Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.


Mark Hanna[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA as the first in my McKinley project. Feedback welcome.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mark Hanna/archive1.

Iztok Puc[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I and some other contributors to the article have come to a conclusion that we would like to make the article about this, recently deceased, person to achieve a status of Good Article. Ty, Ratipok (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article - tragic that he died relatively young. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FA biographies of athletes at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation_biographies and it seems as if some of them might be useful models.
  • The current lead is too short and needs to be expanded. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the lead has little in it about his career except for his Olmpic appearances.
  • To become a GA, the article needs to follow WP:WIAGA , which includes the idea that article is broad in its coverage. I think it needs more detail - there is nothing on his birth or parents or siblings (if any), and the details of his career could be greatly expanded. For example over 16 years is summarized in one sentence: "Puc started his career at RK Šoštanj and later played professionally for RK Borac from Bosnia and Herzegovina, RK Zagreb from Croatia, and RK Celje and RD Prule 67 from Slovenia.[7] This should be expanded into many sentences / paragraphs with more details.
  • Did he win any championships with his teams in those 16 plus years? What were their records like when he played for them? A little of this is done for RK Celje and RD Prule 67, but more detail could be given for all these clubs.
  • This needs a reference In early 2011, Puc was diagnosed with lung cancer that spread to his liver and bones, and succumbed to the disease on 20 October 2011, just a few days before the Champions League game between Zagreb and Barcelona.
  • I checked one of the few English refs (Iztok Puc passes away". and it said he died of leukemia, not lung cancer. Also said he moved to Florida to help his tennis playing son's career.
  • This needs a ref too: In the late 1990s he switched his national side allegiance in favour of Slovenia, the country of his birth. He then played for the Slovenian team at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, where the team finished eighth. Slovenia qualified for the Sydney tournament after finishing fifth at the 2000 European Championship. The play-off match fifth place was played in Zagreb against host nation Croatia, Puc's former team. Puc was one of the best players of the game and Slovenia won the match 25–24, thus securing the last available spot for the 2000 Olympics.
    • The tone needs to be more encylcopedic / neutral - it is fine to quote someone as saying he "was one of the best players of the game" but this kind of superlative should be attributed. It also helps to give specifics and let the reader decide his performance - if the article says he scored more goals than any other player and was also the leader in other statistics, this makes it clearer that he was one of the best or best.
  • I did not find any images of him on Flickr, which is too bad - perhaps if you contacted on of his former teams / federations, they might release a free image (see WP:OTRS)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want someone else's point-of-view of the article and tell me what to improve and what is good about the article. I also hope that sometime in the future the article will become a Featured Article on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Dom497 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting ride - thanks for your work on it. This needs some more work before it would stand much of a chance at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Now I realize that there are no FAs on rides at amusement parks, but I wonder if some the transportation articles which are FAs might be useful for ideas. This is a technologically complex man made stucture used to move people, so maybe a FA on a train or a ship might at least give you some ideas. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport
  • When I read the article, my initial reaction was what kind of ride is this - I knew it was tall from the first sentence, but not exactly what it was beyond the pretty vague "thrill ride" - I thought it might be some kind of tall roller coaster or something like Demon Drop at first. I think there are two ways to improve reader understanding early on. One is to include an image of the ride itself in the infobox - there is a parameter to do so and I like File:Canada's Wonderland WindSeeker.jpg best of the images in the article for a lead image. The other way is to better describe the ride itself in the first sentence or two. So I would probably mention the swings and their number and perhaps number of riders there - not sure if there is an encyclopedic way to say it is a Chair-O-Planes on steroids or not ;-)
  • I now see some of the sources used call it a "swing ride", which works for me
  • In the infobox, I would also put the General Statistics first, and then have the sections about the individual rides at the different parks.
  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - I think it could be split into at least two paragraphs.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. The cost is in the lead and infobox, but not in the body of the article (for example). I would also make sure that anything important in the infobox is also in the article, like the cost
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the current lead does not seem like that to me. ANother way to think about it is to imagine someone could only read the lead - would it tell them all the basics they needed to know?
  • The lead as a summary does not really need refs, except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims. The refs should be in the body of the article when the material is repeated.
  • Two dead external links here (tool on this PR page to check ELs)
  • I would also make sure all sources used meet WP:RS - is Westcoaster a RS? Looks a bit more like a fan site - what makes it reliable? Is there editorial oversight?
  • I expected History to tell me whose idea it was - did Cedar Fair come up with the idea and approach Mondial or vice versa? Do we know when the idea was conceived? Who the designer was? Do other parks also have WindSeekers (besides Cedar Fair)?
  • The above points are comprehensiveness issues, which are part of WP:WIAFA
  • Galleries are usually discouraged in FAs. {{Multiple image}} might work
  • The labeled images are nice, but the print is too small to read on my monitor when they are used within the article.
  • The logo and design of the signs are probably TM and coprighted, so File:Knott's WindSeeker Sign.jpg and the other may be fair use.
  • The most difficult criterion for most articles at FAC to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. This has decent prose, but noy great. Thinsg like The tower at Knott's Berry Farm has no lights at the top of the tower.[11] need to be fixed (avoid needless repetition, repetition)
  • I would like to ride this, but fear I would get scared up so high. ;-)
  • Taking a second look - does the lead really need the opening date of each ride? Perhaps the first ride, then say the next three were opened in the same summer, and the next two are planned for summer 2012. I think there needs to more on problems in the lead.
  • The History section is oddly organized - the table in the middle breaks it up, so I would move that to the end of the section (otherwise you hit the table while reading and think History is done).
  • It might also help to have History broken up into subsections. As it is the first paragraph goes from 2010 to 2012, then the second paragraph goes back to November 2010. WOuld it help to talk about the planning and idea first (for all of them), then go on to announcements. Then you could either talk about the first group of four as a block, or perhaps have a paragraph on each park. Then you could talk about the next two to open, again as a block or with a paragraph on each.
  • The level of detail is sometimes a bit much - doe we really need to know One of the thirty-two pairs of seats was removed from the ride for an unknown reason,[40] and were replaced; testing for the ride began shortly after.? Some of the differences at Knot's Berry Farm seem a bit trival to me too.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Birth control movement in the United States[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on submitting the article to FAC, and I'd like to meet all the FA requirements beforehand, so I don't waste reviewers' time at FAC. I'd appreciate it if the PR reviewer were familiar with the FAC process and FA requirements. I'm looking for this peer review to act as a dry-run of the FAC, so don't hold back the criticisms! Thanks. -- Noleander (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1.

Arsène Wenger[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if this is on the right track to a GA.

Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I thought this was interesting and pretty well done - seems like it is relatively close to ready for GAN. Thanks for your work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many sport biography FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation_biographies, which should provide some useful models
  • 2 dab links
  • 5 dead external links
  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD well. For one thing the lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs long and this is 5 paragraphs.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However at least Wenger is widely regarded by many as one of the world's best managers.[6][7][8] appears only in the lead that I could see.
  • This also means that refs are not generally needed in the lead (except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims) - the material will appear again in the body of the article and be sourced there.
  • The lead does not read to me like a full summary of the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, even if it is just a owrd or phrase. However, I do not see anything on controversies or his personal life in the lead, for example.
  • Avoid choppy prose that breaks the narrative flow of the article - often this comes from short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, or short (one or paragraph) sections.
  • I think the Early life and Playing career sections could be combined as they are only 2 paragraphs now (plus a short quote).
  • SInce this is the English Wikipedia, I would translate all foreign words / phrases whose meaning is not clear (so the name of his parents' bar, for example)(I do think most readers will understand Le Professeur though)
  • Watch for WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT issues. He spent 3 years as head of AS Nancy, but this gets one sentence. In contrast his time in Japan was only 18 months (so roughly half the time) but gets two full paragraphs. I know there is more to write about with a successful team, but still...
  • Avoid vague time terms like "currently" as they can quickly necome out of date - it is better to use "As of YEAR" so He is currently the club's longest serving manager and most successful, based on trophies won.[3][4] could be something like As of November 2011, he is the club's longest serving manager ... (the end could be cleaned up too, but I am too tired to think of a way now - sorry)
  • Another place where more specific time could be added is Wenger is married to former basketball player Annie Brosterhous, with whom he has one daughter, Léa[14] (born 1997), and currently lives in Totteridge, London.[10][16] Is there a source saying when they were married? So Wenger married former basketball player Annie Brosterhous in YEAR; they have one daughter, Lea, who was born in 1997. The Wengers have lived in Totteridge, London since YEAR. OR Wenger and former basketball player Annie Brosterhous have been married since YEAR. As of 2011, they live with their daughter Lea, who was born in 1997, in Totteridge, London.
  • WP:MOS says once you introduce someone using their full name, just to use their last name thereafter (unless there are two or more people with the same last name or someone is best known by a name other than their last name). So look at how David Dein is handled, for example
  • WP:HEAD says not to use ampersand & in headers in almost all cases (and this is not one of them)
  • The Controversies section does not seem to me like most of these were very controversial - two of the five subsections do not even use the word controversy / controversial. Not sure what else to call it though....
  • The word also is usually not needed (though there are times when it is)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Very much grateful for your thorough feedback. Will be working on this in the coming weeks. —Lemonade51 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Herman Melville bibliography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done a considerable amount of work expanding the article and need some feedback. Would like to eventually see the article rated FL. I think it covers most of the bases as it stands now but am unsure of how much bibliographical detail is needed for each of the titles. E.g. many bibliographies include things like physical descriptions of first editions, their original and current values, etc. Are these appropriate to Wikipedia? The article is at a turning point, I think. Where do we go from here?

Thanks, Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Herman Melville bibliography/archive1.

Strike Back: Project Dawn[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was going to put it up for GAN, but thought "not so fast!" I've edited the article the best I can, but I know there might be issues lurking about. I'm now going to need a pair of fresh eyes, particularly from those who have not seen the series, to give it a little more perspective for the casual reader. After this can be done, could I put it up for GAN.

Thanks, Matthew RD 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

I didn't watch the series, so I hope my eyes are fresh enough! In terms of explaining the plot and other fictional elements of the series, the article does well. However, it does fall down in some places in regards to production and development background. There are also minor spelling and grammar issues that indicate the article should be run over with a fine tooth comb before going to GAN.


  • "The second series of Strike Back was announced by Sky after the first series aired, where later it was announced that Sky entered a co-production deal with the American premium cable network Cinemax, who wanted to introduce new original drama series, to produce the show." This is quite clunky. There are lots of different ideas crammed into one long sentence. "Where" doesn't work as a conjunction here and "to produce the show" is redundant to "co-production deal". It should be something like "Sky announced Strike Back would be returning for a second series after the first aired. They entered a co-production deal with the American premium cable network Cinemax, who wanted to introduce new original drama series to the network." I'm not sure if you should be saying "co-production" either, since it was really a co-financing deal.
  • "Filming began on February[...]" Is there an exact date missing here or should it be "in"?

Series overview

  • "Winchester added[...]" Added to what?

Cast and characters

  • This section should be checked for minor misspellings and words that have "fallen out" of sentences. E.g. "Because Stapleton is an Australian actor" and "a "by-the-book" former British Special Forces soldier now assigned to Section 20, who is partnered with Scott to help track down a kidnapped Porter". Also, there are instances of quotations being used where simple paraphrasing would work; only use quotations if the speaker's original meaning would be lost in paraphrasing.
  • "Stapleton also described Scott's working relationship with Stonebridge as "they have a professional respect for each other,"" This doesn't make sense. This is an instance where paraphrasing could work better; "Of Scott and Stonebridge's working relationship, Stapleton said "they have a professional respect for each other" but start to annoy each other."
  • "He was wary whether he did it right because he barely worked with Americans on the show, but believed he did okay when HBO was satisfied with it." This is the first mention of HBO; someone who doesn't know of the relationship between HBO and Cinemax might be confused about what HBO's satisfaction has to do with anything.
  • "In addition". Or just "Additionally"? A new paragraph should begin for these supporting and minor cast.

Production: Development

  • Again, please check for minor misspellings and missing words.
  • "Left Bank Pictures would continue their role as the production company." "continued" instead of "would continue".
  • "Frank Spotnitz, Richard Zajdlic, Tony Saint and Simon Burke were employed as the series writers." "contracted" or "signed" rather than "employed".
  • "Andy Harries and Elaine Pyke became the show's executive producers." "were" rather than "became"; as executive producers, their role is to execute production - therefore the show technically does not exist before they start work on it.


  • SBS is used twice in this paragraph but not spelled out until the second instance; it should be spelled out on first use.


  • "Filming began on February 2011,[2] and concluded in the late summer" The international nature of this series makes "summer" confusing; is it "summer" in the United States, where the Cinemax press release originated, or "summer" in Cape Town, where filming took place?

Release and ratings

  • "additional" in the second sentence is redundant to "adding".
  • "it performed better than the pilot from the previous series". "first episode" rather than "pilot"; the Strike Back (TV series) article implies the first series was commissioned as a six-parter and did not pilot (generally the case for high-concept drama series in the UK), and the Guardian reference does not use "pilot".
  • The tense needs updating for the DVD/blu-ray release.

Critical reception

  • This section could do with some broader coverage from British critics for balance.

Bradley0110 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

May Revolution[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting tired of people opposing the nominations for trivial issues and then running away. Thanks, Cambalachero (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Litigators[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted a set of eyes on to help me prepare this for WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I had not even heard of this novel - thanks for your work on it; here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GA.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is a FA on a fairly recent novel that may be a useful model.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However "his second novel to be published in 2011 (the previous was Theodore Boone: The Abduction)." is only in the lead (and needs a ref)
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the lead is almost all plot - I would talk about the critical reaction and the sales figures / bestseller lists.
  • Why not include the free image of Grisham?
  • When I read "edition" I think of earlier editions of this novel, not previous books by Grisham. See Having sold 250 million copies of his previous 24 novels in 29 languages, Grisham had produced an international best seller with each prior edition.[2][3]
  • I think it is OK to start with some background on Grisham, but is that really "Publication" information? I expected there to be more background on why Grisham wrote the back / how he came up with the idea for the novel, but it comes at the end ofthe Publication section. Why not do a background and composition section that focuses on Grisham and how he wrote it, then a Publication section with the details?
  • Plot kind of just ends without giving the ending of the novel
    • General consensus of the reviews is not to detail the ending. P.S., tomorrow, I will be picking up a copy of the book that I placed on hold at the library.
  • I owuld split the long first paragraph of Critical reviews into at least two paragraphs
  • Language is a bit rough in spots - one example: antecedent of he is unclear in Simakis praised the book for having more depth of character than he customarily does.[16] (assume Grisham is the he)
  • I am not sure the List of characters section is needed at all - the plot introduces the characters fairly well
    • I am not sure it should be deleted, so I moved it up to the plot section. If people feel it is redundant, it will get axed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why list Helen in the characters - she is not mentioned anywhere else in the article?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe Danger[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hiya, just going to peer review this again. The prose is what I'm looking to fix, essentially. A lot of gaming jargon could be simplified by another pair of eyes, I think. Just generally helping out finding prose issues before another FAC in the future. Thanks! — Joseph Fox 18:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joe Danger/archive2.


