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.



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)

(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)

(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)

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

Everyday life[edit]

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)

(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]

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)

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

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

Mya (program)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I successfully nominated it for GA some time ago but would like to improve it further. If you would like me to review any PR or GAN in return for your peer review just mention it here at the end of your comments.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 June 2015, 04:40 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)

(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]

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)

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


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)

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)

(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)

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


Hitler Diaries[edit]

The story of the Hitler Diaries has twice been brought to the screen—both times as comedy/farce. There is much to laugh at as an inept and bungling forger managed to fox the brains of the world's media, and some heavyweight historians in the bargain. Even when read as straight prose, there are still enough moments of suspended disbelief to make you wonder whether the whole was a work of fiction. Sadly for those at Stern, the diaries were the only fictitious element in this story of incompetence, greed, bungling, ineptitude and mismanagement—with a dash of fraud and some old Nazis thrown in for good measure. This article has undergone a re-write in the last month or so, and all comments, thoughts and criticism is welcomed, before a hopeful trip to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian comments[edit]

Thank you SchroCat! I love this story and had been hoping to get to it myself eventually, but I'm very glad to see it has been taken up by a very capable colleague and look forward to having a look through. I will note comments as I read through.


  • Perhaps clarify we mean The Sunday Times of London or similar
  • "including two who had previously authenticated the diaries—raised questions over the validity of the diaries" repetition
  • "The diaries were purchased by Gerd Heidemann, a West German journalist with Stern, who had an obsession with the Nazis. Stern started buying the diaries," So did Heidemann buy them or did the magazine? Or did Stern buy them from Heidemann?
  • "as a result of the debacle" I think is not necessary, it is clear from the context


  • There wasn't an East or West Germany in 1938, when Kujau. Perhaps clarify that we mean what would become East Germany after the war.
  • Didn't his belief in Nazi ideals become problematic for Kujau after the war, when he lived under communism between the ages of 7 and 19? Presumably he kept quiet?
  • The wikilink to "luncheon vouchers" doesn't go anywhere. Perhaps try to find an alternative?
  • "On his release he and his wife formed the Lieblang Cleaning Company" What wife? We haven't mentioned his marriage yet. Do we mean Edith?
  • "at a routine check at Kujau's lodgings" a "routine check"? Why would the police randomly show up to check where somebody lives? Sounds more like East than West Germany. Perhaps expand on this (were such checks common at the time?)
  • "In 1970 Kujau visited his family in East Germany" He didn't spend too long in jail then? And wasn't it difficult to travel between West and East Germany?
  • "material", not "materiel"; the latter is a military term
  • "Communist" doesn't need a capital C
  • In footnote "c" we mention "both Kujaus"—we mean him and his wife? See my comment above.
  • He had "five pistols, a machine gun, a shotgun and three rifles" and was only fined? Wow! (no action)

Have to stop now, will continue later. Good read so far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for the delay.

Background, continued

  • Wikilink Deutsche Mark at first mention
  • We say in footnote "e" that Hitler painted in the trenches. But wasn't he actually a fairly serious art student before the war?
  • We should be clearer whether Kujau's brother really was an East German general or whether this was made up. (The wording could be taken to imply that the brother really was a general, and that Kujau was merely inventing the idea that he was a source for Nazi memorabilia.)
  • Footnote "h": why "Field marshal", with a small "m"?
  • We say Hitler was upset at "the loss of one of his favoured servants", but the quote seems to imply he was more concerned about the loss of the documents.

Production and sale of the diaries

  • "a German army wax seal" Wehrmacht, presumably? Or post-war Bundeswehr?

That's all for now—more later/tomorrow. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

  • "Priesack also showed the diary to Eberhard Jäckel of the University of Stuttgart, who also thought" repetition. suggest removing first instance of "also".
  • "News of the existence of the diary" perhaps "News of the diary's existence"
  • "soon began to filter through to the collectors of Hitler memorabilia" not sure you need "the" here
  • "had shown him round his collection" around, I think
  • "in which was a Hitler diary" perhaps "which included" or "and had" a Hitler diary
  • "Heidemann travelled to Stuttgart in January 1980, where Stiefel showed him the diary" perhaps "Stiefel showed Heidemann the diary in Stuttgart in January 1980"
  • "The collector acted as a go-between and spoke to Kujau" Don't think you need "acted as a go-between and"
  • "so they decided to look into the crash" perhaps "so they looked into the crash"
  • Perhaps wikilink Wieland der Schmied (libretto) or Wayland the Smith, or both, maybe with a footnote explaining the significance?
  • "he informed them that the source had been East Germany, unconnected to the diaries" the source had been East Germany? As in the East German government? Or is a word missing here?
  • "Primary among them was the two-volume work by the historian Max Domarus, Hitler: Reden und Proklamationen ... Kujau plagiarised this particularly heavily." Seems repetitive to me, like we are saying the same thing twice.
  • "Hamilton puts the date of delivery of the first diaries as mid-January" perhaps "Hamilton puts the delivery of the first diaries in mid-January"?
  • "for which Heidemann only gave him 35,000 marks, not the promised 120,000—40,000 marks per diary—from which Heidemann would also claim a 10% commission" this is not very clear; suggest redrawing.
  • "The following day the reporter delivered them" suggest clarifying what he delivered.
  • "Heidemann also entered into a private contract with Gruner + Jahr—one which was kept secret" we say "one of which", but "a private contract" is itself singular?
  • "to be handed on to the German government on his death" careful; it was still the West German government at this point (unless Hiedemann had foreknowledge of the wall coming down)
  • "the price rose from 85,000 marks to 100,000 marks" clarify if this is per volume
  • "convertible BMW" I'd say "BMW convertible" myself
  • clarify that the Elbchaussee is in Hamburg
  • "a Holocaust denialist" not Holocaust denier? or is this a direct quote?
  • "Heidemann requested a new title to the front page" check grammar?

Arrests and trial

  • "he took his wife and mistress to Austria" so they knew about each other? (the wife and mistress?)


  • Where did Kujau die, and from what?
  • "circulating round Cambridge" not around Cambridge?
  • A nice peroration to wind up the article would be nice.

