Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer Review)
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.


Joss Whedon[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the review will be followed by a nomination for WP:FAC. Before this happens, please bring on the appeals for further improvement. I'll return as soon as possible to review the review(s). Cheers, Glitchygirl (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 May 2015, 01:50 UTC)----

Crystal Pite[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for WP:GA and want opinions on how to improve the article before a formal nomination. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 May 2015, 17:47 UTC)----

Tank Girl (film)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently overhauled it and successfully nominated it for GA, and intend to nominate it for FAC after peer review. If you have a PR or GAN you would like me to review in return for your review here, just mention it at the end of your review. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


  • The soundtrack roll probably needs citations
  • I did a copy edit seen here

Mind reviewing this for me at it's GAN?--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Track listing doesn't need citations, is it the 'Other songs in the film' that you're referring to? Thanks for looking at the article and for the copyedits. I'm going away for the weekend but i'll review your GAN Monday if nobody else does it before then. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Somone already "failed it", so could you mind to review this for me instead
Done. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 10 May 2015, 09:15 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)

(Peer review added on Saturday 9 May 2015, 21:26 UTC)----

Man Down (song)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to take this article to FAC, but I'm aware that it is shorter than most nominations, so I need it to be watertight.

Thanks,  — ₳aron 08:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 May 2015, 08:15 UTC)----

Citizen Kane[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some work to get it ready for FA status.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've notified WikiProject Film about this and we can consider inviting editors from the volunteer list too. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 15:10 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)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 15:58 UTC)----

Capon Chapel[edit]

I've nominated this article for a peer review because I would like to receive necessary feedback that will allow me to further improve this article for submission to a Featured Article review. Any and all guidance would be greatly appreciated! -- Thanks, West Virginian (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by: Is there any reason why the paras in the lead split like this? I feel they are too stubby and can be merged to a total of three shorter paras, given the article size WP:LEADLENGTH. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast, thank you for your suggestion! I've consolidated the paragraphs into three per your suggestion. Please let me know if you have any further guidance for this article. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Ugog Nizdast
  • Images: Captions can be shortened. For example, "The church's north sides" can be shortened to "North side viewed from north lawn". Same can goes for east side and other north side image. "Pictured" is again, redundant.
  • Geography and location:"The church and cemetery, located to the east of Christian Church Road, " isn't this already mentioned in the first sentence? all you have to do is add "east" to it rather than mentioning this again. The second para first statement too does this, it mentions "rural agricultural" but also repeats information; do the same there. Then that stubby para can be merged. Makes sense?
  • Chapel vs church: I don't know much of this subject, but I assume referring it as a "church" throughtout the article is because majority of the sources say it right?
  • I'm fairly sure that per WP:HONORIFIC, "reverand" or "dr" aren't used unless the article title uses it.
  • Its affiliation should be mentioned and linked in the lead, see WP:CONTEXTLINK, and maybe even in the infobox if possible.
  • Baptist affiliation: in this section, there is an unattributed POV quotation "was described as a man of solemn dignity, warm address and speaks as on..." Quotations should be only used where prose cannot be, and POV quotations need attribution or can be removed if not relevant. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Ugog Nizdast, thank you again for your guidance and suggestions. I've addressed each of these in the article, so please let me know if you see any further changes that need to be incorporated. Since the info box template is the NRHP template, there is not a space for the mention of affiliation but I did include its affiliation in the first sentence of the lede. The quote was removed and while it is named a chapel, it serves as a fully-functioning church in the United Methodist Church. The sources also refer to it as a church. Thanks again Ugog! -- West Virginian (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay good. I removed a minor text sandwich between images on both sides; I took some liberty in the rearrangement but feel free to change it in case the context doesn't match with the prose. Oh and no need to ping me, I've been watching this since I posted here. More to come maybe in a few days. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ugog Nizdast, thank you for your rearrangement of the images, and feel free to take as much liberty as you like. I'm looking forward to the rest of your comments and suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 April 2015, 21:06 UTC)----

Chetro Ketl[edit]

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, 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)

(Peer review added on Monday 27 April 2015, 21:45 UTC)----

Rebel Heart (Madonna album)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this as a GA and eventual FA, but I want feedback on the prose part of it and general structuring. Feel free to be as brutal as you can. Thanks, —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm too involved with the article to give input here, but have left notices at the WikiProjects for Albums, Madonna, and Pop music. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks Snuggums. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 26 April 2015, 07:15 UTC)----

Casey Abrams (album)[edit]

I mostly stick to writing articles about film and television, so on the rare occasions that I've decided to branch out and write an album article, I haven't fully understood how to best go about it. Could someone familiar with this topic take a look and let me know if it still needs some work? Ideally I'd like to nominate it for GA, but I have no idea whether that would be within reach or not.

Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

At quick glance, I would say that the lead section could be shortened. Ideally four paras are used for really long articles. Otherwise, it looks fine as a GA. If you want someone good at music-related articles to review it further, why not invite an editor from the volunteers list. They're listed according to what subjects they review normally, and drop a neutral invitation saying that this is in the backlog. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver[edit]

This looks like some above average prose (nice work!), but I found a couple of minor nit-picks, which I'll list below.