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in the hope of pushing it towards GA status.

Thanks, Stemonitis (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang
  • "... at an altitude of 1,085 metres ..."
    "With" or "at"? I imagine that if we talk about "at", then the mountain's base would be at that level. Or should it not be "... with a height of 1,085 metres ..."?
  • That would be a bizarre reading. When talking about the heights of mountains without further qualification, one is almost invariably talking about the altitude of the summit, not the base. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The routes are arranged here anticlockwise, starting with the path leading from Llanberis. During winter, all these routes become significantly more difficult and many inexperienced walkers have been killed over the years attempting to climb the mountain via the main paths."
    What is the source for this? For GA or better, statements such as this would need to be cited to a reliable source.
  • All replaced with printed books. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll look into getting an alternative image. None of the examples on the Commons really fits the bill. I'll get back to you on this one. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • File:WalesGwynedd.png: What is the base map or source of physical data for this map? Is the source in the public domain or licensed for "free" use?
  • I don't know. The earliest edit is by User:Morwen (no longer very active here), who released it under GFDL. It is a very widely used image on, and elsewhere, so if there is a problem with it, I think it would probably transcend this peer review. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not understand how this will "transcend" this peer review, but this project has had long-standing articles that do not have sources, are undoubtedly biased to a certain viewpoint, contain copyright violations, etc. Their violations are not overlooked, when the time comes for examination, just because they exist in such a state for a long time. In this case, the image is an information that requires sources to verify. Are the geographical details correct? Are the boundary lines consistent with what has been represented? Sources are needed to verify these per WP:V. Jappalang (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My point was only that if there is a problem with that file, it will be a problem for hundreds of articles, not just this one. I'm not saying it's not a problem, just that it isn't a problem specifically relating to this article, and probably isn't something I can fix on my own. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Then, rather than further propagating a problematic file, one could choose not to use it, or look for or create an alternative that better complies with the project's requirements. Jappalang (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done. I still think a bigger problem needs a bigger solution, but it is at least fixed for this article (and one other). --Stemonitis (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In effect, the elevations are ultimately from OS mapping, but indirectly, they are from the various articles on Welsh mountains on Is this a problem? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Except for the first, these issues are what I see so far as obstacles to obtaining GA. Jappalang (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We have listed this article for peer review as a first step in a process that started about one month ago at Ely article improvements. Following a successful review, we intend to submit the article to the WP:GAN process then hopefully as a WP:FAC. In the meantime, we accept that the article needs further work and we are therefore looking for advice on how to proceed. We found the lead (lede) most difficult. We will respect any help reviewers are able to offer in re-writing this lead. We commit to working quickly through all issues raised by reviewers.

Thank you in advance, Senra (Talk) 21:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ely, Cambridgeshire/archive1.

Amor Prohibido[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded the article which took me nearly a year to do. I'm hoping for it to become a good article.

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 03:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Amor Prohibido/archive1.


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring to Good Article status.

Thanks, Doug Coldwell talk 21:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

Some thoughts & reactions as I read this article. I don't bother much with minutae like grammar, word-choice & punctuation, since the most important thing at this point is to get the contents right; once that's in order, one can focus on the polishing.

  • The lead sentence doesn't give the proper weight to the connotations of the word otium. IIRC, its primary meaning is "leisure" -- I'm away from home so I can't consult my Latin-English dictionary -- & the "variety of meanings" should be "variety of meanings of leisure". Which is the theme of this article.
  • I'm puzzled by how this starts by discussing the Greek meaning of the word, when it is clearly a Latin word. While it may be that it is the Latin word for a Greek concept which the Romans adopted, that seems to me to be an opinion, not a fact. (An informed opinion supported by fact & held by experts, nonetheless still an opinion.) I would be more comfortable if this section began with the Latin word, then explained how experts (or the ancient Romans) trace its origins to ancient Greek culture.
  • The "Historical use" section would work quite well if this were a publication that encouraged a "stream-of-conscious" presentation of material, for this section is really a list of how otium appears in the context of well-known writers, bordering uncomfortably on a collection of dictionary definitions. What you need to do here is to recast this section into more of a "History of the idea of otium".

    That said, I would like to complement you for including Cicero in a discussion of otium; because of his voluminous surviving writings, he is often used as an example of the "tupical Roman". And the section about Christian reactions to otium is a pleasant surprise: I never considered otium might conflict with one of the seven deadly sins. However, I am surprised that there is no discussion of this concept during the Late Antique: the correspondence of both Quintus Aurelius Symmachus and Sidonius Apollinaris are often used to provide examples of aristocratic otium spent in cultivating networks of friendships -- some of which were generations old -- with other aristocrats. (And useful lesser folks.) For more information on this, have a look at Samuel Dill's Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire for more information on this aspect.

  • Further about the "Historical use" section -- you included post-ancient examples. I was confused by the inclusion of statements from Petrarch & Marvell. Is your intent to discuss what otium meant to the ancients, or what it meant down the ages? If the latter, then you need to find a way to include a discussion of the "man of leisure" of the 17th-early 20th century, the gentleman/aristocrat who was careful never to appear to work, who spent his days preparing to lounge at the club, visiting friends (sometimes for weeks), and his evenings either attending or giving dinner parties & dances. (With the outlier examples of those who indulged in gambling & whoring at one end, & those living obnoxiously ascetically & religious lives at the other.) Even if you trim away the post-ancient material, it would be a good thing if you could figure out how to coordinate this article with gentleman, & its related subjects.

Hope my comments help. Ignore them if they don't. -- llywrch (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


This entire article is an instance of some Wikipedia's worst writing; what we get when an editor, having found a source, does not understand it, and cannot convey what it says:

Let us compare this passage from Vickers:

The first recorded use of the term is in a fragment from a soldiers' chorus in Ennius' Iphigenia (c. 190 BC), whose preservation we owe to that philologian's ragbag, the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (c. 150 AD) - he cites it as an example of the usage of the word praeterpropter (19.10.12). The soldiers are unoccupied, resting and bored, wanting to return home. They distinguish between otium negotiosum, leisure with a satisfying occupation, which takes place in the city, around the hearth, and otium otiosum, unoccupied and pointless leisure, such as their prolonged stay in the countryside, which they find disorientating. Andre argues that otium originally had military, not pastoral associations, referring to the enforced inactivity that coincided each year with the dead months of winter (especially January and February), unsuitable for war, farming or fishing

with what the article made of it:

The earliest extant appearance of the word in Latin literature occurs in a fragment from the soldiers' chorus in the Iphigenia of Ennius, where it is contrasted to negotium.[B] Researches have determined the etymological and semantic use of otium was never a direct translation of the Greek word "schole", but derived from specifically Roman contexts. Otium is an example of the usage of the term "praeter propter", meaning more or less of leisure. It was first used in military terms related to inactivity of war.

Vickers' text is grammatical, coherent, and accurate; it is only from reading him that I have any idea what "military terms related to inactivity of war" was supposed to mean: it referrred to the cessation of military activity in winter; Ennius, however, used it for the boredom of inactive service.

This foggy writing has introduced a positive error: Otium is not an "example of the usage of the term praeterpropter"; that would be meaningless; the whole extract which Gellius quotes is such an example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article was listed as a GA and I would like to get it to FA.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by R8R Gtrs


The second starts with "It is," and third one with "It was." Maybe reword the third one like "Aside from Miguel, the production also involved"?
"Romances consists..." is this appropriate in AmE? As I remember, Deep Purple are a band in the UK, but is a band in the U.S.
Another linguistic thing: you write "El reloj," in the U.S. and 'El reloj', in the UK. Applies for the whole article.
"United States, Mexico, South America, and Spain" no possibility of spelling out South America?
Dates for single releases may be helpful (infobox).


