Wikipedia:Peer review

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

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

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

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

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




I've listed this article for peer review because I think this is one of the more interesting Star Trek articles I've worked on recently, and I think following J's comments during the GA Review I think it is also one of the best placed articles to make a run at FA. However, having only completed a couple of FA's before I'm still not at all confident with that process so I'd like to get some second opinions on issues with the article as they stand so that I don't waste anyone's time there.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 July 2015, 09:22 UTC)----

LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has come quite a long way from its creation in late 2011 and its appearance as a DYK blurb on the Main Page. Right now, the biography section is fairly comprehensive, with parts of her early life, early career as an indie musician, and her major career. As my second favorite singer (next to Mami Kawada, whose article I've brought to peer review three separate times), I was hoping to improve her article to Good Article status (there are quite a few sources and interviews with her online, I just haven't had the time to add them to the article, including sources regarding her musical style). I'm not sure if an article can be nominated for DYK more than once (say, once for creation and once for reaching Good Article status), but if it could, it would be a great achievement and promotion for the Anime and Manga WikiProject, which right now is lacking in active members.

Anyway, I still feel that the article is lacking a few things. For example, it doesn't have (yet) a section on her musical style (although her influences are mentioned in he biography). But as always, further help is appreciated. Other than this, what else can be done or expanded to give the article a good shot at passing a GAN?

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 July 2015, 03:58 UTC)----

Thom Yorke[edit]

I've been picking away at this article for a while now. I think it's much improved since I started, but I don't think it's ready for a GA nomination and I'd like to get another pair of eyes on it to see what can be improved, particularly the "Musical approach" section. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 July 2015, 17:30 UTC)----

Beautiful Monsters Tour[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is already complete and near ready for GA.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. As you know, I've gone through the article. I made some changes to prose, and I've fixed several URL redirects found in the MTV sources. There are no other issues to be found here. As far as I can make out, this article meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and is ready for nomination. Good work. =) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment—Hi Red marquis. Your article has 17 KB of prose, which is not enough for a four-paragraph lead. You may receive objection there in a GA review, as MOS:LEAD is part of the GA criteria. I would strongly suggest a concise, well-summarized lead with two medium-sized or three small paragraphs. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll look into the how I can reduce the size of the lede. =) -Red marquis (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Made changes to shorten lede. How does this look? -Red marquis (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Still rather big. I suggest an average of three or four sentences per paragraph. This is a GA nomination I once reviewed at the time of its promotion with a similar amount of prose, and the lead size you should be aiming for. Good luck! The Wikipedian Penguin 16:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 17 July 2015, 02:07 UTC)----

24 (TV series)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in improving this from good to featured article status and would like feedback on the article.`

Thanks, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 July 2015, 22:07 UTC)----

Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge[edit]

To all concerned, I've listed this article for Peer Review because I would like to improve it in order to nominate it for Featured Article candidacy. Any and all guidance you could provide would be of the greatest help in preparing this article for FAC! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 July 2015, 11:14 UTC)----

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to nominate this for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and I'd like the most critical peer review possible to work it up to FAC presentation.

Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 July 2015, 23:56 UTC)----

Journey Through the Impossible[edit]

I'd love to bring this quirky science fantasy to FA, and I'm not sure what edits are needed to get the article to that level of quality. Any and all suggestions will be much appreciated.

Thanks, Lemuellio (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 July 2015, 15:06 UTC)----

Misty Copeland[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because she is currently in the spotlight having been on the cover of Time and featured on 60 Minutes in May and having gotten a groundbreaking promotion this week. I would like feedback to prepare this for WP:FAC.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 July 2015, 19:52 UTC)----

Circus Juventas[edit]

This article is the product of a good deal of work from last summer and now I'm aiming to take it to FAC. It's my first time here (and, if all goes well, at FAC) so any guidance re: prose, content, images is welcome. Thanks for your time and help!

Best, BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 June 2015, 16:22 UTC)----


I, along with Kailash29792 and Ssven2, am aiming to bring Mayabazar to FA status upon a suggestion by Dr. Blofeld. Mayabazar happens to be my first attempt at a FA, second for Ssven2 and third for Kailash29792. Thanks, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997[edit]

  • For Telugu language sources use |language=Telugu in the cite templates.

--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 5 sentences in the lead start with "The film".
  • "eighth in the series of the adaptations of the folk tale Sasirekha Parinayam." We can have a note regarding the other seven versions.
  • The info regarding the technicians & 400 members can be moved to the filming section.
  • The fact that 4 members of the cast were alive during the release of the digitally remastered version would be appropriate in "Digitisation and colourisation" section.
  • "Telugu singer include stage actor Madhavapeddi Satyam" something is wrong about this.
  • " with no duplicate houses looking alike." If they are duplicate then they would surely be alike.
  • supervision of the art directors
  • Why is "Film, TV and Theatre Development Corporation and Kinnera Art Theatres" in italics?

--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: All your comments were resolved by Ssven2 in my absence, except the second, as we do not have any information about all the other seven films. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio[edit]

For the Telugu language titles in the references, you have used the corresponding English title in braces. Please use the trans_title parameter in the citation where it should be ideally placed. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Srivin[edit]

Hi bro, why dont you add details in popular culture for instance please check out the Telugu films in which the songs from this film has been parodied. "Vivaha Bhojanambu" was reused in animation film Ghatothkacha. Not only Aha Naa Pellanta, even other songs were also named as films. Srivin (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Srivin: I thought of that and it is best to add the info. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Added info regarding Vivaha Bhojanambu (1998), Choopulu Kalisina Shubhavela (1988) and Ghatotkach (2008). Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Viriditas[edit]

Prose will need a close review before FAC. For example, the last paragraph of the lead says: "The Telugu version's digitally remastered and colourised version was released on 30 January 2010. It too was successful both critically and commercially." Two things: first, the repetition of "Telugu version's...colourised verison" should be removed. There are any number of ways to do this. You could say, "The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released" or something along those lines; second, the last sentence would work better merged with the previous. Something like this: "The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released on 30 January 2010 and was critically and commercially successful." Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Rephrased as per your suggestion. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

Lead section:

  • "produced ... under the Vijaya Vauhini Studios" Under the building? Improve the grammar.
  • "the eighth in the series of the adaptations" Is there an official series of adaptations? Watch out for unintended messages in the text.
  • ₹ 200,000. There should be no space between ₹ and the figure, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Currencies.
  • "Ghantasala orchestrated and recorded four songs composed by S. Rajeswara Rao apart from composing the rest after the latter left and Marcus Bartley was the cinematographer." Very confusing about the music and then a couple words thrown in about cinematographer at the end.
  • "with its cinematography, art direction and visual effects," What about them?

I am afraid this would get killed at FAC. You need to have it copy edited first. BollyJeff | talk 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: Comments resolved by Ssven2 in my absence. Made a request at GOCE for a thorough c/e. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that you need a separate section for 'Legacy' and 'In popular culture'. The data each seems fairly interchangeable at present.
Initially we had only a Legacy section. During a c/e before GAR, it was split into two sections for easy reading. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
For it to be split, there should still be a clear difference between what is in each section. For example, wouldn't stuff about text books and names of newspapers be better in the second section? Also, you could consider removing or changing the name of the second section title for another reason. To some FA reviewers, 'In popular culture' sounds like 'trivia' which could be a problem. BollyJeff | talk 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed the second section title. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now everything should be as close to chronological order as possible in the section.
Done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You list a budget for both original and remake. Is there no information on the earnings of either one?
Remake? Which Remake? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the colourized re-release. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh! Well, there is no reliable information available about the earnings of either one. When i expressed this doubt to Krimuk90, he said that it is not such a big issue. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Make sure you go through the toolbox at the top of this page. For example, you seem to be missing alt-text on some images. There are also some duplicate links in the 'casting' , 'filming', and and 'music' sections.
I and Ssven2 have added the alt comments. The duplicate links shall be fixed soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "This was the first time in his career that Rama Rao played the role of Krishna". Were there others times after? How many? Was it because he was well liked in this role that he did it many times? Needs some elaboration.
Rama Rao reprised the role of Krishna in seventeen unrelated films. He became an ideal actor to play Rama and Krishna in Telugu cinema. This was covered in the legacy section with a note mentioning those unrelated films as per Dr. Blofeld's comments at the GAR. This may be trivial, but for better understanding : M. L. Narasimham of The Hindu - Forty-thousand multi colour calendars of NTR as Lord Krishna were distributed and most of them adorned the drawing rooms, offices and other establishments and some even found their way to the prayer rooms of Telugu homes. Utmost care was taken to design his get up (make up: Pithambaram and Bhakthavatsalam) and NTR did the rest. The ‘Lord’ had arrived! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Then could you please change that first sentence to "This was the first of many times in his career that Rama Rao played the role of Krishna"? And I would not say that this is too trivial. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Changed the first sentence as per your suggestion. Can you suggest me where to place that calendars issue? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If it happened as part of the initial release, then Release section would be the place for it. I do not see the full source to know if that is the case. BollyJeff | talk 23:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
the source Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it doesn't say exactly when, but it would probably be okay in this section. However, the source also says "The previous year he had made a brief appearance as Krishna in Sonthavooru", so it was technically not his first appearance. Probably his first full length role, but don't you think the minor appearance should be mentioned as well? BollyJeff | talk 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. Mentioned about his brief appearance in Sontha Ooru. Will add the calendars issue later today. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Telugu and Tamil bilingual" and "bilingual film in both Telugu and Tamil languages" in back to back sentences.
Done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In 'Themes and influences' it would be nice to have another source or two, and name who said what about the themes, rather than just stating everything as a fact.
This is it, sadly! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Just noting some prose concerns I can find along the way:

  • "₹ 200,000" - there appears to be a space in between the symbol (oh, I just realised it was mentioned above!)
  • The first paragraph in the lead would need to be re-organised in order to meet the FA criteria.
  • "Mayabazar was the eighth in the series of the adaptations of the folk tale Sasirekha Parinayam" - this is a run-on sentence, what kind of adaptation is it? Is it the eighth film adaptation or eighth overall? If I knew what it was I could re-structure this sentence to something like Mayabazar was the eighth adaptations of the folk tale Sasirekha Parinayam
  • To meet the FA criteria, the plot segment in the lead could be expanded slightly to summarise more
  • "The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released on 30 January 2010 and was critically and commercially successful" - could be rephrased to The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released on 30 January 2010 and was similarly met with critical acclaim or something similar?
  • Not enough on development/production is in the lead. More importantly I would recommend slight re-structuring of the lead, I could help with that once all of the above are clarified!

I'll try and find more as I go along. JAGUAR  14:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Comments resolved. I request some time to elaborate the plot. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Artscribbler[edit]

The fact about the film becoming the first Telgu film to be colorised and digitally mastered would be of point of interest to many readers,it should perhaps be mentioned earlier in the article. --Artscribbler (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the participation. Well, the lead section is summarised according to the flow of the article and perhaps, placing information regarding the first Telugu film to be colourised and digitally mastered may break the flow of the lead. Since the article is currently at WP:GOCE, the copy-editor would decide a better position for the same. Face-smile.svg Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Mr.,

First, I thank you for your work about Mayabazar that talks about a Tamil Classical Film. However, you had missed some important details. In fact, you had only talked about the expenses of the film. You did not talk about its income... Furthermore, the abbreviation of INR is not supported by computers... So, try to write INR instead of . Try to expand this... This will better the output of your excellent work. Moreover, you had not well described the places where the scenes had been done and how the fees had been allocated for the Mayabazar film and you had not well estimated the value of Roubie in USD so that the users can get a better overviews of the material expenses of the film.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the participation. I feel sorry and sad to say that i missed out details about the film's income because no reliable information is available regarding the same. Ditto with the fees of the actors and technicians. With the limited resources we had, i could expand the Production section and sadly, that information did not inform the places where the film was shot particularly. I shall change the template to INR text soon as per your suggestion. But i could not understand the statement you had not well estimated the value of Roubie in USD so that the users can get a better overviews of the material expenses of the film, Can you please explain me in detail? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Mr., I thank you for your reply. What I meant is just to give what the INR is worth in the time of the film. For example, the gram of gold is worth 2435.47 INR in 2015 due to the inflation. However, it was worth 1782.26 INR in 2009. The INR of the mid XXth Century has not the same value as the INR of nowadays... So, you have just to convert the gram of gold in INR as of the time of the publication of the film. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Csisc: One of the co-nominators have addressed this issue. Please go through the article once and suggest the right way if we are wrong. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: Well done. Excellent work. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 June 2015, 18:50 UTC)----

Boys Don't Cry (film)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to get some more comments before I re-nominate this article for FAC. I've already fixed the problems with the article that people mentioned at the last FAC, so I'm just looking for some comments.

Thanks, BenLinus1214talk 21:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! BenLinus1214talk 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've had limited experience in FAs and even lesser in films so I think we both will learn something in its next FA nom. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Plot: "female-to-male non-operative transgender" there are three different links here and WP:SEAOFBLUE comes to mind. Try to fix this as how they've advised there. I've did some minor ce and this section looks fine otherwise.
  • Background:
    • "Peirce stated she" opinion needs a backing inline cite. You know what? Be on the safe side, add inline cites at the end of almost everything likely to be challenged, quotes/stated opinons, figures etc.
      • done
    • Use the {{further| header template for a link to Brandon Teena
    • Why in "She admired Brandon's.." two words are with quote marks and the others are not? Either do all or none otherwise it'll look like scarequotes -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
      • done The Sragow source doesn't actually support that sentence--I changed it.

Great that you got it copy-edited. Now that it's over, let's continue.

  • "Drew Barrymore was an early candidate to star." as lead role, right? why isn't this in the Casting section?
    • done put it in the casting section.
  • " search for freedom rather than capitalize on his sexual identity crisis." would need a backing inline as I said above. Would you like me to find more like these, or you could just add them by checking all the statements without any and judge whether their non-controversial enough to be remain like that.
    • done removed.
  • Casting: Notice the text sandwich between both the images? try to avoid that. See WP:IMGLOC
    • done Moved image one paragraph down. This was better with the text anyways.
  • ""She's not one ..never catch her acting." onwards seems to be an unnecessary addition. Have a good enough reason to keep it?
    • done No. I removed it.
  • " Lana's charismatic former boyfriend" Can't say such a subjective thing in the paedia's voice. Of course, he was in the movie but here I think you're referring to the real person.
    • Removed non-neutral "charismatic"
  • "Peirce used filming techniques that allowed the audience to explore Brandon's perspective and imagination" What is this referring to? Can it be replaced with something less subjective?
  • done
  • "A flood gave the cast and crew a "mud bath"; " what is the relevance of this sentence? it's already mentioned that they got stuck in mud. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • done I also just condensed this part of the paragraph.
  • Here are the sentences which need backing inline cites.
    • "She described the mood she was trying ..."
      • done
    • ". In addition, she took visual inspiration ..."
      • done I've had to reformat this section a lot, and I just did again. :)
    • This para"Many scenes were shot at night to give..." has two cites to a single source.
      • I removed that because I'm not sure where that came from.
    • "Peirce drew inspiration from the ..."
      • done
    • "which one critic said was " shouldn't this be in a reception-like section
      • This long quote isn't necessary, but I kept the "eerily lit" part.
    • "most of whom focused primarily on the adult-themed..." and be wary, there's a cn tag in the next statement.
      • done with both.
    • "Before the film's theatrical release, Lana Tisdel sued ..."
      • done
    • ". She said the film depicted her as ..." -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • done
  • Controversy section: WP:CSECTION says that such sections focusing on negative content should be avoided. It should be integrated with the rest of the article. Titling it as just "Controversy" too makes it sound very vague as to what it covers (just a place to club all the negative material?). If this was about just a specific incident you could retitle it to "X incident" like say (Acceptance speech controversy or something) but I see three separate incidents covered here: The speech, the graphic scene and accuracy. So perhaps the scene part could be merged with Home media and be called Rating and home media. The speech incident could be added as a subsection to Awards and nominations. The accuracy part and Tisdel reaction could be merged to the first mention of her reaction para in the Critical reception section.
      • done
  • Here are some FA case studies Blackrock, But I'm a Cheerleader and American Beauty. They maybe long, but read the part about formatting the references. I think now the only obstacle left would be that, the prose (it's good but not exceptional), and the research and factual accuracy. There's not much I can do more now and good luck. I'll be watching its developments. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ugog Nizdast: I've looked through them, but I don't see anything about reference formatting… I'll look through the prose myself one time before renominating. What research and factual accuracy things are you talking about? :) BenLinus1214talk 16:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
They don't? first one I think had a slight mention about it. I'll find a better one, reference formatting even I'm not sure of. Anyway, there would have been something to learn from those reviews.
I meant that those are those two things I haven't checked, they might be something that might pop up in the future review. I don't see any thing prominent which will make it a quick-fail or something, most of the problems you will be able to solve during the review itself (provided you know the article and refs in and out). ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Around 8 dead links have been found and ref 43 only has the name field, why so? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I've fixed all of that! :) Almost all of them could be found in archive services, and I removed stuff cited to the other ones. As for then-ref 43, I removed it. I have no idea what that was--I didn't put it in the article. Thanks! BenLinus1214talk 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Mr.,

I thank you for your work about this important film. Detailed information are provided in this current work. However, it can be developed by involving more misconsidered details... You can talk about the expenses and the incomes of the film and how it has been published worldwide.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! It's actually Ms. :) Anyways, expenses, income, and international release are already discussed. Please see the Background and the first paragraph of the Release sections for that information. BenLinus1214talk 00:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for this fault Ms. and I congratulate you for your excellent work. --Csisc (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's okay and you're welcome! :) BenLinus1214talk 01:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

  • If you're going to include who's based on who to the cast list, you're going to need to cite sources.
  • I removed it. I definitely could have cited sources, but I don't think it was necessary in the cast section. BenLinus1214talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Peirce became engrossed in Brandon's life and death; he said," Pierce is a "she"? Or am I wrong? (Also, could you check that quote? Grammatically, it's not great.
  • Yeah, Peirce is a she. That was just a mistake. That quote is correct. BenLinus1214talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The leap of imagination that this person took was completely overwhelming to me."[11] The sensationalist publicity generated by the case prolonged her interest.[9] Peirce said she looked beyond the brutality of the case and instead viewed the positive aspects of Brandon's life as a "leap of imagination" that eventually causes his death" Repetition
  • done
  • "The leap of imagination that this person took was completely overwhelming to me."[11] The sensationalist publicity generated by the case prolonged her interest.[9] Peirce said she looked beyond the brutality of the case and instead viewed the positive aspects of Brandon's life as a "leap of imagination" that eventually causes his death" What's the "also" doing in this sentence?
  • "Initially, the film was to be largely based on Aphrodite Jones' 1996 true crime book All She Wanted, which told the story of Brandon's final few weeks.[15] Rather than focusing on Brandon's early life and background, the screenplay was later modified"Vachon and Eva Kolodner's production company, Killer Films as well as Hart Sharp Entertainment and IFC Films provided financing for the project to be closer to Peirce's vision." How was Pierce's vision different from Jones's book?
  • I just reframed the whole first part of that paragraph. BenLinus1214talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Vachon and Eva Kolodner's production company, Killer Films as well as Hart Sharp Entertainment and IFC Films provided financing for the project" Clumsy
  • done
  • "Prior to filming, Peirce conducted extensive research into the case, which lasted almost five-and-a-half years." Again, this seems to repeat what was said earlier
  • changed
  • "The filmmakers retained the names of most of the case's real-life protagonists, but the names of several supporting characters, including Candace's character who in real-life was named Lisa Lambert, were changed." Complex
  • "Sevigny had auditioned for the role of Brandon,[33][34] but Peirce decided Sevigny would be more suited to playing Tisdel. Peirce could not see Sevigny as a man and thought she would be perfect for Lana.[32][34]" Again, this is a little repetitive.
  • "Peirce cast Alicia Goranson, known for playing Becky on the sitcom Roseanne, as Candace because of her likeness to Lisa Lambert, who was 24 when Lotter shot her" Is this the first mention of the shooting?
  • No, this is the same shooting that kills Brandon. However, I don't think her age at the time of death is necessary.
  • There seems to be slightly contradictory information about where the film was "originally" going to be shot.
  • fixed
  • I think the whole paragraph beginning "Some scenes in Boys Don't Cry required emotional and physical intensity" needs to be looked at closely. For example, I'm unclear on what "The bumper-skiing scene" is- it's not in the plot section, I don't think?
  • I clarified that and one other thing. I don't really know what else to do, so tell me if it's good. BenLinus1214talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The use of low natural light and heavy artificial light is illustrated early in the film–in the opening roller rink scene in which Brandon pursues his first relationship with a young woman, Peirce used a similar three-shot method to that used in a scene in The Wizard of Oz (1939) in which Dorothy leaves her house and enters Oz.[9] The scene consists of a three-shot sequence meant to symbolize Brandon's metaphorical "entrance to manhood"." I'm not clear what this means.
  • clarified
  • "the sequence in which Lana has an orgasm" Again, this hasn't been introduced- you seem to be assuming readers are already familiar with the film.
  • "and incorporated neo-realism techniques" neo-realist?
  • done
  • You seem to be inconsistent on whether you list the date of films you mention.
  • I decided to put dates after all of them. BenLinus1214talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " the scene in which the two have sex in a car" Again
  • done
  • ""The Bluest Eyes in Texas" was played when Hilary Swank went onstage to receive her Academy Award for Best Actress in 2000.[50][51]" If this really matters, could we incorporate it into the former paragraph?
  • "Boys Don't Cry has been regarded academically as a thematically rich love story between two ill-fated lovers, not unlike Romeo and Juliet or Bonnie and Clyde." Is that claim you've made on the basis of one source, or is that a conclusion reached in the cited source?
  • After fixing that ref, I checked and fixed it.
  • "in the scene in the barn," Again
  • done
  • "Boys Don't Cry was the subject of an essay, Psychoanalysis and Film, written by Donald Moss and Lynne Zeavin, and edited by Glen Gabbard under the supervision of The International Journal of Psychoanalysis." Is this really necessary? Also, that's not the same of the essay, and it's hard to see how a journal can supervise anything.
  • done
  • "Its strategy is comparable, perhaps, to using the particulars of the For a case not for what they might reveal about female hysteria" Huh?
  • done
  • "The film received a limited release theatrically on October 22, 1999, in the U.S.,[65] where it was distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures, a subsidiary of Twentieth Century Fox that specializes in independent films.[66] The film grossed $73,720 in its opening week. By December 5, the film had grossed in excess of $2 million. By May 2000, it had a U.S. total gross of $11,540,607—more than three times its production budget.[67] Initially, many viewers complained via email to Peirce that the film was not being shown near them, as the film initially was only being shown on 25 screens across the country. However, this number increased to nearly 200 by March 2000.[68]" It'd be good if everything about the limited release could be together
  • done
  • Source for the UK release?
  • I don't know how I missed this. Done. BenLinus1214talk 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "he performances of Swank and Sevigny were selected as two of the film's strongest elements; Rolling Stone said the pair "give performances that burn in the memory",[76] and The Film Stage called Swank's performance "one of the greatest" Best Actress Oscar-winning performances.[77]" Avoid personification. Publications and websites don't say anything; people writing for them do.
  • done
  • Just a thought- it may be worth trying to arrange the reception section thematically, rather than by review.
  • Question the problem is that the reviews are thematically very similar, with praise going towards acting, directing, and writing. Am I missing your point?
  • Great- so have a think about (say) having a paragraph about the acting, then the directing, then the writing. Have a look at how I did it on The Turn of the Screw (2009 film), for instance. I'm not saying this is how you have to do it, just something to think on. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2007, Premiere ranked the film on its list of the "The 25 Most Dangerous Movies".[85]" I'm unclear on the point of this; is this positive? Negative? Neutral?
  • I can see how it would seem negative because of its placement, but it was meant to be neutral. Moved to a different paragraph.
  • Well, if my my mother called something "dangerous", she probably wouldn't be complimenting it! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "the truth about Brandon's gender," Sex?
  • done
  • "Tisdel said the film falsely portrayed her continuing her relationship with Teena after she discovered Teena was anatomically and chromosomally female" Repetition. Also, think about MOS:LQ for that paragraph.
  • done
  • "Boys Don't Cry‍ '​s release was concurrent with the murder of a homosexual teenager, Matthew Shepard, on October 12, 1998, almost a year before the film's premiere" Self-contradictory? Also, what's this doing in the awards section?
  • I have no idea what it's doing in the awards section. Moved it and fixed the sentence. BenLinus1214talk 22:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Your referencing style is inconsistent; look at accessdates, for instance. This needs to be cleaned up before FAC! You probably don't need publishers/locations for periodicals, but be consistent either way. Check your italics (eg, Political Film Society and CNN shouldn't be italicised). Page numbers for offline periodicals, and volume and issue numbers for magazines/journals, should be included, and included consistently. Check your Genders link. Is reliable? Your Movies and the Meaning of Life reference is incomplete- you're citing the edited collection, when you should be citing the chapter in the edited collection (as you do with the Moss/Zeavin source). And so on- you should go through these sources with a fine-toothed comb.
  • I will—I can already see things that need improvement. However, I do not know how to put sources not in italics in the cite web template…?
  • You could pull it out of the cite web template, or perhaps switch between "work" and "publisher". The template's just a tool; don't panic too much about using it "right". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but I think there's still a moderate amount of work to do before it's ready for FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was able to fix it--you ironically put italics around the work. BenLinus1214talk 22:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, it looks like there's a lot of scholarly literature out there which you should have a look at. Your Movies and the Meaning of Life source may have more worth citing, then there's doi:10.1080/08873630509478233, doi:10.1080/14616740110078211, doi:10.1177/1532708603003002007, doi:10.1525/fq.2001.54.3.47, doi:10.1080/07393180216552, two articles in this issue, two more in this, one in this and this article (which was reprinted in an edited collection). There seems to be real cross-disciplinary interest in the film, and I am not sure the high-quality (judging from a glance at the journals' publishers) research that's going on is being reflected in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thank you. I'll take a look at this quite soon. BenLinus1214talk 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I think I've responded to all your comments. I would love to take a look at the sources you mentioned, but I don't know how I would get my hands on them. They do seem quite good though. Never mind, I'll incorporate things from those as well. Just a question--after this, do you think I could go to FAC? BenLinus1214talk 22:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it'll be closer to FAC ready, but I couldn't say for sure. I can help with access to some of the sources if you need it; Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (and other places) can also help. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: The things that I can't access are all the DOIs except the first one as well as the article. If you could get them for me, that would be greatly appreciated! Otherwise, I'll just go to Resource Request. BenLinus1214talk 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm on a poor internet connection at the moment, so I'd rather not download any PDFs, but I'll get back to you on this soon. I suspect I'll have access to at least some of them. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've got a load of PDFs- email me! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Sent- let me know if there's any issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 31 May 2015, 21:03 UTC)----