I hope these comments are helpful. Thanks for the great read. I'll be keeping on eye on this as it hopefully marches on to FAC. Cheers! —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Reading through today, comments later. CassiantoTalk 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Image comments[edit]

(Peer review added on Friday 3 July 2015, 11:51 UTC)----

Jeremy Thorpe[edit]

A year or so ago I created Thorpe affair, a somewhat dismal account of the British Liberal Party leader's arraignment for conspiracy and incitement to murder. Last December Thorpe died, and a new biography came out – publication had been delayed by the libel laws. I thought this was a great opportunity to expand Thorpe's biographical article, and try to put his whole life into perspective. Well, here it is, I've done my best – but I suppose, inevitably, the things that will stick in readers' minds are the extraordinary events that ended his career. Comments warmly welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Very quick comment, as RL has me busy: check your references. There are mounds of HARV errors, particularly with the Freeman & Penrose book. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is my first solo attempt to bring my referencing methods out of the age of steam, and I am floundering somewhat. I will do what I can, but I may need further guidance here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (later) I believe I've fixed all those listed below by Wehwalt, except Freeman and Penrose, and Chippindale and Leigh. I've obviously misunderstood something about double authors, but I cannot work out what. Perhaps someone knowledgeable will oblige? Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (later still, midnight oil ablaze) I think I've cracked it now. So I can enjoy my day off tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few

  • "and was leader of the Liberal Party" possibly "and as leader of the Liberal Party"
  • The first paragraph contains "Trinity" three times. I think the middle one is not needed.
Barrister at law
  • "where he worked tirelssly" I'm doing this offline so must leave it to you.
  • Consecutive sentences in the final paragraph begin "However" and "although" which may be a bit too much contrasting.
  • "these sexual preferences" why the plural?
  • "link road" this may puzzle American readers.
  • "during the 1961–62" typo, again offline.
  • "East Africa, visiting both Zambia and Rhodesia" They qualify as East Africa? And given the mention of the federation two paragraphs ago, of which both were members, something could be said to connect it.
First phase
  • "When Grimond finally resigned, on 17 January 1967" possibly it was finally to Thorpe and the other leadership contenders, but I don't see that the text justifies the implication that he held on until his fingers had to be pried off. He had done well, considering.
  • " at the end of the first ballot," Why not "after" or "on" "the first ballot"?
  • "mismanagement fraud" This caused me to blink a bit as the phrase is new to me. How does this differ from ordinary fraud in business? For fraud to take place, someone's usually screwed up the supervision ...
  • The number of seats won by the Liberal Party in the February 1974 election should be stated as well as those by larger parties.
  • "by then destitute in London," perhaps "by then in London and destitute"
  • "his supposed ill-treatment" perhaps "his tale of ill-treatment"
  • "presented no threat" this possibly could be deemed by some a bit POV. Possibly another term of your choice that implies quiescence?
  • "and the large number of its recent supporters" "its" could probably be deleted
  • "Thorpe pressed for the involvement of representatives from the Patriotic Front in negotiations for a peaceful settlement to the long-running Rhodesian Bush War" As you do not link the front, you might want to give more of a hint of who these people are/were to save the reader from having to dive into a bush war to find out.
  • "sold his story the London Evening News." a "to" missing
  • " to the annyance"
  • Under the circumstances, you should mention how the Liberals did in the 1979 election, and if their performance was attributed to Thorpe and his activities, that is worth stating.
  • "began on 8 May," likely should add the year.
  • "the lawyer's first high-profile national case" I'm inclined to think "national" could be safely removed. There may be high-profile purely local cases.
  • "proscution's evidence from the committal hearings" prosecution. Presumably they heard other evidence as well, unless it "came to far more than the witnesses ever had said"?
Final years
  • "dying on 4 December 2014" the year probably need not be repeated, especially as you cue in the reader with "nine months".
  • " fall from grace" since the quote following uses the word "fall", possibly avoid that word here.
  • "in the 1970, maintained that in the repressive climate of the 1960s and 1970s" typo. Additionally, the 1960s and 1970s could probably be replaced by "repressive climate of the time".
  • Do any of the sources speak to the effect that the Thorpe affair had on the fortunes of the Liberal Party? Worth including, I would think, if so.
  • I am getting Harv errors via script for the footnotes dealing with Dorey 2009, Freeman and Penrose 1997, Stratton 2008, Moore 2014, Landale 2014, Chippendale and Leigh 1979, Murray 2015, Clegg 2013, Partington (ed.) 1996.
Quite good. Possibly a bit protective but it may be necessary to stop very real positives and personal achievements from being squashed by the elephant in the room.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 July 2015, 21:49 UTC)----


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA. It was recently copy-edited by the Guild of Copy Editors and I would appreciate any notes.

Thanks, --07:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Attar-Aram syria (talk)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 30 June 2015, 07:16 UTC)----


I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a lot of work on this important Anglo-Saxon king and I would like feedback on improvements needed to get it to FA quality.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Most of this article is an excellent read (the usual royal game of Happy Families, complete with recyclable mothers-in-law, if you please!) and if the layman glazes over a bit during the Decimation section, I really think that's something up with which we have to put. The detail and discussion are plainly needed and the topic just doesn't lend itself to jazzing up. If I were you I shouldn't worry about this in the slightest. A few other minor comments:

  • Is there a relevant map of the various kingdoms we could have in the Background section? It would break the text up and would be a useful aide-memoire when absorbing the to-ing and fro-ing between Mercia and Wessex.
  • I should have thought of this and will look into it.
  • I think I understand your policy on when to capitalise "King" and when not, but I think you might want to look again at "been appointed King of Kent" in "Family" alongside "issued a charter as king of Kent" in the first para of "Early life".
  • Done.
  • Possessives of people whose names end in s: we have Charles's but Abels'. I'm an ess-apostrophe-ess man, myself, but either way it would be as well to be consistent.
  • I am a whatever sounds right to me man and Charles's and Abels' sound right to me, but I take your point that it is better to be consistent and I have gone for Abels's.
  • Early life
    • only for King Wiglaf to recover his kingdom – I might drop the "King" before Wiglaf here.
    • Ceolnoth thus surrendered effective controls over his ministers – ministers as in priests or as in administrative functionaries? I wasn't sure of the import of this bit.
    Ah. I think it is ministers as in minister churches. Maybe I could change it to monasteries. Nortonius, can you advise?
Hello! I think both instances in that sentence (I haven't looked elsewhere in the article) should be "monasteries" for consistency, but you might want to pillage St Mary's Church, Reculver, for the quotation from Brooks (1984) on the subject, and add it to a footnote? Also I think it should be made clear that "Ceolnoth thus surrendered effective controls over his Kentish monasteries to Æthelwulf", although that does mean you'd have "Kentish" three times in the same sentence – I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nortonius. Changed as suggested. However I cannot see what quote from Brooks you are referring to. BTW you say in the St Mary's article "a compromise was reached between Archbishop Ceolnoth and King Egbert in 838, confirmed by his son Æthelwulf in 839, recognising Egbert and Æthelwulf as lay lords and protectors of monasteries and reserving spiritual lordship, particularly over election of abbots and abbesses, to bishops.". I don't think this is quite right. I took it to mean by the monasteries themselves rather than the bishops, and as Brooks pointed out, this was only to be after Æthelwulf's lifetime, which seems a dubious concession as one historian points out (I do not remember where) that he could not bind his successors. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean the block quotation here, beginning "[w]e do not know whether the Kentish monasteries had been founded as communities of monks and nuns ..." About liberty of abbatial elections, thanks for pointing that out, I do seem to have missed something. I think the idea is that it's up to bishops to protect the liberty of these elections; but I think I might have had something I read elsewhere (but probably in Brooks) in mind too, about bishops supposedly being required to ensure that the elected were suitable for office, and forgot to mention and ref it. I'll have to think on that, although I do think it needs clarifying. The provision might seem wishful, and Brooks points out in effect that his translation is his best effort to make sense of a difficult passage, but it's in a record that could be waved at would-be violators, and appealed or defended to the king. The endorsement described by Brooks (p. 199) spells that out. Which reminds me – a bit about episcopal oversight of suitable abbatial elections was, according to Brooks, most probably added to King Wihtred of Kent's privilege of 699, in a forgery by or for Abp Wulfred (Brooks (1984), pp. 194–7). So it seems he certainly intended to make use of it in that way. Nortonius (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
699? Going back that early is way out of my comfort zone but I will take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I know what you mean about comfort zones – but, while I believe Wihtred's privilege of 699 is held to be authentic, it's Wulfred that Brooks is interested in, in that connection, so maybe not too uncomfortable! Nortonius (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • King of Wessex
    • You give St. Bertin a full stop, but Saints Peter, Paul and Neot are unstopped.
    Deleted full stop.
  • Viking threat
    • I had to check back to remind myself who Æthelstan was. Could you find it in your heart to reintroduce him briefly, perhaps as sub-King Æthelstan, for the benefit of those of us of woolly mind?
  • Decimation charters
    • "Few thing in our early history have led…" looks like a typo to me, but I didn't like to presume.
    • "All land could be regarded as the king's land…" it still is, which is why you own your property in fee simple, not absolutely.
    Well yes but I do not think that the power of an Anglo-Saxon king can be equated with the technical difference between fee simple and allodial ownership in the 21st century.
    • Kelly's four groups could do with a citation.
    • "He set out three alternatives" – there are some deluded souls who insist that you can have only two alternatives. If any of them pop up at FAC, you can tell them that Fowler dismisses this daft notion as "a fetish".
  • Pilgrimage to Rome and later life
    • "a gold crown weighing 4 pounds, two gold goblets…" slightly strange mix of digits and words for the numbers in this sentence.
  • Historiography
    • "she was only allowed 2,500 words for him in the ODNB" – most interesting. I have often wondered why some articles seem very short and others very long, and now I know. Your 6,000+ here seems much more the mark.

That's all I can find to quibble about. Onwards to FAC! Tim riley talk 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thank Tim. Very helpful as always. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Just a few comments. Really outstanding writing, as always.
  • "twelve or thirteen year old daughter": I'm fine with that, but there are a lot of hyphen enthusiasts around who will prefer "twelve- or thirteen-year-old daughter". (I'm fine with that because hyphen and comma usage is highly variable in copyedited prose these days.)
  • "786-802": dash (throughout)
  • I do not understand the rules on dashes and I have always found a kind expert comes along and corrects my errors, but I will try to do it myself if you think I am being lazy or improper.
    • Copyediting is a trade, like plumbing. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to say, or even think, that you're being lazy or improper, just as a person with a broken pipe who calls for help isn't being lazy or improper. It may well be that someone is catching these things in an automated or semi-automated fashion ... might as well wait and see. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "drove Æthelwulf's father Egbert into exile, where he spent several years at the court": exile isn't really a place, so: "drove Æthelwulf's father Egbert into exile for several years at the court".
  • Changed to "and he spent several years at the court" (Egbert did not have to Charlemagne's court).
    • Yep, that's better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "had been briefly King": "had briefly been King" is a little better.
  • "when he died in 802 Egbert, perhaps with the support of Charlemagne, became king": "when he died in 802 Egbert became king, perhaps with the support of Charlemagne" scores slightly higher on readability.
  • Done.
  • - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your very helpful comments Dank. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nortonius[edit]

This map might be useful, illustrating the situation in Egbert's time, and based on a good source, though I haven't checked its accuracy. It marks Carhampton, Hingston Down and Bensington...

I'm a bit distracted at the moment, but I'll try to keep looking. Some things I noticed are touched on already by Tim Riley and Dank, making my list is even shorter than it was! Anyway...