"also became successful in countries outside of Latin America and the United States, such as Finland and Saudi Arabia" I wish to see a ref after both countries' names, even if this'll be a duplication of refs in the of the sentence.
May be logical to finish the third para with original songs rather than covers (standing before originals, which are also preceded by covers)

Recording and production

Pretty fine, but not too short?


"number one, a mark it was able to hit for a total of" no way to word better?
"number-one" number one?
"diamond" this one is uncommon; is it like platinum x10?
"As of 1999 the album has sold over 4.5 million copies worldwide." what about "Over 4.5 million copies of the album were sold, as of 1999"?


Some single titles are translated, some are not. consistency please.
I bet more could be added. At least seems so, as a sentence covers a place in a chart. For two songs, and that's all. Maybe date releases, song meanings, release way (radio, CDs, whatever)?


Pretty fine, but please mention that two shows were canceled.

Critical reception and awards

"I give his review * and 'Romances' ****" maybe spell out the stars (which are here actually asterisks)
"At the 40th Grammy Awards Miguel received an award" comma, the?

Legacy to See also



Check them all. Ref 4 has no review date, ref 7 misses the article title, some have no author (especially weblinks). Just check carefully. In general, it's a good article. Keep it up!

If you found this review useful, please consider participating in a PR I'm holding, the one on astatine (here)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Response: Okay, I'll go over your addresses:

  • Lead: I've reworded the sentence to your suggestion. I am very confused on what you're trying to say from Points 2-4. For dates, I can find no exact release date except for the lead single.
  • Background: I've reused a ref and I added original compositions to the back.
  • Recording and production: Not sure else to add here especially since that was all I could find.
  • Album: I removed the hyphen and reworded the last issue.
  • Singles: Some of the songs are already translated before so I'm not sure if it should be done again. Well I did mention that the lead single was released on radio airplay, so anyone suggested on how I could put it in?
  • Promotion: I can find no sources to verify the cancelled shows except from fansites.
  • Critical reception and awards: It's part of the quote, so I'm not sure how to change it and comma after what?
  • References: Allmusic does not have the date they review articles and I only found the author of the article for ref 7 but couldn't find the title of the article.

Thanks for the review, Erick (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Replies to your comments:

  • (I don't claim to speak American English (any English) better than a native American. English is only second language for me) but I still clearly remember what I was taught back in school and the foreign languages academy. Commas and periods are usually kept inside the citation signs in the U.S. ("I do," she said.) as compared to British style ('I do', she said.) When a singular noun means a group of people/anything (such as band names), it is treated as a singular noun in the U.S. and a plural one in Britain (The Fire are a band (UK)/The Fire is a band (U.S.)), and such a plural is always plural with the exception of United States. (United States is a country in North America). About South America, either a list of all countries or an even shorter list (U.S., Spain, Latin America) would do better. Mexico isn't that different from Venezuela in this sense.
  • "reached number one, a mark it was able to hit for a total of" still don't like it. How'bout "became number one, which it has been for a total of (... since)". Or ditch "held" in the next sentence like "In ... chart, it was even more successful, having been number one for 13 weeks." Or whatever.
  • Got the translation point. No way of adding similar info for other singles? The section seems to be clearly missing it.
  • "At the 40th Grammy Awards Miguel received an award" → "At the 40th Grammy Awards, Miguel received the award" seems like the award was unique at the festival, and none else got there another such an award.
  • OK, but that's what you're likely to be asked at the FAC. Also, review dates (as I remember) are review dates made by Wikipedians to show the material is relevant.

Yours,--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

    • I've searched high and low and still couldn't find reliable sources to verify the shows were cancelled. The closest I found was an article where Miguel was originally scheduled to perform at the Starplex Ampitheatre at Dallas, but it does not mentioned being cancelled and nothing comes up for Venezuela. At the best, I think it's better to leave it this way because the tour has it's own article where the reader can find a more extensive information on dates and places of the tour as the main album article only summarizes key events in the tour. Otherwise, I've touched on everything you said. I've read your edit summary, I'm not the best person to do an article on a chemistry-related article as I wouldn't know anything about it. Sorry. Erick (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Office (U.S. TV series)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I hope for it to become a good article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done--~TPW 18:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Many of the problems I've noted below occur throughout the article, so I only provide a few examples to give you the sense of what I'm talking about. The examples should not be considered exhaustive. I did not specifically evaluate the article against all of the Good Article criteria.

  • Some of the tenses are awkward, such as:
  • 'Paul Lieberstein was named the series showrunner for the fifth season and the following seasons while Daniel Chun serves as the series head writer.' (suggest ". . . following seasons; Daniel Chun . . . ."
  • 'In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, it began airing on TV6 since spring 2008.' (drop "since . . .") (Another suggestion about this sentence is to rewrite it to avoid linking to a disambiguation page; it's unfortunate that TV6 resists having its own article, but here's my suggestion. "In spring 2008 it began airing on independent TV6 channels in Estonia, TV6 (Latvia)|Latvia]], and Lithuania)."
  • Commas are not used as well as they could be. Examples:
  • 'Krasinski had attended school with, and was a friend of B. J. Novak.' (second comma needed to separate the clause "and was a friend of" from the rest of the sentence)
  • 'The producers thought she was "too feisty" for the character, but they called her back for the part of Angela Martin, which she won.' (suggest ". . . of Angela Martin, and ultimately gave her that role.")
  • 'While Jones would later leave the cast for a recurring role, in February 2007, NBC announced that Helms was being promoted to a series regular.' (suggested rewrite: "Jones would later leave the cast for a recurring role elsewhere, but Helms was promoted to a series regular in February 2007."
  • Summary style: sections dig too deeply into the details of the show. Specific suggestions:
  • The Writing section concludes with half a paragraph detailing a spontaneous same-sex kiss. It's referenced, but spontaneity is the opposite of writing, because the actors are not following the script. It also doesn't flow well in the paragraph. Perhaps a summary could go in another section.
  • In the Format section, cut back on the descriptions of each and every camera technique and character interaction.
  • 'The song "Sing" by Travis is used twice on the series, first in "The Client" which Jim and Pam jointly listen to through a single pair of earbuds prior to their relationship; and later in a montage of their relationship in the clip episode. Dwight will often play loud music when driving or to get himself psyched up before making a sale, such as listening to "Wild Side" and "Kickstart My Heart" by Mötley Crüe. In the episode "Michael Scott Paper Company", Dwight and Andy play John Denver's "Take Me Home, Country Roads". Notably, Dwight sings a portion in German.' The point about incidental music could probably be made without this level of detail.
  • The Characters section and the season synopses also need a lot more summarizing.
  • Original research and/or synthesis crops up in various places, including:
  • 'In the character's final episode in season seven, Michael Scott asks the cameraman filming his departure to let him know if the show ever airs. This would seem to imply that the series has yet to reach television within its fictional universe, at least as of the point in time that season seven was being "filmed." Michael may also not have been aware of an airing.' The only reference is a primary one, and the "seems to imply" is weasel-word way of introducing original research.
  • 'Featured music tends to be well known, and often songs reflect the character, such as Michael's attempt to seem hip by using "Mambo No. 5" and later "My Humps" as his cell phone ringtone.' What third-party source supports this assertion?
  • 'On The Office, deleted scenes are considered part of the show's canon and storyline." By whom?