Stefan Lochner[edit]

Any feed back or comments more than welcome. Thanks Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles[edit]

  • This is an interesting article about an artist I had never heard of.
  • I would prefer (fl. c. 1437 - 1451) to guessing his birth date. (1437 as the date he must have been in Cologne to be a councillor in 1447)
  • You say in the lead some paintings are dated 1430s but how securely are they attributed to him? There is nothing in the main text about pictures dated this early unless I have missed it.
  • Have found more to add re this, thae page is still WIP it weems. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Lochner was one of the most important German artist before Albrecht Dürer; an artist who held Lochner in great esteem and is most identified with continuing his legacy." 2 "artist" and the first should be plural. "most identified with continuing his legacy" is a bit clumsy and it does not seem to be supported by the text below - a diary entry which may not be by Dürer and one picture said to influenced by Lochner.
    Dürer is regarded enough that anything mentioned by him would arouse art historians interest. And it did. Reworded accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Early life - You say that his parents were citizens of Meersburg and then that there is no record of the family there!
    They seem to appear there only in the death records. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Cologne. I would re-arrange this section. It is confusing to have the 14th century in the middle. You also say praise the 15C artists and say in the next paragraph that by the 1430s art there was conventional. The timescale is unclear.
  • "Lochner had moved to Cologne, commissioned by the city council for decorations in connection with the celebration of the visit of Emperor Frederick III" This implies that he moved there as a result of the commission, but below you say he moved earlier.
  • "After his arrival, Lochner, exposed to the Netherlandish artists and working with oil" This implies Netherlandish artists in Cologne, which is presumably not what you mean.
  • "the acquisition of larger premises indicates the need for a larger workshop and additional assistants because of increased activity on his behalf." "on his behalf" sounds wrong. Maybe larger premises to house additional assistants.
  • "The German philosopher and critic Friedrich Schlegel was instrumental in reviving Lochner's reputation" This is misleading. You make clear below that he was praising one work by an unknown artist. I would move up "However the artist's identity remained unknown, and he was referred to simply as the "The Dombild Master", with no other known associated works" to come before mentioning Schlegel and say he praised the Dombild Master.
  • "Like von Soest, he often applied black cross-hatching on gold" This is the first mention of von Soest, so it should be linked.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Style. In the first para of this section you say that one of his innovations to Cologne painting was representing perspective, but below that he was not concerned with perspective.
  • "This is not to say his paintings lack contemporary northern sophistication, but that his arrangements are often innovative." This seems a non-sequitur.
  • Have reworded this slightly, but the point was that the International Gothic style is often seems as late medieval, rather than early renaissance . Ceoil (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is difficult to detect any evolution in Lochner's style. Art historians are unsure if his work became progressively more or less influenced by Netherlandish art. Recent dendrochronological examination of attributed works indicate that his development was not linear; suggesting that the more advanced Presentation in the Temple is of 1445, but predates the more Gothic Saints panels now divided between London and Cologne." This is confusing. You say no evolution is known, then that his advanced work preceded his more Gothic (less advanced?) panels.
  • Why is female subjects red linked?
  • Fixed Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "during his visit to the low lands" low lands?
  • Fixed Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You seem inconsistent whether using BR of US spelling. councilor (US) but colourist (UK).
  • Legacy. This section could do with expanding, especially the first para.
  • Will do Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "and his Feast of the Rose Garlands of 1505-1506 is indebted." indebted? This is ungrammatical.
  • You are inconsistent Chapuis or Chaptuis.
  • Fixed Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A good and interesting article but it needs copy editing. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you very much Dudley; very good points, will work through these and a c/e in general. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Artjf[edit]

  • In the early life section, you mention that he was influenced by van Eyck and van der Weyden, but in the Influences section, you don't discuss van der Weyden at all. --Artjf (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Mr.,

I had saw your work about Lochner. It is a very excellent work. Try just to explain where the works of Lockner are existing now and what are their values nowadays.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 31 May 2015, 16:39 UTC)----

Chetro Ketl[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because after a successful GAN I would like to get more feedback on the article regarding its current quality in relation to the FAC criteria. I plan to leave this PR open until May 31 June 24, so if you plan to review or add comments here please do so several days prior to that date so that I will have enough time to adequately address concerns.

Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Comments from Simon Burchell[edit]


  • In the intro, you've missed a metric conversion for the 1540 ft circumference. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "exposure to the Sun" - better as "exposure to the sun". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in this construction "Sun" is a proper noun that should be capped (see Sun). RO(talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think sun is ever a proper noun. And it definitely isn't in this construction.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see MOS:CELESTIALBODIES at MOS:CAPS - outside of astronomy articles, no capital for sun. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But our article on the topic is an FA, and it uses "Sun" throughout. RO(talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Which article? Sun? It's an astronomy article, so uses caps as per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The CMOS suggests lower case expect in publications in the field of astronomy or science, where it is considered a proper noun, as the name of our star is "the Sun". RO(talk) 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly what Simon is saying and why the sun should not be capitalized here. You are not referring to the star but to sunlight on earth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I was agreeing here, Maunus. This is not scientific article, so I agree that lower case is better. RO(talk) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think the map in the infobox is particularly helpful to anyone not already familiar with New Mexico - with no labels, and no national map for comparison. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed and removed ([3]). RO(talk) 17:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Done. RO(talk) 17:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ...developed within the local Archaic population - it would be good to have an approximate date range in brackets for the Archaic period. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. RO(talk) 17:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
When I put in period spans like this (particularly prehistoric period spans), I would normally put: (c. 6,000 to 800 BCE), since the dating isn't precise. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. Done. RO(talk) 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Location and alignment

  • "The Continental divide" - this should be "The continental divide". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reading between the lines, I understand that the ruins are in the bottom of the canyon - it would be best to state this explicitly. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Added some clarification. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Led by the governor of Jemez Pueblo, Francisco Horta, Simpson and the brothers Richard and Edward Kern, an artist and cartographer, respectively, explored the canyon." - this sentence does not read very well and could do with rephrasing, perhaps along the lines of A group led by the governor of Jemez Pueblo explored the canyon; its members included Francisco Horta, Simpson, and the brothers Richard and Edward Kern, who were respectively an artist and a cartographer. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
How about this variation that makes it clear Horta was the governor of Jemez Pueblo ([4])? RO(talk) 18:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Chetro Ketl's position is symmetrical to Pueblo Bonito - in relation to what? Simon Burchell (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Does this edit make it more clear ([5])? RO(talk) 17:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Not sure in this one, it might just be down to differences in national varieties of English, but from a British perspective, "and a comparative masonry analysis to assemble a constructional history of Chetro Ketl" - constructional history looks weird, and I would have used "construction history". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's better. Fixed. RO(talk) 17:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Background and discovery

  • Vizcarra's account is the first historical record of the Chacoan great houses that were, "of such antiquity - there is an out-of-place comma directly before the quote. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Removed. RO(talk) 18:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


  • "Judge describes it as...", "Fagan states that...", "He cites a study that...", "Windes believes that...", "Archeologists John R. Stein, Dabney Ford, and Richard Friedman believe that..." - all redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
All of these except the Windes one, which I've removed, are introducing quotes, and the speaker of a quote needs to be mentioned in-line whenever it's not clear. Is that correct? RO(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

General comment

  • There's an awful lot of statements sprinkled throught the article along the lines of "Fagan described" or "according to..." I think that such constructions are unnecessary, since the information should be cited to the author anyway. For example According to archeologists Dean and Warren, dendrochronology indicates that "no trees were cut for use [at Chetro Ketl] after 1117" looses nothing by being rewritten as Dendrochronology indicates that no trees were cut for use at Chetro Ketl after 1117. as long as the information is properly cited, and doesn't follow the wording of the original too closely. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll work on it. RO(talk) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Simon Burchell, if you point out some more specific examples I'll do my best to paraphrase them. Do you think there's now enough detail about the Puebloans and their culture? RO(talk) 19:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There are far too many to list - just following the previous example, and within the same section, there is "Hawley describes", "Fagan described", "In archeologist Edgar L. Hewett's opinion", "Archeologist Mary Metcalf estimates" - all this in the space of 3 paragraphs. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Or rather there were - I've just refreshed the page, and it looks like the text changed somewhat from the version I was last reading, but even so there is "In her opinion" etc. All of these expressions are, with very rare exceptions, redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed two of those, but I thought the speaker of a quote needs to attributed in-line. Is that incorrect? RO(talk) 21:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Simon Burchell, I've made some substantial changes since you last looked. Care to take another? RO(talk) 20:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm concentrating on the Maya civilization FAC at the moment, but will try to find time to come back. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus[edit]

Comment Doesn't Etymology usually go at the top of an article? It does is in settlement articles I've promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it was moved for chronology sake, since Chetro Ketl probably didn't exist as a name until 1849. RO(talk) 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm going to do this in pieces, since it is fairly long and densely written. Seems generally good.

  • "dramatic crop failures". I wonder if the word "dramatic" is worth dispensing with.
  • Although the photograph probably makes it clear, it should IMO be stated in the first paragraph what the house was made of.
  • "irrigated farms fields" Farms doesn't work as an adjective in AmEng. Maybe either take off the s or make it "irrigated fields for farming". I'd go with Column B. For similar reasons I think I'd make "fresh-water" into "freshwater". Ditto "In the cliffs" to "On the cliffs"
  • If they call it "downtown Chaco" then shouldn't downtown be capped?
  • Since the fourth paragraph of the lede would normally, I think, be split into two paragraphs except you can't because that would make it 5, I wonder if the lede is trying to do too much.
  • "early 19th century" 1849, I suppose, is marginally more early than it is late, still ...
  • Can kiva be linked for us peons? Variety of coffee, I thought.
  • I wonder at the structure of the article, it seems very linear. Can the sections about the history be grouped under the heading "history"?
  • "At least two groups of transitional Basketmaker II peoples inhabited the San Juan Basin" should it be people rather than peoples?
  • "During the years 1 to 400" This sounds exact, possibly because of the use of the year 1. Possibly it should be made a little more vague: "During the first four centuries CE"?
  • "enabled the boiling" Perhaps "permitted the boiling". Would a "for the first time" be justified?
  • "at least two such communities had been established in Chaco Canyon; the largest and most consequential is known as the La Plata.[7] One of the earliest La Plata settlements," this is mildly confusing. I think of a "community" as a village or neighborhood, perhaps, but this seems to imply a culture with several areas. (also, the use of the "the" before La Plata in one usage and not in the other looks odd, though I am sure it is correct.
  • "when the canyon was home to a few hundred people" this actually sheds no light on the earlier part of the sentence, so I don't know why it is included as a part thereof. Can the dominant theory as to why the village came not to be occupied be stated?
  • " the very first pueblos" you should probably link here to pueblo. A bit about what this shift meant in terms of the kind of structures built might be good.
  • "emigrants from". Not my strong suit, but I think this should be "immigrants from"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this, Wehwalt! I've attempted to address most of your above suggestions with this series of edits: ([23]). As for the others, Lekson coined the term "downtown Chaco", and he doesn't cap it, so neither did I. Taking a quick look at others that use the term I see that they too leave it lower-cased. I couldn't see a good spot to insert sandstone in the first paragraph, so I added it to the mention of how many blocks were used.
RE: I wonder at the structure of the article, it seems very linear. Can the sections about the history be grouped under the heading "history"? Which sections would you make level three? I assume you mean Construction through Excavation?
RE: "when the canyon was home to a few hundred people" this actually sheds no light on the earlier part of the sentence, so I don't know why it is included as a part thereof. Can the dominant theory as to why the village came not to be occupied be stated? I'm not aware of any prevailing theory on why Shabik'eshchee Village was abandoned, but it's likely that the residents moved to a pueblo in the canyon. I mention the population here not as a reflection on Shabik'eshchee, but to give the reader a sense of how many people lived in the canyon before the great house building began. RO(talk) 16:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Some more.
Picking up
  • A sentence on how the canyon came to be, geologically speaking, would not be amiss.
  • Is the external image in accord with policy? Not saying it isn't, just the first time I've seen one.
  • Unless I'm missing something, you never actually say what the building's made of nor how, in general terms, it was constructed. There's much discussion of trees. Were logs used, or smaller bits of lumber? If the logs were used, how were they transported over rather difficult country? I see discussions of masonry and the images suggest that stone was used, but what do I know? If stone was used, was it local or was more suitable stone brought in from elsewhere if the local rocks wouldn't do? Roofs? (I see at the end of the section, "sandstone blocks" is thrown in, but a bit late to the party)
  • "regular annual intervals" this seems unclear to me.
  • "The population of the great house might have been large enough that laborers gathered structural wood during the agricultural season, or this might indicate that groups of Chacoans were dedicated to tree felling irrespective of the farming season, when most others were busy with field preparation and planting." If I'm reading this right, both alternatives seem to amount to the same thing: there were enough Chacoans that even during the farming season, they had labor they could devote to tree-felling.
  • "Dendrochronology" Not linked on first use. You do link on second use.
  • Why did people settle in the outlying communities? Should be explained, I think.
  • "A haphazardly applied layer of rubble veneer to ceremonial areas in Chetro Ketl's great kiva" Rubble veneer appears to be a technique to construct walls. I gather what happened is they constructed them to shield wall decorations from the elements, but the article sounds like horizontal areas were covered with it.
  • "The proper archeological investigation" possibly scientific for proper.
  • "after an invitation to survey the canyon" from?
  • Why is trash mound piped and the earlier refuse mound not?
  • "prove elusive" perhaps "remain elusive". The situation could change.
  • " twelve round rooms, or kivas" Possibly the description would do more good on first use.
  • "The "long, narrow, curving, hall-like room", which runs along the outside wall" Why is the quotation necessary? Why can't it be paraphrased? Lots of twisty little passages, or so I gather.
Great Kiva
  • "Thirty-nine crypts" Were these used for the housing of remains? They do not seen large enough. Link or explain, I would.
  • Given the build up, I'm surprised no image, sketch, whatnot.
  • I've looked, but I haven't found anything yet. It might have something to do with the fact that it was later filled in with masonry to make more rooms, so it's less than impressive in its current state. I'll be there again this summer, so if I haven't found a good PD image I'll take a few myself. RO(talk) 22:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "stone ware" I think "stoneware" is more usual
  • "These pilgrims probably assisted in the construction of Chetro Ketl, while "confirming their affiliation with the larger ritual alliance"." I would change "while" to "thus"
  • "Because the Chacoans relied on rainfall to enable their agricultural pursuits in a particularly arid environment, the focus of their ceremonialism was likely "appeals for moisture"" This seems too long winded. I would get to the point with something like "As water was crucial to the success of the Chacoans' farming and their survival, in their rituals, they most likely prayed for rain".
Chacoan system
  • "at the location" which?
  • I would split the second sentence of the first paragraph at the semicolon.
Generally seems pretty good. I'd review whether information on a subject is presented in a cohesive fashion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thanks for this review! I believe I've fixed all the problems you mentioned ([24]), except maybe for a picture of the colonnade, which I'm still looking for. If you are willing to take another look to confirm or deny I'd really appreciate it! RO(talk) 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

  • Background
    • crystalize: looking in Merriam-Webster it seems that "crystallize" is the normal American spelling. For "crystallise" they say "British variant of crystallize". It looks as if this one needs the double ell (and zed).
      I've just noticed that is in a quote so if it is like that in the quote I guess we should keep it. --Mirokado (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Construction
    • The population of the great house might have been large enough that laborers gathered structural wood during the agricultural season, or this might indicate that groups of Chacoans were dedicated to tree felling irrespective of the farming season, when most others were busy with field preparation and planting. Wehwalt has also mentioned this. There seems no distinction between the alternatives, although it did make more sense once I had read page 239 of ref 28, where it is clear that the distinction is between enough in-house labour even at busy times and the existence of specialized groups elsewhere in the area. Perhaps rephrase this to make it clearer and change the ref to just page 239.
  • Re-discovery
    • Is "Rediscovery" not better? Again looking in Merriam-Webster the entry is a collection of words including the "re-" prefix, but all of them are listed without the hyphen. MOS:HYPHEN says "There is a clear trend to join both elements ... particularly in American English."
  • Excavation
    • who is R. Gwinn Vivian?
    • I didn't understand the reference to "dry hole" in the quote ending "... the notion that Chetro Ketl was a 'dry hole'": the preceding "although" leads the reader to expect the following phrase to have the opposite meaning. This was also clearer once I had read the reference. I think it is necessary to rephrase the paragraph from "Lekson notes that..." on, perhaps without the quotes, clarifying the reference to the later discovery of wooden figures and archaeologists' general disappointment.
  • Great kiva
    • How high was the internal space when the roof was present (one, two, ... stories)? Was the roof a single span or were there supporting posts?
      Still trying to visualise the kiva's height (actually both the internal height of the enclosed space and how high the roof was from the surrounding ground level). --Mirokado (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      I haven't been able to find it yet, but I'll dig it up. RO(talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      I found some ceiling height estimates for several other great kivas, but it looks like the exact figure for Chetro Ketl is unknown, but this edit ([25]) should address your point, which was a good one! Thanks! RO(talk) 20:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks. My imagination was in this case incorrect so the addition will help the reader. --Mirokado (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agriculture and pottery
    • I particularly like this section and its accompanying illustrations. Would it be possible to do something similar for the various types of stonework so the reader can see a picture of each next to the description?
      Excellent new section on Masonry. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks for the excellent suggestion! RO(talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This is about an evocative period of American prehistory and is a worthy subject for a featured article. --Mirokado (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and offering some great suggestions, Mirokado! RO(talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "Chaco scholars estimate that it required more than 500,000 person-hours" - I would rename this to "man-hours" personally as it's the most generally used term
Person-hours is gender neutral, which I like, but it's also the term used by the cited source. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems somewhat odd for the Background section to open up with "In 1973" and the rest of the section opens with entries from 200 BCE!
Fixed. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would consider adding a few more links around the article as some sections are looking dry of links — there are some things that a layman wouldn't be able to understand
I'll take a look for potential links. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The harder, tabular stone was easier to shape, so the Chacoan's preferred it" - might sound better as Chacoan's preferred the harder, tabular stone as it was easier to shape
I like that, so I've adopted your language. Thanks! RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Good veneer minimized the amount of exposed mortar, which reduced maintenance while maximizing stone contact, which increased the strength of the wall and reduced the possibility of structural failure" - how about Good veneer minimized the amount of exposed mortar, which reduced maintenance while maximizing stone contact and increasing the strength of the wall. It also reduced the possibility of structural failure.
Another fine suggestion. Done. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "with third story additions to central kiva G in masonry style V" - should Style be capitalised (as it was before)?
I don't think so, as it's not capped in the source. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The trash mound was" - is there a reason why it's called trash mound? Sounds informal
That's a fair point, so I've changed "trash" to "refuse". RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't use any online sources per se; those examples are to printed material that is available online via PDF. I might be wrong, but I don't think access dates are required for printed material. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that's all I could find due to me coming to the review late, but other than that it looks like an excellent article! JAGUAR  18:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review, Jaguar! RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank for your work about Chetro Ketl... I personally think that the work is excellent and that is well structured and extremely developed. However, I personally think that some parts of it should be expanded and ameliorated.

  • Influences: You have to mention if the construction of other monuments had been influenced from the building structure of Chetro Ketl. This will give more importance to your work as well to the monument itself.
  • Proofs: You have to mention if some objects from the Chetro Ketl had been transfered to some museums and places. You have to indicate if there are some books and artistic works talking about this monument.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've never seen any indication that Chetro Ketl influenced anything except the Chacoans who built her. I'll see if I can find out where the wooden artifacts and necklaces excavated from Chetro Ketl ended up. RO(talk) 15:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Looks pretty good, particularly now it's been well picked at by other reviewers. Here are a few comments.

  • It seems a bit underlinked to me, for example Chacoans maize, corn, pre-Columbian, ceramic are all unlinked, and that's not exhaustive
  • Link New Mexico at first occurrence in lead, lose United States (US preferred but unnecessary anyway since the state is well known)
  • improved upon their farming techniques.—Why "upon"?
  • grew densely populated—"became"
  • one hundred miles north''—approx. metric equiv needed
  • (Latin: Pinus ponderosa) —it's unnecessary to put "Latin" for binomials, which may not be derived from that language nor be direct translations. Just the binomial will do, although for consistency you should either omit here or add to the other trees.
  • juniper —either link to a particular species if know, or rephrase as juniper species
  • 50,000,000''—50 million?
  • Jared Diamond seemed to suggest, as far as I can remember, that the loss of tree wood was a contributory factor to the abandonment as well as climate change. Do you have a view as to whether there is any evidence for this?

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak! I've fixed most of your above concerns ([26]), but I'll continue to look for missing links. As far as your last comment, I think drought-induced crop failures were by far the most significant factor, but resource depletion was also key. I'm not sure if there is anything about the trees near Chaco, but the article does state that stands were decimated for many miles in every direction. The thing is, if you run out of trees you can stop building, but if you run out of food you have to leave. I'll keep an eye out for something more definitive, but it's likely that there were not that many trees near Chaco even in 800, as most if not all were imported from 47 miles away, where forests remain to this day. RO(talk) 15:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

RO asked me to look at this. My first impression is of a good article. I will try to add further suggestions, critiques and questions here. I anticipate it taking about 24 hours or so. --John (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Here's what I have so far.
  • Don't need en masse, clear from context.
  • Active voice better than passive, less detail in lead.
  • A plaza is an open space. Eliminate redundancy.
  • Rem "scholars warn"
  • Rem most instances of "archeologists" as it is clear from the context
  • "Sometime" is redundant
  • transitioned -> changed (simpler, better)
  • period of time -> period (tautology)
  • "only the widest walls actually had cores. Their goal was to build walls" was an amusing ambiguity; reworded
  • "Ongoing", "nonetheless", "however" are generally padding that can often be removed
  • Avoid phrases like "first and foremost" as padding
  • Disks are always round
  • "While" is easy to overuse and has more than one meaning. Seek alternatives where possible. --John (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and comments, John. I've fixed most of the above concerns ([27]), but will continue to apply your advice as I proofread the article. RO(talk) 15:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

The large number of contributions to this review has left me with not much to say. I've been looking at the article for some weeks now, and I find that many of the points I had noted have now been raised by others and resolved. Here are my few remaining thoughts, which are offered merely for consideration and which you are quite at liberty to disregard:

  • Wehwalt raised the question of direct links to external images and asked whether this was within policy. I believe that it is in certain circumstances, but can you provide the link to the policy that confirms this use?
  • My impression is that the article is somewhat over-imaged. They are all pretty good, and obviously relevant, but generally speaking, images should support the text; this many risks overwhelming it. There are numerous cases of squeezed text, of overlap into adjoining sections, etc, and I have some doubts that all these images will be looked at. It might be advisable to be rather more selective in the choice of images – and I wonder about the need for the quote boxes.
  • In general the prose presents few problems for the layperson, though on the odd occasion I found myself wondering about the level of technical detail, e.g. in "The NPS employed two types of ground level remote sensing devices to search for magnetic and soil anomalies in the alluvium of the canyon floor; a radiographic densiometer to measure soil density and an electron spin magnetometer to detect minute changes in ambient magnetic fields."
  • More generally on prose, there is a tendency for overlong sentences which would be better split for easier comprehension. A couple of examples:
  • "Chetro Ketl and Pueblo Bonito are equidistant from a north-south line that bisects Chaco Canyon from Pueblo Alto to Tsin Kletsin, and low masonry walls nearby are similar to the ones that enclose Chetro Ketl, Pueblo Bonito, and Pueblo del Arroyo, which might indicate a symbolic connection between the mesa and the canyon floor."
  • "The turning point for Chacoan culture prior to the widespread crop failures of 1130 to 1180 was the especially dry period from 1090 to 1095, when emigration from Chaco Canyon increased significantly and Puebloan construction in outlying communities, such as Mesa Verde, Salmon, and Aztec, began to flourish.£
  • "Judd's 1924 to 1927 National Geographic Society financed excavation" – there is surely a neater way of phrasaing this, e.g.: "Judd's 1924–27 excavation, financed by the National Geographic Society".