  • City sounds can be heard in the background of some tracks.
"City sounds" was the first clicker that got my attention. I'm not sure what would be better, but maybe something like "ambient noises from the city", which I realize is wordier, but it's a start I think.
Your suggestion sounds good to me! I've gone ahead and changed it. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wal-Mart released a deluxe version of the album
Was this on a Wal-mart label, because if not I'd avoid the free plug.
If by "label" you mean "music label", then no - I don't think Walmart even has a music label. Walmart should certainly still be mentioned by name in the Promotion section, since it was the only store that carried this version of the album, but I've rewritten the sentence in the lead to simply say that this version "received a limited release". --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • were released as dual singles
I'm not sure what this means.
What I meant to get across is that the two songs were released as singles simultaneously, which isn't a very common occurrence. The one other time that I'm familiar with in which this happened was with the album David Cook. That article uses similar phrasing - see the second paragraph of the "Singles" section. Do you think that this is okay? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No.
I've never written a music article, so I don't know all the conventions, but I couldn't help but think that "No. 4" should be "number four".
As mentioned above, music isn't my specialty either, but I feel like "No." is the way that I've seen it written most often. While I agree that "number" would be more formal, Billboard itself - see this article [26] - uses "No." --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In January 2012, it was reported that Abrams had signed with Concord Records, the jazz label that Esperanza Spalding - one of Abram's musical inspirations - is a part of.
This is a really nice sentence except the last clause. I wish I had a ready idea as an alternative, but I don't right now. I'll write back if I think of one.
While I'm not much of a grammar expert, these three articles [27] [28] [29] (as well as several others that can be found through Google) indicate that the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition is actually a widely held misconception. All the same, if you think it would be better, perhaps I could say "[T]he jazz label to which Esperanza Spalding - one of Abrams' musical inspirations - is signed. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Writing and recording
  • first time that Abrams had ever co-written with someone
Mention the co-writer here.
As the article goes on to detail, Abrams had quite a number of co-writers on this album. It would be unwieldy to mention them all in this one sentence. Would it better if I said "anyone" instead of "someone" or if I ended the sentence after the word "co-written"? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another location that had influence on the album was London.
Most of the prose here is pretty decent, but stuff like this jumps out at me as not great.
Ah, okay. I was trying to find a good way to transition from the previous paragraph (about the hills of Idyllwild) into the information about London, while emphasizing that the city had an influence on the writing and recording process. I thought that it would make the article flow a bit better, but I can see how it might sound informal. Would you suggest just cutting this out then? Or should I rewrite it? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • can't be sung about...every rock should be turned
Check your ellipses spacing per the MoS.
Thanks for pointing it out! I've seen people change the formatting on these before, without ever fully understanding what they were doing. I'll look into it soon. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He felt that recording in London "captured the wonder" and the "wanderlust" that he felt about the city.[15]
I'd paraphrase this so that it says he basically liked London. It's goofy to quote this. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I'll see what I can come up with. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • However, he has also hinted that conflict
Be careful you aren't using "however" in a lazy way.
Could you elaborate? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Work Sales & chart performance into the prose and eliminated the double headers: "Reception" and "Critical reception".
I thought that what I did here was standard formatting for a Music album. Was I mistaken then? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice piece overall, but there are lots of quotes that might not be adding all that much. Most of the prose is solid, but it's not the best it could be with a copyedit. It's passable, don't get me wrong but in places it feels mechanical and rigid, maybe cause of the loads of quotes, especially in the reception parts. I don't know that mush about FAC, but I think you will get hammered on unless you reduce the amount of quoted material. Good piece overall, though. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: @Rationalobserver: Thank you both for your comments! I hear what you're saying about the lead, Ugog. The paragraph count is just a guideline, but I'd be willing to cut things down if I knew what to remove. I feel like a certain amount of information from each section of the article should be discussed in the lead, but am not really sure which points are covered in more depth than is necessary. Let me know if either of you have any ideas on how to go about restructuring this. :)
I really appreciate your kind words about the prose, Rationalobserver. And your comment about certain parts coming across as "mechanical and rigid" doesn't surprise me. You're right; I tend to rely on quotes more than I should. GA is the goal for now; FA hadn't really even crossed my mind. But I'll definitely ask for a copyedit if you think that would help. If there are any specific quotes (in addition to the one you already mentioned above) that you think I should cut out, then I'll gladly work on them. Just let me know!
I've left some followup comments on specific points above. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I still feel it can be shortened. I think I may get at least some ideas (not necessarily good ones) for your lead section, I'll do that later. Here are some comments pertaining to the quotation problem. Otherwise, I don't see anything apparent stopping this at a GAR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Ugog Nizdast

Consider these areas where I think, the quotations can be replaced with normal paraphrasing. I feel these quotations don't add any extra value compared to plain normal paraphrasing.