In general, better use of summary style that capitalizes on third-party sources rather than episodes or conjecture by the editors will make this a comprehensive article.

Android version history[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Android operating system versions/archive1 Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to put this as a FL but, I wanted to see if you can find anything wrong.

Thanks, Greg Heffley 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am not a mobile phones aficionado (I remember before they existed and when phones actual "rang", rather than bleeped or played music). So if my comments betray a certain ignorance/naivety, I apologise. I tried.

  • Shouldn't this be considered as a subarticle of Android (operating system)? I see no hatlink to this article, nor even an acknowledgement that it exists
  • There is a hatlink on Android.
  • The title "Android version history" is somewhat misleading, for several reasons. First, the word "Android" isn't exclusive to mobile operating systems, so the title doesn't give a clear indication of the subject matter. Secondly, this series of lists of updates is not a "history" (any more than, say, a list of acts of the UK parliament would be a history of Britain). A more factual title would be something like "List of Android mobile operating system updates" - if you can prune that to a slightly shorter version, well and good.
  • Everyone seems to like the title the way it is
  • Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and this has to be borne in mind particularly in the intoductory sentences of every article. Thus it isn't sufficient to say, merely, that "Android is a mobile operating system"; you need to summarise the technology in which it is applied, i.e. mobile phones and anywhere else it is used.
  • I am confused by the mention in the text of the Android beta, which is not introduced in the lead. And why should readers have to use a link to discover what "SDK" is? Whatever these are, they need explaining. In this connection, I think you need to look again at your lead, and decide whether this does, in fact, give an overview of the entire article.
  • Fixed
  • I notice that some of the list updates have specific citations while most do not. I'm sure there's a good reason for this, but perhaps you would briefly outline your citation policy.
  • I also notice a number of MOS violations in the citations formats, in particular missing retrieval dates, inconstant formats for retrieval dates, unformatted references, italicization of non-print publishers (e.g. Android Developers Blog), missing publisher details, etc. This whole area needs a thorough going-over.
  • I also have some doubts about the extent to which some of your sources might meet WP's reliable sources criteria., e.g. "Androidpolice", "Theodore Tso's blog" (which returns an access denied) and possibly others
The three above comments I'm not sure about. I didn't add them
  • Ref 21 is a dead link

As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews (too many), please feel free to raise any issues arising from this review on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Magpie (Monet)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have it assessed as B-Class and prepare it for GAR. My research tells me that there are more sources available to expand further about the painting, but many of them were published quite some time ago and are either obscure or difficult to find. I was recently able to track a book down at my local library only to find that all five pages on the painting had been ripped out of the book decades ago. I realize that I'm going to have to put a great deal more effort into this, but I'm hoping a peer review can at least point the way. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Doing. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I forgot to mention that I deliberately left out the discussion of Monet's suicide attempt, and instead wrote "Recovering from an episode of depression". The reason is, at the time I was writing this, the sources I had available to me did not agree on whether Monet really did attempt suicide. If there is a consensus by historians on this, I would be happy to alter or modify the text if it is important considering the proximity in time to this episode and the winter work. I should also mention that the colors are completely off in the current infobox image, as the original is far more grey than blue. If the reviewer can suggest how we can get a more accurate image of the work in the article, I would appreciate it. This is the second image we have used, as the first was horribly tinted by a yellow light. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You might look to sources on Courbet for something on the development of snowscapes; personally I'd show one of his snow scenes for contrast (The Fox in the Snow or the stag hunt which I can never remember the name of). You should perhaps mention that rejection by the Salon was by no means unusual, either for Monet or in general. The 1867 committee rejected something like two-thirds of the submissions and Monet also had his submissions rejected that year and in 1869 or 1870 (or maybe both?). I don't think you'll find any definitive stuff on his suicide attempt - it is often presented as a melodrama that he created to win sympathy and breathing space from his creditors. Yomanganitalk 11:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The Halali of the Stag apparently (though the reproduction there is terrible). Yomanganitalk 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
How familiar was Monet with the works of Breugel? Might he have drawn inspiration from the snowscapes - or the only other painting that comes to mind to feature a magpie? -- Theramin (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

American Gangster (film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article tot GA status. A lot of work has been put into it, and I would like some feedback on the article so I can possibly make some improvements.

Currently, I know that the plot section needs some serious work. I have not seen the movie, so I may not be able to accurately summarize the plot. I would like some help in trying to reduce the size of the plot section.

Thanks, DAP388 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang


  • This is indeed too long. Focus on what is important; necessary elements are not decided in a willy-nilly manner. Items that are minor could be moved to other sections (Production, Criticisms, etc) if they have the right context (and not too sudden if introduced on their own). Key things to summarize: what is the story about, how does it develop, how does it end? Flesh out only with elements that support key points. Off-hand, it seems the story of Ellsworth "Bumpy" Johnson is not needed (that is a minor detail and the commentary in later section is fine). The same goes for Richie Roberts' personal life. I am pretty sure there are other items that can be pruned without losing the essential.


  • I would advise getting rid of this unless more substantial information, either about the characters or the actors about their roles, can be placed here (e.g. Conan the Barbarian). Important actors are already noted in the Plot section in brackets; just like American Beauty, there is no need for a trivial cast list as repetition.


  • There is too much dates here; it is not needed to keep stating on which day or in which month something happened. Focus on the key dates and just the follow-on events as such (see the above-mentioned articles—Conan, American Beauty).
  • There is very little on what I consider as the meat of production ("filming") and too much details on the events before filming started. WP:UNDUE comes to mind.
  • "Director Ridley Scott produced television commercials from the 1960s to the 1980s, which entailed visits to New York City in the same time period in which the film's story took place."
    I am a bit hesitant over this sentence. Is it trying to say that during the 1960s to 80s, Ridley Scott produced television commercials that required him to visit NYC?

Box office

  • "The film achieved numerous feats: it had the highest-grossing opening weekend since for a mature-rated film over 150 minutes since Troy, and it became the fastest-grossing crime film in history, beating out its preceder Sin City ($29 million)."
    The way this is written ("feats", "in history") sets off POV alarms in my head. "R-rated" (source) is not quite "mature-rated" (article); what about NC-17? "Gangster film" (source) is not "crime film" (article); what about films about confidence games, murders, kidnappings? Furthermore, "preceder" is not a word in any proper dictionary. If you mean "predecessor", I fail to see any such relationship between Sin City and American Gangster (they are not part of the same series).
  • "It marked the biggest opening weekend out of any film in both Washington and Crowe's careers, scoring considerably higher than the Inside Man and Gladiator, respectively."
    This is quite an awkward sentence ("marked ... out", "scoring [in what?]").
  • "It outgrossed Bee Movie by $4.5 million.", "... and beating out Beowulf two consecutive times."
    Are these significant in any way? There is no contect on why either movie would be important to an analysis on American Gangster.
  • "... American Gangster began expansion into Italy, ..."
    How does a film expand?
  • "It outgrossed it preceder The Departed by 68 percent."
    Grammar, spelling... and the same issue as above with Sin City

Critical response

  • Why is {{Film ratings}} used when all the information it presents is already in the prose? The template is redundant.
  • "... Jonathan Crocker of Time Out London was polarized with the film, ..."
    A person cannot be "polarized".


External links

  • Why are there so many links here? There is no need for Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo; they are already used as sources and linked in the article. If the links provide pertinent information (possibly Dateline NBC interviews), why are they not used as sources? The reliable AllRovi link already has what the unreliable IMDb link has, so why is the latter here?