As you can see, I'm getting fairly desperate in finding things to quibble about. Overall it seems a most impressive article, and a great credit to all those who have contributed to it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article, Brian. I've addressed your concerns as best I could ([28]). I removed three images that weren't that crucial, but I really don't see any others that should go. Maybe you could identify specific ones if you think there are still too many. The remaining ones all seem helpful and appropriate to me. I'm pretty sure my use of links to external media conforms to the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:External links, but if not, I'm certainly open to suggestions. Thanks again! RO(talk) 19:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thrilled to say that I've been in contact with Dr. Stephen H. Lekson, and he's been generous enough to give me notes on the article via Google docs. I'll be working through those today and tomorrow. Thanks again to everybody for all the great suggestions and comments! RO(talk) 19:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

  • I see that another editor has suggested rewording "person-hours" to "man-hours", and I would agree with that also. The awkward political correctness of "person-hours" is a little distracting ("man" here referring to mankind and not males). Also, and more importantly, our article on the subject (Man-hour) uses the more common version with no mention of the alternative.
  • I'm currently reading through the article, but there are thunderstorms here, so I'm saving this now to prevent me from losing what I've typed in the event of a power outage.-RHM22 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The scale of its construction was likely motivated by what architects call massing, building imposing structures with the intent to impress onlookers." Italics would normally not be used here, per the MoS. This appears to be a place for quotation marks instead. Also, the comma should probably be a colon.-RHM22 (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Archeologists refer to the period starting c. 800 as the Pueblo I Period; by the early 10th century the large pit-house settlements had been supplanted by modular construction that later served as the foundation for the Ancestral Puebloan great houses. This marks the beginning of the Bonito Phase." I would consider swapping the semicolon and the first period, but that's just my personal reading, so feel free to ignore that.-RHM22 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about geology, so I didn't make the change myself, but I think "massively bedded" in the Stone and Mortar section should probably be hyphenated, as an adjective.-RHM22 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Most of the names given to Chacoan ruins are either Spanish or Navajo, but "Chetro Ketl is neither."" Why is that last part in quotation marks? If that's a direct quote, it should be attributed to someone. Personally, I would just remove the quotation marks even if it is a quote, since the quoted material is pretty basic and should be covered by the citation. Also, "Chetro Ketl" is rendered in italics nearby. Per the MoS, I suggest changing that to quotation marks, since you're referring specifically to the word itself.-RHM22 (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all for me, for now. It looks like a lot of experienced and skilled editors have already been over this, so there probably isn't much more to point out. Nicely done!-RHM22 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, RHM22. I've applied your above advice to the article ([29]). Thanks for your input! RO(talk) 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 May 2015, 16:50 UTC)----

Captain America: Civil War[edit]

Need a peer review to keep up with GT status of MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I see that the filming section has a lot of info on the cast, which seems better in the pre-production section. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • First of all, have in mind that the article can't be a good or featured article until the film is released, as articles about works still under production are considered unstable. Still, it is a good idea to have it as good as possible, so that when it is released the work needed is minimal. Now, let's see
    • Cast: You should include both an in-universe description of the character's role in the story, and an out-of-universe info about the actor and his work in the film. Vision, War Machine, Scarlet Witch and Ant-Man only have in-universe descriptions, add more info once it's available.
      • Yes, that is the intent (per other MCU film articles). We just have not gotten anything from these actors or the creative team to add anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The premise is basically a "crisis crossover" of the MCU, so what about the characters introduced in Agents of Shield, Agent Carter or the Netflix series? If they are not used, we should have a line explaining their absence, as that may became a common concern.
      • Once again, if a reliable source exists discussing this, then we will certainly find a way. Right now, even if a reliable sources covers this, it is just their personal speculation of characters they would like to see, not really commentary about them appearing, or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You should mention that the film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice from the "Distinguished Competition" was initially scheduled to be released on the same day, and then changed.
      • I feel that info is more applicable at that article (which has some info on this). If they chose to stay on the date, it would be worth a mention in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Most sections have an excesive use of quotations.
      • Will attempt to work on that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • A sentence in "Filming" has 5 footnotes. Do we need so many ones?
      • Yes. It is to justify the use of "many outlets and fans" at the beginning of the sentence. Originally, it was broken down with thoughts from each outlets, but has since been condensed to a general summary of the statements, with the refs there for readers to continue if they choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "Music" and "Release" will of course have to be expanded, when info is available. Cambalachero (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick comment Is it worthwhile adding about the end credits scene for Ant-Man which is taken directly from this film? Presuming you can find a reliable source of course. Miyagawa (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Miyagawa: We definitely have the sources, but we generally don't make mention of this in the article. If anything, I'd say it could possible be put under marketing, but it really isn't marketing. It may be worth a discussion, and for more eyes to see it, we could start a talk page discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I wasn't sure what was usually included. I thought the best place would be (if you did include it) under marketing as anywhere else would be seen as trivia. I just thought it was interesting because (correct me if I'm wrong) it's the first time a scene from a future film was used as an end credits scene for an earlier one. Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    It was actually done with Iron Man 2 and Thor (the Coulson scene at Mjolnir is a variation of a daily shot for Thor). And looking at Thor, it is mentioned in the marketing section there. So in that case I don't see a reason why we can't here. :) We have sources on the Ant-Man page, but there may be better ones out there for Civil War's purposes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 May 2015, 03:13 UTC)----

Everyday life[edit]

2010 Korean Grand Prix[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC in the near future. The Grand Prix was the first to be held in the Korean peninsula and proved to be a crucial event in the 2010 Formula One season, as Red Bull driver Mark Webber (who led on and off since that year's Monaco Grand Prix) lost the championship lead to Ferrari's Fernando Alonso after Webber crashed out on the race's 19th lap. Webber's team-mate Sebastian Vettel also lost an opportunity to take the Drivers' Championship when his engine failed on lap 46. Furthermore, the race was stopped for three quarters of an hour because rain had saturated the circuit with large amounts of standing water and drivers had to deal with fading light during the race's final laps. I welcome all feedback on this article.

Thanks, Z105space (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Looks good, but as the article progresses, it looks more and more like it's suffering from WP:CITEKILL. Some WP:OLINK cleanup between the lead and background section wouldn't hurt either. That's all I've got off the top of my head though. Twirlypen (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 23 July 2015, 07:16 UTC)----

List of UAB Blazers head football coaches[edit]

As a part of my spur-of-the-moment effort to bring UAB Blazers football to a featured topic, I'm bringing this list to a peer review as it is the furthest point I can bring it. Since it is ineligible to be a Featured List, I would very much appreciate it if someone could give this a quick review to make sure that there is nothing wrong with it. I've expanded the lead to the standard for a college football head coach list (Example 1, Example 2), and Patriarca12 handled the key, table, and much of the referencing. This is relatively brief, so it shouldn't be very hard. Thanks to anyone that helps (and if anyone has time: my current FLC for a similar topic). Thanks again, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 16 July 2015, 05:39 UTC)----

Miesha Tate[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think I can get it to GA quality. I'd be grateful for any suggestions, and will review some others in the meantime.

Thanks, James26 (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by starship.paint

  • Hi James26. If you read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria - the second requirement is that all information is verifiable with no original research. So I would expect everything to be sourced to a reference. For example, the main infobox - please source her birthplace, nicknames, height, weight, reach, stance etc. Everything. There are also several other unsourced Championships and accomplishments. You should work on those first. starship.paint ~ KO 07:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Starship.paint. I added sources to the infobox. I only found two unsourced "Championships and accomplishments" (under the UFC section), which I removed. The things I didn't add sources for in the infobox or "Championships and accomplishments" are already sourced elsewhere in the article. -- James26 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @James26: - then please use the sources otherwise present in the article, like using multi-reference by <ref name=ufcprofile/> Furthermore, please source the table in Mixed martial arts record. At least one source for each fight, please, you can put them in the Notes column. For example, the fight with Valerie Coolbaugh is unsourced there and also in the main text. starship.paint ~ KO 02:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Starship.paint -- Done. -- James26 (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @James26: That's great. Unfortunately the references don't provide information on the Location column. I don't think that is very important anyway. Suggest removing that column. starship.paint ~ KO 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson has a poster that's also used in Mike Tyson, with a fair-use rationale. I've added a fair-use rationale to the Tate vs. Rousey file, and used it in the same way that was deemed acceptable with the Lewis/Tyson poster. -- James26 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I searched and found no alternative images. -- James26 (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- James26 (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Please click the external link in the Toolbox on this page. (CTRL-F). Then fix all the coloured links for the references. There is at least one dead linked reference. You may use or obtaining another source. starship.paint ~ KO 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • There's also no need for a Sponsors section by itself. Insert the info into Mixed martial arts career, where-ever it fits in the time-line. starship.paint ~ KO 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Starship.paint -- I combined a couple sections toward the end and removed a double ref. As for the locations, I couldn't seem to remove the column. Guess it'll have to stay. Some of the refs in the main body verifiy where the events took place; one can also click to the articles about those events, which provide more refs. As you said, this probably isn't a big concern for a reader. Anyway, I think I'll give it a rest for now. I really appreciate all of your help with this review. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 July 2015, 15:00 UTC)----

1999 FA Cup Final[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is very close to Good Article status and requires only a few changes to meet that level. The area I am most concerned about is whether the article addresses the topic with an appropriate level of detail. I feel some sections may be over-detailed, whereas I'm worried I may have left out something glaringly obvious but I just can't see it. I'd also like comments about the language used in the article, as I may be too close to the topic to see if I've used any unclear language.

Thanks, – PeeJay 12:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • A quick comment after just noticing this. The most obvious fault with the article is that the match summary is too short, especially in comparison to other sections. Essentially, this is the main focus of the article it needs to be expanded. I would also rename the road to Wembley section as route to the final, as it sounds too tabloidy at the moment and have separate sections for United and Newcastle. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Fair enough about needing to expand the section. I don't have access to many sources, and the ones I do have don't go into the game in much detail. I'll see what else I can find. As for the "Road to Wembley" section, I'm interested to know what other people make of this. "Road to Wembley" is a common term given to the way each team gets to the cup final, but I understand what you say about it being a bit tabloidy. – PeeJay 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Brief comments by Lemonade51 – Without getting into detail on prose,

  • Lead should act as a summary for the entire article, there's very little about the final itself other than who scored, and nothing on the route to Wembley for both teams.
  • "Since Manchester United qualified for the 1999–2000 UEFA Champions League both by virtue of winning the 1998–99 competition and by winning the 1998–99 FA Premier League, England's place in the 1999–2000 UEFA Cup usually reserved for the FA Cup winners was given to Newcastle United as the runners-up." this is very confusing. I thought winning the Premier League would be enough for Manchester United to earn a place in the Champions League?
  • As NapHit says, match summary could be beefed up. Guardian, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Sunday Mercury reports are online, and I'm sure Newsbank has The Sun, News of the World, The Times and Independent editions.
  • No issue with "Road to Wembley"
  • Make sure statistical statements are sourced, such as "By contrast, Newcastle United had finished 13th out of the 20 teams in the Premier League, and had been knocked out of the Cup Winners' Cup in the first round and the League Cup in the fourth round." Lemonade51 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 June 2015, 12:43 UTC)----

The Last of Us[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to featured article status, and would greatly appreciate any comments that could help. I'd like to ensure that the article has broad coverage, organised content and engaging prose, as well as appropriate usage of non-free media.

Thanks, -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 11:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Disclaimer: I am not familiar enough with video games to gauge the quality of the sources, but two things I can see: a) The article appears to be reasonably comprehensive and b) where is the "Plot" section sourced to? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Jo-Jo Eumerus. In the "Plot" section of many other articles (such as The Last of Us: Left Behind and Grand Theft Auto IV) the actual game itself is used as a reference (which is perfectly acceptable, per WP:FICTIONPLOT). Do you think this should be added to the article? If so, do you think it would be necessary to reference the precise part of the game (for example, "Prologue", "Pittsburgh"), or simply the entire game itself at the end of the section? – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Some other videogame FAs I've checked use {{Cite video game}} for citing the game itself in the plot sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was referring to. I just went and added a reference to the section. Let me know if you see any more problems with the article. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 14:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from James26

"For most of the game, players control Joel; Ellie and other companions are controlled by the artificial intelligence. Players also control Ellie and Sarah throughout the game's winter segment and prologue, respectively."

I think it would be nice to provide an earlier explanation of who Joel, Ellie and Sarah are. I know that Joel and Ellie are mentioned in the lead, but the lead is supposed to be separate from the rest of the article, as it's mainly a summary of the article below.

"The game features an artificial intelligence system that makes hostile human enemies to react to any combat situation they are placed in. If enemies discover the player, they may take cover or call for assistance, and can take advantage of [the] players' when they are distracted, out of ammunition, or in the midst of a fight."

There's no need for "to" in the first sentence, and the second should read "the player."

"The game's online multiplayer allows up to eight players to engage in competitive gameplay in recreations of multiple single-player settings."

I was a little confused by this. How are the settings "recreated?" If there's something different that's worth mentioning, I would specify what. Otherwise, I'd leave "recreations" out.

"In 2013, Joel (Troy Baker). . ."

I'd suggest writing "voiced by Troy Baker" for this opening credit, just to avoid potential confusion, then leaving "voiced by" out of the following ones.

"The character of Tess, portrayed by Annie Wersching, was originally intended [to be] the main antagonist. . ."

Another case of an incomplete sentence. I corrected it, but I'd suggest checking for others. -- James26 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, James26! I fixed most of your outlined concerns. However, I wanted to let you know that the reason the "Gameplay" section refrained from using the phrase "the player" was for consistency; I've read some other discussions about this, where editors opted to use either "players" or "the player" throughout the whole article, and stick with one of them, instead of alternating between the two. I'd be happy to change all instances of "players" to "the player", though, if it works better that way. Feel free to let me know if you have any remaining concerns with the article. Thanks! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 23:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Great job.
". . .and can take advantage of players' when they are distracted. . ."
You still don't need an apostrophe after the word "players" in this case. Unless I'm missing something, you're just referring to people who play the game, and not anything in their possession. -- James26 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, good catch! You're completely right; I've removed it. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 08:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 19 June 2015, 11:16 UTC)----

L.A. Noire[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to put it forward for featured article status and would appreciate comments on its chances of achieving it, and to have any faults pointed out.

Thanks, X201 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain1999

I think this article is in really great shape at the moment, and you've done a great job at maintaining and improving its high quality, but my main concern is the Reception section. Currently, it just seems to say "[x] said [y] about the game, and scored it [z]", without any real flow. It should discuss the separate elements of the game that received commentary (such as the technology, music, story, characters), and summarise what some of the reviews said about it (for example, see The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto IV or Grand Theft Auto V). The score table to the right of that section is also getting a bit out of hand; perhaps you should consider cutting it down to about 10-15 scores?

There's also a few paragraphs within the article that only consist of one or two sentences, so these should probably be merged with other paragraphs if possible. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean about the reception section. Rather than bend and shape the existing text to fit that style, I think it may produce better if I take the key points from it and then go back to the sources and write a new reviews section from scratch, based on that framework. - X201 (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree; that would probably be the best approach. Just as a note, I've had to re-write Reception sections a few times before, and you can find my method of doing so here (CR4ZE used a very similar method first, so credit goes to him). You should take a look if you're finding any other method quite difficult. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Gamingforfun365

What I would too like to suggest is that we some citations to the "Plot" section, especially for the cast who assumed their role models as characters of the game. They are unsourced, so it is unclear that they have done so. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 June 2015, 15:36 UTC)----

Sunday football in Northern Ireland[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have made it a GA and I was wondering if there were any improvements I should make before taking it to FA?

Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Smurrayinchester[edit]

Interesting article! I did a bit of copy-editing - I think it could use a bit more work just to improve the flow of some sentences (for instance, there are some sentences where a couple of commas might help, and few "however"s that should be "but"s).

More specific comments:

  • It would be good to have a more detailed citation for the point about women's football - the current citation is just a throwaway sentence in a BBC article, doesn't mention NIWFA.
  • " It is not known when the official ban on Sunday football was instituted but it is known that it was created in the 1930s." I don't understand this sentence - what's the difference between "create" and "institute" here?
  • " IFA Article 36.b which stated that no football would be scheduled on Sunday but matches on Sunday could be played if both teams and the organizing competition agreed" Again, it might be nice to have a better explanation of what this means - when can a match be played on a Sunday. (Also, if 36.b is still in effect, then it's "states" instead of "stated").

I hope these comments help! Smurrayinchester 10:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 May 2015, 09:03 UTC)----

Engineering and technology[edit]

B. V. Sreekantan[edit]

I propose this article for peer review as I feel the article has potential to be a good article or better.

Thanks, --jojo@nthony (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 July 2015, 07:40 UTC)----

Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151[edit]

I finally had some time to have another go at article writing again. This article has been substantially rewritten with a view of hopefully making it the first electric multiple unit article to reach FA status (however impossible it seems these days). The closest standard I could base it on is OS MX3000 (a GA). - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head: Two citation needed tags need fixing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. They have been newly added after the review was started. Will go through them slowly. - Mailer Diablo 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just fixed the cn tags. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 June 2015, 08:11 UTC)----


Avalanche Studios[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to push this to GAN, but I am a bit afraid that the article may not be entirely ready for it. I would like to hear more advice/suggestions/feedback on how to further improve the article.

Thanks, AdrianGamer (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 23 July 2015, 08:21 UTC)----

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, when promoting the article to good status, TheMagikCow wrote that the article would be ready for a FAC after a peer review. I would be grateful for any constructive criticism of the article that would help prepare it for a FAC.

Thanks, Neelix (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 July 2015, 01:35 UTC)----

Wrestle Kingdom 9[edit]

I, along with Ribbon Salminen, would like to gather comments from the community before nominating this Good Article as a Featured Article Candidate. Additionally, if you peer review this, I'd be willing to peer review or offer comments on one article of your choice, though likely from a non-expert viewpoint.

Thanks and have a nice day, starship.paint ~ KO 07:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • References need to be consistent. There is a mix of Pro Wrestling Insider,, and; of and Pro Wrestling Torch; and of and Wrestleview.
  • The images need alternative text.
  • The caption for the Bullet Club image is confusing.
  • Copyediting for clarity and grammar would help. I looked through a few paragraphs and noticed a few things:
    • "would be the first GFW event" -> "was the first GFW event"
    • "This would mark Ross' first professional" -> "This marked"; proper English would also put an "s" after the apostrophe, since "Ross" is a singular noun, but Wikipedia doesn't always follow proper English
    • "The match at Wrestle Kingdom 9 would mark the seventh match" -> "marked"
    • "Commentator Jim Ross would later reveal" -> "later revealed"
    • "where-upon Naito tried for a top-rope huracanrana" - the word itself is a bit archaic, but "whereupon" shouldn't be hypenated
    • "Following was a bout" - this is awkward; "The following bout", maybe?
    • "to spray Taguchi in the eyes with an aerosol can on one occasion" - no need for "on one occasion"
    • "was between the Bullet Club's Karl Anderson and Doc Gallows against challengers, Meiyu Tag" - the combination of "between" and "against" doesn't work, and the comma after "challengers" is unnecessary
    • "Shibata kicked Anderson off the ring apron, Meiyu Tag combined for a double-team GTS on Gallows, followed by Shibata hitting the Penalty Kick on Gallows for the pinfall and the tag titles." - "followed by" doesn't seem to work in this list
    • "and only a month later the team" - "only" seems POV
    • "Ibushi earned the right to challenge for the championship of his choosing, but instead of a rematch with Nakamura for the IWGP Intercontinental Championship, he chose to challenge A.J. Styles for the IWGP Heavyweight Championship,[60] leaving Goto to challenge Nakamura." - is there a way to avoid saying "challenge" three times in one sentence?

These are a few examples, but a more thorough copyedit should take place before nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I've corrected the references, simplified the Bullet Club caption and fixed some of the copyedit issues mentioned. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 16:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • I know its a self-serving statement, but as per WP:CLAIM consider if the word claimed is appropriate in the sentence "claimed an outreach of 125 million homes via pay-per-view
  • "the villainous Bullet Club stable (group)", I don't see much purpose of the clarification '(group)' here, since stable is wikilinked, but not a huge deal, same story with "angle (storyline)" in the aftermath section, in fact this one is even less necessary in my opinion as I didn't even have to click on the link to figure out what it meant
  • In the 'Preliminary matches' section Tencozy are clarified to be (Hiroyoshi Tenzan and Satoshi Kojima), however they are already clarified as such in the 'storylines' section
  • Wikilniked more than once: Katsuyori Shibata, Taichi Ishikari, January 4 Dome Show (originally piped to 'Wrestle Kingdom'), also the moves 'Diving knee drop' and 'Asian Mist'
  • Is it customary to give star ratings as actual stars as opposed to numbers? i.e "*****". I've never seen this before that's all, looks a bit odd if you ask me, but if it's standard procedure for Wrestling articles no worries.
  • Some prominent professional wrestling critics use actual stars. It's an industry thing. starship.paint ~ KO 12:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "simple and didn’t require anyone" - avoid contractions such as didn't unless it is a direct quote

That's all I found. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Great work on the article. I'm sure this will do well at FAC. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MPJ-DK

I am not one to comment on grammar since that is my weakest point, but I am looking at some of the other stuff that goes into FA/FLs etc. I noticed that two of the references requires some sort of registration to access it - is it possible to find a version that anyone can access and read? It is not a hard requirement but I think it would be good if you could find an alternative link? Specifically the Observer Dec 8 and Dec 22 references.  MPJ -US  13:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I removed the url links since those seem to throw people off. Citing a journal, like citing a book is a perfectly acceptable citing method that tons of FAs use. Unfortunaly the Wrestling Observer Newsletter is not free and this info doesn't seem to have been re-reported by any free reliable sites. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Reading over this again I did notice that while there are a total of 11 matches the storyline section only includes five of them? it could be six and my count is off but if it's five that's only half of the televised show, perhaps that's one area that could be expanded? I am really finding very little else to even suggest here to me it's a very good article. Oh and second note - it has a very short lead, yes it's three paragraphs but it just seems pretty short compared to the article length. Both of my comments are more suggestions than anything, I don't know if either of them would stand in the way of being a Featured Article.  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  03:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @MPJ-DK: Ribbon wrote a lot more for Storylines but I deleted it. Read it here. I was afraid that the section was getting too long, and there are so many matches on this show. I was taught by WillC (Wrestlinglover) that not all storylines need to be covered, see WillC's FAs of Lockdown (2008) and Turning Point (2008 wrestling) don't mention every storyline. Another point is that the stuff I deleted ... New Japan doesn't always have feuds like WWE for title matches, several were random challenges. starship.paint ~ KO 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought the jr tag background was pretty interesting especially due to how far back it went, for the other background being trimmed I don't think it really detracts from the article they were fairly generic "I challenge you, I get match" type of thing. And yes the WWE would NEEEEVER, EEEEEEVER, throw a random title match on a PPV ;-).  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  03:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - I expanded the lede a bit more. Unlike Lockdown (2008), I am unable to provide numerical score reviews of the event. The lede is now at 1156 characters. I thought it would be good to fit within the 1200 character blurb guideline of WP:FAC. I restored the storylines, with some trimming. starship.paint ~ KO 04:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from James26

@Starship.paint -- "Wrestle Kingdom has been described as 'New Japan's major annual show' and 'equivalent' to WWE's WrestleMania. The annual event was promoted as the 'largest wrestling show in the world outside of the United States', with Wrestle Kingdom 9 being the 24th in the series."

I was confused as to how #9 could be "24th in the series." Instead of saying "Wrestle Kingdom," I'd start this sentence with "The January 4 Dome Show," and include a brief explanation about the various events. Also, why is the word was used instead of is? Is #9 the final edition?

". . .different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines."

I'd just go with "feuds." We don't need three words that basically describe the same thing. -- James26 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I removed plots, I agree that it is redundant. But feuds and storylines aren't the same - feuds refer to rivalries. There can be thrown-together matches without rivalries - Makabe vs Ishii is an example. starship.paint ~ KO 02:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
On a side note, this is a nice article that got me interested in the event. :) -- James26 (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 July 2015, 07:41 UTC)----

2013 Mudsummer Classic[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have plans to bring this up from GA to FA status in the future, though I believe there could be improvements made that I may have overlooked.

Thanks, Zappa24Mati 04:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

These may be personal concerns more than anything else, but I thought I'd bring them up.
I tend to find red links distracting, especially if they're excessive. This article has a lot that I think could be removed. I know it's a GA, though, so maybe the reviewer didn't have an issue with that.
I'm not familiar with the general standards for NASCAR articles (I skimmed through Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR). With tennis articles, the usual practice is to exclude match scores in order to avoid cluttering the article with numbers. I notice that there are a lot of numbers in the "Practice" section? Are these necessary, especially for practice results? Personally, I wouldn't pause to read each of them.
Again, those are mainly personal concerns. The things I mentioned may actually be acceptable. Just thought I'd check. -- James26 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@James26: Yeah, I guess the practice section has an awful lot of numbers and parentheses. I guess I could either reduce the top 10 to top 3/5 or do what other race reports do, like at the 2015 Daytona 500 (also a GA): Zappa24Mati 23:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment from Bentvfan54321 @James26 and ZappaOMati: I'd use either 2010 Sylvania 300 or 2012 Budweiser Shootout for comparison; as the goal is to get this article to FA status, I think it would be beneficial to compare it to the project's other 2 Featured Articles. I'll also note that 2015 Daytona 500 is currently up for reassessment here. Good luck, let's get a third FA! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Also something I just noticed, the mph in the sentence "The fastest Ford truck was Dave Blaney, with a lap time and speed of 21.872 seconds and 21.872 mph (35.200 km/h), respectively" can't possibly be correct. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: Heheh, whoops. Anyway, looking at those two articles, I think the biggest issue with this page is that it doesn't have a lap-by-lap like did, so passes for positions besides the lead are going to be hard to find without actually using the race broadcast, which should be somewhere on YouTube. Dang for not doing this for the Trucks. NFLisAwesome 15:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@NFLisAwesome and ZappaOMati: (Just pinging both to ensure you get the message.) I think that's the biggest problem with most of this season's articles. They all detail the entire race report but only has one individual url for the lap-by-lap now. Thus, the sources are going to be quite difficult to find, unless we want to create a {{cite nascar race}} citation template... --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: I recall some articles citing the race broadcasts as a source. The only problem is that I don't know how much of a reliable source it would be. If it's okay, it's a good thing the full race is on YouTube. Zappa24Mati 04:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Pos No. Driver Team Manufacturer Time Speed
1 17 Ricky Stenhouse Jr. Roush Fenway Racing Ford 44.413 202.643
2 9 Sam Hornish Jr. Richard Petty Motorsports Ford 44.512 202.193
3 6 Trevor Bayne (W) Roush Fenway Racing Ford 44.512 202.193

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 July 2015, 04:05 UTC)----

St Padarn's Church, Llanbadarn Fawr[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have written this page over a period of several years, have expanded it recently, and I'd like it reviewed.