  • "The tight schedule for releasing an album that is imposed on the winner would have placed more pressure on him than he would have liked.", maybe add "He felt that"? (even though "he would have liked" is present, doesn't it still state it in the pedia's voice?)
  • "..the "most musically talented contestant...", you can just say she praised him or called him the most talented.
  • "Instead, Abrams was able to spend as much time as he felt necessary to find "the right label and the right music". are the quotation marks necessary here? maybe "felt necessary to find the correct label and music".
  • "Abrams valued the "collaborative process" of working with other writers and feels that this is crucial to making music "fun"." This can certainly be paraphrased.
  • " He found this to be a unique experience, as the room was "totally open" and had windows." Again.
  • "advised to "reverse the chords of the chorus"" Again.
  • ""Get Out" is Abrams' "heartbreak song", that he described as having "a very simple 'I hate you, but I love you' kind of vibe"." maybe paraphrased into "..he described it as having love-hate relationship _" or something? can't think of anything at the moment, how about you?
  • ""He's got a stub instead of a tail", explained Abrams. "I think [that] is probably the coolest part...[it] is so funny because whenever someone comes home, if I come home or my mom or dad walks in, he gets really excited and starts shaking his little stub."" I very unfamiliar with the subject (forget this subject, I've rarely dealt with music-related articles) but this sounds like something that can be omitted. I don't know whether it is widely covered in the sources.
  • ""I basically went there, having nothing but a will to play some music", he said." and ""I did have to fight for a couple things", Abrams said." Again, I think these two can be removed entirely but I could be wrong.
  • "Describing the album's genre as "organic focal", he placed heavy emphasis on melodies and harmonies - the "focal point" - while relying primarily on organic instruments, such as acoustic guitar,upright piano, and double bass." I didn't understand this sentence the first time. Could you reword? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 April 2015, 15:07 UTC)----

Everyday life[edit]

A. R. Rahman[edit]

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

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 10 May 2015, 06:37 UTC)----

Highland cattle[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback as to how it could get up to FA.

Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 May 2015, 15:15 UTC)----

The Boat Races 2015[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how it would swing at WP:FAC. It was made a WP:GA pretty soon after the race itself and I've tried to keep it up to snuff following it's quick trip to WP:ITN. As always, my unending gratitutde is extended to anyone prepared to take the time to have a look.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Comments from TheMagikCow:
Well I am new to peer reviewing but i will give this my best shot!

  • Images: The two images called '... from putney embankment' seem unnecessary. However it may have some significance that I do not know of.
  • The MOS for numbers needs looking at. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 kg, use 6 kg and spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Apart from a c/e it looks good. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 23 April 2015, 08:51 UTC)----

Engineering and technology[edit]


2015 Daytona 500[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a Featured Article, and I wish to know what I need to do to boost my chances of it being successful.

Thanks, Nascar king 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 18 May 2015, 11:30 UTC)----

1967 Intercontinental Cup[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've added significant amount of content and would like a view on what I've done and what improvements/ changes would be appropriate.

Thanks, ShugSty (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I thank you for your initiative to review the work for the 1967 Intercontinental Cup... The work is important because it describes very well the problems faced by the first editions for this important competition... It gives a very good overview about the situation in which such competitions were held and played and detailed and most important information about what exactly happened. However, I think that this is not sufficient... More information should be efficiently provided...

  • Circumstances: Minor information are provided about how teams had travelled to play the games, where they had lived during the games, how they afforded the expenses of the travels, how they did the physical preparations to play the games... These details are important to see the situation provided to the two teams to play this match. You can use citations from players who assisted to this important match and get some information about this from the references that are cited in this work...
  • Supporters: You can write about sponsors who afforded some money for the two teams to play this important competititon and for the organization of the two games... You can also talk about the reason of the choice of Uruguay for playing the third game... These details are important and can be useful to see the situation of football in that particular period... You can also talk about the supporters and how they had travelled to see the games and how they react after the three games... You can talk about the name of the supporters and their wears and clothes and how these clothes were made and brought... You can talk about supporting songs of the two teams and if they had worsened the situation... So, you have the choice on how to proliferate your work...
  • Objects: You can write about the wear of the two teams and if they were made particularly from the Intercontinental Cup... You can talk about how they were made... You can even talk about the balls of this important competition. You can describe it and even give some further information about how they were designed and the comments of the interested audience about them... This details could be extremely important although there are not the main ones for this important work...
  • Amelioration: You can ameliorate the work by developing the part about the rules of the 1967 Intercontinental Cup by involving more detailed information about the rules for the choice of the place of the third game, the choice of referees for games... You can talk also about the fees of the tickets to see the games, the fees provided to referees... The part about the final third game has to be proliferated and developed by including the reactions of the players during the third game and what they have done in the last minutes of the match and after the match... "After the game, the Scottish dressing room was invaded by Argentinian fans and a battle between Argentinian and Uruguayan (who supported Celtic) fans broke out outside the stadium" should be more developed and the part talking about what exactly happened after the competitions should be proliferated by involving more details about talking more about what happened to players after these circumstances. These details are important and I think that developing them will help you ameliorate the structure of your paper and the coverage of the paper to all the important detailed information of the competition.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 16 May 2015, 14:23 UTC)----

God of War (series)[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like opinions on the article's current state and what can be done to improve the article so that it can eventually be taken through FAC. I've recently reorganized the lead and added a Development section.