This article needs a lot of work, especially in its language. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Cindy (1959)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA status. Please put extra emphasis on prose and word choice!

Thanks, HurricaneFan25 16:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • "Few major impacts were caused by Cindy in Canada. Most impacts in Canada" - that redundancy stood out to me right away.
  • Could you find out what allowed it to intensify over land to a TS? It reminds me of Gaston 04 and Danny 97 in that regard.
  • Couldn't find anything - most likely its presence close to the Atlantic led it to strengthen to an extremely weak TS. HurricaneFan25 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I'm picking up a few minor issues, and will leave a list shortly. Generally it looks in pretty good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the list:-
  • "Hurricane Cindy was a hurricane..." Unnecessary statement of the obvious.
  • The verb "to impact" has a different meaning from "to impact on". The former means to force objects closely together, the latter means "affected". It is the latter meaning that's relevant here.
  • "Re-curved" is a term I've only seen in hurricane articles. What is its plain meaning?
  • "One driver was killed in Georgetown, South Carolina, when they collided with a fallen tree"; The connection between "one driver" and "they" is awkward (it recurs in the main text). It can be avoided thus: "One driver was killed in Georgetown, South Carolina, after colliding with a fallen tree".
  • I'm not sure that the statement "Overall damage from Cindy was minimal" is appropriate when it precedes a paragraph describing six deaths, thousands evacuated and significant storm damage. Maybe "Structural damage from Cindy was minimal."?
  • "USD" not required. In an article about America, $ can be assumed to be USD
  • An anticyclone—or a large mass of air moving clockwise..." Is the "or" necessary? It's not an either...or situation.
  • "It is believed that the depression intensified..." Believed by whom?
  • "The Congaree River rose dramatically near Columbia during the hurricane, where rainfall totaled 5.82 inches (148 mm),[20] although some reliable unofficial sources state the figure to be 15 inches (380 mm)" If the unofficial sources were "reliable", isn't it of some concern that they were so widely different from the official figures?
  • Use a consistent method of recording times. In the article we have "00:00 UTC", "11:50" and "1:40 pm"
  • "five indirect deaths" - suggest rephrase. The deaths themselves were not "indirect".
  • "was sunk" → "sank"

I hope these comments are helpful Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I took the liberty of fixing most of these. Auree 03:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Kathleen (1976)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want comments prior to sending this here.

Hurricane Kathleen was unusual. It formed where most Pacific hurricanes, but raced north, and made landfall in Mexico as a tropical storm. It then produced major flooding across south and central California, especially in Ocotillo. 10 people died, including 1 in Arizona and 2 indirect deaths. Damage total is $160 million.

Hope you like it, YE Pacific Hurricane 20:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Mainly prose issues.

  • "Hurricane Kathleen was a hurricane of the 1976 Pacific hurricane season". Three "hurricanes" in the first ten words. Try to rephrase with a little less repetition
  • The observation: "It also took an unusual path" is isolated. You need to give a brief indication of why the path was unusual, or withdraw the remark from the lead. See WP:LEAD: "Do not hint at startling facts without describing them."
  • You have both "ninth" and "9th"
    • Removed. 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Kathleen finally dissipated late on the September 11." ?
    • Yeah. 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Combine these two short sentences: "Flooding caused catastrophic destruction to Ocotillo, California. Six people drowned in that city."
  • "To make landfall, troughs are generally needed to re-curve storms." What does "re-curve" mean (is there such a word)?
  • "Northward movement also tends to move cyclones into unfavorable areas." What is meant by "unfavorable" areas?
  • "Hurricane Kathleen's survival to such a northerly location was contributed to by a variety of factors." Revise this rather clumsy phrasing by turning the sentence: "A variety of factors contributed to Hurricane Kathleen's survival at such a northerly location."
  • I suggest you separate the list of factors by semicolons rather than full stops.
Meteorological history
  • "Over 83 °F (28 °C) sea surface temperatures, Kathleen quickly strengthened." Awkwardly worded; "over" in he sense of "more than", or in the sense of "moving above"?
  • "After doing so, Kathleen weakened considerably..." → "Kathleen then weakened considerably..."
  • "Tropical Storm Kathleen was barely a tropical storm" → "it was barely a tropical storm"
  • No, it could mean :0900 UTC:. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "...the cyclone strengthened into Hurricane Kathleen" Well, it strengethened to hurrican force, but "Hurricane Kathleen" is not a measurement.
  • "The hurricane passed near several ships, and was respectively intercepted by Hurricane Hunters early on September 10." What does "respectively intercepted" mean? You should also identify "Hurricane Hunters" as aircraft.
  • "...Kathleen accelerated to speeds of 35 mph (56 km/h)-38 mph (61 km/h)." Do you mean "accelerated"? The last speed mentioned was 80 mph.
  • "You need to give these speed ranges more simply, e.g. "35–38 mph (56–61 km/h)"
    • Idk how to do that in convert templates. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "later that morning on September 10" → "later on the morning of September 10"
  • "Skinny, Tropical Storm Kathleen weakened into a depression over southern California and shortly thereafter, moved across Death Valley." I don't understand the word "skinny" in this sentence.
  • "Finally, the center became difficult to locate,[2] and the depression finally dissipated later on September 11." Two "finallys" in one sentence
  • "After undergoing a Fujiwhara-like interaction..." You should not force your readers to use links and read other articles to understand what you're talking about. Some brief explanation of this interaction is necessary within thus text.
  • Why is "Moisture" capitalised later in the sentence?
  • What is a "stalled low"?
  • "On September 10 and September 11" - unnecessarily repetitive. "On September 10–11..."
  • "resulted in" → "caused". Also "the city of Yuma", not just "Yuma".
  • Unnecessary link on "golf ball". And it should be "hailstones the size of golfballs"
  • "hail ground to a depth of 5 in (13 cm)" - what does this mean?
  • Where is the Davis Dam? Not in California, evidently, but where?
  • "slippery-roads" - two words, not hyphenated
  • "Record flood stage was attained at numerous streams near the Coachella Valley" Awkward use of passive voice. Better: "Numerous streams near the Coachella Valley attained record flood levels" ("stage" is surely the wrong word)
  • "Widespread property damage on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada as well as the nearby desert." This is not a complete sentence (lacks a verb)
  • "...decided in 1977 to abandon most of a railroad." - "the railroad".
  • ..."received considerable damage" - I think you "suffer" rather than "receive" damage
  • "a one and 160 year event"? What does that mean?
  • You don't need "USD"
  • The final sentence "Parts of California were declared a disaster area" looks tagged on as an afterthought and would be better located earlier in the section.
  • It is aftermath. 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Wyoming and Montana
  • In Wyoming, the cyclone is credited with the first known sighting of a White Ibis in the state's history." A little context is required for this rather odd sentence.
    • Not much can be added, bit I re-worded it. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope these observations are helpful. Also, the toolbox (top right of this review) reveals one link to a disambiguation page. Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Josve05a[edit]