Mostly in the Lead:

  • Would "Beornwulf of Mercia" be better linked as "[[Beornwulf of Mercia|Beornwulf]] of [[Mercia]]", so there are separate links to the king and to the kingdom? I picked up the idea from someone long ago that it's best to format such links that way, and subsequently as e.g. "King [[Beornwulf of Mercia|Beornwulf]] of Mercia".
  • Done.
  • About "the long Mercian dominance": should this "the" be "a", since the reader might not have heard of it yet? And might "England" be better as "[[Anglo-Saxon England]]", as the latter hadn't yet coalesced into the former? If so you might want to say something like "a long period of [[Mercian Supremacy|Mercian domination]] over [[Anglo-Saxon England]] south of the [[Humber]]."
  • Done.
  • For "Channel", I think you need to say "English Channel", with a link, for a broader audience; and once again in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • At the beginning of the ninth century England was almost completely under the control of the Anglo-Saxons. "England" again, perhaps the best solution (if you think it needs one!), especially with a map as I see Tim Riley suggested above, would be to run this and the following sentence together, something like "At the beginning of the ninth century Mercia and Wessex were the most important kingdoms of central and southern Anglo-Saxon England."
  • I am not convinced of this. I think the change you suggest would be losing an important point, and I do not think anyone is going to be misled. Thanks for the suggested map. I will think further about this.
Fine, up to you of course. Is the important point that you feel would be lost the fact that not all of England was yet under Anglo-Saxon control? My only worry here is using "England" anachronistically. I would just like a form of words that avoids that, while not being too complex. HTH Nortonius (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The point I have in mind is the opposite, that nearly all of England had been conquered by the Anglo-Saxons by then. It is true that referring to England is anachronistic in that the concept of England rather than just the English people did not emerge until the eleventh century. But I do not think you can forbid using concepts which only emerged later. Historians frequently refer to England when writing about the period, including the title of Stenton's book. I do not see why Anglo-Saxon England should be acceptable and not England. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we're both circling around the same idea, with the internet in the way(!), apart from the idea of anachronism, on which you make a good case – I'm only thinking of how fluid "England" was at the time, which might not be obvious. Looking at it again with a cooler head (literally, not figuratively!), in fact I think simply running the two sentences together with ", and" might be an improvement for readability – but I'm not forbidding or insisting on anything! :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice you have "| location =" in the bibliography section, I once saw this being dismissed by Mr Corbett (when still Malleus F) as unnecessary (even for FA), adding nothing useful and inviting trouble – I certainly think it's a pain in the neck that one could do without – when editing, that is! Obviously YMMV.
  • Well it is not much trouble and it stops anyone complaining that you are not supplying full bibliog details - I only started adding location when someone complained that they were missing. I also think there is an argument that they should be supplied as some printed books only supply location not publisher in the bibliography.
Interesting! Consistency is the thing, so if you have one location you have to have them all, and (I've found anyway) that they can be tricky. Personally I wouldn't be moved by someone demanding locations. Publishers, on the other hand, are required I think? What sort of printed books do you have in mind that don't supply a publisher? Any examples? I'm curious is all. I'm aware of (very) old books that don't have an identified publisher, but in the 17th and 18th centuries I see the printer (who is usually named) as performing that function. Nortonius (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to listing of books in bibliographies. An example is the first volume of the Oxford History of Wales, Charles-Edwards's Wales and the Britons. This lists sources with location, not publisher. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's weird – I've never seen a bibliography like that, I wonder how it got past the house editors! There are entries with no location, publisher or date, e.g Vita S. Cuthberti Auctore Anonymo, which is followed by Vita S. Kentegerni, with location and date! Yes, that would throw anyone... But my response when faced with that would be to research the works at e.g. and supply the publisher. Nortonius (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You might be shocked if you did a survey of your books. Cunliffe's Britain Begins and Halsall's Worlds of Arthur, both OUP, show location only, so it may be a house style. Also Ice Age Art published by the BM and The New Cambridge Medieval History III. Out of a very small and unrepresentative sample, half were location only (for sources or further reading), and half publisher and location, none publisher only. I show both - no problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll gladly take your word for that! Yes indeed, no problem. Nortonius (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's it for now, I hope you find it useful. I should be able to have a better look when things have cooled down a bit! Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for the helpful comments and sorting out the dashes. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem, so long as the comments are useful! Speaking of which:
  • "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" is mostly italicised here, but there are two instances that aren't. In my postgraduate student days I wouldn't italicise it, as it's a collective label for a number of manuscript sources rather than a published book; but I know it's frequently italicised – I've seen that done in drive-by edits on WP, but cba to get hung up about it – I just mention it so you know.
  • "Horton in Kent": there are several Hortons in Kent, but the charter is S 319, which locates it north of Chartham, near Canterbury. I haven't found any modern trace of this Horton, or I'd recommend a direct wikilink or some such This Horton turns out, via Domesday Book and Hasted, to be preserved in a manor of Chartham parish,[30] so I think it's worth saying "Horton, near [[Chartham]], in Kent". (later: oh yeah, you found it on that internet encyclopedia thingy!)
  • About the decimation charters, you have Asser's apparently different version: is "apparently different" not redundant?
  • ... and it would be nice to have a list of those charters in a footnote, as I find the identification of only one, S 315, very tantalising! If so, and following the pattern of the preceding three points, "S 315 from Kent dated 855 ..." might be better as "One from Kent dated 855 ...": in the first sentence of the following paragraph, I would then change mention of this charter to "apart from the charter of 855".
  • I will have a go but Kelly is unclear on the Winchester fakes. She starts by saying there are a total of 14 texts, but she then gives totals of 2+6+6+1=15. She says that the 6 Winchester fakes are S 309-13, which is only 5. (I have checked that there are no additional charters in this run as e.g. 309a for example.) Keynes also lists these 5, and associated fakes as S 325 and 317, but they are not labelled in Sawyer as second decimation fakes. Keynes also says that S 306 is a possible Malmesbury second decimation fake. I think I will have to set this out in a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sorry to lumber you – I'd try to help but as you know my resources are limited. Nortonius (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have emailed Susan Kelly. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Splendid! Nortonius (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Under "Pilgrimage to Rome ..." you have the south-east of Æthelberht: I think you need to repeat "under the care of" here, so we don't think the south-eastern part of Æthelberht was also responsible for the care of Wessex(!), but can you be more explicit about what is the "south-east"? I suppose you've already defined it much earlier in the article as Surrey, Sussex, Essex and Kent, but, since you mention "two kingdoms" in this connection, is it just Kent? (later:) Reading on, I see the formulation "Kent and the south-east": perhaps use that here too, but I can't help wondering if the grouping of Surrey, Sussex, Essex and Kent is always correct as "the south-east".
  • For the "Saxon quarter", it would probably be a good idea to link that to Schola Saxonum, which presently is a redirect but ought one day to be an article.
  • Æthelbald then wedded his mother-in-law: ... Judith? Shouldn't that be step-mother? Probably need to name Judith here.
  • You're happy to use the title "Deor" in lieu of an author's name, or instead of "Anon."? I'm curious about this ref: {{sfn|Deor|1996|pp=35–36}}, which doesn't seem to fit any particular pattern.
  • There are a few instances where one might quibble about commas, e.g. are there any missing in described by Asser, biographer of their son Alfred the Great as "King Æthelwulf's famous butler" and Christ Church, Canterbury kept lists of patrons? I think so, but others might not.
  • "butler" – might it be worth adding a word or two here, or a footnote, to clarify that this Oslac would have been a member of the royal court, rather than just a domestic servant? To modern eyes it might otherwise suggest a surprising bit of Downton Abbey-style hanky panky. This might be a good place to start, if you need one.