Thanks, JDC808 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I'll do a review of this. Be back in a day or two at the latest. If not, please remind me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, thanks. --JDC808 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Right JDC808, generally a good-quality article, just a few things about the references/external links/formatting that need mentioning.

  1. In the lead, and through the article in general, it would probably be wise to refer to the prequel and spin-offs by their subtitles (Ghost of Sparta, Betrayal) rather than using their full titles (excepting initial links, of course). The numeric entries can use their full titles as the numerals on their own make reading difficult for some.
    • Done.
  2. This is an optional suggestion, but I was thinking maybe switch the "Games" and "Gameplay" sections around. As a newcomer, I find it a little odd being plunged into the gameplay when I don't even know much about the games themselves. Most other game series articles I've seen seem to put games first, gameplay second. As said, this is optional, and more a matter of style choices.
    • Done.
  3. Also optional, but that screenshot of gamplay in God of War (not Betrayal, I must note) looks strange to me as I know the game uses a 4:3 screen ratio and it looks like something from a mobile game. Either clarify that it's cropped/similar, or replace it with another image that shows similar content but stays true to the chosen game's screen ratio. On a side-note, the combo/QTE section seems out of place. Maybe it should be closer to paragraphs involving combat.
    • That image has been around here forever. I've just been using it because it was already available here. I'll add that it's cropped for the meantime. Moved the QTE part up.
  4. Refs 21, 24, 60, 91, 117, 118, 119, 120 and 130 need their urls updating.
    • Forgot to check these before doing above edits so had to go to the previous version of the article to make sure I was checking the correct refs. These were all okay when I checked them.
  5. I saw a use of Amazon for Ref 99. That would like raise questions at FAC. That I would certainly question. Maybe Game-OST would be a descent substitute, as that is an official music documentation site that holds information about both physical and digital albums.
    • Replaced with Game-OST ref.
  6. External links generally need looking through and updating as most are either redirecting or have been permanently moved.
    • Removed all external links except for the franchise one (as it's correct). --JDC808 16:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's what I found on a first look-through. I may come back for a second, but these should tide you over in the meantime. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: All points addressed whenever you get a chance to revisit. --JDC808 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 17:12 UTC)----

MediEvil (video game)[edit]

I'm seriously contemplating submitting this to FAC in the future, any advice considering the prose/organization of the article would be greatly appreciated. Luckily I have a few extra sources for this.

Thanks, JAGUAR  17:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 29 April 2015, 17:57 UTC)----

Geography and places[edit]