Thanks, Ncox (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll take this review on, but I've decided that it makes most sense to do some of the minor copyedits to the article myself; I'll then post the remaining issues here when I'm done. I hope it doesn't sound as if I think it has a lot wrong with it; in fact it's an excellent piece of work. Ham II (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments by llywrch

You've obviously done a lot of research on this subject, & if it were simply a matter of amount of information this would easily be FA class. However, getting this to GA or FA class requires more than simply amount of information.

  • There are several parts that would be better delivered to the end reader if they were moved to the related article. If you were writing a pamphlet or a webpage about the church, this would not be so distracting. For example, the section on Padarn would benefit if you were to take most of the content of that section & move it to that article. All you need in this article is a brief summary of his life, when he lived, & his probable relationship to the church. And this section would be best served by adding the template {{Main}} to the top. Another passage would be the paragraph about the manufacturer of the church organ, Forster and Andrews -- the brief paragraph in this article is a better history of the company than what the article provides.
  • Related to this, a lot of the footnotes explaining things are unnecessary. They are best used to provide reliable sources for statements in the main text. For example the footnote on the Welsh Triads duplicates the information in the linked article; if the reader needs more information about the Welsh Triads, she/he will read the article. (When I followed the footnote, I was expecting to find out where in the book Llanbadarn Fawr was mentioned. I happen to own a copy.)
  • There are many instances of needless duplicate links to the same article. While the usual practice is only one link to another article, in long articles it may be useful to have more links, but not more than one per section.
  • I found the description of the architecture of the church confusing. It is difficult to provide a description of a structure as detailed as you have attempted. However, trimming the details you provided & finding a way to present it better would help.
  • BTW, I don't see the point of all of the photos of the exterior walls of the church. One photo might work to show that the church was built of stone & mortar, but this many photos would be of use only if you were writing a comprehensive description for an archeological or architectural monograph. (Although I found the pictures showing the foundations of a previous structure interesting.)
  • Lastly, too many of your statements have needless qualifications. Too often "possibly" or "perhaps" appear in this article. I would rephrase these to "X suggests" or "If A then we can conclude Y". (There was one passage where the hemming & hawing was notably excessive, but I could not recover it.)

Hope these help. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 June 2015, 15:26 UTC)----

Anand Narain Kapoor[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because of the Notices on the Anand Narain Kapoor page which are - 1. The article is an orphan 2. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. 3. This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. 4. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. 5. This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. 6. This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find links tool for suggestions. Thanks, Chandareshwar Sharma Chandar sharma (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I feel that his golfing hobby may be overemphasized here. I would suggest talking more about his political career.--Ewiding33 (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 June 2015, 10:09 UTC)----

Deep frying[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded from 8k to 43k (Start-class to nearly B-class) and some uninvolved opinions would be useful.

Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Review from Smurrayinchester[edit]

This is a bit weird, but the thing that really struck me from reading this article is that there's barely any mention of batter, which is a fairly essential part of deep frying most foods. In general, the international section could be a lot longer - there's certainly more that can be said for America (influence of immigrant foods such as latkes, doughnuts etc, soul food, modifications of native foods like hushpuppies, through to modern fairground foods), Asia (India has samosa, bajji, gulab jamun, pakora and papadum, among others, and deep-fried foods are also common in a lot of Chinese dishes. Things like tonkatsu, which Asian nations borrowed from the west, are also worth mentioning) and Europe (fish and chips goes back way earlier than 19th century Britain, and pretty much every region has its own version of fried dough), and I'm sure Africa and Oceania can be made longer too. I'd also merge the culture section to here - each country has its own culture anyway. Hope these help. Smurrayinchester 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 June 2015, 02:29 UTC)----

Elena Delle Donne[edit]

This article is currently a C-Class article C-Class. I would like to have others look at it to see how to improve it to a B-Class article B-Class and eventually a GA-Class. Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Pink Fae (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Bagumba[edit]

B-class is not far away. Here are some suggestions:

  1. Expand lead per MOS:LEAD
  2. An "Early life" section before (or combined with) the "High school" section would be good to provide overview of her childhood. It is especially relevant here as it would provide context to her relationship with her sister.
  3. Quote by her brother might be better paraphrased in lieu of quoting directly with the WP:INTEXT attribution, as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (I'm guessing) is unlikely to apply here.
  4. Mentioning exact dates IMO usually make the flow of text choppy. Are all of them needed?
  5. Some parts read more like a list of sequential events; need to improve flow into contiguous paragraphs.
  6. MOS:ACRO: e.g. CAA, etc.
  7. Slight case of WP:UNDERLINK
  8. On higher resolution displays, her portrait in the "College" section is sandwiching the text with the infobox, which is discouraged by MOS:IMAGELOCATION.

Bagumba (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 29 May 2015, 20:39 UTC)----

2003 Cricket World Cup Final[edit]

A recently promoted GA which I'd like to make an FA. I've no clue as to how to proceed further since we don't have a model FA in WP:CRIC. We do have FAs on Test matches (Ashes) but the degree of comprehensiveness is subject to vary much for a One-day game. Suggestions pertaining to improvement of prose are most welcome. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Vensatry (ping) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: I'm afraid real life is hectic right now, and I haven't time right now for a full review. Just a few general pointers if you want this to succeed at FAC.

  • More on the background to the tournament: e.g. favourites, changes to the format, form players, expectations. Obviously not in huge depth, but assume that your reader knows nothing, and don't expect them to follow links: give them a brief but authoritative overview.
  • More on the teams: who was in form in the tournament? Who was taking wickets/scoring runs for them? Try to make it more of an overview, and less of a list of results. (Maybe something like the Wisden summary of the tournament does)
    • Where would all these go into? Should I create a section like "Background"? Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The Final section reads too much like a journalistic cricket report; we need to make it more friendly for the non-specialist.
  • As an example of a superb model to follow (although is comes from a really famous game), maybe look at the structure and detail of the FA Heidi Game.
  • I'll try and have a proper look as soon as possible; I can't really help too much right now, although I'll certainly give it at least a copy-edit before it goes to FAC; but my advice would be get it right first and don't rush. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias: Overall my thoughts are similar to Sarastro1: the article needs to be rebalanced slightly. I'll go through section by section giving an overview, but until the broad strokes are sorted, I won't go into depth with a prose review.

  • The lead could probably stand to be expanded. Given the length of the article, I was slightly surprised that the lead was so short. One paragraph summarising the context of the match (ie, the tournament, location and similar) and another providing a summary of the match would seem appropriate.
    • I'll come to the lead later Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I quite like the format section, I think it might be worth clarifying the specific format of the matches in here too, ie 50 overs. (Given that historically ODIs haven't always been 50 overs).
    • Included the 50-overs bit. Do you think, I should rename the section as "Background" so that I can include things which are pointed out by Sarastro1? Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Possibly, yes. Harrias talk 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, far too much information is provided on the semi-finals; I don't think that they deserve much more coverage than the other matches played by the two teams to be honest. I certainly wouldn't include the scorecards. As Sarastro1 suggests, this section would be improved by providing more of an overview; who was doing well, who wasn't, how group positions were affected, as well as brief summaries of each match.
  • I wonder if more information might be available for the "Build up" section, I imagine there must have been quite a few previews written, though how accessible they all are I don't know!
    • Do you have some offline sources for this. Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll have a look, ping me if I forget. Harrias talk 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • More context on the final would be nice in the summary: what time of day was it played, how was the weather, the attendance? Without going over the top, some "critical comment" (quotes from ex-cricketers or journalists) might be useful in the summary. I think, given the article is about the final, the summary could probably go into a little bit more detail, if that information is available.
  • The aftermath section could include brief information on how the teams have fared in tournaments since. Harrias talk 12:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 May 2015, 14:08 UTC)----

Geography and places[edit]

Mount Kilimanjaro[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently worked hard at expanding the article and resolving issues such as insufficient sourcing and the like. I'd like to ask about the quality of sources, the width of coverage and the writing quality, though. Maybe this will make a suitable GA or FA candidate someday.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by starship.paint

  • Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. I am by no means an expert on geography or history, so I'm offering comments from a general perspective.
  • On section ordering, following Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Structure, and looking at some FA class mountain articles like Joppenbergh Mountain / Mauna Kea / Nevado del Ruiz, I suggest the following structure -> shift Mythology to just above Popular culture. Shift Mapping just above Vegetation.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Drainage is a tiny section. Can it be combined with Geology or Glaciers?
    Aye, on second thought it appears to be more germane to that. Done as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On referencing, please fix the various Cite uses deprecated parameter |month=, by removing the various "|month= "
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There are various references which are in the format of <ref>[ Oxford dictionary]</ref> Please use the cite web tool to convert them to the format of <ref>{{cite web|title=Oxford dictionary|url=|accessdate=|publisher=|author=}}</ref> More to come in the future. starship.paint ~ KO 01:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    Cleaned these up a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input! For personal time reasons, I'll start working this evening on your suggestions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • More comments, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The Mythology section is hilarious. For some reason, Kibo and Mawenzi are people in one myth, while Shira is absent from all three myths. None of the myths are particularly interesting or encyclopaedic to me, personally, I would nuke the section.
    I think it's worth having (dunno why Shira is underrepresented ... maybe its geography isn't attention-catching?), but definitively not at the pagetop - moved it down. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of Geology throws out the figure of 4,877 metres ... and I'm confused. Surely you should be talking about 5,895 metres first? Why is there a difference of 1,000 metres, actually? starship.paint ~ KO 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    Added some text. Is it less confusing now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Two unsourced paragraphs: 1. Mawenzi and Shira are extinct ... 2. Shira is topped ... There's lots of jargon starting from these paragraphs. Please try to Wiki-link as many words as possible. Even "caldera".
    These are sourced to the citations in the following paragraphs, but yeah, it is not straightforward. I'll be working on the jargon linking too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please repair 3 dead links and several redirects. starship.paint ~ KO 13:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    Dead links repaired, but these redirects for me simply open up PDF files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - good work with the Wiki-linking so far! Here are some problematic words and phrases for me in the Geology section, could there be easier words used or an explanation?
  • Yeah. starship.paint ~ KO 07:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with the changes, good work! Except for this: Shira is topped by a broad plateau at 3,800 metres (12,500 ft), perhaps a filled caldera, and erosion has deeply degraded the remnant rim. I understand the first two parts. First you have a caldera, you fill it up and it forms a plateau. But I still don't understand the third part - the rim of what has been degraded? The rim of the plateau?
    Clarified it a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Name section, I don't like the standalone quotes, I don't see why they deserve to be so distinct. They are quite big. I think they can be summarized -> The first quote to Jim Thompson claimed in 1885, although he also did not support his claim, that Kilimanjaro "has generally been understood to mean" the Mountain (Kilima) of Greatness (Njaro), "though not improbably it may mean" the White (Kilima) Mountain (Njaro). The second quote is already summarized by the paragraph just above it. starship.paint ~ KO 07:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, these are lengthy quotes. I've put some info into prose format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is Prior to Ptolemy Aeschylus and Herodotus refer to "Egypt nurtured by the snows" and a spring between two mountains respectively. One of these mentions two tall mountains in the coastal regions with a valley with traces of fire in between. in the source? starship.paint ~ KO 13:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    It is in the other source. I've clarified that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • little-dissected
  • The cap is divergent
  • Ice cores ... have a basal age
  • Vertical ice margins ... focus points of areal retreat ... manifest stratifications, calving, and other ice features
An IP address has also edited the article and voiced some concerns about some statements. Unfortunately, I got sidetracked with my exam preparations but I'll try to address all of these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The timing's indeed a bit unfortunate, yes. Actually I was wondering if you could peer review one of my articles in return. I don't want to pile too much work on you, perhaps I'll just close my peer review and ask you comment on the FAC ... around the second week of August, would that be better Jo-Jo Eumerus? starship.paint ~ KO 09:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • My last exam is on the 14th. After that date, I can lend my hand on reviewing your stuff as well. Perhaps I can free up some time before that too but I can't guarantee anything, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nah don't trouble yourself, it can wait until after your exams, by the time it should be an FAC. starship.paint ~ KO 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 14 July 2015, 13:06 UTC)----

Highland cattle[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have address all the concerns from the last review. I am wondering how this would swing at WP:FA? If it would not pass any suggestions?

Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from starship.paint

  • I think the geographical distribution of this cattle should be made more explicit. Which countries in Central Europe - which probably don't include Norway. Does the United States and Mexico have it?
  • Is there any population estimate in any country?
  • Many also call the cows hairy cows, due to their thick coats. seems unsourced. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

PR by RO[edit]

  • often farmed primarily for their meat
Maybe raised is better here that farmed.
  • They are a hardy breed due to their native environment, the Scottish Highlands.
You've already mentioned their environment, so link there and combine/ce to avoid this repetition.
  • their native Scottish Highlands which have a high annual rainfall and sometimes very strong winds
Watch for missing commas before non-restrictive clauses like which have a high ....
  • where they both graze and browse
As a casual reader, I don't know the difference between these two terms.
  • Most commonly a single calf is born, but twins are not unknown.
Are you using twins to denote two?
  • Highland cattle are known to have a history that dates back to at least the 6th century AD
Omit are known to as redundant excess.
  • There were two distinct types of Highland cattle first described in the 1885 herd book
It seems to me you touch on this multiple times when it should be consolidated into one point in the lead and one in the body of the article.
  • small farmers
  • Highland cattle can produce beef at a reasonable profit from land that would otherwise normally be unused agriculturally
Reword the end to avoid unused agriculturally. Maybe "unsuitable for agriculture" or something like that.
  • Conclusion

Not bad overall, but look for missing commas and repetition (particularly the breed stuff), which are two things that jump out at me while reading. Good luck, and thanks for your contributions! RO(talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both User:Rationalobserver and User:Starship.paint. Addressing concerns now! TheMagikCow (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 June 2015, 17:50 UTC)----


This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have been recommended to take this to peer review before building this to FA quality. Bentworth was the first ever article I edited and is the sole reason on why I edit Wikipedia today. This will be the largest project I have ever done and am in all seriousness ready to build this to FA. It took me three years to bring this to GA, and thanks to Dr. Blofeld we finally made it so in 2012. Pinging @Dr. Blofeld:, @Cassianto: and @Gerda Arendt: who might have some comments for this, anything at all will be appreciated. I'll ask a few other people too who might be willing to comment. Thanks! JAGUAR  18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad timing Jaguar, as I was telling Ian Rose recently I don't intend working on another featured article for quite some time, although Streep and Kubrick perhaps later in the year!! Last time I read it after fully expanding it back in February 2012 I thought the prose was still rather rough but I definitely found as much as I could about it. If you're up for it though I wish you the best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that, Dr. Blofeld! It seems that I have been getting into a lot of bad timing lately. Getting Bentworth to FA would be the culmination of my Wikipedia career, it would mean everything to me and I'm prepared to do whatever it takes. Would you know anyone who would comment here? I could ask Rationalobserver. In the mean time I'll do a copyedit and fix Ukiws' mess! JAGUAR  21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps some of those who commented in some of my peer reviews would be interested in looking at it. The important thing is that this is comprehensive, but not too sure on the quality of prose.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're dead set on promoting this to FA Jaguar then I guess, given that I've written a fair bit for it too, I'll go for it with you, but I'm taking a back seat on it and will let you deal with most of the comments! I doubt much more could be found on the village in books anyway, so that at least makes the task easier. Perhaps a few people could give it a copyedit? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's up to you, Dr. Blofeld! We did bring it up to GA three years ago so you can take a back seat if you want to? I've set every fibre of my mind to bring this up to FAC, as this article means a lot to me. Thankfully its bargaining chip at FAC is its comprehensiveness, but I can only attempt a full scale copyedit once I get enough comments before the FAC. Maybe it would be helpful for anyone uninvolved with this so far to offer a second opinion... JAGUAR  15:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda[edit]

This is the first English village I visit more closely ;)

  • Lead
    • is there a more recent census? (just asking)
      • Censuses in the UK are recorded every ten years, the 2011 census is the closest we'll get JAGUAR  12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Should we link Saxon and Roman?
    • I did some copy-editing, revert if you don't like it.

Interrupted, will get back. General hint: not so many pictures, choose the best, and take a new lead picture, the flowering tree is pretty but could be anywhere ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments so far! I was thinking of making a montage like major city articles have, but I'm not sure if it is discouraged for villages. I'll update the images whenever the weather turns out well. JAGUAR  12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not a friend of montage but like individual images where they belong in the context. If you like to make one I won't object, though. Speaking of images, alternate texts are one of a few accessibility aspects you will want to check, mentioned here and here. More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought about it, but it might seem unnecessary to make one for a village of 500 people. I'll keep that in mind and I'll replace the infobox image before nominating this at FAC! JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (added:) We will probably see in the very end what is lead material and what not. I don't need the name of an inn of the past there, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


  • The first sentence about the road: even after the time I didn't get from where to where the road goes. Brackets are sometimes good within a sentence, but here I would simply start a new sentence for the present road number, or have it in the beginning, like "A road, today ...".
  • I'm not sure on how to re-word this one, I think it sounds clear? The present-day A339 road is at the end of the sentence. How would you want me to re-phrase it? JAGUAR  17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know what an impleplement implement (sorry for the typo) is but that may be my lack of English ;)
  • I didn't see an "impleplement" in the prehistoric section, maybe it's been corrected? JAGUAR  17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Link Normandy (at the time)?
  • Ref for death 1340 legacy?
  • Got it. I even found the pages, publisher etc JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "was succeeded by his son until his death"?
  • I re-worded that today but it still sounds unclear, you're right. His son took over the manor until his death (his son's death). Very confusing as his son is unnamed but his grandson is... anyway, re-worded to make it clearer JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the Melton family, because it is mentioned among his possessions" - family - his?
  • Ah, re-worded to "their" JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • consistent name for the person, second time without given name, Sir possibly the first time
  • Sorry I don't understand this part, is it the confusion with the Meltons? I hoped I made it clear as two of them are called John Melton! JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "one hundred and fifty years" or 150 years?
  • Changed to 150 JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "In 1777 the Urry descendants were his daughters", - they were his descendants also the next year, no?
  • I rephrased to "In 1777 the Urry descendants were William Urry's daughters Mary and Elizabeth" - I hope that's clearer? I didn't understand the concern? JAGUAR  17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I mean that the ladies were always his descendants, not only in 1777, but don't know how to express better what you mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see, I have rephrased it to "In 1777 William Urry's daughters Mary and Elizabeth, married two brothers" - I hope that's clearer? JAGUAR  13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

19th c

  • Bentworth Hall has an article, I don't think we need the details on its location.
  • Oops, removed. That shouldn't have been in there at all! I've also removed a large detail on its location by merging two paragraphs JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Ives family later included the author George Cecil Ives", - don't know how to fix, but reads as if he was adopted.
  • Rephrased to "shared ownership" JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No need for an abbreviation of the railway if it is never used
  • True, removed JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Poor Emma dies twice?
  • I done some researching and I've discovered that George Ive's mother was a Spanish baroness and Emma was his paternal grandmother, so the first mention of Emma could not have been George's mother! I've removed her in the first instance and elaborated later. JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Link to World War I?
  • Done JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Image: no need of mentioning Inn which is not on it, no?
  • Which image did you mean? Almost all old pubs in England have "Inn" in their names, and as with Bentworth, the're both called the Star Inn and Sun Inn JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I mean that the Star Inn is mentioned in a caption where it is not pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Got it, re-worded JAGUAR  13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "play a role" sounds a bit too playful, sentence doesn't say much anyway
  • When this was GA I mentioned that the neighbouring village of Lasham had its own military airfield but it did not seem relevant to put in this article, so you're right. I have re-worded this JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Post war

  • Glebe means what?
  • Glebe means "land belonging to the church" or "land that provided income". I've elaborated this in the article JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Break, - learned a lot! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments! JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for many responses, will read later, off to rehearsal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto, go ahead. Back from rehearsal (Haydn mass), but not able to concentrate. I read to the end and confess that details of hamlets and buildings tend to make me sleepy. I wonder how much detail we need. - Remembering Kafka: the works were thrown out in the process to a separate article. Perhaps a list of buildings as a list with images would be good idea? - Generally to images: look which are really good illustrations and give them meaningful captions, explaining why they are there, connected to the text. Example: I moved Henry to where he is mentioned. - Style: I prefer to have no image left under a header, and no squeezed text between two images right and left, but that may be just me. Will look again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Nope, I agree with you. Text squeeze, particularly, looks very unprofessional. CassiantoTalk 21:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
In the last FA reviews I took part in, it was the images that caused most discussion, see Carl Nielsen, for example. - The easiest way to limit that is just a few images, placed exactly where they match the text. If there are others which you want to keep in the article, consider a gallery or more, as in Hildesheim Cathedral. Example: the image of the War memorial is a stunning photo but doesn't really show the memorial. - I am out of details for about a week (writing GAs with a "deadline" ;) ), - usually a PR is open for a month, - way to go.
I agree with you regarding the detail with the hamlets and buildings - that may stem from previous personal obsession with the place! I don't mind cutting down on a few images. In fact if the weather is nice tomorrow I can go out and take updated images of Bentworth's manors and scenery (excluding Bentworth Hall itself, which is very private). What type of information do you recommend cutting down? I'm slightly worried on cutting down too much content as this article's bargaining chip for FAC so far is its comprehensiveness. I've been comparing the prose to Keswick and it seems like a good role model, despite Bentworth only being a small village in comparison. Gerda, do you have any more comments? JAGUAR  16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't cut right now, but be prepared that the request may come, - for Kafka it came in FAC. I am busy - for about a week - and will wait for new pictures ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading and looking again: I am impressed, excellent new photos and arrangement. Minor styling concerns:

  • Some FA reviewers are allergic to images over more than one paragraph, and to squeezed text between images, as in memorials. Possible help: drop header "war memorial" and that image, discuss the tomb last.
    • I agree, tight squeeze does look awkward. I've sadly removed the two images that caused the problem - but I think the problem is the long image of the plaque. I don't think the Hankin family tomb was essential, but the war memorial image was a sad loss. Anyway, no matter, the text is no longer squeezed! JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the two maps under administration - which are not exactly related to each other, no? - might be better split.
    • I think it's good to keep as it shows the boundaries of the Bentworth civil parish, and how little it has changed since medieval times! But on the other hand, a lot of English villages haven't changed since then. I would prefer to keep them together for comparison, but if there is an objection I could split it. JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Can the caption explain that better? It wasn't obvious to me, and other may have the same problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hall Place in 2012 with the remains of the 14th century chapel on the right" - sorry, don't see the remains, not even in bigger, - take another pic?
    • I tried taking a picture of Hall Place two weeks ago but I was being watched by a lady opposite and I felt suspicious walking around with a big camera! I'll try to take another picture when I get the chance. The chapel is barely visible to the right, but it is awkward to see. I've changed the caption for the mean time. JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Bears image: similar, needs explanation to recognize what's on it.
    • I've changed to the caption to make it clearer - the bears are the family arms of the Berens JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Other houses" seems not the best of headers. How about having all names in one, to be a little more flexible with the images?
    • That would mean the header would be renamed "Ivalls Cottage and Holt Cottage"? Would some FAC reviewers like that? I've changed it to that, but I'll remain nervous for when I nominate this anyway! JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't get nervous if possible ;) - nothing worth can happen than that it isn't accepted, so what. In all reviews I took part in, all involved did their best to improve the article. Read that of Carl Nielsen, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You made me curious if a little bit more could be said about the Blues Festival.
    • Not as exciting as Glastonbury Festival, but it did attract some 2000 people. It was held from 2000-2014 but there are no reliable sources on the internet that I can find to expand it more. I've expanded it a little to make it sound more informative - but I've removed the red link as it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You can also quote offline sources, such as newspapers. Good to remove the red link, - something I noticed that FA reviewers don't like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks promising to me, from the start with the collage! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you once again for the comments, Gerda! We hope very kindly created the montage as I wasn't sure how to fix the borders. I plan to nominate this at FAC this week, but before I do that I plan to expand the hamlets as much as I can. I'm not sure if anyone would have anything else to say at this peer review before I nominate this for FA, as I'm concerned what will happen at the FAC. It has been known for some candidates to go down hill even if reviewers spot the most minor of inconsistencies. Anyway, thanks again JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course people look differently at a newcomer than someone who wrote 100 FAs, a sources spot-check may be requested (was for my first). Try to see comments as helpful: that helps!