I'll add anything else I think worth mentioning above here. Nortonius (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I cannot see what change you made labelled "typo?". Can you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There are three or four such edits, I wonder if you mean in the section "Decimation charters", where I changed a comma to a full stop with a query in the edit summary,[31] or perhaps in the section "Viking threat", where I changed a second "853" to "855".[32] I made the latter change after referring to the cited source, but maybe I missed something. HTH Nortonius (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I found it now. Thanks very much for that and your other corrections. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Good, no problem. Nortonius (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through the whole article now, no doubt imperfectly, and don't have anything further to add for the moment – except that I think it's a very sharp, even snappy treatment of an impressively complex subject, very well done indeed! Nortonius (talk)

Thanks again. I will work away on your points over the next few days - and maybe ask an expert to construct a map which mentions important places mentioned in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 June 2015, 22:59 UTC)----

Hugh Beadle[edit]

Sir Hugh Beadle, Chief Justice of Rhodesia at the time the Rhodesian Front government under Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence in 1965, offers an interesting perspective to the Rhodesian UDI story. Over three years of failed talks and would-be rapprochement Beadle went from Harold Wilson's second man in Salisbury, working tirelessly to attempt to find a way across the breach, to an "evil genius" who had supposedly supported Smith and UDI all along. In fact Beadle considered Smith and his RF cohorts a bunch of incompetent cowboys, and opposed unilateral action. Having attempted to position himself between the British and Rhodesian hierarchies before UDI, Beadle continued these efforts afterwards, going so far as to move into the official residence of the British Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, as an adviser. The failure of the 1966 Wilson–Smith Tiger conference seems to have affected Beadle deeply and by 1968 we find him first ruling Smith's post-UDI order to be the de facto authority in Rhodesia, then declaring it fully de jure. Whatever his true motives, these decisions would define Beadle's life.

This article passed GA in January and I think it could be successful at FAC. I hope you enjoy it and look forward to any thoughts you may have. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Early life
    • We usually italicise "née", I think.
  • MP and Cabinet minister
    • "and thereby became a United Party MP" – not sure the "thereby" is wanted
  • MP and Cabinet minister
    • "he added the Education and Health portfolios" – instead of or on top of his Internal Affairs and Justice responsibilities?
      • On top of—four portfolios (!). Rephrased slightly —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • UDI
    • "was "not prepared to force showdown with the judges" – if this is a faithful transcript I'd be inclined to write "force [a] showdown"
  • De jure decision
    • "Davies' ruling" – elswhere you have gone fos ess-apostrophe-ess for possessives of people whose names end in s.
  • Threatened removal from Privy Council; republican Chief Justice
    • "convicted wartime collaborator Edgar Speyer" – what? He was neither convicted nor a collaborator. The Speyer affair was not something of which Britain can be proud.
      • Oh dear, silly me. Thank you for the correction. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. A good, clear and balanced account. – Tim riley talk 15:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the helpful points Tim, especially for clearing up my egregious misapprehension regarding Speyer! I'm glad you like the article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Dipping in again, I spotted a "disassociate" which could with advantage be slimmed down to "dissociate". And I see you have a mixture of 10- and 13- digit ISBNs in your sources. Sometimes this goes unchallenged at FAC but not always. Safer to use the ISBN converter to get all your ISBNs in 13-digit form. Tim riley talk 21:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this Tim—will do. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB[edit]

Very interesting stuff. I remember the Tiger, the Fearless, Smith and Wilson of course, "Bomber" Thorpe, etc, but I don't recall Beadle. I was only a kid at the time. He was clearly an influential figure in the UDI years, and you have very neatly and impartially summarised his role, leaving it to the reader to judge whether he was a good guy or a baddie. Here are my comments:

  • Specify of which "High Court" he became a judge in 1950 and later Chief Justice.
  • "prompting the British government to nearly remove him from the Privy Council..." The split infinitive jars a little, and the phrasing reads rather oddly. Maybe "prompting the British government to consider removing him from the Privy Council"?
  • Oops—missed this one! Redrawn as suggested —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "to this day" is not date-related and is a slight hostage to fortune - in any case, I wonder if this snippet is truly leadworthy?
  • I've taken it out of the lead. It is an interesting thing to note, however, as many things in Zimbabwe have been renamed "since the revolution", and yet this chap the black nationalist movement denounced as a racist still has a school named after him. There are countless examples of this kind of thing in Zimbabwe, some of them somewhat amusing. East Harare still has a suburb called "Rhodesville" where the main road is Coronation Avenue and more or less every street is named after a British Second World War general. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Early life and education
  • "sharing a firm consensus that the responsible government campaign under Charles Coghlan were, in Beadle's recollection, "a pretty wild bunch of jingoes". Doesn't parse correctly. The "responsible government campaign under Charles Coghlan" reads as a singular rather than a plural entitly, and a campaign be described as "a pretty wild bunch of jingoes"?
  • Rephrased to "Charles Coghlan and his responsible government movement were, in Beadle's recollection, "a pretty wild bunch of jingoes"." —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "He graduated with a second-class Bachelor of Civil Law degree in 1930, and was thereupon called to the English bar." I'm not an expert on the methods for joining the English bar, but I'm a little dubious about "thereupon". I don't think the acquisition of a law degree gives automatic bar membership – there was likely some intervening process. Perhaps Bencherlite would provide a word of wisdom here?
  • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was automatic—rather that it came soon after. Redrawn —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
MP and Cabinet minister
  • The somewhat overlong sentence beginning: "He was attracted to the United Party..." would I think be better split.
  • I'm being a bit pernicketty, but OBEs are appointed, not awarded. Also, since OBE stands for "Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire", the wording "and awarded the OBE" doesn't work. The correct wording would be "...and was appointed OBE".
Chief Justice
  • Perhaps two "despites" in the first paragraph is one too many?
  • OK, replaced the second one with "this notwithstanding"
  • "a more major role" → "a bigger role"
  • "The following year..." – perhaps give the year, to save readers having to track back?
  • "While not recommending Federal dissolution, the Monckton report was strongly critical..." I think I'd reword this as; "While not recommending dissolution, the Monckton report was strongly critical of the Federation..."
  • "As talks between the British and Southern Rhodesian governments continued with little progress..." You need to indicate what these talks were about.
Madzimbamuto case and Tiger talks
  • Nothing
De facto decision, rejection of royal prerogative
  • Presumably, Madzimbamuto remained in detention?
  • Yes—until 1974, when the bulk of the Rhodesian black nationalist leadership (including Mugabe, etc) was released as part of the terms for the Victoria Falls Conference. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
De jure decision
  • What was the fate of the 32 nationalists sentenced to death?
  • Rhodesia hanged them as terrorists, presumably, but I can't find the source explicitly saying that yet—will add if I find it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Threatened removal from Privy Council; republican Chief Justice
  • The word "meanwhile" needs to be dropped from the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, as the involvement of the Privy Council was a key reason why agreement couldn't be reached. "Meanwhile" suggests it was a separate issue.
  • I'm inclined to think that "mostly white" is a little euphemistic. "Mostly white" could be anything over 50 per cent; I believe that the white proportion of the electorate was probably much higher than that. It would also help to be reminded at this point, or earlier, what the white-black proportions of the population were, at the time of UDI.
  • Indeed—at the time of UDI whites made up 5% of the people but over 90% of the voters. The situation was not greatly different at the time of the 1969 referendum. I've put in a clarification of this higher up just before UDI. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Later years
  • I think "Zimbabwe Rhodesia" deserves a brief explanation as well as the link, e.g. "the unrecognised short-lived state of Zimbabwe Rhodesia which replaced the republic in 1979".
Personality and appraisal
  • The only point I have here is that the wording "must have secretly supported UDI all along" is very similar to wording used earlier in the article.
  • Rephrased to "must have always been a furtive UDI supporter". —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Brian, for the review and the very kind words. I'll work my way through the points you raised later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you again for this, Brian. I think the article is very much improved following your contributions here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A pleasure. I am a perpetual student when it comes to modern history and am always pleased to add to my knowledge of events, particularly those just over the horizon of my experiences. On the question of streets retaining their colonial names, I remember Allenby Street and Balfour Street in Tel Aviv, and rather quaintly "George Eliot Street" and "Albert Square" (!) Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The best street name in Israel for a Brit is surely "Melchett Street", which I've seen in Tel Aviv, Haifa and a couple other towns. There is also the "Villa Melchett" by the sea of Galilee. "Baaahh!!!" —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Much as I'd like to think that these were named to honour Stephen Fry's Melchetts, I fear they are for Henry Mond, the real Lord Melchett, who was active in the Zionist movement in the 1930s. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, but who do you remember with a smile when you pass it during a stroll through town? "HE SHOT MY PIGEON!" every day of the week. Not to denigrate the real Melchett's achievements. I can't imagine he would have been too pleased to know his name would be so re-purposed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkyCanute[edit]

Another excellent article on the subject of Rhodesia. I very much enjoyed reading it.

  • First sentence of third paragraph. Seems to get into minute detail, especially with the quote. In any case, the citation should be removed from the lead.
  • It's important in my opinion to make clear off the bat Beadle didn't like the RF to counter the myth that he was an RF zealot, part of the Smith clique or some other kind of stooge. The inline citation needs to stay because it's a direct quote. I think the quote provides a good summary of how Beadle felt about the RF crowd—to an Establishment figure like Beadle (PC, CMG, OBE, don't forget), the Gwelo solicitor Desmond Lardner-Burke, the Selukwe farmer Ian Smith and the Gatooma earth-mover William Harper would have been jumped-up cowboys with no business running the country. Remember how Sir Humphrey Appleby felt about Jim Hacker in Yes, Minister. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Same para. '...Beadle repeatedly attempted to initiate procedures for compromise and position himself as an intermediary.' Ideally '...and to position himself...'
  • Perhaps clarify that Beadle wasn't removed from the Privy Council.
  • Both here and in the infobox, his name should be followed with PC.
MP and Cabinet minister
  • ' Two years later, after retaining his seat in the 1948 election with a large majority,[10] he added two more portfolios, those of Education and Health.' Perhaps: 'He retained his seat in the 1948 election with a large majority and added two more portfolios, Education and Health.'
  • I prefer it as it is, myself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • '...and put much work into attempting to create a Southern Rhodesian system similar to National Insurance in Britain.' perhaps '...into creating a system of National Insurance for Southern Rhodesia, similar to Britain's.'
  • The source material does not say it actually would have been National Insurance, though—just that he wanted to bring in a "social security scheme" and that he was so keen on the idea his friend Julian Greenfield would later call him "something of a socialist". —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Chief Justice
  • 'This notwithstanding': simply 'nevertheless'.
  • 'Beadle later expressed regrets that he not played a bigger role' should be '...that he had not played...'?
  • 'The Chief Justice noted in his diary that that Smith's government was "not prepared to force [a] showdown with the judges".' One 'that' too many?
De facto decision
  • 'To the Governor's astonishment, he conceded...' Perhaps replace the pronoun with 'Beadle', just to be absolutely clear. If so, in the following sentence 'Beadle' becomes 'him'.
Threatened removal
  • "stricken from"... usually "struck off". Also, arguably the case should be pluperfect: '...had been struck off...'. The case of Speyer is comic: his offer to resign is rejected only for him to be struck off.
  • Since you mention the 50 white seats, might it be pertinent to provide some information about the remaining 16 seats? Even if it's just to say of a total 66.
Later years
  • In the Mapane and Bango case, how did the Appellate Court rule?
  • Don't know; can't find sources mentioning them afterwards (perhaps pertinent). —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You seem to favour the critically-endangered semi-colon. In most cases a fullstop might be preferable and easier for readers. For example: 'After returning to Rhodesia, Beadle took an interest in politics; he joined the United Party, formed to contest the 1934 general election out of the former Rhodesia Party and the conservative faction of the Reform Party.'. Here I might go with something like: 'After returning to Rhodesia, Beadle took an interest in politics. He joined the United Party, which was formed...'
  • The semi-colon is in my view a useful way to neatly merge stubby sentences and keep the prose flowing along nicely rather than stopping and starting constantly—though I agree that excessive use can have a similarly negative effect. I would prefer to keep the example you quoted as it is, if that's okay. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope that's useful. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks FunkyCanute, this has been very helpful. I have replied to each comment specifically above. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
A pleasure. With Ian Smith and this we now have a couple of really strong WP articles on the persons and motivations surrounding UDI. These conflicting attitudes emerge in BSAC times and it would be great to trace them through articles on Rhodesia's leaders across C20.