Ladislaus I of Hungary[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be chequed before its FA nomination.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In the lead, "He occupied most parts of Croatia…" is awkward. Was it most of, some of, part of? Unless there are distinct, seperate parts of Croatia which I'm not aware of (I'm only aware of a couple of countries that have such) Gecko G (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Gecko G, thank your for your comment. I modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
But we can't know the exact extent of territory that he gained control of. If he gained the lands south of Drava and north of Gvozd, then it was just northern Croatia (According to Thomas the Archdeacon's chronicle, Ladislaus "occupied the entire land from the River Drava to the mountains called the Iron Alps without encountering opposition".). Unlike today, in the 11th century the centre of Croatia was south around Knin, Biograd, Nin, Šibenik, Solin... not in Zagreb. He intervened in the succession crisis upon the request of his sister with support of a number of Croatian nobles, and after her death he was technically a legal heir to the throne. I would propose something like this: He intervened in the succession crisis in Croatia and gained control over northern parts of it. Tzowu (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Tzowu: First, I take it your comment was directed at the previous section about his occupation of Croatia, and not his father's recieving of the Ducatus, so I hope it's ok that I'm moving it thusly.
Second, I turned to my collection of historical atlas to try to see if they could shed any light on what parts he occupied. I hadn't expected to find much since it was such a narrow window where the borders were in flux. I was surprised at the number of references I did find, but also very surprised to find that my various historical atlas's unfortunately disagree with one another. Cry.png And I didn't find anything useful in other references I had on hand. Looking around the 'net, apparently at the time Croatia did have two "parts" both called Croatia: Pannonian Croatia vs. Dalmatian Croatia, aka the Duchy of Croatia. Croatia proper is a much later term, a little over half of which is in Pannonian croatia, the remainder of which, along with northern Dalmatia made up the Duchy of Croatia. I wonder if that is the cause of the confusion in sources? It seems he conquered Pannonian Croatia (& Slavonia) for sure, but it's unclear how-much, if any, of Dalmatian Croatia he got.
Thirdly, about the center (or heartland) of Croatia at the time being in what is today considered northern Dalmatia, very good point - I found a source confirming such: "A strong state organisation was created in the basin of the Dalmatian rivers Cetina, Krka and Zrmanja, in the hinterland of the Byzantine cities of Split, Trogir and Zadar."[1] At least that's as of the late 9th/early 10th century, I presume it was still so in the late 11th (though apparently by this time Biograd & Nin were Venetian holdings[2], in the case of Biograd at least since earlier in the century[3]), so you are right that that is important to keep in mind.
Fine (1991) [which I cited twice just above] would likely make a good source for just how much of Croatia he occupied, unfortunately the page in question, page 284, is not available on Google Books.
Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was intented for that comment.
We can take 10 historical maps of Southeastern Europe during the Middle Ages and end up with 10 different versions of borders. Contemporary sources are very, very scarce about this time period, the contradictions you found are not unusual. What he definitely conquered was Pannonia. However, Croatian kings didn't really have a stable rule there even before and it was often regarded as terra nullus. It was mostly a swampy area. "Pannonian Croatia" and "Dalmatian Croatia" are names used by (some) historians for two earlier centuries' states, Duchy of Pannonia and Duchy of Croatia, or as names for 2 regions of Croatia in the 11th or 12th century.
I have the whole book and I can quote page 248. According to Fine, he "occupied much of Croatia, including part of Dalmatia", then after the attack of Cumans on Hungary he "pulled out of Dalmatia, but kept inland (Pannonian) Croatia." That territory was given to Almos who ruled there until 1095.
"The Hungarian king quickly intervened to protect his sister's interests (a fine excuse for what were probably his own ambitions) and occupied much of Croatia, including part of Dalmatia. However, some wild people (Pechenegs, according to Sisic, but more probably Cumans as argued by N. Klaic) then attacked Hungary, causing a partial withdrawal of the Hungarians. They pulled out of Dalmatia, but kept inland (Pannonian) Croatia. Between the Drava River and the Gvozd mountain they created a special Croatian banovina ruled by Almos, the nephew of the king. Almos was to hold this territory from 1091 to 1095." Tzowu (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In the early years seciton, I made it clearer that it was the father who recieved the Duchy, not Ladislaus himself. And changed it to the Ducatus—as from my understanding it was not one of various duchies, like say with British or Swedish royal dukedom's or with French apanages, or what not, but rather a distinct, singular, entity. Gecko G (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Two quick clarifications in the duke section, 2nd paragraph: 1st- was the Battle of Kemej the outbreak of the civil war? If not, when it started should probably be mentioned. 2nd- Where did he command the left flank? (at the battle of Mogyoród specifically or was it routinely his command?) Gecko G (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Gecko G, thank you for your review. Sorry I do not know whether he routinely left the left flank or only at Mogyoród, but this information was only recorded in connection with the Battle of Mogyoród and I modified the article. The civil war started with the invasion of the duchy which ended with the Battle of Kemej. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The Battle of Kemej ended the civil war or ended the invasion of the duchy? Gecko G (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it was a battle during the civil war (and the invasion of the duchy). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I had planned to go over one section a day, but I haven't had the time to maintain that schedule. To help make up for it, I went through 3 sections today. Not sure what the etiquette is, if I should keep this near my other comments just above, or put it at teh bottom after Dank's review to keep it chronological. If the later, then anyone please feel free to move my remarks down.
In the "His reign, consolidation …" sub-section:
However, almost contemporaneous sources contradict this report seems you are either missing an "all" OR it should be "most" rather than "almost"
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In the sentence about Rudolf of Rheinfelden, Perhaps consider working in a link to either the Great Saxon Revolt and/or him being an antiking?
Thank you. Link added. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In the "expansion" sub-section:
all looks good.
In the "Last years" sub-section:
2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. Is it possible to double check the exact wording in the illuminated chronicle in the quote used there, specifically 2 parts: The usage of an "and" rather than a comma between the first two items of the 4 item list, and also is it clarified what is meant by "Britain", since England is part of the physical island of Great Britain (thus that usage is odd).
Gecko G (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I modified the second sentence after this sentence in order to emphasize that the whole story was only a later invention. The chronicler who wrote that sentence obviously did not know geography. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Cuman": quote marks here are ambiguous. Add "a Turkic nomad".
Dank, thank you for your comments. I would preserve the question marks, because "Ladislaus's fight with the Cuman" is the traditional name of that legend. I delinked the word and added a short text. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • " proclaimed king in 1074; however, Solomon maintained control": proclaimed king in 1074, but Solomon maintained control
Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, Solomon resisted Ladislaus with the assistance of King Henry IV of Germany. Consequently ... However": "However" and "Consequently" are heavier words than you need here; they reduce readability, especially with 3 occurrences in one paragraph.
Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cumans": Don't link the second occurrence.
Thank you, I delinked the first occurence (as per above). Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 May 2015, 03:43 UTC)----

Romney Academy[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to Good Article status and write similar articles about other academies existing during the same era as Romney Academy. Any guidance or suggested edits would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, -- West Virginian (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 May 2015, 06:41 UTC)----