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Gerda, sorry to intrude; Jaguar, please let me know when Gerda has finished and I will duly pick up the baton. My initial thoughts are that the prose needs a lot of work and there maybe one too many images. I'll read away in the meantime. CassiantoTalk 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll let you know when all of Gerda's comments are clarified. I agree that the prose will need some work, but I'm confident I can do it if I receive enough feedback before nominating for FAC. User:Ukiws destroyed most of the prose back in 2012, the doctor can back me up on that... JAGUAR  18:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Can I ask in the meantime that you compared the prose and layout of the Bentworth article to that of Keswick, a recent FAC, authored by the ever-excellent Tim riley. He may even oblige with a review, who knows. CassiantoTalk 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll make a point of looking in tomorrow, though in truth the Keswick article got to FA through Dr B's skill and drive more than mine. Tim riley talk 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cassianto: I think I'm ready for your comments, if that's OK with you? Gerda said she won't be able to leave comments for another week, so I'll be willing to address anything you or others might have to say. As I said above, I have been comparing this to Keswick and I'll do what I can to clean up the prose. Bentworth's bargaining chip for FAC so far is its comprehensiveness - so I'll be grateful for any comments regarding the prose. Please feel free to be brutal! JAGUAR  16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would combine the "Name" section with the "History" section for two reasons: (1) It's current length makes it look a bit ridiculous. (2) History could include history of name. Either flesh it out or combine it I would say.
  • I agree, I done some research and I couldn't find anything else to add on the name, otherwise I would have expanded it as much as possible. I've merged it with the beginning of the history section JAGUAR  15:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The route between the Roman town of Silchester to the north of Basing, and the Roman settlement of Vindomis, just east of the present-day town of Alton, passed through the Bentworth area (the road today being the A339)." -- Redundant use of "area". Can we reliably say it was through Bentworth?
  • It passed through the parish but not through the centre of the village itself, I've re-worded JAGUAR  15:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Prehistoric remains found in the parish of Bentworth..." -- redundant use of "the parish".
  • Removed JAGUAR  15:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Implement/implement used in close succession. Is there another word?
  • I removed the whole sentence as suggested below JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The implement is now featured in Newbury Museum." -- not really relevant here.
  • Removed the sentence JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is "uncertain nature" in quotes?
  • I took it directly from the source as it said "uncertain nature", but you're right, it would look fine without the quotes JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is Ivall's Cottage notable enough for a red link?
  • I didn't see a red link there, perhaps it got removed? JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Although "Prehistoric and Roman times' is passable for a subheading, it's not preferable to Prehistoric and Roman era or similar; or maybe simply "Prehistory"?
  • I took your advice and changed it to "Prehistory"! JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This whole section seems to have very little to do with the Prehistoric and Roman period and has more to do with archeological finds. How was the village founded and by whom? Were there any notable periods? We're there any notable people?
  • There are no records of Bentworth prior to 1086, so the archaeological finds are the only things to suggest that the area of inhabited before the Domesday Survey. The only notable people in the village were only born after the Elizabethan era (George Wither, etc). I've merged the name section with Prehistory, so it should appear longer. If I can find any more information on the prehistory I'll flesh it out JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

At first read-through I thought this admirably comprehensive. Second read-through for prose quality follows soon. Tim riley talk 22:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To the end of the History section:

  • Lead
    • "Bentworth has a long history which can be traced to Saxon times, despite Roman remains also being found in the area" – Not sure what this means. The main text doesn't seem to me to suggest that there is any stronger Saxon than Roman connection. I'd prefer something on the lines of "Bentworth has a long history; Bronze Age and Roman remains have been found in the area and there is evidence of a settlement in Saxon times." But that needs to be substantiated in the main text, and I see no specific mention of Saxon history there.
      • You're right; the only mention of Bentworth in Saxon times is the church itself, as the church section says "There is evidence to suggest that a Saxon church was located here and was rebuilt". I've changed the sentence to something along the lines you suggested: Bentworth has a long history; Bronze Age and Roman remains have been found in the area and there is evidence of a Saxon church in the village. I hope that sounds better? JAGUAR  20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Medieval times
    • "the Domesday entry for the Hundred of Odiham mentions that it had a number of outlying parishes including Bentworth" – not in the cited example it doesn't. There's no mention of Bentworth that I can see.
      • Got it. I removed that citation and replaced it with the correct one from British History Online JAGUAR 
    • King Henry I is linked twice in successive paragraphs
      • Fixed JAGUAR  20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Piping: "King Henry I" or "King Henry I"? (Ditto for Henry II and John). Consistency needed. Edward II, later in the section, doesn't get his job title mentioned at all.
      • I've used the consistency of putting "King" before their names, in order to make it clear for readers (possibly non-British readers at that) JAGUAR  20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "The manor was returned to the Archbishops of Rouen" – if they were archbishops, wouldn't that make Rouen an archdiocese, two paragraphs above? (I merely ask the question – my knowledge of French ecclesiastical matters of the 12th century is not extensive.)
      • Never thought of that! I've done some research and discovered that Rouen is an Archdiocese, according to this article. My knowledge of mediaeval France isn't great either, so I've changed Archbishop to Archdiocese JAGUAR  20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "Today it is known as Hall Place" – I know it's unlikely to change its name, but "today" is usually best avoided. WP:DATED, you know. Better to write something like "Since XXXX it has been known as Hall Place", or "Since the XYth century it has been known as Hall Place".
      • Since 1832, changed JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "can be seen today" – I think this "today" is fine.
      • I think it should fine too, I've kept it in if that's OK JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "mentioned among their possession" – either "mentioned among their possessions" or "mentioned as in their possession"?
      • Changed to "mentioned among their possessions", as it seems likely that the Meltons had more than Bentworth under their belts JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "The manor of Bentworth remained in possession of the Windsor family" – you need a "the" before "possession". Moreover, I struggled with this: haven't we just said the Meltons held it for most of the period? Were they merely the Windsors' tenants?
      • I've checked up on the source given and it seems that the Windsor's inherited the manor after the Meltons, which leads me to believe that they might have been related. Either way, it is clear that it was somehow passed down to the Windsors, so I re-worded the sentence to make it clearer JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, I've just found out that they were related, as a sentence says "The ownership of the manor of Bentworth was then passed by marriage to the Windsor family" JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Elizabethan to Georgian times
    • "in 1705" – awkward in the middle of the sentence: better at the beginning or the end, I'd say
      • Done JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 19th century to the Second World War
    • "an auction at Garraway’s Coffee House" – is the venue of the sale notable?
      • Removed JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "in the 1914–18 war" – clearer if you call it the First World War
      • Done JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Second World War
    • If you're going to link to the WW2 article (which to my mind is WP:OVERLINK) you should do it at the earlier mention of the war, in the preceding section.
      • Done JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "as many other country houses" – you need "were" after houses
      • Done JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "out-station" – the OED does not hyphenate this word
      • Clarified JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Fisher's Camp – double not single quotation marks are specified by the Manual of Style
      • Corrected JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-war
    • Another MoS thing: after his first mention, Major Behrens should be just "Behrens"
      • Removed Majors after the first mention JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "The Berens family crest" – I think you almost certainly mean The Berens family arms.
      • Corrected JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "the Moon Inn on Drury Lane" – seems odd to use the Americanism "on So-and-so Street" for such a English article. I think "in Drury Lane" would be more suitable.
      • I never realised that! Now I know why they say "in Ten Downing Street" for example... JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

More soonest. I'm enjoying this article very much so far. – Tim riley talk 10:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch:

  • Administration
    • "the area of the later Hundred of Odiham were included – subject-verb agreement
      • Attempted to fix this (I hope I got it right) JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Burkham
    • a 'berewite' – more single quotes that should be double
      • Fixed JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thedden
    • 'Fisher's Camp' – ditto
      • Fixed JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wivelrod
    • "Standing on 712 feet (217 m) above sea level – I don't think we want the "on", surely?
      • Removed! JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • War Memorial
    • "World War I" – as we call the 1939–45 war "the Second World War" earlier in the text, I suggest a consistent form here, "the First World War".
      • Corrected. I tend to keep the consistency of "First/Second World War" throughout the article JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Bentworth Manor and Hall
    • The MoS bids us not to sandwich text between two pictures left and right of the prose. Moving the one on the left to sit above or below the one on the right would fix this.
      • I think I've fixed this. I removed the picture of the church (as there are too many of them in this article) and moved the pictures Hall Place and Bentworth Hall up and down. The trouble is that I love most of the pictures in this article and think the ones of the 16th century cottages are notable enough to be in here, but I can only choose so many to remain! JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Mulberry House
    • I wouldn't capitalise a generic term like "rectory"
      • Fixed JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Other houses
    • More sandwiching of text between two images, as above.
      • I've (sadly) removed the picture of the 1503 cottage to fix this JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Public houses
    • Earlier (end of history section) you refer to "pubs". I think the more formal term "public houses" is appropriate for an encyclopaedia article, and I suggest you use it instead, there and in para two of this section.
      • I've replaced all instances of "pubs" with "public houses", except from "There was also a third pub in the village called the Moon Inn". Public house redirects to Pub, but do you think I should replace it with "public house" anyway? JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "and the Sun Inn that sits..." – as this is what grammarians call a non-restrictive clause (describing rather than defining), this would be better as "and the Sun Inn, which sits…"
      • Done JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • References
    • Ref 11 – title of article and name of author if given should be added here
      • I'm afraid I couldn't find an author for that edition, but I fleshed it out as much as I can JAGUAR  21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 18 – unexpected square brackets, and no publisher or ISBN/OCLC number. WorldCat is ideal for such info: see here.
      • Thanks, the ref was incorrectly formatted so I've started it from scratch and included full details JAGUAR  10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 24 – may come under scrutiny at FAC on grounds of WP:VER
      • Ukiws... it's my fault too for not cleaning up his mess! Removed JAGUAR  10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 29 – doesn't stand a chance at FAC! How can anyone verify it?
      • Ukiws added that in! I can't believe I left that one in. Removed JAGUAR  21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 30 – we are not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as citations: you'll have to find another source to cite.
      • Removed, I'll try and find something to replace it with JAGUAR  10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Replaced JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 31 – another citation that will be gunned down at FAC
      • Removed and replaced JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 40 – formatting problems, with bare url and square brackets
      • Fixed JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 52 – link or better access information needed
      • Got it, I've fleshed it out JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Hope it's useful. Tim riley talk 11:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments, Tim riley! They were very helpful. I think I've addressed everything. JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have more wet-blanket comment for you, but you need to know what is going to face you at FAC.

  • I went out and took that photo of the gold postbox the other day, but looking back on it now I wonder if it would be better to replace it with the photo of the red postbox... I'm still unsure on what would make a good lead image as I've never seen a montage for a village before? JAGUAR  11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • We hope most kindly provided the montage for the Keswick article, and may perhaps be willing to guide you on this. Tim riley talk 13:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar, I started with the Photomontage template which you can vary according to how many photos you want to include, their size and position. The main editors told me which photos were wanted, so I worked with the template & photos in my sandbox until I had a nice result. I then did a bit of enlarging of the template and took it from the sandbox as a screen capture which I cropped. The photos for it were at Commons; some came from Geograph UK while others were user taken photos. (You might want to have a look to see if Geograph has anything you like that's not at Commons and upload it.) I then uploaded File:Keswick montage 2.jpg listing and crediting all the photos in the montage and released it to Commons as CC-BY-SA-3.0 (see the file details). If you want some help with this, let me know and I'll give you a hand. We hope (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, We hope! I've never attempted making a montage before so I'll experiment it in one of my sandboxes before I publish it. If I get stuck I'll let you know as I have all the images I want to put in on hand. I take it that all of the photos in one montage have to be modern (ie. nothing in black and white from 1910 etc). I would love to take a picture of Bentworth Hall today but I can't get close to it. I've asked permission if I can visit but I doubt I'll be allowed to photograph it... JAGUAR  16:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No, they don't have to be modern photos; the only requirement is that all images used in a montage are in the public domain, so go where your imagination takes you! :) We hope (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@We hope: I've made a draft montage at User:Jaguar/Sandbox/5 but most of the images appear to be oddly formatted and the images to the left have black borders along them. I'm not sure on how to fix this and I think a couple of the images are likely to change as I went out the other day and took some more photos! Once it's ready I can easily screen capture it and crop it JAGUAR  19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaguar-I've worked with it in my sandbox and experimented with changing the positions of photos, etc. The border for these templates is set to black and this looks to be added by the template. Here's a try at one with transparent border--you'll see that there is a slight difference in the double sets of photos--that those on the right are slightly taller than the left. Not sure how to overcome this because I don't see any option for setting height of each image in the montage, but with the transparent background, it's much less noticable. I can't seem to get the template to display here without it creating the montage. I will copy the template into your sandbox so you can see what you think. We hope (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Mr.,

First, I thank you for your excellent work about Bentworth. You had cited many important details. However, try to expand the part about the administration. You have to include some important details about the governmental division and the public institutions in this important town.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think that the Administration section summarises the parish council quite well as the village only has a population of 500. You said it was an important town? I don't know if Bentworth has anything to do with a "governmental division"? JAGUAR  11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a little village! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A couple of comments on this (it's a good article, nice and readable, a good level of big picture with some detail in there too). I've made a few tweaks, but please feel free to re-tweak or revert if you don't like it, or if I manage to cock something up!


  • Does the Roman info belong in "prehistory", which tends to go to the end of the iron age. It also jars to see the Roman references before stone age and bronze age references. Go chronologically on this, and perhaps tweak the title of the section to cover Roman too
    • There was a Roman section, but I got recommended to merge it with the "Prehistory" and "Name" sections because it was too short. I see what you mean though, so I've renamed this section "Prehistory to Roman times" JAGUAR  15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If possible try and avoid the stubby paras, either by expansion or merging.
    • I agree, the last thing I need to do before I nominate this at FAC is to expand some of the hamlet sub-sections, but I'm finding expanding the "Ashley" section impossible because there is nothing else to talk about! I've expanded/merged some short paragraphs here and there JAGUAR  15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

More to follow... (Done to the end of the Georgians - and sorry for the delay in getting here!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments so far, SchroCat! I look forward to any future comments. JAGUAR  15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


  • There are a few unsupported sentences I've flagged up. Any paragraph without a reference at the end should be looked at, so worth a spin through to make sure I've not missed any (I see there are a few in the Villages and Hamlets section, for example).
  • I've finally removed Ashley's sub-section from this article as I find it impossible to even write a paragraph about it! I've also sourced all claims that were flagged up and currently in the process of checking if anything else needs sourcing before the FAC. JAGUAR  10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


  • "The name "Glebe" was chosen because the land was originally owned by the church, with "Glebe" meaning "land belonging to the church"": the repetition makes this awkward – it needs re-phrasing
  • Rephrased this JAGUAR  10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


  • May be worth keeping the section chronological, and put the 2011 census after the Domesday book and the rest of the population growth paragraph.

Done to the start of Notable landmarks – more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: you done or do you have more? I think it can be nommed as soon as you're done. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I should be finished today. RL is a bit hectic at the moment! - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Finishing off...


  • "The problem was that": this is a bit lumpy and could be done more elegantly
  • I agree, I've rephrased the whole sentence. I hope that' OK. JAGUAR  16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Today": avoid. They {{As of}}
  • Changed JAGUAR  16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Note A needs a full stop
  • Added JAGUAR  16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note B could include a link to the Memorials section to aid navigation
  • I've added a link JAGUAR  16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


  • FN82 (Star Inn, Bentworth) needs re-formatting
  • Huh, when the owners left the pub this year it seems they took the website down! I've used an archived link for this. JAGUAR  16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 87 has " pp. p16.", which needs sorting
  • Oops, fixed this. JAGUAR  16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat! I've addressed all of your comments. It's off to FAC tonight. JAGUAR  16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 June 2015, 18:34 UTC)----

Southcote, Berkshire[edit]

After a major rewrite (removing a large amount of copied text) this article is unclassified; I'd like it reviewed with a view to pushing it to WP:GA in the future. Cheers, matt (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice! A couple of points:
  • The "Local election" section is confusing to the reader - it looks like Southcote is a 3-seat ward, with one of those seats up for election each year. The table however makes it look like a 1-seat ward which is constantly changing hands. Simply listing the current councilors, and if you can find the results mentioning whether it's always been Labour-held would probably be enough.
  • There's nothing post-1960s in the history section, which makes it look a bit empty. For completeness, it would be nice to have something there - perhaps something about the regeneration of Coronation Square and the Elvian School site.
  • A map of the ward within Reading would be useful, perhaps with either of these map blanks: File:Reading UK location map.svg or File:Reading UK ward map 2010 (blank).svg. I can help with this, if you'd like.
Smurrayinchester 12:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! I'm incredibly busy with work at the moment but when it quietens down I'll have a look! Cheers, matt (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mattgirling: - the way the article is, were there no local elections before 2010? More text needed in that section. Anything on the topics of healthcare, crime and media? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 June 2015, 08:51 UTC)----



I've listed this article for peer review because I need some advice on how I can improve it so I can later nominate it to become a GA.

Thanks, HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 July 2015, 00:14 UTC)----

77th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as the article has been completely overhauled over the last few months. Any and all comments are welcome to help further improve the article, and get it ready for a GA review. Kind regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 July 2015, 23:28 UTC)----

Guatemalan Revolution[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was listed as a good article a few months ago, and I want to take it further, if possible. Any suggestions are welcome, but particularly with respect to any content not currently in the article which should be included.

Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 July 2015, 17:27 UTC)----

Menkauhor Kaiu[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as suggested by the reviewer who passed it as a Good Article. The purpose of this peer review is to make sure that the prose and layout of the article is of FA quality as I wish to nominate it as a FAC. I would be very happy to update the article according to everyone's remarks!

Thanks, Iry-Hor (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Khruner[edit]

@Iry-Hor: I'm not sure if I have to write in the linked archive, so I will write here. Good work as usual, practice gathered making GA/FA Old Kingdom pharaohs surely makes perfect. I can suggest you to standardize the way you write the dynasties, as you have both "Fifth Dynasty" and "18th Dynasty". Another thing is about the ownership of the Headless Pyramid: scholars have spoken, but maybe it should be mentioned that the pyramid didn't provide any name of its owner and the attribution to Menkauhor was a consequence of its datation and exclusion of the others 5th Dynasty rulers (but maybe I am wrong here!) --Khruner (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Khruner these are very good points so I modified the article accordingly (also I moved your post to the PR page). Iry-Hor (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

These are my thoughts on polishing the already very adequate prose:

  • Lead
    • "few artefacts datable to his reign have survived to this day" – I suggest omitting the last three words.
Green tickY done! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Historical sources
    • "with 8 years of reign" – perhaps "with a reign of eight years". It isn't wrong as it stands, but this would flow more naturally in English, I think.
Green tickY I agree, it is better. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Second para: numbers – there's no hard and fast rule, and in my own drafting I go to the opposite extreme (writing "fifty", "a hundred" etc), but I think there's a general expectation that one to nine are in words and 10 + are in figures. Same in the lead and later, e.g. at Reign – Duration, and Building activities – Pyramid. Entirely up to you, though.
Green tickY I agree, my opinion is to write integers one to nine in letters and the rest using numbers. I apparently had forgotten those. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Contemporaneous attestations
    • "have survived to this day" – you could simplify this in the single word"survive"
Green tickY Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "as well a few sealings" – I think this should probably be "as well as a few sealings"
Green tickY Well spotted! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Consorts
    • "The Austrian Egyptologist Wilfried Seipel" – I wouldn't bring in Seipel's nationality unless it's relevant.
Green tickY. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Tenses – "Seipel argues" … "Seipel attributed" – be consistent; I think the historic present, as in the former, is conventionally used as the norm in English.
Green tickY Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Descendants
    • "either pro or contra" – purely on the grounds of plain words I'd make this "either for or against".
Green tickY This was apparently corrected by someone else already. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "At the opposite" – I think the sentence would be stronger and clearer without these words.
Green tickY done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "deems this hypothesis unlikely however" – I'd lose the "however" (a word that creeps into everyone's prose – mine included – and usually adds nothing of value.)
Green tickY I remember you pointing this out already in a previous article and I agree, I don't know how this one when under my radar. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Activities
    • "mines of turquoise and copper located in the Wadi Maghara." – this would be crisper without the "located"
Green tickY done. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "dating to Menkauhor's lifetime" – would, I think, flow better with just "his" rather than the repetition of "Menkauhor's"
Green tickY. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • End of last para: I'd lose the unnecessary "as well".
Green tickY. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pyramid
    • "Menkauhor Kaiu's" – do we want the genitive here? Just "Menkauhor Kaiu" seems right to me.
Green tickY Yep that is a typo, a remnant of a previous version starting with "Menkauhor Kaiu's pyramid...". I corrected it. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Funerary cult" – New Kingdom
    • "Menkauhor enthroned besides four other deified kings" – I think I'd make this "beside" rather than "besides".
Green tickY Done, I realise I don't know the difference between the two! I shall read on this. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "all of whom built their pyramid" – probably better to pluralise to "pyramids" if they had one each.
Green tickY yes. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. You bring what is to many of us a potentially dry subject vividly to life. This is top-notch stuff. Keep me posted, please, when you go to FAC. Tim riley talk 21:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tim riley thank you for your observations and efforts! I now feel much more confident about the quality of the prose in the article. It is with great pleasure that I will inform you when I bring it Menkauhor Kaiu to FAC. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 17 July 2015, 11:25 UTC)----

Warren G. Harding[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FAC. Yes, I know it's long. Most presidents don't have a whole bunch of scandals tagging after them, that have to be explained. Nixon's at least was revealed during his lifetime and fit into the chronology. Harding's were revealed after his death. I've cut considerably

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • " he lived in rural Ohio all of his life": Coming so early, this sentence will strike some as odd, that a person was a US senator and president while he was living in rural Ohio.
I guess, but they don't live in Washington or they wouldn't be representing their state. Possibly "resided".
Sure, "resided" works. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I got down to Start in politics. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

First lot. More to come.

  • Lead
    • I'll come back to this once I've read the full text.
  • Editor
    • "As a politician, and as president" – the latter is surely the former too.
    • "janitor" – a link, perhaps for Britons and any others who don't use the term.
    • "Afterwards, with the financial aid of Dr. Harding…" – I was quite envious of this sentence: there are about five ways I can think of that it could have gone wrong, and this avoids them all.
  • Start in politics
    • "the Republican state convention" – is there a suitable article to link to for those unfamiliar with US politics?
    • "Warren Harding continued to become involved" – not sure we need his first name at this point.
    • It's because the previous paragraph is talking about Florence Harding and I feared ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • State senator
    • "Both Foraker and Hanna supported Harding for state senate in 1899; the editor gained" – I think you could just say "he gained" without danger of ambiguity
    • "Harding always appeared calm" – another place where perhaps a "he" instead of his name might read more smoothly
    • "two terms in the state House of Representatives" – but "state senate" without a capital S earlier on
  • Ohio state leader
    • "Harding had little to do, and he did it very well" – I see it's not just Asquith who conjures up Iolanthe.
Surprised you did not comment on the Duke and Duchess, which certainly evokes (and may derive from, for all I know) The Gondoliers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "Harding sought and gained the 1910…" – was it the gubernatorial nomination that was deeply divided, or the contest for it?
    • "Taft asked Harding to place his name in nomination" – this is ambiguous. At first I thought "his" was Harding rather than Taft. Would something on the lines of "Taft asked Harding to propose him as candidate" be possible?
Hm, I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Junior senator
    • "took narrow control" – "narrowly took control"?
  • General election campaign
    • Could you find it in yourself to bend the rules and resize the July 22 picture?
    • "The Massachusetts governor was not a significant factor" – another place where you could get away with "He", and help the prose flow, I think.
  • Appointments and inauguration
    • "the first sitting senator to be elected to the White House" – I was v. surprised to read this, and I wonder if the fact might be worth mentioning in the lead.
    • "Albert B. Fall of New Mexico for Interior Secretary" – the "for" seems odd here
    • The Harding Cabinet: to an English eye the order of precedence seems peculiar: is this how it was published?
It's by cabinet rank, which is the date of founding of the department.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

More shortly. This is, as you say, a long article, but so far I'm not finding it one word too long: top-notch stuff. Tim riley talk 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for being so quick to review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Where I haven't responded, I've done it or something similar. Up to date. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Second lot

  • Sorry, this is out of chronological order, but I've just noticed that in "Convention", Murray is mentioned as though we already know who he is: a word or two of context would be good.
  • Disarmament
    • "setting forth" – sounds a bit Shakespearean. Perhaps setting out?
    • "run the fleet as profitably as possible until they could be sold" – singular noun but plural pronoun.
  • Postwar recession and recovery
    • "the reduction of income taxes (raised during the war)" – if the structure of the paragraph will bear the weight I think the rates – mentioned in the next paragraph – would sit more naturally here.
    • "excess profits tax on corporations be repealed" – are taxes, rather than laws, repealed?
I've avoided it, but the subject of legislation can be repealed by legislation, not just the act itself in AmEng in my experience. For example, some people want to repeal Obamacare.
    • "became a feeding frenzy" – perhaps a slightly lurid phrase for our sober columns?
I'm inclined to let it stand. I can't think of an alternative that would work well, and this was the Roaring Twenties after all.
  • Business and labor
    • "the smartest 'gink' I know" – what is a gink? ("She gave those poor Egyptian ginks, Something else to watch beside the Sphinx" – P G Wodehouse)
interwiki link to Wiktionary. I would imagine def. 2 was intended.
    • "with a view towards ending it" – "to" rather than "towards" is the usual construction, I think.
  • Civil rights and immigration
    • "not restrict immigration from northern European nations, but would bar many Italians and Jews" – the latter surprised me: wasn't most Jewish immigration to the U.S. from northern Europe?
Apparently as they were not legally citizens, they fell under no quota. I will get down to cases, and blame the Irish as usual. My forebears got in a few years earlier, were already here, or got in through Canada.
  • Judicial appointments
    • "Harding also appointed 6 judges…" – do you follow a rule not to mix numerals and number-words in the same sentence? It looks a bit odd to me, but de gustibus.
I didn't change existing text there. I have now.
  • Political setbacks and western tour
    • "would see that party fall to a 221–213 majority. In the Senate, the Republicans lost eight seats, and would have 51 of 96 senators in the new Congress, which Harding would not survive to meet." – a lot of "woulds" here.
    • "a celebration organized by venerable pioneer Ezra Meeker" – how nice to meet the splendid old boy again!
Advertising, I fear. :) Still, Meeker was a well-known figure at the time and it's justifiable (also note the Scobey medal from my collection. I had a Mellon medal ready if needed).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Teapot Dome
    • "This is the only place where I think we have too much information for the main article. The Teapot Dome article is 800 words long and this section is a little over 600. I really think it should be pruned. The details belong in the TD article, in my view. What we want in the main Harding article is just that Fall was on the take, authorised a dodgy deal, was caught after Harding's death and went to gaol, and that Harding didn't know there was anything criminal going on. I really think you could lose the third and fourth paragraphs almost entirely.
I've cut it some. I don't think our article on Teapot Dome is adequate.
  • Notes
    • Note b: for what it's worth (possibly nothing) the Oxford English Dictionary gives an 1857 instance of "normalcy" as its earliest example, in an American dictionary of mathematics. As for the wonderful "bloviate", if it ever had the neutral Ohio meaning of sitting round and talking, no-one has told the OED, which gives examples of its use from 1845 and 1887 which plainly mean "using inflated or empty rhetoric".
The first is what Russell has to say. I will in-line cite to Dean on the second, being respectful of the OED.
  • General
    • I don't know that I have worked out your policy on using present-v-past tenses when telling us an author's views. "Murray noted" but "Dean deems", "Sinclair suggested" but "Coffee faults". In particular we go from past to present tense in one sentence at "Coffey deemed Dean's book the most revisionist biography of Harding to date, and faults him…"
If they're breathing, it's present tense. I've tried all past tense but run into flak.
    • "Possessive plurals for people with names ending in s: "Debs' sentence" but "Hughes's State Department", "Forbes' main task" but "Adams's fictionalized account" and so on.
Curses. I'll fix that. It's without the s, if only to tie in with Veterans' Bureau.
  • Lead
    • The only comment I have on the lead is that you have enough material in the main text to justify beefing up the end of the first para of the lead to the effect that he is regularly ranked as one of the worst U. S. presidents. Otherwise, an ideal summary, I 'd say.