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Born and raised in Salisbury," I just assumed it was the English Salisbury in view of his education, until I read the body. Suggest explicitly putting in a "Southern Rhodesia".
  • OK. Have put "the Rhodesian capital" —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " He became a member of parliament " which parliament?
  • " ruling United Party" can the majority party in a colonial parliament be said to rule?
  • Yes, in this case—Southern Rhodesia was internally self-governing from 1923. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "initiate procedures for compromise and position himself as an intermediary" I'd boil this down to "arrange a compromise"
  • "Beadle's de jure recognition of the post-UDI government" did he really have power to make a de jure recognition? He wasn't a government, after all, and although his British appointment gave him legitimacy, somewhat, when you come right down to it, he was an official of a government not recognised by most nations.
  • So far as I understand it he did so far as the Rhodesian legal system went. In any case this is the wording the sources use. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " the government debate in" suggest cutting.
  • "He briefly read in London chambers" suggest "read" be piped to reading law (I'm doing this offline so can't check links, correct typos, but must set any out for you)
MP etc
  • Some brief account of hard wartime work or important service rendered by him during the war might be in order lest it be thought that he, like others have done, got transferred to a cushy civilian gig.
  • Have added a quote from Facchini. Was tasked to "speed up affairs", apparently. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Beadle entered the Cabinet at a time " 1946? then why not "had entered"?
  • Am I correct that after 1948 he held four portfolios? Shades of Pooh-Bah!
  • Do we know why he left politics? If so, might be worth mentioning.
  • Have added; was because he thought he would not work well with Edgar Whitehead, who he correctly predicted would eventually become PM. Have added the character of Whitehead. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Chief Justice
  • We have to wait more than a paragraph to have him do something judicial, and then it isn't much. Can a brief preface be put in reciting when he was sworn in, and some brief mention of his early days as judge (two sentences, total) before getting down to the meat of the political situation?
  • Trying to find, but not much in the way of sources here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we have an article on the federation's constitution? Might be worth a pipe if so. Did only Southern Rhodesia vote?
  • Yes; Southern Rhodesia was self-governing and the other two territories were not. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not clear why the Southern Rhodesia government was acting under a state of emergency in Nyasaland. That's what this implies.
  • "fortified the impression that UDI seemed to be imminent." Seems a bit vague.
de facto
  • "Whitehall reacted by announcing on 1 March 1968" surely the announcement would have been made by a cabinet minister or some such?
  • The source says simply "the Commonwealth Office announced in London". —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • de jure
The first paragraph has very little to do with Beadle except for background and might be considerably shortened.
  • "He asserted that the court therefore faced a choice between the 1965 constitution and a legal vacuum, the latter of which he felt he could not endorse." Maybe, "He asserted that as he could not countenance a legal vacuum, the only alternative was the 1965 constitution"
  • "blocking quarter" this may be unclear to US readers.
  • "Heath's administration" Heath's government?
Later years
  • "had just been convicted" the "just" is probably not needed.
  • "He referred the case to the Appellate Court for immediate consideration." possibly too much detail.
  • Were there terrorism trials under the resumed British authorities? Death penalty? The "continued to serve" seems a bit odd if not at least the first.
  • My intention was just to describe the different governments in passing. So far as I know they didn't have terrorism trials in this time, no. The source (Palley) says: "After retirement in 1977, Beadle sat for three years as acting judge in trials under the special criminal procedure for serious ‘terrorist’ cases, carrying the death penalty." —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this section is structured as clearly as it might be.
  • Why not? We have a paragraph on Beadle's personality, a paragraph on Beadle's motives and speculation thereon, and finally an attempted summing of of Beadle. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • fn 2: were the papers ever released by Beadle? I imagine they are long public, since it is longer than 30 years.
  • Don't know. None of the sources mention them. Since he died long before they became public, it would not surprise me if they are still laying forgotten at the bottom of a vault somewhere in Pretoria or Johannesburg. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Very nicely done--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gary, this has been helpful. I hope I have replied satisfactorily to your concerns. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 June 2015, 19:33 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)

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)

(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 [33] 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 ([34]) which proves that Kniezsa's methodology is still regarded valid. If you read the conversation that began here [35] you will read that you exclusively mentioned Slovak historians' POV. Even so, you deleted my reference to this fact ([36]). 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 ([37]). Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Fakirbakir's remark did not bring anything new since this discussion [38]. 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.[39]
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) [40]. 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 ([41]). 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 ([42]). 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."[43]-- (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)----

76th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as it has been overhauled from a stub and i am looking to take it through a GA review in the near future. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting ... sporadic, in this case. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Dank, much appreciated as always.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Use a consistent variety of English - you've got "re-organisation" in the lead but then "reorganization" later in the article
Thats what you get when you get an English guy living in the US using a US-ENG word processor :) fixed!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Not my strong suit, examples would need to be highlighted, sorry.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Your Churchill ref (footnote 5) currently doesn't link properly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Addressed, thank you for time and comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 June 2015, 03:55 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)

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

Language and literature[edit]

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)

(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]

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)

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

Social sciences and society[edit]

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)

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

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

List of military occupations[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in seeing this list become a featured list. Would like to see how far it currently is from this. Thanks, -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Hi Serialjoepsycho, some comments from me:

  • My core observation is that we are not crystal clear as to the criteria for inclusion, in terms of what exactly we need to see from a source to be confident that the situation can be defined as a Military occupation
  • For example:
    • Is Crimea still "occupied", now that Russian citizenship has been given to its residents? "Annexed" is the more usual term, which means it should not be on this list
    • Was the Soviet occupation of Hungary technically an occupation? Weren't they citizen's of the USSR? Same goes for all the other USSR events in the list