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Hi, this article has been completely overhauled in the last few months. Requesting feedback before taking the article to GA review. All comments welcome. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Hi Enigma, good to see you. I have a few copyediting comments.
  • "The 70th Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which fought during": See WP:REDUNDANCY, part of LEAD. I recommend: "The 70th Infantry Division of the British Army fought during"
    Yes check.svg Done
  • "It was formed on 10 October 1941, via the renaming": I think "formed" is going to suggest to many readers that something happened other than changing names; even for those who get "via the renaming", there's a garden path here. This suggests that we're talking about a renaming: "On 10 October, for security reasons and in an attempt to confuse Axis intelligence when the division was fully redeployed, the 6th Infantry Division was renamed the 70th Infantry Division".
    I have done some rewording, although i am not sure if it is any better to be honest!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "would continue post-war": would continue after the war
    Yes check.svg Done
  • " the Australians inducted their British reliefs on life in the fortress.": "reliefs" seems jargony to me, and isn't listed at for instance Cambridge Dictionaries. "inducted ... on" is a rare usage.
    Attempted to address.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Besieged, life was uncomfortable": Some say that "Besieged, their life was uncomfortable" doesn't fix the dangling modifier, because it's not "their" that's besieged", it's "they", but I side with those who say it does fix it, with a minimum of fuss. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    Went with a something a little different, does that work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    I moved the apostrophe over one letter. It looks fine. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dank for the comments. I will get to work on this soon, probably tomorrow. Regards.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments: looks quite good to me, well done. I have a couple of minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • In the lead, "The author of the British Official history, as well as William Slim…" -->I’d suggest identifying the author by name here…
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Capitalisation: "2/13th battalion" should probably be changed to "2/13th Battalion" as it is a proper noun, same for 2/15th etc
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Capitalisation: "burden on Henry Wilson, General officer commanding British Troops in Egypt" --> "burden on Henry Wilson, General Officer Commanding British Troops in Egypt" as it appears to be a title in this case
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Capitalisation: "corps commander, lieutenant-general William Slim…" this should probably be changed to "corps commander, Lieutenant-General William Slim" because the rank is being used as a title here
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Capitalisation: “Wingate (now a Major-General) was…” this should probably be changed to "Wingate (now a major-general) was…" as it is not being used as a title here per WP:MILTERMS. * good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
Thanks for the comments guys. I have made the adjustments as indicated, or at least attempted to in some places.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 May 2015, 23:33 UTC)----

Coinage Act of 1873[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd appreciate feedback before taking it to FAC. The Coinage Act of 1873 really isn't about the coins, it's about a piece of legislation that sparked the largest political controversy in the US in the last years of the 19th century.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

First instalment – I'm about two-thirds through:

  • "The Mint, in its first decades, only coined gold and silver in response to deposits of that metal by citizens..." - As two metals have been mentioned I'd say "those metals" rather than "that metal". Also, I think "only" is redundant.
  • "At that time, gold or silver U.S. coins were rarely seen in the nation, as they were heavily exported—most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". There seems a contradiction here: gold or silver U.S. coins were "heavily exported", yet "most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". Can you explain what these pieces in circulation were?
  • Sorry, but "half-dime"? What's that in cents?
  • "replaced with a shortage" → "replaced by a shortage"
  • "Since it had been two decades since much silver was regularly deposited..." Is there a "so" missing from before "much"?
Not really. There may be a "very" implied there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would specify the "British gold sovereign" in the text, rather than requiring the link. Likewise "25 French francs", although for some reason you haven't wikilinked "franc".
  • You could economise on wording re. Knox, whose dispatch to San Francisco is mentioned twice in successive sentences at the beginning of para 2.
  • The sentence beginning "The proposed major changes to existing law..." is too long and overcomplicated. It also apperas to mix proposals with actual changes ("the office of treasurer at the mints and assay offices was abolished..." etc).
Consideration and passage
  • "Knox's bill had abolished the charge of .5 percent" → " Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent" (?)
  • "recommitted to committee" – is there a more elegant way of phrasing this? (We also have "committed to Sherman's committee" later on)
  • "The bill at that time provided that the cent be made of nickel alloy as well" – does this mean "The bill at that time provided that the cent be partially made of nickel alloy"?
  • I don't see how Townsend's motion to kill the bill can be said to have "succeeded twice", when it actually failed to pass on a roll call.
  • Sentence needing attention: "The House initially refused to agree to the Trade dollar, and representatives of both houses, led by Sherman and Potter, met in a conference committee, and the House acceded to the Senate amendment for the Trade dollar". There is one "and" too many.
Intent of the bill's authors
  • The first sentence reads very awkwardly, partly I think because of punctuation placements and partly because of the initial "Once". I suggest a slight revision: "When, several years after its passage, the 1873 act became a political issue, ..." etc
  • Adding "they argued" to a fairly long clause makes for confusion in reading. Why not "They argued that..."?
  • The "though" after "Boutwell" is a kind of honorary "however". I'm not convinced it's needed.
  • The sentence beginning "Within a few years..." is too long, too complicated, needs a split.
  • I have slightly altered the format of this section, to rescue the otherwise awkwardly place Nugent quote which, as it stood, did not stand out sufficiently from the main text (particularly as it begins mid-sentence).
  • The (again overlong) sentence beginning "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar..." is not syntactically correct. Suggest: "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar with mining conditions in the Far West. They knew that the amount of bullion produced..." etc