That's all from me. I very much enjoyed and admired this article. You will, I trust, ping me when it arrives at FAC. – Tim riley talk 10:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you very much for the review. I'll work through the remaining.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB[edit]

First batch, down to 1920:

  • "he lived in rural Ohio all his life" – well, except for the years he was president.
He still lived in Marion, Ohio during that time. The president does not form a residence in DC while he is in the White House.
Childhood and education
  • Is the reason knowm as to why Tryon, after qualifying as a doctor and starting a medical practice, suddenly became a newspaper proprietor?
He was always wheeling and dealing. I don't think he owned that much of it, but one of his son's biographies said it was the best investment he ever made.
  • "Upon graduating in 1882, Harding moved back in with his parents in Marion" – this largely repeats the information at the end of the previous section.
  • "Harding returned from Chicago to find that the paper had been reclaimed by the sheriff". Why did this happen?
The collateral that Harding had used to secure his paper was reclaimed due to an unrelated judgment. I felt it too much detail.
  • "leaving an estate of $850,000 in 1923" – I'm wondering if providing this information at this point isn't jumping the gun a bit? Are we to assume that all his wealth came from these local investments?
I'm assuming the reader knows the basic facts of Harding's life. They did not all come from his investments. His salary, I believe, was $75,000 a year, which even with expenses he was expected to meet, usually gave presidents something to retire on even before they got pensions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Would it be worth mentioning at this point that Florence was some years older than Warren? From the little that I've read on Harding, that may have been a factor in their relationship.
Start in politics
  • "sometimes sending Warren to the bank with a gallon (3.8 l) full in each hand" – slightly perplexing. A gallon of what? As far as I'm aware, a "gallon" is a liquid measurement, not a receptacle.
  • "Warren Harding continued to become involved in Republican politics." Unnecessary sentence. I'd begin: " In 1892, Harding traveled to Washington..." etc
State senator
  • Clarify somwhere that the normal term for a state senator was two years
  • "he first met" → "he met" ("first" is implicit in the context)
Ohio state leader
  • "Both Herrick..." – stray capital as presently phrased
  • Is Hanna's death relevant?
Not really, but it gets him out of the picture. I can have him fade away.
  • "Roosevelt, running ran under the label of the Progressive Party, and Taft split the Republican vote, and Taft split the Republican vote..." For greater clarity I would say: "The Republican vote was split between Taft, the party's official candidate, and Roosevelt, running under the label of the Progressive Party. This allowed..." etc
Election of 1914
  • "In 1914, the start of World War I, and the prospect of a Catholic senator from Ohio increased nativist sentiment." Additional punc needed, probably a comma after "senator from Ohio"
  • "...the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, led by President Wilson." My understanding of the separation of powers in the US constitution is that the president is not the leader of Congress as implied here. Perhaps, "the Democrats, led by President Wilson, controlled both houses of Congress".
  • "He voted for the Eighteenth Amendment, which imposed Prohibition after successfully moving to modify it..." Again, the missing comma, this time after "Prohibition" – otherwise the sentence becomes meaningless.
  • "Despite increasing Republican unity, Hughes was defeated by Wilson". I'd amplify this a bit – you've mentioned conventions, but not the election. Suggest "In the November 1916 presidential election, despite increasing Republican unity, Hughes was narrowly defeated by Wilson". (It was narrow, wasn't it? In the film, Wilson went to bed thinking that he had lost.)
  • "By May 1918" → "In May 1918..."

Very interesting thus far. I suppose we get to the seamier stuff soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Mostly at the end. Some tantalyzing references first. I'll work though these and post any additional comments. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Part II: not much here, and still waiting for the sleaze:

Decision to run; primary campaign
  • "Harding, while he wanted to be president, was as much motivated in entering the race by his desire to keep control of Ohio Republican politics..." I would delete "in entering the race", which tends to distort the meaning – it suggests that he entered the race in order to strengthen his position in Ohio, which doesn't make much sense in view of what you describe as his "low-key announcement".
He really did, or rather was hedging. He had set himself up for either alternative. Harding may not have been the brightest bulb in the bunch, but there was nothing wrong with his political strategy.
  • "... behind the three main candidates, former justice Hughes, and Herbert Hoover" – I struggled with this, until I realised that an "as well as" is implied after "the three main candidates". It might be as well to actually insert it.
  • "Harding gained votes on each of the next four ballot..." – I imagine that "ballot" should be "ballots".
General election campaign
  • "like McKinley had in 1896" → delete "had"
  • "In Marion, Harding ran his campaign." As the previous paragraph begins "Harding elected to conduct a front porch campaign", do we need this second statement?
It's to emphasize he wasn't being a pretty face, he was actually doing the work of running the campaign, with Daugherty's assistance locally and Hays in New York.
  • " and stated that reservations to the treaty might be necessary" – do you mean "modifications"? Otherwise I'm unsure what Cox was stating.
Pipe inserted.
  • "Wooster College" – I bet Tim enjoyed that. I clicked on it, and find that it is actually "The College of Wooster", which is even more delightful.
    • My eyebrow rose so much that my monocle fell from its socket. Behave! Tim riley talk 22:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
They would have named it the College of Jeeves, but he was too self-effacing.
Appointments and inauguration
  • I think the "United States" in front of Hoover's appointment could be reasonably assumed.
  • In the inauguration photograph, it looks very much as though the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt has put in an appearance (just to the right of the justice's raised hand).
I think that's Dr. Harding.
  • I believe that Wilson did not attend his successor's inauguration; is this worth mentioning?
It was for health reasons. He accompanied Harding to the Capitol, signed a last few minute bills, but did not stay for the inaugural itself. It wasn't a situation like in 1869, where Johnson and Grant hated each other. Things were more leisurely back then, Harding wasn't sworn in until after 2 p.m. I don't think it's worth a mention.
Foreign policy
  • I'm not sure that "Ending the war" is the best sub-section heading. THe general perception is that WW1 ended in November 1918, despite the technicality of unratified peace treaties. People might wonder who was still fighting in 1921. I'd replace "Ending the war" with "Peace treaties" or something similar.
Perhaps "formally" would improve it.
  • Is the "took flight" quotation from Harding's address? This should be clarified.
  • "Harding and Hughes were widely applauded for their work in the press" → "Harding and Hughes were widely applauded in the press for their work".

Should be through tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sleaze is at the end to ensure reviewers get through the dry stuff (and I don't mean Prohibition).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are my final thoughts, on a long but generally fascinating read. It strikes me that there have probably been worse presidents than Harding in my lifetime, but maybe they were luckier. The ineffable Eland ranks him sixth in order of successful presidents (Tyler, Cleveland, Van Buren, Hayes and Arthur are ranked above him) and first on the short-term "Peace, Prosperity and Liberty" scale. That might be a rehabilitation too far.

Domestic policy
  • An example of where savings could be made from the daunting wordcount is the phrase "When Harding addressed the joint session", which could be deleted with no effect on the prose. Likewise, "But it was not until May 27 that" could easily be "On May 27..."
On the first, I don't feel I can as there are a couple of mentions of the address later. And it was a significant event in Harding's presidency. I would not like to ignore it. On the second, I don't think I can entirely ignore Congress waiting almost seven weeks. Otherwise, there's a bit of a hole that might puzzle some readers.
  • " A bonus, not payable in cash, was voted to soldiers despite Coolidge's veto in 1924." I really feel this is outside Harding's story. If it's worth noting, it should be by means of a footnote.
This was an important issue, which had repercussions later, as with the Bonus Army. I think it should be given some sort of resolution here.
  • "Harding, in his first annual message to Congress..." – I'd flip this to: "In his first annual message to Congress, Harding..."
  • Are hotels "raised"? I would have thought "built" was more normal
Avoiding dual use of word. I'll look at it again.
Changed to "erected".
  • "As the strike became protracted, Harding offered compromise to settle it. The miners agreed to return to work..." What was the nature of Harding's apparently effective compromise?
It was what was set forth in the next sentence. I've made the connection clearer.
  • "Harding granted reprieves to almost a thousand immigrants" – would "amnesties" be more fitting than "reprieves" which has a particular connotation (in UK at least)?
Avoided. "Stay of execution" is probably more common in the US, and reprieve a more general term.
  • In the short "judicial appointments" subsection the second "main article" link is rather awkwardly placed in mid-text. I would place the two links together under the section title.
Final months, death, and funeral
  • Link Fairbanks
  • Perhaps specifically date the Alaska speech, since it was the last he gave.
The last was in Seattle.
  • First mention of the Ohio Gang, with no explanation as to who they were, so readers have to use the link. A few extra words of identification would be helpful.
  • In the second paragraph, three successive sentences begin "Harding..."
Teapot Dome
  • I suggest two very small prose changes. First, as the scandal is basically about corrupt lease arrangenents, I'd say Doheny "had been awarded a lease to drill along the edges of the naval reserve, Elk Hills..." And I'd say "that Teapot Dome had also been leased", to emphasise continuity in the prose.
Justice Department
  • The link on Sawyer in the Smith/Sawyer image goes to "Charles W Sawyer", not the right man. Your guy is Charles E Sawyer – is that him in the picture? The image page appears to have it wrong.
  • "Smith deposited $50,000 in a joint account with Daugherty used for political purposes" – needs either a comma after "Daugherty", or the words "which was"
Veterans' Bureau
  • You mention a firm called Thompson-Black, and another called Thompson and Kelly, but you don't identify the "Thompson" who avoided his jail sentence by dying.
Extramarital affairs
  • "Harding had an extramarital affair with Carrie Fulton Phillips of Marion". I see that this ended while Harding was a senator, but as she is thought to be the love of his life, can we be told how long the affair went on? And why it ended?
The reason why it ended is not agreed upon by biographers. I've seen the blackmail that we've got in our Phillips article. Maybe. Russell reports that Jim Phillips, during the Front Porch Campaign, had the only building in Marion that was not flag-draped as silent protest against the affair, that it was causing an open scandal with reporters in town, and that he and his wife were hustled out of town on a paid junket to Japan. I'll add a bit, but for the most part, I don't think I can economically go into the issue.
Historical view
  • Check title of Joe Mitchell Chapple's book/ Life of times of... doesn't seem right
  • "In 2004, John Dean, noted for his involvement in another presidential scandal, Watergate..." You've been referring to him as "Dean" since the first linked mention early in the article. As I didn't follow the link. I had no idea that this was the Watergate Dean. Perhaps his identification with Watergate could come earlier.
  • I think there are a few too many images—they disrupt the text in several places. There is clearly no shortage of wholly relevant images, so I don't really see the need to crowd out the article with the more marginal ones. Thus, I would consider deleting the following:
  • The Chicago Coliseum
  • Roosevelt and Cox
  • The Mexican president
  • The "camping" photo (Ford, Edison, etc)
  • Debs
  • The Taft court
  • Doheny and his lawyer
  • Smith and (presumably) Sawyer
I'll cut all of these but Roosevelt/Cox (on the grounds anything a president does before becoming same is worth taking a second look at and Roosevelt is visibly a) Roosevelt and b) standing).
That still leaves 25 images in the article. I wwould also recommend that you reposition the official White House portrait in a less crowded spot.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that and for your kind words. I will work through these. I hope the sleaze was worth the wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Coemgenus[edit]

Not much left to address here, but I found a few:

  • "some have suggested..." Who? Schlesinger?
Yes, he does but he's not alone. I'd rather not ID for prose reasons but I can add a second source.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Start in politics
  • "Although Democrats generally won Marion County's offices, Harding ran for auditor in 1895, losing, but doing better than expected." The "although" is confusing here. Maybe "Democrats generally won Marion County's offices; when Harding ran for auditor in 1895, he lost, but did better than expected."
Ohio state leader
  • "On the 22nd, Harding in the Star turned tail and declared for Taft, deeming Foraker defeated." "Turned tail" is a little casual. Maybe "reversed himself"?
Judicial appointments
  • Is there a way to place both hatnotes at the top? It looks kind of sloppy to have the one in the middle, followed by a one-sentence paragraph.
  • Other than a few minor copyedits, that's all I have. Nice article, I look forward to seeing it at FAC. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • One last thing: you have Graff among the sources, but never actually cite to it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will work through these as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Mr.,

I thank you for your work about Harding. It is a very excellent work. However, try to involve more details about Historical view by including some quotes and citations.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but there are some?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please see Maranell, G. M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An extension of the Schlesinger polls. The Journal of American History, 57(1), 104-113.‏, Coolidge, C., & Hoover, H. (1923). Warren G. Harding. Journal of Education, 663-663.‏, Downes, R. C. (1970). Rise of Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1865-1920. The Ohio State University Press.‏, Morello, J. A. (2001). Selling the President, 1920: Albert D. Lasker, advertising, and the election of Warren G. Harding (Vol. 1920). Greenwood Publishing Group.‏, Mee Jr, C. L. (2014). The Ohio Gang: The World of Warren G. Harding. Rowman & Littlefield.‏, Bagby, W. M. (1955). The" Smoke Filled Room" and the Nomination of Warren G. Harding. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 657-674.‏, Grieb, K. J. (1969). Warren G. Harding and the Dominican Republic US Withdrawal, 1921-1923. Journal of Inter-American Studies, 425-440.‏ and Harding, W. G. (1920). Less Government in Business and More Business in Government. World's Work, 25-27.‏ would help you in that. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of these are already cited. I wanted a copy of Downes but did not find it conveniently, but his views were mentioned in other works. Downes only covered the pre-presidency and I'm not sure how much that plays into historical view (other than being shaped to fit the image of Harding as amiable dunce). I will work through the journal articles. Really, I think the 2014 source in the article, Coffey, covered it well. It's always very useful to find a source that discusses the other sources, because then you can't be accused of picking and choosing to suit your own views. I thought of including "legacy" but decided that Harding's legacy is itself something not agreed upon by his biographers (whether praise is due to Hughes or Harding for whatever credit is due for the naval conference, for example, or the blame for Teapot Dome) so the best lens for this article to focus on Harding in retrospect is how he is depicted in biographies. Open to other ideas. If there's something specific we are leaving out, let me please know as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Seems very well-sourced and detailed from a glance. While I found no copyright violations with the images, try to give more descriptive captions for File:Warren Harding c1882 age 17.jpg, File:Florence Kling Harding-01.jpg, File:Harding Memorial Marion Ohio.jpg, and File:Harry Daugherty, bw photo portrait 1920.jpg, especially since simply including names in a caption doesn't really give any benefit. I'll review the prose later this week, but out of curiosity, is there are any particular reason you aren't going for a GAN before FAC? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think FA is the goal and it will get more FA level review here. Thanks for your comments. I will look at them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's have a look at other bits:
  • For the infobox:
  • add when he married Florence
  • add "politician" to professions; he wasn't just a newspaper editor!
But that's basically true of any officeholder of more than minimal service. Isn't that taken for granted?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • remove "Baptist" since he wasn't really noted for his religious affiliations
  • No ... but I hesitate to remove it since people may come here looking for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For the lead:
  • "When not yet 20 years of age" is a bit wordy, try something like "Before turning 20 years old"
  • "The" is part of the title in The Marion Star, which should be fully italicized
  • I'd specify that the tour mentioned in "Harding died of heart disease in San Francisco while on a western tour" was to prepare for campaigning in the 1924 election
  • It had governmental purposes as well. A number of government departments had jurisdiction over Alaska Territory and Harding wanted to "see for himself" so as to be better able to decide competing claims. I've changed to "western speaking tour"--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For "Early life and career":
  • Under "Childhood and education":
  • "His paternal ancestors, mostly Baptists, migrated to Ohio around 1820" isn't really necessary
  • It would help to include the names of Harding's siblings
  • The sisters, while he was always close to them, really never played a part in his life outside Marion. I'm minded to keep them out.
  • While you don't necessarily have to go into extensive detail, I figured simply mentioning the names could help since the text says "Harding was the eldest of eight children", and readers would likely ask themselves what they were named after reading that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What was the last name of the great-great-grandfather Amos mentioned?

I'll be back with more later..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Under "Editor":
  • "Marion Daily Star" should read The Marion Star and doesn't need to be linked again per WP:OVERLINK since it was already linked within the article body
  • I think "socialized" would be a better word than "hobnobbed"
  • Socialized has a double meaning.
  • "Dr." from "with the financial aid of Dr. Harding" tends not to be used per WP:CREDENTIAL
  • It's used here for disambiguation.
  • When did Harding first meet Florence?
  • The sources do not say. They lived in the same town together for years ... they may not have known.
  • No need to include how much older Florence was
  • Brianboulton thought otherwise, see above.
  • Any particular reason Florence's mother's name isn't included? I understand mentioning Amos based on Harding's conflicts with him, though it seems somewhat incomplete to mention one parent but not the other.
  • I don't think she had enough affect on Harding's life directly to be included. Amos was a significant figure in Marion, probably notable.
  • "though who was pursuing whom is uncertain, depending on who later told the story of their romance" is unnecessary
  • Fits well with Harding as henpecked husband, for which there is some historical evidence.
  • "The" is part of the title for The New York Sun, which should be fully italicized
  • For "Rising politician (1897–1919)":
  • Under "State senator":
  • What was the sister's name from "He had his sister appointed a teacher at the Ohio School for the Blind"?
  • Under "U.S. senator":
  • Within "Election of 1914":
  • I don't think everyone reading this is automatically going to know what "conciliatory" means
  • For "Presidential election of 1920":
  • Under "General election campaign":
  • I'm not sure if "Harding/Coolidge ticket" complies with MOS:SLASH
  • It's common usage.
  • "William G. McAdoo" → William Gibbs McAdoo
  • The Gibbs is shortened in most sources that I've seen,
  • "So it proved:" is unnecessary
  • For "President (1921–1923)":
  • Under "Appointments and inauguration":
  • The second paragraph seems like it belongs in the previous section rather than here
It's difficult to place, but I think it best to jump from election to inauguration, then back and fill a bit.
  • I could be wrong, but something tells me the box for "The Harding Cabinet" should be in prose form instead.
  • Most president articles if not all have one, including a fistful of FAs. It would take FOREVER in prose to account for all the cabinet shifts, and incense reviewers, who did not like it when I tried a similar thing in McKinley.
  • Under "Domestic policy":
  • Expand or merge the two paragraphs within "Debs and political prisoners" and the two within "Judicial appointments" subsections per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which discourages really short paragraphs
  • We are not going to expand an already long article with filler to make paragraphs longer, and the prose does not conveniently allow for a merger. They are different subjects within a topic.
  • Under "Final months, death, and funeral":
  • Within "Political setbacks and western tour":
  • "lame duck" for lame-duck session should be hyphenated
  • Merge the last two paragraphs per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
  • Three sentences seems adequate for a final paragraph. I think we're getting into eye appeal here, which is a bit subjective.
  • Under "Scandals":
  • Within "Teapot Dome":
  • The last two paragraphs should be merged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
  • Adjusted instead.
  • For "Extramarital affairs"
  • "alleging that her child" → "alleging her daughter Elizabeth"
  • "deteriorated" would be better to use than "fallen badly" from "The late president's reputation had fallen badly"

That's about all from me. It is overall a well composed article, but needs some touching up before FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Where I haven't commented, I've implemented. The MOS is advice, for the most part, and does not bind us in every situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 June 2015, 13:56 UTC)----

Bahadur Shah I[edit]

I have added greatly to the article, now I want to promote it to GA and eventually FA. So I need suggestions.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Thanks for your work on this article! I'm not an expert on this area, and I'm sorry to say I don't have time to review the whole article, but I'll make what suggestions I can. Some issues of wording and grammar were easy for an outsider to fix, so I went ahead and did them; the suggestions below are for cases where the solutions weren't as clear.

  • "through his Hindu wife": This phrase appears twice, but a non-expert reading this page won't understand what its significance is. Is the point of the phrase to distinguish Begum Nawab Bai from Aurangzeb's other wives, or is there additional significance to the fact that she was Hindu rather than Muslim?
  • "Mu'azzam was born": This is the first time we've heard his birth name; it should also appear in the lead. See WP:OPENPARA.
  • "In the very year only": Do you mean "In the same year"?
  • "he attacked Pune", "he made him a prisoner": The grammar is unclear; I don't know which "he" refers to Mu'azzam and which one to Shivaji.
  • "came about the plot": Do you mean "learned of the plot"?
  • "This time also Aurangzeb followed the same policy to neutralize him, but his vigilance over him was increased": The reader will want more details here. Do you mean that Aurangzeb sent Nawab Bai to dissuade Mu'azzam from the rebellion? Did she succeed this time? Did the rebellion continue (with or without Mu'azzam), and did it cause any damage?
  • "He reabsorbed some his servants who were dismissed from job": Do you mean "He rehired some of the servants who had been previously sacked"?
  • For consistency, the book by Patwant Singh should be in the bibliography with the other sources, with a Template:Sfn reference. I can't add it, though, because there's another book by an author named Singh already in the bibliography. This problem can be fixed by adding the year of publication to each of your sources, which in fact is the standard Wikipedia policy. See WP:CITEHOW.
  • "He also sent a letter" and "he refused and was killed in a fight against him": Who are the "he" and "him" here? The grammar is unclear.
  • "bring him to the city": Again, I can't figure out who "him" refers to.
  • Finally WP:BTW says: "as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." Some terms are linked multiple times; those links can be removed.

Thanks again, and happy editing!--Lemuellio (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I didn't get to finish the article the first time around, here are some further thoughts:

  • "The Bahadur Shah Nama says": It would be good to explain what the Bahadur Shah Nama is.
  • "He was so enraged by it, he decided to wage a war against the king": The grammar is ambiguous; I can't tell if the sentence refers to Amar Singh being enraged by Shah calling him an unbeliever, or to Shah being enraged by Amar Singh fleeing to Udaipur.
  • "Taqarrub Khan reported it to him": Who is "him" in this sentence?
  • "In that same month, he started his journey": Who is "he" in this sentence?
  • "In reply he wrote a letter thanking him": Who are "he" and "him"?
  • "Records show that on 20 December, he had twenty five hundred cavalry": Who is "he" here?
  • "He made his son Jahandar Shah the commander of the vanguard, but was replaced by Khan Zaman": The grammar is ambiguous. Was it Jahandar Shah who was replaced? If so, why and when, and who made the replacement?
  • "Shah imprisoned him": Does "him" refer here to Bahadur or Bhup Prakash?