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hungary was never a part of the USSR. So yes it would still be a Military Occupation. They were in the Eastern Bloc if thats what you mean. Crimea is viewed as being occupied by the majority of the world. The three Baltic countries listed view their time in the USSR as military occupation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Cliftonian: Under "Current military occupations" we list East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as areas of the State of Palestine, under Israeli military occupation since 1967. While Israel has indeed occupied these areas since 1967, the State of Palestine was declared only in 1988; the presentation therefore seems slightly misleading to me. I think a note in brackets or a footnote is warranted for clarification in the "Occupied state" column after each mention of Palestine. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Mr.,

I do not agree with Cliftonian. If a territory is not under the administration of a given state, this does not to its neighboring state the right to occupy it... As shown in the 1967 UN Security Resolution, an Arab state should be founded in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza Strip... So, these areas were not a property of Israel but a property of Palestinian Liberation Organization... That is why Israel is considered to be occupying these important territories... As for the work, the list is quite complete and very precise... However, Eastern France were occupied by German since 1871 and not 1914. Try to adjust this... Moreover, Korea War was not during the World War II. However, it had occured precisely during Cold War...

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian comments do highlight an issue we have on wikipedia. How to handle the unique nature of Palestine? As far as North Eastern France, note that all names under territories occupied link to a page than the linked territory. Wjile it says northeastern france it links to Home_front_during_World_War_I#France. I'm going to switch this over to foot notes later and this should clear up any confusion.. Finally Korea became occupied directly due to the results of world war II. It's occupation may have continued on but it started with the end of World war II.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
With respect, Csisc, I don't think you've quite understood the point I was trying to make. I didn't say anything about Israel having the right to occupy these areas, and I don't dispute that Israel does occupy them (I was in the IDF so I should know). My point is that we currently label the "occupied state"—since 1967—as the State of Palestine, which the Palestine Liberation Organisation declared only in 1988 (see Palestinian Declaration of Independence). My point is that a small note should go on, either in the box itself or in a footnote, saying something along the lines of "The area has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967; the State of Palestine was declared in 1988." —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Again this is a very complicated issue. You choose the date 1988 but someone else could easily choose the date 1974. Someone else may choose 1993. Any addition or change in this list needs to be handled carefully. Probably best to consider an RFC sometime later.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not just put all the dates in the footnote? —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Because some of the dates I mention are original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Leave those out then and put only the reliably sourced ones? —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well see the problem is what you want in the article borders may add undue emphasis. I can show you that the PLO was started in 1974 and the PNA in 1993. I can show you were both have been merged and now make up the state of Palestine, and even though this all true it's Original research. The lands were always known as Palestine. The lands where always the Palestinians. They just declared statehood in 1988. The land was never recognized as Terra Nullis. And You are apparently a former IDF soldier who has been active in the occupying force of Palestine. Again it's a complicated issue. I'm not going to make the change you suggest but sometime in the future I will open an RFC on the matter. An RFC will bring in further input from multiple. If you want you could start one now on the lists page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by mentioning my military service here (indeed I volunteer this information both on my user page and in the conversation above, so it's not like you're "outing" me). I'm not saying the lands weren't known as Palestine or that the people weren't Palestinians. My point here is that a differentiation needs to be made between the state called Palestine and the place called Palestine. In the table we refer to an "occupied state" and link the word "Palestine" to the article State of Palestine—with a start date of 1967, 21 years before said state declared independence. To be absolutely clear, I am *not* saying that there wasn't an occupation before 1988 or that it wasn't Palestinian land before then. You are right that it's a complicated issue. That's precisely why it would be an improvement to add clarification here rather than leaving things vague. I think an RFC would be advisable to get more views on this. Do you think we should do that on the talk page of the list directly or of the talk page of this peer review? —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime I am going to ask an editor active in this area, Malik Shabazz, to provide a third opinion. Malik, what do you think here? —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes an RFC would be best on the talk page. It would probably be best if in the future you did not seek a third opinion in that manner. It's not that I have an issue your former military career but I can see it spinning into something later. Waste of time conversations about conflicts of interest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I can understand where you're coming from there, and indeed this is part of why I kept an informal rule with myself when I was actually in the service not to edit anything related. Now I am a civilian again I would hope people would judge me based on my actions and words rather than automatically dismissing me as some mindless Zionist POV-pusher, which I most certainly am not; I hope my posts and edit history would demonstrate this. Thank you for clarifying your earlier statement.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm afraid I'm rather confused as to your ultimate goal with this peer review; surely the whole point of a peer review is to get more views and opinions, yet you seem keen to have an RFC at some unspecified point in the future rather than tackling the issue now, and when I asked a colleague to give a third opinion and guide us on procedure you upbraided me. I don't say this to criticise you; you opened this peer review and so far as I'm concerned you can conduct it as you see fit. Just giving my opinion. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I opened this to get advice on FA status for lists. Now if you'll look up, Hungary was a part of the Soviet Union (It wasn't actually). The occupation that took place in Korea was in no way related to World War 2 (It was actually.) And the multitude of the discussion has become about Israel and Palestine. I did not upbraid you. I just suggested in the future you avoid canvassing like behavior.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think asking an administrator extremely active in the Palestine–Israel field for his opinion and some guidance is "canvassing like behaviour", but I appreciate your suggestion. I regret just as much as you that this peer review has developed in this way and I hope that the issue I raised will be taken into account during this article's future development. Cheers, thanks for the civil chat and good luck. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries. You do have a point, I'm just not sure about your proposed solution. I don't plan on taking any action right away but I will be opening an RFC. And this peer review has actually be helpful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Malik Shabazz: If you want an avalanche of opinions with respect to the occupation of Palestine, you ought to post messages at WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. There are several Wikipedia articles that try to describe the situation, but the best summary may be Palestinian territories#Political status and sovereignty, which (I think) does a decent job and also links to the other articles. Good luck, whatever you decide to do. You're striding into a minefield. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The hope is to avoid an avalanche of opinions with respect to Palestine and avoid any controversy about making a minor change to this list.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 June 2015, 17:49 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)

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

WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]