Will return to complete shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The rest: slim pickings:

Bureau of the Mint; duties of officers
  • " each required to be bonded" - explain?
  • "and required them to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate..." etc: this information is stated in the previous paragraph and doesn't need repeating.
Testing and the Assay Commission
  • "The Coinage Act of 1873 kept the judge as a member, but made the two other federal officials who were members the Comptroller of the Currency and the assayer of the New York Assay Office." I had to read this more than once, and I'm still not certain of its syntax. If you deleted "who were members" it would flow better and remove an unnecessary repetition.
  • "The president, under the 1837 act, was allowed to appoint members of the public each year..." For clarity, I suggest: "Under the 1837 act, the president was allowed to appoint members of the public to the commission each year..."
Criminal offenses and miscellaneous provisions
  • " Each office would be governed similarly to the mints, with a superintendent in charge, and an Assayer, and Melter and Refiner as the two officers under him." Compare with: " In addition to the superintendent, each mint had an Assayer, a Melter and Refiner, and a Coiner" a couple of sections earlier. It seems an unnecessary inclusion in this section anyway.
  • "setting a April 1, 1873 effective date" – "a" April? Maybe "setting April 1, 1873 as the effective date".
Later reaction
  • The opening sentence (like Macbeth) has three "whiches". Apart from that, better as two sentences, I think.
  • "recovered some" is, I recognise, standard informal American prose, but is it encyclopedic?
"Crime of '73"
  • "resumption of specie payments" – explain?
  • "Even though Kelley denied this had taken place, the story stuck,..." Well, Kelley would deny it, wouldn't he, even if the story was true. The "even though" rather implies that a congressman's denial of something was a standard for truth. I'd reword slightly: "Kelley denied this had taken place, but the story stuck,..."

That's all. An interesting legal imbroglio. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've either done what you suggested or done something similar.

Coemgenus's comments[edit]

  • "...causing large quantities of silver dollars to be struck and the gold standard endangered." Earlier, you said that bimetalism was the standard. Maybe "driving the more-valuable gold dollars out of circulation" or something like that (if what I wrote is even accurate).
  • "So long as silver prices remained high, this placed the United States on the gold standard." The word "effectively" might help here, since we were legally still on a bimetal standard.
  • "Greenbacks, backed not by silver or gold..." Maybe "Greenbacks, a paper currency backed not by silver or gold..." just so people are clear on what they were.
  • I'd rearrange the first two sentences to get the cause and effect in order. Something like "Losses of nearly $250,000 at the San Francisco Mint had concerned the Treasury, and McCullough sent John Jay Knox, a Treasury employee, on a special mission to investigate in 1866."
Consideration and passage
  • "Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent." You said this in the previous section.
  • "The bill was reintroduced into the House by Kelley when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and was debated there in January 1872." I'd say "Kelley reintroduced the bill in the House when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and it was debated there in January 1872."
Coins and deposit of bullion (§13–39)
Later reaction
  • It's linked in the lede, but I'd link "free silver" the first time it's used here, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 24 April 2015, 23:04 UTC)----

Natural sciences and mathematics[edit]


I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently added a lot of info since I realized that this article is rated as Start Class. After adding the "Eras of the Phanerozoic" section, I believe that it's, at the very least, rated GA. If you disagree, don't be afraid to tell me. I'd appreciate your input!

Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've notified WikiProject Geology about this PR, we could consider inviting editors from the volunteer list too. For GA, the article needs to pass a formal review per its criteria. At a quick glance, I would say the lead section has to be expanded to appropriate length. You can nominate it for GA if you wish to after this PR closes. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • At the moment it would fail WP:DYK which is a pretty low bar. This is because not all paragraphs are referenced. The chances are that other references already used could do for the unreferenced paragraphs. I also think it dos not have enough on what the unit as a whol means, mostly it is taken up with the subdivisions. The boundary section needs boosting considerably, with references included. Also the pictures are focused on ancient animals, we could have something modern as that too is Phanerozoic, and plants could do with a showing. Also missing is history of plate tectonics, amount of carbon dioxide, and oxygen in the air, temperature. Are there any representative sections on the surface of the earth that covers the whole Phanerozoic? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 23:00 UTC)----

Language and literature[edit]

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Social sciences and society[edit]

La Martiniere Lucknow[edit]

Previous peer review

Please review this article...