Best of luck with this article!--Lemuellio (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 12 June 2015, 14:30 UTC)----

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its neutrality should be checqued before its GAN.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Firstly, I am very disgusted and dissatisfied by ignorance of previous discussions. The map [30] was already widely discussed. The author Fakirbakir who uploaded this map (by the way showing sharp anti-Slovak attitude in the past, like statement that modern Slovakia is a neo-Nazi state and introducing hilarious things like transcription of country name into "Hungarian runes" in the lead in the article) was not able to provide any up to date relevant sources confirming the validity of the map in modern times, in the light of the modern research (the map is from 1938). On the other hand, its non-compliance with the modern research in Southern Slovakia was properly documented. The map was uploaded on 19 January 2013, 22:01:55 (!). The last request for sources mentioned above and proposal how to correct the problem is from 05:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC) (!!!). I accept other opinions but PLEASE, give us requested sources or respect that the map is really old and should not be used as an equal alternative for newer sources.Ditinili (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read Fakirbakir's remark here ([31]) which proves that Kniezsa's methodology is still regarded valid. If you read the conversation that began here [32] you will read that you exclusively mentioned Slovak historians' POV. Even so, you deleted my reference to this fact ([33]). You can also read in the same discussion that you only mentioned one or two Slovak historians who criticized Kniezsa's map. Even so, you deleted my template messages ([34]). Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Fakirbakir's remark did not bring anything new since this discussion [35]. He was repeatedly asked for sources and he did not do it. Did he? You are obliged to do it and not to discuss your personal opinions. Simply, sources provided until now were proven to be outdated and/or from the authors with questionable qualification for research performed in Slovakia and in one case I had proven that the modern author (Lajos Kiss) who should authorize this old map reccomended also publication with clearly opposite opinion.[36]
Instead of fixing the problem after several months you began to pretend that this discussion did not happen and again, someone's opinion and general statements should compensate his inability to provide requested sources. In addition to the fact that they were not provided from Fakirbakir's side, he carefully removed any mention about non-compliance with the modern research (properly sourced) [37]. Your "reference removed by me" was a shameless trial to relativize the research results. I have clearly declared that this is not about the nationality of the historians, but about the research performed in the region. It does not matter if the author was Hungarian, Slovak, Chinese, Inuit or other. If you want some clarification or sources, please return to the text removed by Fakirbakir from the map description of Wikipedia commons or to the talk page. Curiously and this is the most interesting part, it seems that I am the only one who tried to properly source the current research results. I strongly recommend you to do the same. Ditinili (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read my above remarks, especially my reference to Fakirbakir's remark ([38]). Please remember that I did not insist on referring to the nationality of the Slovak historians, but you refused to accept the alternative solution as well ([39]). Please feel free to map the results of Slovak historians' research. And finally, please try to be civil when communicating with your coeditors. Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I had read them very carefully - Fakirbakir's sentence cannot compensate a lack of real sources. I have refused your second proposal because I had no idea that Fakirbakir already removed properly sourced content right from the Wikimedia Commons, where there was already a sourced explanation. Ditinili (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kniezsa's views are not criticized only by Slovak authors, but also by the Hungarian historian Gyula Kristó in his paper "THE PEOPLES OF HUNGARY IN THE DAYS OF SAINT STEPHEN". Gyula Kristó's paper provides a criticism of Istvan Kniezsa's paper published in 1938 on the question of ethnicity in Hungary in the 11th century. The author states that Kniezsa, despite his own intentions, depicted the peoples of the late Arpád era, i.e., 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, instead of the early Arpád era, i.e., 11th century.. (the quote is from Századok, Volume 134, Issues 1-3, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2000 - Hungary) (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Valéria Tóth, Debrecen University, Hungary. Changes of the Hungarian Settlement Names: "The method developed for the examination of settlement names by ISTVÁN KNIEZSA in the first half of the twentieth century, and which was later called historical toponymic typology by his main critic, GYULA KRISTÓ (1976: 3), has been undermined by time and it has essentially become groundless in today’s science, in the first place because of its chronological rigidity. Its renewal and rethinking is an absolutely indispensable task not only for the toponomastics or philological historiography, but also for other related sciences, since they have built significant conclusions upon the findings of name typology: mainly the representatives of historical science, as well, who have relied on onomastics principally in questions of settlement and population history."[40]-- (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 June 2015, 02:24 UTC)----


I've listed this article for peer review because i'm considering nominating it for GA and would like suggestions from other users on how it can be further improved.

Thanks, Krakkos (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Just adding a few points for now. Some people apparently frown on decorative quotation marks per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE even if I rather like them (I'm not quite sure what the difference is between a pull quote and block quote), so use {{quote}} instead if someone wants it changed. There is still the issue with excessive number of cites after a sentence in the Language section, some ways need to be found to trim them. You can add a few in the lead. A couple of paragraphs that need sources would require fixing. I tried looking for them in Hanshu, saw parts of it, but it is not an easy book to read and I probably missed the rest. Hzh (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hzh: I've reduced the overcitation in the relevant paragraph by preserving the top-notch sources and/or removing sources used elsewhere in the article. I've also changed quoting format to {{quote}}. If you could mention which paragraphs that require improved sources i'd be happy to try to remedy this issue. Krakkos (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a citation needed tag in one paragraph and a dubious tag in another in the "The Wusun as Han allies" subsection, those would need to be fixed. The information is probably around somewhere in Hanshu (I saw a part of it in there), but it would still need to be checked against sources. Hzh (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Also note that the Sino-Platonic Papers was written by Zhou Jixu, not Mair (Mair is the editor, but that doesn't necessarily mean he subscribes to Zhou's idea). I don't know if Zhou is well-established in the field, so I'm not sure if it would be wise to make him so prominent. Hzh (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hzh: I added a citation to the unsourced paragrah by citing a source already used. The dubious tag was added by me, but i've removed that tag since i've (hopefully) verified the information through an appearantly reliable English-language source. I've also specified that Jixu is the only author of the above-mentioned paper, and trimmed down the undue references to his theories. Krakkos (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 June 2015, 21:04 UTC)----

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


Hi! I've been working for a while on this article on crested and marbled newts and would eventually like to submit it as FAC. It could probably do with some improvements of language and style, but all your comments, contributions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Tylototriton (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 30 June 2015, 13:50 UTC)----

Breeding back[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed it has no rating on the quality scale. After viewing it for some time, I suggest that it should be eligible for C-class.

Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 00:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just do it, no need for a peer review. It's start or C, but PR is for article improvements not to discuss assessment. Montanabw(talk) 23:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I wish I knew that earlier... Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion closed I guess. Does this still count on my one peer review nomination per editor? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 04:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you close it, then you can have another one! Montanabw(talk) 07:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 June 2015, 00:40 UTC)----

Forces on sails[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because there is near constant, ongoing debate within the sailing community over the exact nature of the forces which act upon sails. As a result I believe that this article would benefit from scientific peer review.

Thanks, Chalexthegreat (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from starship.paint

  • Not an expert, sorry Chalexthegreat. Some unsourced stuff which was not pointed out already: 1) Theoretical results require empirical confirmation with wind tunnel tests on scale models and full-scale testing of sails. 2) Role of wind section. 3) Net aerodynamic force section. 4) Contribution of lift to the progress of the vessel section.
  • Overall is simply a huge article with many unreferenced sections. Trimming may be useful. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jo-Jo Eumerus

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 June 2015, 01:45 UTC)----

Language and literature[edit]

Moonraker (novel)[edit]

Moonraker is the fourth third in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. It was one of Fleming's more personal novels and is set in two places he loved: the clubland of London and the countryside of Kent. It stands out from his other works for being the only Bond novel solely based in England, and the only one where Bond doesn't get the girl at the end. This has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous two Bond novels, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. A visit to FAC is the post-PR aim. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahem, third in the series, no...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks Ian! – SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Present or past tense
    • Your descriptions of the plot vary: in the lead "the latter was caught cheating" but the main text this is in the present tense. Likewise Drax's narration to Bond starts off in the present ("Drax tells Bond that") but after – naturally – going into the past tense for Drax's wartime doings, we stay in the past tense when we return to the current narrative: "He explained that he now meant … He also planned to play".
  • Lead
    • "third novel by British author Ian Fleming" – conspicuous false title here. Suggest: "… third novel by the British author Ian Fleming featuring his fictional British…" There's another false title in the second para, for Drax.
  • Plot
    • "deck of stacked cards" – does Fleming use the American "deck" rather than the British "pack"?
    • I'm a bit fogged about what is on the front of the missile that kills Drax and co. You say "supposedly un-armed" (the OED doesn't hyphenate that, by the way), implying that it actually is armed. But not with a nuclear warhead, presumably? Or is it unarmed and its mere velocity does for the submarine?
    • "re-target" and "de-briefing" – the OED doesn't hyphenate them either.
  • Style
    • There's more uncertainty about tenses here: "Benson felt" but "Black sees"
  • Background
    • "to discuss the traits of megalomaniacs, and came away with information on diastema" – this seems rather a non-sequitur: one is left wondering what a dental condition has got to do with a mental one.
    • Is the author's state of health (third para) relevant?
    • There is an article on Wren Howard you can link to if you want to.
  • Plot inspirations
    • Image – for my money File:Boodle's.JPG is a stronger image than the present one. What think you?
  • Characters
    • "the two writers Kingsley Amis and Benson" – I think you can safely lose the "two"
  • Reception
    • "Noël Coward" – far be it from me to discourage links to that excellent article, but we've already had a link to it in Background.
    • "On the down side, however" – is there a hint of WP:EDITORIAL here? I think the sentence would work perfectly well without these five words.
    • "utterly disgraceful – and highly enjoyable" – I think according to the MoS you can and probably should change the spaced en-dash into an unspaced em-dash to match the form elsewhere in the article.
  • Adaptations
    • "novelization based upon a film; entitled James Bond and Moonraker" – the semicolon seems odd, and leaves the last bit of the sentence without a main verb. Something like "this was" after the semicolon would do the trick. (As a purely personal preference, I'd make "upon" just "on".)
  • Notes
    • The CPI is linked twice.

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article, and I think others will too. Please let me know when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 09:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir! Thank you kindly - I shall work on these today. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 28 July 2015, 22:19 UTC)----

Kurt Vonnegut[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get this to FAC. I've been working with Wehwalt to get this article improved. Started work in the userspace (see here) I think it covers all the paces that an article of this calibre should, and I would like for it to become the best possible article.

Thanks, ceradon (talkcontribs) 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to let Brian take first whack, since I"ve had some involvement and some forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

This is my first set of comments – other instalments will follow:

  • The quote marks around "14 novels, three short story collections..." etc are entirely unnecessary. This is simply a summary of Vonnegut's output, not a critical comment.
    • done
  • You should mix numerals and text for numbers, as you do in the "14 novels, three short story..." sentence. Thus "fourteen novels..." etc
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify please?
      • I think Brian has missed out a "not": you should not mix numerals and text for numbers. "14 ... three" should both be numerals or text. – SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • That is indeed the case. Sorry to have caused confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actual quotes in the lead, as in the third paragraph should normally be cited in the usual way. However, I see that you have used the same direct quotation in the main text. Once is enough; I suggest you find a paraphrase for use in the lead.
    • done
Family and early life
  • "quite successful" – a little vague, unencyclopedic. I'd leave this out, thus: "the architecture firm under Kurt, Sr. designed such buildings as..." etc
    • done
  • What does "impeccably prosperous" mean? Too idiosyncratic, I feel, for an encyclopedia!
    • done
  • "Kurt, Sr. married Edith Lieber on November 22, 1913." This is unnecessary detail, not relevant at this point.
    • done
  • "He was not begrudged at this" – to begrudge is to envy someone something, or to act unwillingly, e.g. "begrudgingly". It is not possible to be begrudged. You might say "He did not begrudge this", or otherwise rephrase.
    • done
  • "both of his parents" → "both his parents"
    • done
  • Whose description is "dreamy artist", and whose quotation is "as corrosive as hydrochloric acid"?
    • done
Second World War
  • You should spell out ROTC – it's not a known acronym outside the US, and readers shouldn't be dependent on links for basic information
    • done
  • "...a satirical article in Cornell's newspaper and poor grades cost him his place there". Do you mean "put his place in jeopardy", as you go on to say "should he leave", and later that he was on "academic probation", and that he dropped out months later?
    • What was meant was that a the satirical article and poor grades cost him his place with the ROTC, not Cornell.
  • I think he would have received instruction at, rather than from, the institutions that you name, since he presumably went there rather than the other way round.
    • done
  • Uncited quotation at the end of the first paragraph.
    • done
  • "Vonnegut had little time to grieve" – editorial commentary should be avoided
    • done
  • You could just say that he was captured, avoiding the rather awkward construction "the German (Wehrmacht) army"
    • done
  • "on-foot" is not a hyphenated term
    • done
Marriage and early employment
  • "Neither of them would finish their degrees" → "Neither of them finished their degrees" (simple past tense). And the following "however" is unnecessary.
    • done
  • "Jane dropped out of the school after becoming pregnant with the couple's first son, Mark (born May 1947), and after Kurt's master's thesis, titled "Fluctuations Between Good and Evil in Simple Tales," which analyzed the "Ghost Dance" religious movement among Native Americans and an 1890 war associated with it, was unanimously rejected by the University of Chicago, he left the university without his degree." This is a monstrously long sentence. You don't need the words by the University of Chicago, for a start, and you don't need the thesis title and a summary of its content. Something like: "Jane dropped out of the school after becoming pregnant with the couple's first son, Mark (born May 1947), and after Kurt's master's thesis, which analyzed the "Ghost Dance" religious movement among Native Americans t, was unanimously rejected, he left the university without his degree" would be acceptable.
    • done
  • In this section, Vonnegut becomes "Kurt", and then "Vonnegut" again. I don't see any reason for this variation
    • done
  • What is the source for your equivalent present-day values? Personally, I don't find these figures useful or necessary, and would drop them altogether, but if you do keep them they should be cited to a source.
    • Well, it used {{Inflation}}. In any event, I've removed it.
Vonnegut's first novel
  • Title does not conform to MOS, and should be adjusted to "First novel"
    • done
  • "The novel is set after a third world war, where factory workers have been replaced in favor of automated machines". Needs some polishing. Something like: "The novel has a post-third world war setting, in which factory workers have been replaced by machines".
    • done
  • You should use the literary present tense when discussing the book, e.g. "Player Piano draws upon Vonnegut's experience...He satirizes..."etc
    • done
  • "Several editions were printed—one by Bantam with the title Utopia 14, and another by the Doubleday Science Fiction Book Club—Vonnegut gained the repute of a science fiction writer, a genre resented by literature contemporaries". Something missing here. When dashes are used to enclose an inserted clause, the rest of the sentense should parse properly without the insertion. "Several editions were printed Vonnegut gained the repute of a science fiction writer, a genre resented by literature contemporaries" does not. Adding the word "whereby" after the closing dash might do the trick.
    • done

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


Struggling writer
  • "...a second daughter and third child was born to Kurt and Jane Vonnegut, whom they named Nanette" → "a second daughter and third child was born to the couple, whom they named Nanette".
    • done
  • "The Sirens of Titan (1959) which features a Martian invasion of Earth, as arranged by a bored millionaire, Malachi Constant, who desires to build a new religion." Delete "which" to correct the syntax.
    • done
  • The plot summaries are considerably overdetailed. I would reduce each of them to a brief couple of sentences, at most. This is the "life" section of th article, not the lit. crit
    • done
Release of Slaughterhouse-Five
  • "By the time he won it" → "At the time he won it"
    • done
  • Citation needed at end of first paragraph
    • done
  • Despite the section title you don't mention the "release" of this novel. A little more background, e.g.when he wrote the novel, and more precise details of its publication, would be useful
    • He had been trying to write it ever since 1945, when he returned for the war, but could never get anything he was happy with. I could add details about the various drafts. I've added the year the book was published and that it was published amidst the Vietnam War. Good?
Later career and life
  • Is this title apt? In 1969 Vonnegut was 47 and had 38 years of life left – can we really describe all this period as his "later life"?
    • Changed to "Later career and events"
  • "lolled about" – not encylopedic
    • No it is not. Changed to "embraced"
  • converted to Christianity suggests previous adherence to another faith, which is not suggested by the earlier text. Perhaps "embraced Christianity"?
    • done
  • "orthogonal" – better to use a simpler term. I'm not sure, anyway, that "orthogonal" (at right angles) is appropriate. Perhaps "opposite" or "contrary"
    • done
  • "when five of their six children were out of the house" – what does this mean? Is it: "with five of their six children having left home..."?
    • done
  • Whose is being quoted in "other sorts of seemingly important work to do." ?
    • Vonnegut. Added.
  • "Afterwards though, the two remained friends until Jane Vonnegut's death". Delete "though", and add a date for Jane's death
    • done
  • Chronology awry. Having dealt with the marital separation in 1971, and Mark's breakdown in 1972, we are suddenly back in October 1970, for the play. As the play was clearly written well before either of these disruptive events, it's not convincing to present it as the product of "painfully slow progress" with his new novel.
    • Rearranged it a bit.
  • "Vonnegut was disgruntled by how personal his detractors's complaints were" → "Vonnegut was disgruntled by the personal nature of his detractors' complaints".
    • done

I hope to conclude with a final set of comments, shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

These are my final words of wisdom:

  • "He did finally meet his end" → "He died..."
  • Why do we summarise Vonnegut's output "according to TIME"? Just summarise it, and cite to TIME
  • In the final paragraph delete unnecessary "as well", and also "According to The Atlantic" (not needed)
  • Why did the Island Trees Union Free School District ban Vonnegut's books?
  • "When a Republic, Missouri-based school board..." – that's awfully hard for a non-American to read. Suggest switch: "When a school board in Republic, Missouri..."
  • Last sentence of first para: this needs to be past tense, as Vonnegut is no longer with us. "Vonnegut did not disdain..." etc
  • "Religion has also played a role in Vonengut's personal life. He went to a Unitarian church for a time, was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association..." – the latter is by no means a religious organisation!
  • I can't answer for the US perspective, but in many societies socialism is a "conventional political ideology". I'd replace "conventional" with "mainstream"
  • Brit spelling of "favour"
Writing influences
  • The quote: "a lot of pulp fiction..." etc needs attribution
  • I'd split the sentence at the end of this quotation, and continue: "He also read the Classics, particularly Aristophanes, who, like Vonnegut..." etc
  • "In regards to" is frowned on by stylists. "With regard to" would be better, but personally I would simplify to "As to...".
  • Delete the "even" in "even admitted"
  • "Early on, Vonnegut decided to model his style after Henry David Thoreau, who wrote from the perspective of a child, which allowed his works to be more widely comprehensible." Does the last clause ("which allowed his works..." etc) relate to Vonnegut or Thoreau? Also, the judgement that Thoreau wrote from the perspective of a child should be attributed.
  • "Finally, Vonnegut cites learning of newspaper magnate H. L. Mencken persuaded him to become a journalist." Not a grammatical sentence as it stands. I can't actually work out what it means.
Style and technique
  • "remarkably" → WP:WEASEL
  • "Among Vonnegut's most prominent and well-known techniques is humor". Sounds a bit promotional, that. I would replace with: "On Vonnegut's uses of humor, in the introduction to..." etc
  • Delete "it's said".
  • "the average science fiction" → "conventional science fiction"
  • "Postmodernism often entails a response to the theory that "science can reveal the truth about the world." Attribute.
  • "They contend that..." There is no "they" in sight that I can see.
  • I'm not sure what you mean, in the first line, by "man's societies". Why not: "Several key social themes recur in Vonnegut's works..." etc?
  • "among a society's members" is redundant
  • " is hard-pressed to decipher which set of character's circumstances are worse". This is lit crit writing. To neutralize it you could say; "...the issue is to dtermine which..." etc
  • Sentences should not begin with "And..."
  • " Marvin states further that when a "hereditary aristocracy" develops, where wealth is inherited along familial lines, it "depriv[es] other Americans of the opportunity to rise out of poverty." This statement of Marvin's needs to be specifically related to Vonnegut's writing, rather than as a summary of Marvin's beliefs.
  • "all Americans are apart of a large extended families" – can you disentangle?
  • "Great Depression" should be wikilinked, not here but in he Early life section where the wording first occurs.
  • "terrible devastation" – again mindful of the weasel, I'd drop the adjective
  • "when they loss their jobs" ??
  • Best remind us what "GE" is. And why the switch to present tense {"Vonnegut witnesses..."?
  • "He confronts these things in his works through the burgeoning use of automation and its effects". Something missing, perhaps: " He confronts these things in his works through references to the burgeoning use of automation and its effects"
  • "an architect kills himself after a software that can replace him is made". Clumsy – "a software" is wrong, and we don't normally refer to software as being "made". Try: "an architect kills himself when his functions are replaced by computer software".
  • "Trout's theory is incomplete..." Not incomplete. Perhaps "curious" or "paradoxical"

I found the article generally most instructive about a writer whom previously I have known only by reputation. With a little polishing, this should make a fine FA. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I wen through the article and corrected the points you brought up. Thank you very much for your review. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: go through your references. There are several harv errors (i.e. your short footnotes don't match anything in your reference list) and several references which have an accessdate but no URL; you'll need to add a URL or nix the access date to fix those. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing to that tool. Very useful. All the HARV errors have been fixed. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Happy to help. It IS a useful tool :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I know little of Vonnegut's work, so can't comment on the specifics of his life in terms of omissions etc, but you seem to have covered him admirably well, as far as I can see. Once general comment: there are five uses of "however" in the text, which tends to act as a red flag to some reviewers (especially when it appears at the beginning of a sentence), so go through and make sure you actually need all of them.

Second World War

  • You refer in the text to "World War I" and "World War II", but then have a section title of "Second World War"
    • done
  • As it's only used once, I'm not sure you need to use "(ROTC)" after the full name.
    • done

Struggling writer

  • "reflected family and emotional stresses Vonnegut was going through at the time": what stresses?
    • I honestly have no idea. I don't have access to that source. Wehwalt says he'll be back in a few days, I guess he'll handle that then. My sources aren't helping.


  • "March 1967, Vonnegut" -> "he"
    • done


  • You mostly use the format "pp. 123–124", but on occasion drop to "pp. 123–24". While both are correct, you should be consistent on whether to use 2 or 3 digits in the second figure.
    • done
  • FN 84 needs a pp., not p.
    • done

Done to the end of Slaughterhouse-Five: more to follow anon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Later career and events

  • "the two remained friends until Jane Vonnegut's death": you can remove "Vonnegut's" and refer to her as Jane
    • done
  • "Soon, Vonnegut stopped writing the novel altogether.[50] When the darkly comical Breakfast of Champions was finally released": I'd add a date or two, or a timeframe of how long between stopping writing and re-starting, and possibly a word or two of background as to how he can to re-start. (It jars a little to be told he stopped writing, and then it being published). You should also add a publishing date too.
    • done

Death and legacy

  • "The fall of 2011..." Per WP:SEASON you should avoid referring to a particular season: if a month is available, that's preferable, if not, then "Late 2011…" should suffice.
    • done
  • Slaughterhouse-Five, has been "banned or challenged on at least 18 occasions." I'm not sure there is any need for a quote on this – you can re-word fairly easily.
    • done


  • "pulp fiction is a disambig
    • done
  • "enemy in the first and second World Wars": I think the capitals here are slightly out: World War is only capitalised when used as a title, not as a descriptive term
    • done
  • "Early on" is a little vague (i.e. in his life, his career...?) It's sort of self-explanatory in the section, but still worth a tweak to clarify
    • done

Style and technique

  • "...offer that Kurt Vonnegut was not ...": drop the Kurt
    • done

Done down to "Themes": the rest to follow this evening. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And now finishing...


  • The false titles will be adversely commented on at FAC. Either have them as sub-titles or get rid of them altogether.
    • removed completely
  • "in Hocus Pocus, the protagonist is named Eugene Debs Hartke, a homage to Vonnegut's socialist views." This reads as if the name is the homage: is that the case? If so, I'm not sure what the connection is; is the protagonist himself the homage? If so, then this needs a tweak
    • added a reference to Eugene V. Debs the socialist. The name itself is the homage.
  • "The meaning of life"; titles shouldn't really have links, especially if the link is only part of the title
    • done

That's it from me: a very interesting read. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 20 July 2015, 04:05 UTC)----

Tunisian Arabic[edit]

I had posted this work for peer review because I had added several parts to it. So, I want that these parts would be adjusted very soon... I will try to review the remaining parts. However, this will not be very efficient if you do not give your opinion about the current version itself.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 July 2015, 11:53 UTC)----

Colin Wilson[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been done on it recently and I was wondering how it could be further improved.

Thanks, OlduvaiGeorge (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde

I don't have time for a full review right now (will try and remember to give a more comprehensive one later), but I've got a few brief comments:

  • The lead is very brief and should be expanded. It needs to adequately summarise the article.
  • The bibliography seems to be a copy of Bibliography of Colin Wilson and doesn't seem to add all that much. It's also unreferenced
  • There is a large list of further reading and external links. I'm not sure what purpose these serve. If some can be used as references then I encourage that (with appropriate inline citations), but otherwise it may be worth cutting those lists. (see MOS:FOOTERS)

That's all I have for now. -- Shudde talk 11:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 June 2015, 18:09 UTC)----

Sherry Thomas[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article and I want to get an idea for general improvement and best practices so I can then replicate it to other author bios.