  • Checklinks found 1 dead links out of a total of 18 links

-(tJosve05a (c) 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks like an easy project to get to GA. Still, it would be nice to receive some feedback on how I can get this closer to it. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - sounds like an interesting game, but I do not think the article is ready for GAN yet. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are about 484 GA at Category:GA-Class video game articles, many of which seem like they would be good models for this article.
  • I think this meets the notability requirements, though since it is about a planned video game by a group of amateurs, it may be disputed by some. It might be worth reading WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.
  • The fact that the game has not yet been released seems to be to disqulify this for GA (and it certainly would not meet FA requirements). Looking at WP:WIAGA, one of the GA requirements is that the article be broad in its coverage. Since the game has not been released yet, it is hard to see how this or any article on it could be broad in its coverage now. Many of the details of the article are missing at this point because the game is still unknown. There can be no real description of plot or gameplay or critical reaction / reception yet.
  • Another concern I have is the sources - GA articles have to use reliable sources - these should be third-party, and independent of the subject as much as possible. Blogs are not generally seen a RS.
  • I also note that there are 15 sources, 3 of which seem to be either the game developers (mane6) or a blog of questionable RS value (Equestria Gaming). There is a Russian source which I cannot evaluate but is on WordPress, so it seems to be a blog too. And then 11 more clearly relaible sources. Of these 11, four (refs 12, 13, 14, and 15, do not mention this game at all. That leaves seven refs that do, which is OK for meeting WP:NN, but not for GAN
  • Be careful that the article uses refs properly. For example the article says Though an unlicensed work from Hasbro, the holders of the My Little Pony franchise intellectual property, the Mane 6 team has not received any cease and desist notices from the company to date.[11] but the CBC article only says Voice casting for the ponies is already underway and most surprisingly the toymaker Hasbro hasn't sued them to smithereens. Since a cease and desist order is not the same as being sued, this seems like an iffy use of the ref.
  • Watch out for vague time phrases - in the preceding quote "to date" could be replaced with "as of October 2011" (the date of the CBC story).
  • Is there any sort of timeline known for a possible release date?
  • I wonder if a WP:FAIRUSE image could be added - the sources I read talk about the artwork looking professional.
  • Not sure about including the names of the creators in the infobox - I would be more comfortable with this if the sources used for the names were more reliable.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pimpin' (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although this is an article I have only just created, I feel it is reasonably in depth considering the coverage the song received. I acknowledge that the article may not be of particularly high standard currently, and at the moment it is not particularly long, but I feel with assistance I can raise the standard considerably - possibly even to GA.

Thanks, I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Michael Jester

Here are some small things that I noticed:

  • Use {{'"}} to separate the apostrophe and quotation mark in "Pimpin'"
  • In the lead, "considerable rotation" may be seen as POV by some users. Personally, I don't think it is, but I've seen problems with it in the past. Just a heads up.
  • Under Critical reception:
    • What makes a reliable source?
    • In the sentence "Allmusic writer David Jeffries named "Pimpin" as one [...]", the song should have an apostrophe, according to the article. I noticed you have done this a couple times.
  • The word "whilst" have been called archaic by some users. Just another heads up on it.

(How's this: "refers to how other men simply chase their pleasures.")

  • Stylus magazine should be in italics.
  • I think you can lose the colon in "Recorded at: Encore Studios, California."
  • What makes SOHH a reliable source?
  • In ref 8, the - should be replaced with a –
  • For ref 10, consider using {{singlechart}}

Good work on the article so far, Rufus. I hope my review was helpful, and if you have any questions, contact me on my talk page.
Michael Jester (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Xavier College[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd just like some suggestions to improve the page, with the aim of making it an A-Class article or even FA candidate.

Cheers, Nworsn (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good article! Some minor suggestions:
  • In the infobox, add an exact number of students if the number is available. Done. N·worsn (parlez-moi) 12:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Add information to Buxton Campus
  • Could you give a little introduction to the Houses section? Are these residence halls? Are they like Hogwarts Houses? What do the colors mean? If the colors aren't significant, why are they there?
  • Curriculum needs information. Perhaps add a dual column list of different subjects taught, etc. "Xavier has a strong academic history" isn't supported and should be removed. What is an ATAR score?
  • Instead of "Associated Schools", put it under 'See Also', condense the information in that paragraph to fit next to the link in a short sentence
How about an expansion of this section? Worth a thought. N·worsn (parlez-moi) 12:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hope that helps! Jhunt47 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: WHile this is a good start (and thanks for your work on it) I do not think it is anywhere near ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are quite a few FAs on schools and colleges at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education
  • The lead does not follow WP:LEAD. For one thing the maximum limit is four paragraphs and this is five
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the Roskam quote is only in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • File:South-Wing-Xavier-College.jpg is a copyvio and now marked for speedy dleetion on Commons (taken from the college's website)
  • Six dead external links need to be fixed - here
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. So fix things like Some buildings on the Senior Campus[16], and Studley House at the Burke Hall[17], are listed on the Victorian Heritage Register.
  • Article needs more references, for example this This was demolished in 1959 to make way for a major building project, including classrooms, tuckshop, and administrative buildings, and a chapel was built in 1967. Science rooms were added in 1969 and in the 1970s the Jesuits bought various adjoining properties to expand the campus. In 1996 a multi-purpose hall was completed with a new arts centre opened in 1998. In 2005, an Early Years Centre was opened and was based on the one at Burke Hall . has no refs and needs at least one
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The most difficult criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This is decent in most places, but has a lot of places that need polish.
  • For one thing there are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the narrative flow of the article and make it choppy. Combine these with others wherever possible, or perhaps expande them.
  • There are also places where the language is just odd - what does "old scholar" mean in Culturally, Xavier was described in June 2009 by old scholar John Roskam ...
  • Or "and old boy of the c" makes no sense in The centre was officially opened on 25 July 2008 with a blessing by the Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, and old boy of the c.
  • This is not a complete list - just pointing out general issues that would be problematic at FAC.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the film recently (at last) started production, and thus warranted its own article. Since a James Bond films topic is on the way (we're only waiting for a FLC to close), this needs a peer review to get included. I'm willing to hear all comments and suggestions.

Thanks, igordebraga 10:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I turn down your expectations, but movies that are still in production may not be approved as good or featured articles. Most info about them (plot, cast, title, etc.) is provisional and subject to change anytime for any reason, and there can even be differences between the final movie and the info people had during the production (because the producers may want to conceal some things so that people know them once they are watching the movie). There's also the chance that the movie is never finished or released, if marketing researches discourage it. In short: think about nominations after the movie is released.
As for the article, some proposals. They may not be completely possible right now, but they may be when the movie is released, or when more info becames available
  • The plot section should be expanded. As it is a movie in a series, point any continuity with the older movies that you know about.
    • Put the fact that it doesn't continue the plot of QoS, according.
  • Are there actors considered and then rejected?
    • We're not sure yet, but damn there was speculation.
  • "Javier Bardem - Skyfall's villain." is not a good photo caption. Javier Bardem is not the villain, he's the actor playing the villain, so reformulate it.
    • Done.
  • Do not link to fansites
  • Include a "Reception" section as soon as there are opinions about the movie (or about the info known about the movie, such as the choice of actors)

Cambalachero (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aiming for Good status - and the Featured Topic Criteria makes sure to point articles that don't qualify (such as future movies) are required to be peer reviewed. But thanks for responding. igordebraga 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Big L[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want Big L to be a good article. I have expanded the article quite a bit, and I'm not really sure where to go from here. Any comments are greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Big L/archive1.