Thanks, Martinian Leave a message! 11:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 May 2015, 11:35 UTC)----

United States v. Ramsey (1926)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am preparing it for a run at Featured Article.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 2 May 2015, 04:00 UTC)----

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to take this article to Featured Status.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment: WP:IMGLOC says we shouldn't let text be sandwiched between images like how it is in the Background section. Since there's a lack of space, maybe you could group the maps together using a horizontal Template:Multiple image? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Done - thanks, I had not thought about that solution. GregJackP Boomer! 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe, use the horizontal template for all three maps and place it in the center of the a sort-of gallery, then the text won't be so stuffed to one side? You have another set (Younger, Elder and Hitchcock) which can be further put in the relevant section. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
PS: From what I know about WP:GALLERY, this should be permitted. I'm not so experienced in FAs but I'm fairly certain this is allowed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Done, as to the maps, I'm not as sure on the portrait photos. Elder is not connected with the lawsuit (he's in due to his role in the treaties), and when I did a preview with just Younger & Hitchcock, I didn't like the way it looked. I'll think about it some more though. GregJackP Boomer! 14:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey it actually solved your problem. No need of doing any further work here, all images are well-spaced with no text sandwich. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Ugog Nizdast
  • Some image captions are sentence fragments but have a period, see WP:CAPFRAG.
  • "Main articles" links have been given for Kiowa people, Plains Apache and Comanche, Little Arkansas Treaty and Medicine Lodge Treaty, and Cultural assimilation of Native Americans. That would mean you need to summarise accordingly (WP:DETAIL) from the subarticles, over here. It doesn't seem to be the case for most of these examples, so you can replace them with the {{Further}} or {{Detail}} headers which don't require you to summarise where that is the case.
  • "By 1854, need for another treaty became apparent, the United States entered into a <second> treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Kiowa-Appache (KCA) at Fort Ackinson, Indian Territory." For copyediting, redundancy should be reduced, these changes can be implemented if any significant meaning isn't altered. Try to find more such cases if you can.
  • "There was an attempt to place some of the tribes on a reservation" but it says previously that the treaty didn't? or did they separately try to do it? clarify. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed captions.
  • Replaced "Main article" links with "Further" links.
  • OK, I'll look for others.
  • OK, I'll come up with clearer language. GregJackP Boomer! 14:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 May 2015, 19:00 UTC)----


I want to get this article up to GA status and eventually FA status if possible. I understand that this article needs a lot of work, so the more feedback, the better! I'm listing this as a social sciences topic because I would like this article to be written more from a social sciences perspective than only a geographical perspective. I'd like people knowledgeable in society, history, and politics to feel free to contribute, particularly if they're well-acquainted with Hawaii's socioeconomic history. All are welcome to help clean up links, sources, and grammar, though!

Thanks! The Obento Musubi (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Doing... I'm trying to do the peer review thoroughly, so I removed the bot message that closed the peer review request. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, WeijiBaikeBianji! The Obento Musubi (t · c) 08:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for your work about Hawaii... It is clear that this work was an excellent overview about it as it has described its history, its social situation, its politics and its topography and this is not available for some UN affiliated countries. So, I am really satisfied with your work and I think that you can do better and get FA Status. However, this work lacks from some details which are important for me:

  • Customs and Traditions: The work does not give any detail about the events and the festivals held in Hawaii every year. It does not also describe the Native traditions of Hawaii and this includes wear, handicrafts... Although these social details are not very important to see the position of the State of Hawaii in the United States, they are important to promote the culture of Hawaii. So, I think that you should work more about these details soon.
  • Influencing People: The work does not involve any name of an influential person who helped the promotion and the core development of Hawaii. This involves the names of the influential people in the First Existing Hawaiian Civilizations and the discoverers of Hawaii... The people who had influenced Hawaii should be efficiently cited. So, you should expand the History part in order to do this more efficiently.
  • Industrial Activities: The work does not involve the name of main factories in Hawaii. Furthermore, it does not involve any information about the type of fruits and vegetables produced in Hawaii... It does not give an overview about the rate of dependency of Hawaii to the production of tropical fruits... These information are important although they are very important to see the quality of the Regioanl industry of Hawaii.
  • Historical Sites: This part is very limited. Try to merge it with Gallery Part and better its output more efficiently. Try to involve a better description of the policy of Hawaii about Hotels... Furthermore, try to site more historical sites that are very important in Hawaii. Try to describe the evolution and the style of Architecture in Hawaii... Try to give more details about main civilizations that influenced architecture in Hawaii... Try to specify the characteristics of houses in Hawaii...

Finally, I do not have to tell you that you can answer me anytime and I will give you more details.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, Csisc, thank you for your feedback! I will address your concerns/feedback in my future edits of the article. Cheers, The Obento Musubi (t · c) 05:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 22 April 2015, 19:15 UTC)----


WikiProject peer-reviews[edit]

  1. ^ Goldstein, Ivo (1999). Croatia: A History. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 17. ISBN 9780773520172. 
  2. ^ Fine, John Van Antwerp (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. p. 281. ISBN 9780472081493. 
  3. ^ Fine, John Van Antwerp (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. p. 276. ISBN 9780472081493.