Thanks, plange (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Thomas's family was from southern China but lived in northern China, where she was born - use localities/regions - will avoid repetitive use of "China" here and in sentences following
  • Add what language she spoke growing up.
Thanks! Unfortunately that's as specific as she got in that source, but I'll keep looking to see if another mentions either of these. Thanks! plange (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Found the city where she grew up and added it. Still haven't found one on language... plange (talk)

Comments from Ugog Nizdast[edit]

  • Ref 26, 27, 28, 29 are bare urls. Format them.
  • This is a bio page, so it should primarily contain such material. I'm seeing sections for each of her work's reception, this might count as a COATRACK. The books themselves can have their own article if they pass NBOOK but otherwise this may need trimming. Also, they will need to be merged into the Writing career section. If the book article exists, the content should be summarised here.
  • The lead section has three quotes which are unattributed. Either summarise them in your own words or mention who is saying it, see ATTRIBUTEPOV. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback--I've fleshed out the refs (had added those on my tablet and forgot to come back on my desktop to fill them out); made separate articles for 2 books and moved rest to writing career (will keep working on this to either make separate articles or move some of this to general discussion about themes and writing style); attributed quotes in lead. plange (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 2 June 2015, 01:21 UTC)----

Octave Uzanne[edit]

Hello. I've been translating this article from eswiki, and I need a peer review because I wantes nominated it for GA (article was also nominated in the Spanish Wikipedia). Article may be translation problems (I am not a native speaker), but I want to help solve it.

Thanks, Jacobo Vásquez  talk  02:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I never cease to admire how capably many Wikipedia editors write in languages other than their own. That said, this article could do with a few tweaks to make the English idiomatic. I'd be happy to do this if you would like me to, Jacobo. Tim riley talk 11:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Jacobo Vásquez  talk  03:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have copy-edited as best I can. In two places I was unable to work out what the text was intended to convey. The first is the de Gourmont 1927 quote box. I have removed the first sentence - though of course put it back if you wish - and I am not sure what the last sentence is intended to mean. The other bit I couldn't make sense of is "in relation to their work on women, Uzanne would not have been of such authors "exalted ragweed without tasting"," of which I can't make any sense whatever. If you can add here (on this peer review page) the original French, I can have a go at translating it into English (with a little help from friends who speak better French than I do). Tim riley talk 07:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of Gourmont is: « Uzanne s'intéresse à tout, mais à bien le pénétrer, on s'aperçoit que c'est à l'art que tendent ses préoccupations les plus diverses. Il l'a cherché jusque dans l'agencement matériel des livres, jusque dans la toilette féminine. » And the original quote on celibacy and Uzanne comes from this fragment of de Gourmont 1912:

Avant d'entamer l'éloge du célibat, Octave Uzanne en a mené sagement la vie, plus prudent que les poètes qui vantèrent l'ambroisie sans y avoir goûté. Cette précaution suffirait à me mettre en confiance si je n'avais mille autres raisons pour écouter complaisamment ses discours. Un homme parle de ses expériences. C'est une philosophie colorée par le rêve, car où mettrait-on du rêve, si on n'en mettait dans l'amour ?

In eswiki we discussed it, and may need details of writing in English. Jacobo Vásquez  talk  17:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I chuckled to see how "ambrosia" - the food of the gods - got itself translated as ragweed (from the latter's botanical name.) That was easily fixed, and I've changed it accordingly. The Gourmont 1927 quote is trickier. A translation into English would have to be quite free, as what is idiomatic in French in this passage translates very awkwardly into English. You could say something like "Uzanne is interested in everything, but it is in various aspects of art that he is chiefly concerned. He has focused on the art of producing books and the art of the female toilette." But in all honesty I'd be inclined to leave it out. It doesn't really add much to what is now in the quote box. – Tim riley talk 13:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Jacobo Vásquez  talk  00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll go through the text again and copy-edit. Give me a day or two. Tim riley talk 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I feel sorry for not reading your message: I've been busy in eswiki. Jacobo Vásquez  talk  05:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 31 May 2015, 02:44 UTC)----

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Simeon of Verkhoturye[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to hear your suggestions and comments. It would be interesting to know if the article is understandable for English readers, or is there something you would like to know?

Thanks, Orel787 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 July 2015, 11:32 UTC)----

Aleister Crowley[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been rated GA for some time now but failed an FA last year. I'm hoping to send it off to FAC again in the near future, so a peer review of it beforehand would be appreciated.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: It doesn't seem that any of the points which I identified more than a year ago in an informal talkpage review have been addressed yet. I don't see much point in resuming the review, until this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A fair point Brian. If I may, I shall copy-and-paste your previous comments on the article here, so that I may work on them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "His father, Edward Crowley (1834–87), was trained as an engineer but never worked as one, instead owning shares in a lucrative family brewing business, Crowley's Alton Ales, which allowed him to retire before his son was born." Needs comprehensive rewriting. E.g.: "His father, Edward Crowley (1834–87), was trained as an engineer, but his share in a lucrative family brewing business, Crowley's Alton Ales, had allowed him to retire before his son was born."
    • I've changed this sentence to your suggested alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "At age 8" is an Americanism
  • "the preparatory Ebor school" → "the Ebor preparatory school"
  • "Inheriting a third of his father's wealth, he began misbehaving at school..." What is the causal relationship here?
  • "developed his interests" → "developed interests"
  • "Having adopted the name of Aleister over Edward, in October 1895 Crowley began a three-year course at Trinity College, Cambridge..." Again, how are these facts related?
  • Readers will be confused by the information that Crowley's tutor approved his transfer to a course that was not on the curriculum. So how/where did he study it?
  • Chess is a "sport"?
  • "Crowley also embraced his love of literature and poetry, becoming a particular fan of Richard Francis Burton and Percy Bysshe Shelley, and many of his own poems appeared in student publications The Granta, Cambridge Magazine, and Cantab." Again in need of a reconstruction job. There is particular awkwardness in the juxtaposition of the literary "embraced his love of" and the vernacular "a particular fan". I would suggest: "Crowley also embraced his love of literature and poetry, particularly the works of Richard Francis Burton and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Many of his own poems appeared in student publications such as The Granta, Cambridge Magazine, and Cantab."
  • "Another hobby was mountaineering" – this is redundant; his interest in mountaineering has already been establiahed.
  • The word "claim" or "claimed" appear to be much overused in the article. Try some synonyms, e.g. assert, declare, maintained, professed etc.
  • "Several biographers ... believed that this was the result of Crowley's first homosexual encounter, enabling him to recognise his bisexuality." I'd say "this experience", and rewrite the final clause: "which enabled him to..." etc
    • Changed to "experience", and changed the end of the sentence too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "They broke apart because Pollitt did not share Crowley's increasing interest in Western esotericism, something Crowley regretted for years." The nature of Crowley's regret is somewhat ambiguously expressed here.
  • "as he considered" → "as he was considering"

Comment on images[edit]

Comment on images: I would be interested in offering a full review, but, for now, just a comment on some images; these are things which will needed to be dealt with before FAC; image problems can (quite rightly) sink FAC nominations.

  • File:Aleister Crowley 1902 K2.jpg- While this is definitely PD in the EU because of the date of the author, we need to have some idea of the first publication to be clear about if/why it's PD in the US.
  • File:OTOlogo.png- This is a non-free image with a template rationale. The rationale is not appropriate for this use; if the image is required (and I'm not necessarily convinced it is!) it'll need a careful hand-written rationale.
  • File:Crowley unicursal hexagram.svg- The design looks complex enough to be copyrightable, to me. I am not clear why we should assume that this is PD.
  • File:Aleister Crowley's May Morn.jpg- This is a real problem. We're going to need some evidence of first publication and an indication of whether or not this is PD in the US.

You may remember that I had a bash at Crowley images in the past- I think this is something you're going to need to keep an eye on to stop problematic images sneaking through in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Prose comments from JM[edit]

  • "He married Rose Edith Kelly and they honeymooned in Cairo, Egypt in 1904" Both in 1904 or just the honeymoon?
  • I wonder whether you are running into NPOV issues referring to his parents as "ultra-conservative" and "fundamentalist".
  • "Following the death of their baby daughter in 1880, in 1881 the family" The family didn't have a daughter- the parents had a daughter.
  • Is your link to the right publication called The Cambridge Magazine? The linked publication seems to have been established a few years after Crowley left Cambridge.
  • "They broke apart because Pollitt did not share Crowley's increasing interest in Western esotericism, something Crowley regretted for years." He regretted the breakup, or Pollitt's lack of interest?
  • "a piece of decadent erotica" is a little non-neutral, I feel. "that had to be printed abroad" is also sensationalist- better to simply say he chose to print it abroad.
  • "and the latter was a critical success" I'm unclear what you're referring to, here.
  • "from the London rebels" Non-neutral? Also the next line.
  • What was Why Jesus Wept? Another book of poems to woo Rose, or something else? Was it published? What year?
  • "Arabic and Islamic mysticism." Ambiguous- "the language of Arabic and the mysticism of Islam" or "both Arabic mysticism and Islamic mysticism"? (There will be better ways to phrase this. Wikilinks may be sufficient.)
  • "Crowley was astounded, for the exhibit's number was 666, the number of the beast in Christian belief." Too rhetorical
  • "According to later claims, on 8 April Crowley heard a disembodied voice claiming to be coming from Aiwass, an entity who was the messenger of Horus, or Hoor-Paar-Kraat." Later claims of his own? I feel that this is presented too uncritically.
  • "Crowley was unsure what to do with The Book of the Law, and often came to resent it. He ignored the instructions that it commanded him to perform, which included taking the Stele of Revealing from the museum, fortifying his own island, and translating the book into all the world's languages. Instead he sent typescripts of the work to several occultists he knew, and then "put aside the book with relief"." Again, this feels a little uncritical. I wonder whether this paragraph could be reworked to say first that he wrote the book and then that claims were made about disembodied voices and such. Surely, per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't be privileging the claim that Crowley actually heard the voices of deities.
  • "Crowley was proved right" Non-neutral. According to the article, he made a judgement call that it was too dangerous, not a prediction that they would be killed. There's an interesting discussion to be had about proving judgements, but I don't think this article is the place to do it! (Also, I think the word "mutinied" is too metaphorical/prosaic.)
  • I'm assuming that the books without dates weren't published? If this is not correct, there seems to be some inconsistency. The Scented Garden and Snowdrops From a Curate's Garden are some examples, but I think there are others.
  • "after shooting dead a native who tried to mug him" A bit colonial. Why not just "a man"?
  • "before sailing to Hong Kong" If they all went, rather than just Crowley, how about "before they sailed to Hong Kong"?
  • "Heartbroken" Non-neutral
  • "He began short-lived romances with actress Vera "Lola" Stepp and author Ada Leverson,[69] and Rose gave birth to Crowley's second daughter, Lola Zaza, in February 1907.[70]" Not entirely clear what the two halves of the sentence have to do with each other.
  • "an influential essay on "The Psychology of Hashish" (1909)." First, I don't like the way you use the title as part of the sentence, and, second, in what way was it influential? Academic literature in psychology(?), among occultists, or in some other way?
  • "resulting in two further texts, "Liber VII" and "Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente", which was later classified in the corpus of Holy Books of Thelema." Unclear. I'm struggling with the following sentences, too, and "In June 1909, when the manuscript of The Book of the Law was rediscovered at Boleskine, Crowley finally came to fully accept Thelema as objective truth.[75]" comes across as very pro-Thelema
  • "closest disciple and sexual partner" closest disciple and closest sexual partner, or closest disciple and a sexual partner?
  • "correspondences that borrowed from Mathers and Bennett" What does this mean? (Also, could we have a link to explain the term "Qabalistic"?)
  • "Francis Henry Everard Joseph Feilding" Is that one name or have you missed a comma?
  • "In March 1909, Crowley began production of a biannual periodical that acted as the "Official Organ" of the A∴A∴, titled The Equinox, which was billed as "The Review of Scientific Illuminism"." Could this be rephrased?
  • "both articles on occultism, non-fiction pieces, and artworks" "both" implies two
  • "Meanwhile, unable to stand her alcoholism, Crowley divorced Rose in November 1909, on the grounds of his own adultery." Non-neutral
  • "he performed the 19 Calls of Enochian magic" ??
  • "magical workings" ??
  • "and developed the spelling "magick" to differentiate what he practised from the tricks of illusionists" Again, this comes across a little pro-Crowley
  • "XI° level initiates" Undefined jargon
  • "the gods Mercury and Jupiter" Links?
  • "the working, among them Liber Agapé, a treatise on sex magic.[112] Following the Working" Inconsistency
  • " resulting in an argument in which Crowley cursed him.[113]" In the magical sense, I assume?
  • "In later years, detractors denounced Crowley as a traitor to Britain for this action.[122] In reality, Crowley was a double agent, working for the British intelligence services to infiltrate and undermine Germany's operation in New York. Many of his articles in The Fatherland were hyperbolic, for instance comparing Kaiser Wilhelm II to Jesus Christ; in July 1915 he orchestrated a publicity stunt – reported on by The New York Times – in which he declared independence for Ireland in front of the Statue of Liberty; the real intention was to make the German lobby appear ridiculous in the eyes of the American public.[123] It has been argued that he encouraged the German Navy to destroy the Lusitania, informing them that it would ensure the US stayed out of the war, while in reality hoping that it would bring the US into the war on Britain's side.[124]" Is there a clear academic consensus on these claims? The sources you cite don't seem ideal for such radical-sounding claims. (Also the later "aware of his intelligence work".)
  • "experienced past life memories" Claimed to, presumably.
  • "making various slanderous accusations against him, but he was unable to afford the legal fees to sue them. As a result, John Bull continued its attack, with the stories also being picked up by newspapers in North America and throughout Europe." This feels very pro-Crowley
  • What was To Man? The Heart of the Master?
  • "There, prominent members like Karl Germer and Martha Küntzel championed Crowley's leadership, but others opposed it, resulting in a split in the O.T.O." The fact you name "prominent" pro-Crowley members but name no anti-Crowley members feels pro-Crowley.
  • "He then returned to Berlin, where he reappeared three weeks later at the opening of his art exhibition at the Gallery Neumann-Nierendorf." By "reappeared", do you mean specifically that he came out as not really dead?
  • " Thelema revolves around the idea that human beings each have their own True Will that they should discover and pursue, and that this would exist in harmony with the Cosmic Will that pervades the universe." Why "would"?
  • "Lord Boleskine" You used "Laird" further up the article
  • "exotic women" If that's not a quote from Crowley himself, I don't think we should use it. It's very eurocentric.
  • " that people "must not be ashamed or afraid of being homosexual if he happens to be so at heart; he must not attempt to violate his own true nature because of public opinion, or medieval morality, or religious prejudice which would wish he were otherwise."" This should be "a person" or "a man" rather than "people".
  • "Also in Britain, an occultist known as Amado Crowley claimed to be Crowley's son; these claims have been refuted by academic investigation. Amado argued that Thelema was a false religion created by Crowley to hide his true esoteric teachings, which Amado claimed to be propagating" Is Dave Evans (author of the cited source) an academic?

Concerning the prose, I think that, in places, the article has a slight pro-Crowley/pro-Thelema leaning. Concerning the sources, I wonder whether there is more academic material out there from mainstream academic presses/mainstream peer-reviewed journals; while the reliance on biographies is inevitable, I think the incorporation of more academic work could be valuable. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 16 July 2015, 12:45 UTC)----

Pope Francis[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's about the current Pope, one of the most influential people in the world. The article should eventually be a featured one, if possible. I have made a lot of work with it, and proposed for GAN, that pointed many overlooked details about the references. I have fixed them, but I would like help to notice any other potential problems before nominating it again.

Thanks, Cambalachero (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from starship.paint

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 June 2015, 13:44 UTC)----

Social sciences and society[edit]

Murder of Ennis Cosby[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I created this article after being surprised it did not exist. If such a thing happened today, it would immediately have its own Wiki article with hundreds of editors updating it around the clock. Only one other person has edited this article since I created it. I would like to nominate it for FA, even though it's about an unfortunate event. It seems with all the drama and headlines surrounding Bill Cosby, people have forgotten about this tragedy.

Thanks, МандичкаYO 😜 05:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 July 2015, 05:41 UTC)----

Norodom Ranariddh[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because...

I have listed this article on GA review since February 2015 but there have been no editors that are willing to take this GA review. I have completed most of the work in February 2015, save for relatively minor edits and expansions thereafter. At this point of time, I have been trying to contact the subject of this person (H.R.H Norodom Ranariddh) to request for some of his portraits to be released under free licences such as cc-by-sa-3.0 or GFDL. I am confident that this article meets GA requirements, and as with many editors, the final goal would be to take this article to Featured Article status. However, I feel it would be better not to rush things as yet, as the nominator would need to check back on the nomination page on a regular basis, which I feel I am not quite emotionally prepared to do so due to other real-life commitments.

I would greatly appreciate reviews and feedbacks if there are any issues with the prose that maybe improved upon, citation issues to be in tandem with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Citing sources, or any other relevant areas that maybe improved upon. Please feel free to make edits that you may deem appropriate. A review would be very much appreciated to close up any loopholes as it would be difficult for one editor to be able to address and identify every single issue.....

Hope to gather your feedback and assistance, thanks, Mr Tan (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 July 2015, 18:09 UTC)----

Rajiv Gandhi[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 19 June 2015, 10:21 UTC)----

Elmer Ernest Southard[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm hoping to take this through an FA nomination soon, but I have very little FA experience. After a GOCE request, I was surprised at the number of syntax issues that were identified, but I was glad to have them addressed. I'm interested in any feedback that will improve the article.

Thanks, EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 19 June 2015, 01:36 UTC)----

Carl Jung[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am wishing to see what can be done to get it to at least a reasonable quality for GA status. The article is in a good condition, but take a look at the edition on the French Wikipedia (which has good article status) and compare it to the one here. Admittedly the frwiki version is stupidly long (~230,000 bytes!), but it an example of what we can get to.

Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 09:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast[edit]

  • I'm at section Early years and notice that there is much sourced to his autobiography so I'm seeing things like "Jung said that one night he saw a faintly luminous and indefinite figure...a head detached from the neck and floating in the air", "he believed that, like his mother, he had two personalities" "As a boy he carved a tiny mannequin into the end of the wooden ruler from his..." . As a layperson, I'm already lost among all this details. Is it necessary or out of scope? Can we rely on a primary source such as an autobiography? Enlighten me.
  • The are many duplicate references which can be bundled together. Also, aren't there good biographies on him which can be used a source?
  • Aside from above, the whole Biography section starts off with (perhaps excessive?) coverage of his childhood versus stubby subsections of his later life. This explains it well: Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Layout. There are too many subsections. The Auto PR seconds what I said.
  • I think what's needed is redoing the entire article structure. Let me roughly give it a shot: Stubby subsections can be merged. Sections covering subarticles can be summarised and show the main link. Something like a main Biography encompassing Early years, Educations and early career, Relationship with Freud, Travels, Marriage and later life, and Death. A main Works section covering things like Introversion etc. Another main one for his views. Finally, the Legacy and In popular culture.
  • London 1913-14, there's a cn tag. There are at least two more tags total. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 June 2015, 09:46 UTC)----

Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA status (featured article status is unfortunately probably beyond it - maybe featured list one day?). Suggestions for images would be especially welcome - it would be good to have things that aren't just maps, but I can't find any free images of the council leaders or the 2015 election proceedings.

Thanks, Smurrayinchester 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: On the English Wikipedia content must comply with US copyright law. US copyright law allows for the fairuse of copyrighted images. Here's the policy on non-free content being used Wikipedia:Non-free_content and here's an article discussing Fair use.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Smurrayinchester: - there are many tables in this article, starting with Summary of the May 2015 Cheshire West and Chester Council results and then the various Results by ward. Information in each table should be sourced to a reference, but I'm seeing apparently only two references for the multitude of tables? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good point. I'll cite each one to the appropriate page on the council website. Smurrayinchester 12:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay. Now, regarding Cheshire West and Chester (CWaC) had been governed since its formation in 2009 - considering the existence of Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2008, is this a typo for the year? Also, since there were only two prior elections, I think it wouldn't hurt to give a brief overview of the 2008 and 2011 elections in Background.
  • Plus, any analysis for the Liberal Democrats losing their seat...? Or reactions from Labour after their win? What is Labour going to do for the people now? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 29 May 2015, 21:42 UTC)----


NWA World Welterweight Championship[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping at some point in the future to take this to a Featured List. It is pattered after the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship article that is currently an FL and the NWA World Middleweight Championship article that's currently an FL Candidate. Once I steer the other article through this is next. Any and all help is appreciated, my biggest challenge is that English is not my native language so there are some grammatical issues I struggle with more than anything else and all help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,  MPJ-US  20:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 July 2015, 20:41 UTC)----

List of food days[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been significantly enhanced, and as prep for a possible WP:Featured Lists candidate.

Thanks, -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MPJ[edit]

My weakness is grammar, but my strength is lists and tables and formatting etc. so I took the table through the wringer to see what I could come up with


  • First thing the FL review will catch on to is the comment this list is incomplete and will probably not be able to get past this.
  • What is the rule for inclusion on the list? I mean everything I read about the "Hummus Day" for example does not indicate it's any kind of "official" day.
  • None of the tables are sortable, I think it would be appropriate to sort on at least some of the columns.
  • For FL each list entry needs to have reliable sources listed.
  • Tables are inconsistent - some have images, some don't, some have notes on origin etc, others do not
  • The tables are inconsistent in their inclusion of the name of the day in the local languages, some do, some don't.
  • With this being basically a "list of lists" I wish all tables were the same width etc. so they look consistent as you scroll down the list.
  • I get that the US list is longer, but why is that the only one broken down by month? Be consistent if it's going to have a hope of being a Featured List.
  • Note: One entry actually states "Hamburger Day was May 28, 2015!" so there are discrepancies in the list.

Good luck with this, there is a ton of work getting this to FL from what I can see.  MPJ-US  22:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh side note - Use the "External link" in the tool box. There are some that need to be addressed, dead and need registration especially. Also I believe the images used all need "alt text" to describe them?  MPJ-US  22:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Good review, thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 July 2015, 09:17 UTC)----

List of Major League Baseball players from Japan[edit]

Trying to get this list to FL status. It's not a huge list but it has a TON of information. I think the prose is pretty much done complete, just looking to clean it up and then help with formatting everything in the list to make it as clear as possible.

Thanks, --TorsodogTalk 04:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde

Some brief comments from me:

  • There is at least one duplicate link the lead (Hideo Nomo)
  • Of these players, ten are currently on MLB rosters. -- As per WP:RECENT I think it would be better to say, "Ten players are on MLB rosters for the 2015 Major League Baseball season." Or something similar.
  • exchange prospects this is jargon that could do with an explanation or link.
  • Is it "Minor league system", "Minor League system" or "minor league system" ?
  • Class-A team more jargon
  • this talent --> "him"?
  • basically a hands-off policy -- this may be a little bit colloquial and could probably do with some clarification
  • with Shinji Mori the only player not to have played in MLB due to injury. -- I think I know what you are trying to say here but it could definitely be worded better. He signed, but never played due to injury. It could be read as him being only one of many that never played, but the only one of those whose reason was injury.
  • The lead doesn't seem to omit any major points I'd expect to see so it's all good there.
  • Much of the material in the section Awards, records and notable accomplishments is not referenced via an inline citation, as well, it would probably be good to make clear what the inclusion criteria in this section ("notable accomplishments" is particularly vague). A small introduction could maybe address this.
  • Indicates the player was selected to the starting roster -- is it "selected to" or "selected in"? Is this an American English thing that's tripping me up?
  • The section World Series appearances lacks references. It's also not clear in this table what the bold teams in the "years" column represents (although I could guess). It would also probably help if this was formatted in such a way as the team and year all appeared on only one line.

Not sure if those comments will be useful but hopefully they'll help. -- Shudde talk 09:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 June 2015, 04:50 UTC)----

List of Dundee United F.C. managers[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently completed the statistics in the table, written supporting prose and added references, and would like to know if there is anything else that can be done to improve it before nominating it as a featured list. Thanks, Jellyman (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

I thank you for your works about the managers of FC Dundee United... The work is excellent and I think that the work can be a featured list in the coming years... However, there are some points to clarify...

  • Managerial History: The managerial history of the FC Dundee United is just a series of achievement citations. There are minor information about Managerial Crisis of the exceptional FC Dundee United... As you know, all clubs suffered from crisis in the period of the famous crisis of 1929... There are minor information about this... You have to proliferate this part and involve more information and quotes about managers... For quotes, you can consult some media reports about the club...
  • Managerial Achievements: Managerial Achievements are not just sportive ones... You have to mention if the managers had succeeded to find new and important sponsors for the team... You have to mention if the managers had succeeded to give more recognition to this important team... You can even indicate the most influencing ones in the listed standings... I think that this will ameliorate the final output of the work and let it more eligible to get FA Status...

I think that these information are efficient to ameliorate more the work. However, if you have any questions to ask, feel free to answer me here.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll see what I can come up with..! Jellyman (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MPJ[edit]

My weakness is grammar, but my strength is lists and tables and formatting etc. so I took the table through the wringer to see what I could come up with

  • Yugoslavia sorts by "Serbia", which is the article name not the displayed name - need to use the "{{sort|Yugoslavia|" functionality to fix that.
  • Dates sort is off, anything with a day sorts first, then those with month alphabetically, it should sort chronologically at all times oldest-to-youngest or youngest-to-oldest
  • The "P" column does not sort correctly. it sorts 1, 12, 122, 2, 20 etc.
  • This may just be my browser but once I sort W or D or something twice the sorting is stuck? that may not be something you can fix but it may be due to the 2 colspan sections?
  • Speaking of the two colspans - the should sort the same way across the board, to me as "less than zero".
  • You have not defined the last field on the line for Willie Macfayden, in IE it looks off and could do with the non-breaking space character.

If this is going to be a Featured List at some point these need to be addressed. If you run into problems I can work with you to fix them.  MPJ-US  21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Side note - Image "alt text" should not just be the same as the caption - the Alt text is for those that have pictures turned off or have vision issues and use aids to read articles. I believe they're supposed to describe the images?  MPJ-US  22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 June 2015, 08:44 UTC)----

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]