
- What does better atmosphere mean? The college and academy continued to grow in Chicago; in 1896 the Abbey bought the 104-acre (42 ha) Morris Neff farm in Lisle to gain more space and a better atmosphere. Cleaner air than in the city?
- Since I am assuming that the present Benedictine University still is on the site because they are the re-named St Procopius College, I think that needs to be made clearer in this: The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues.
- OK I am stopping the rough spots here. I think this would benefit from a copy edit before FAC. There are a few other things I noticed:
- What makes Remembering Lisle a reliable source? See WP:RS
- The alt text for the mascot should desribe it as a bird, not a redwing (there might be those who think of the Detroit Redwings or even Red Wing Shoes
Featured article candidates
Featured article review
Featured list candidates
Featured list removal candidates
Non-article featured content candidates
Good article reassessment
Articles for deletion
- View AfD · ) – (
- ( )
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence of the article passing WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC or WP:COMPANY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Does not seem to pass any notability guideline. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- View AfD · ) – (
- ( )
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- View AfD · ) – (
- ( )
Appears to be created by two non-notable lobbyists pushing for one piece of legislation that never got a committee hearing and has since disbanded. No real evidence of notability. DeleteAllTheThings (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, it may need to be rewritten but it is clearly notable. 00:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Articles in the Chicago Tribune, Sun Times and on NPR give an indication of notability, and this coverage is over time, not just one event. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per GregJackP and Nwlaw63. Proposals for legislation do not require a committee hearing to be notable, they require significant coverage. James500 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- View AfD · ) – (
- ( )
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Many references in article (as of July 17 2015) meet the WP:RS. Plus there are many more possible sources, plus she's been interviewed on NPR, quoted as an authority on Wisconsin and Chicago politics, and heads an influential group in Chicago politics. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a journalist, so maybe I'm biased, but being quoted in one of my articles doesn't mean anything at all about your notability in an encyclopedia. She looks like just another self-promoting political worker that isn't worth an encyclopedic mention. Jd027 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Illustrious words from the Tribune: 'He said Crowell has not been directly involved in Garcia campaign to unseat Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “She is not on staff and never has been,” Sharp said. “She is really just one of thousands of people in Chicago who are anxious to replace Rahm Emanuel.” ' Jd027 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rebuttal. Clearly this person meets notability criteria, with in-depth coverage here, with her leadership of progressive politics in Wisconsin and Illinois, with her being quoted again and again in respected newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago SunTimes, NPR. So she's clearly viewed as a political consultant, plus her leadership of We Are Wisconsin, which came close to unseating the governor, and United Working Families, is getting much media attention. At present, there are fourteen (14) solid references (as of July 25 2015), including in-depth treatment as well as numerous articles where her views are quoted in a paragraph or two; the Wikipedia rule is If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and clearly she satisfies the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Some of the groups she has been linked to, like We Are Wisconsin, may be notable, but no evidence that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Subject is quoted in a number of cited sources, but far too many are about other topics and not her. Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet general notability guidelines. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: as non-notable
partisan cheerleaderpolitical operative. Quis separabit? 15:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Good article discussions
- Peer review
- A-Class review