Eastern Theater of the American Civil War[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm trying to get this article up to GA class but not really sure of what exactly needs to be done, like extra references per paragraph. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Generally looks ok to me in terms of referencing. I think the following places need more citations:
    • in the Theater of operations section, I believe the second paragraph needs a citation (at least at the end);
    • in the Northern Virginia and Maryland section, this sentence probably needs a citation: "Following his success against..." (at the end of the sentence). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Dana Boomer

Initial thoughts: Overall, the article looks quite good, especially for a topic of this size. However, there are a few fairly major issues that need to be taken care of before it goes to GA. Here are some of the issues:

  • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this size, WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs.
  • The first sentence of the lead should not be self referential. So, instead of "This article presents..." it should be "The Eastern Theater of the American Civil War was..."
  • While the picture of Lincoln is a good historical image, it would be nice to have a map illustrating the section of the US that this article is discussing somewhere near the top of the article.
  • Image galleries are generally to be avoided, and that is especially true when you have a section that is nothing but a gallery, as in the Principal commanders of the Eastern Theater section. Basically, what does this gallery show your readers? To me, it is a bunch of pictures of middle aged, bearded white dudes in uniforms. Per WP:Galleries#Placement, " Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." There is no contrast or comparison being made between these images, and so they are simply repetitive. Seeing what Pope, Burnside, Lee, looked like adds little to nothing to the reader's knowledge of the subject. They would be better served by a textual description of the similarities and differences between these commanders. How many went to West Point? How many were from the North vs. the South? Were any of the opposing commanders friends before the war? Did any of them die during the war?

Whoa: major plagiarism issue - The first paragraph of the Theater of operations section is copied wholesale from the reference.

  • I don't have access to the other references used in the article, so I cannot check those. However, having the first ref I check be copied and pasted is a bad sign. I am not going to peer review further until further copyvio checks have been completed and the copyright violations present in the article have been rectified. Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple of paragraphs to the introduction, trying to summerize the article, and added citations to the recommended paragraphs. For the gallery of the principal commanders, I was wondering turning it into a table would work, with a few sentences summerizing the role of that general in the theater. (Or would simply deleting the section be preferable?). As for the plagiarised paragraph, for me it sounds more like an opinion on the theater's importance. Should it be deleted entirely or kept and rewriten? Wild Wolf (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that if the first source that I check shows a major copyright violation, how much of the rest of the article is copied as well? I don't have access to many of the sources, but I am very concerned that additional issues would be found if I looked through more of the print sources. Do you have access to all of the sources? Can you assure me that this is not the case? Copyright violations are not taken lightly on Wikipedia, and if this is a pattern then it needs to be investigated. Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked over the other sources and it doesn't look like there are any other copyright violations. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
OK for now on that. As for the copyvio paragraph, I think that it presents some important ideas (the popular importance of the eastern theater versus the strategic importance of the western theater), but that it definitely has to be seriously re-written (both in structure and verbiage) to comply with WP's copyright policies. As for the gallery of commanders, I don't think a table is necessary, because, as I said above, I don't see what the reader gains from seeing pictures of all of the commanders, and a table takes up a lot of space without saying much. I think that a couple paragraphs of prose, comparing and contrasting the generals that were prominent in this theater, would be perfect. Illustrate it with a couple of pictures of opposing generals (Grant and Lee?) and you've got a nice section, tastefully illustrated, that will give the reader a lot more information than a bunch of pictures of old white guys. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Dana, it doesn't appear to be a copyvio to me. Rather someone circulared a website into the citation. The wikipedia text comes from 2006, all other online versions of text come from 2007, and I can't locate the text in the book cited in the paragraph. It looks to me that someone copied Wikipedia onto their unattributed website? See article talk for more details. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Further concerns with sourcing: I decided to see if I could find any of the sources on Google books, and I was able to. From that, I found more concerns:

  • Reference 40 (Sears, p. 70-72) - the paragraph that this is supposed to be sourcing cannot be found on those pages of the book.
  • Same with Reference 41 (Sears, p. 18, 73-74) - nothing about this. It says the North was dispirited, but not in a panic, and discusses nothing of Lincoln's reaction.

These were the first two' I checked! All of the sources need to be gone through and carefully checked for copyvio and actually covering what they're supposed to be covering. Dana boomer (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked both references. With reference 40, Sears discusses Lee's decision to invade the north over other options (page 70 to top of page 71), his desire to gather supplies from the country (bottom of page 71 to top of page 72), and his hope that invading Maryland would force Lincoln to negotiate for peace (page 72). With reference 41, Sears talks about Lincoln restoring McClellan to command (page 18) and about Lee's plans to capture the rail lines running through Harrisburg, followed by an advance on Philadelphia (pages 73 and 74). I found a passage on the Northern reaction to Lee's invasion on pages 81 to 83.Wild Wolf (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Starr[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of my first full articles.

Thanks, The Haz talk 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As a biography, this article is still much lacking on the subject's personal life. Who was he, other than a medical specialist? Even the coverage of his achievements seem a bit skimpy and lacking in "oomph" so as to speak. What makes a reliable source? With 3640 hits on Google Books,, there are more and better sources than what are used (a paper published in Eldercare Technology for Clinical Practitioners stated he was commonly known as the "father of BCG"). Take a look there for material to further flesh out this article. Jappalang (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! The Haz talk 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
Finally, another peer review for a chemical element after some months. Sodium is the next target of ELEMENTS after a short discussion on its talk page. Getting this article to GA status will put the nomination of the entire set of articles about alkali metals one step closer - a GAN for alkali metal itself is underway here.

FREYWA 07:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sodium/archive1.

Days Gone Bye[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently pass its GA review. I have put a lot of work into making this article, and I would like to nominate it to FA someday. I would like some feedback on the article.

Thanks, DAP388 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang
  • "'Days Gone Bye' is the first episode ... written and directed by Frank Darabont, the creator of the series. ... Robert Kirkman, the creator of the series of comic books of the same name, ..."
  • This manner of presentation in the lede can mislead readers into thinking Darabont is the creator of the entire Walking Dead franchise.
  • "his family are missing", "the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has set up", "the trio use"
    Watch the grammar. The tenses are inconsistent with the nouns.
  • "Before he leaves Rick finds fellow police officer Leon Basset (Linds Edwards)—now a zombie—and dispatches him."
    Given that we never hear about Basset earlier nor even later, this sentence is pretty much useless (the actor has no article; even if he does, what is the import?).
  • Ignoring the "actor in brackets", the Plot is at 737 words. I believe the general recommendation is 700 words unless the story is quite complicated, which this episode is not. As pointed above, some sentences seem pointless in the grand scheme of things, and there are some overly detailed portions, e.g. "encounters (and shoots)" can simply be "shoots", the last paragraph is a blow-by-blow account and can still be further summarized.
  • Kirkman's excitement in the opening of Conception is too overwhelming for an encyclopaedic article. Please tone it down. It is not needed to quote him again and again at each stage of conception. It could be done by summarizing his reactions and thoughts into one concise statement that covers all stages.
  • "... comic series creator and show executive producer Robert Kirkman ..."
    I think we are well aware (with the opening paragraph in Conception) Kirkman is the comic series creator by now. His executive producer status could have been earlier worked in as well.
  • "... was split half and embellished ..."
    I suspect there is a missing word.
  • "Bell would later become part of the main cast as a recurring character."
    Amy (Bell) died three episodes later... Is she a recurring zombie?
  • Phrases such as "gave the episode an 'A-' grade" and "gave the episode an 8.8 out of 10" do not strike me as particularly encylopaedic in tone.
  • File:DaysGoneBye.jpg: I fail to see how this image complies with WP:NFCC. "A lone horseman, wearing a cowboy hat and carrying a bag of guns, rides on an empty street. Barricades and abandoned vehicles line both sides of the road." easily describe the imagery, challenging the notion that it "cannot be described sufficiently with mere words."

The above are what caught my eye during my read-through. Jappalang (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lewisville, Texas[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made some significant changes to the city's page in order to create an accurate and involving history while also giving important facts throughout the article. I'm more interested in putting up an involving, accurate, and interesting article than just getting a higher rating, so any constructive feedback or help would be very helpful. Thanks, Runfellow (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well for one thing the lead doesn't follow WP:LEAD, you may also want to get a copy-edit done (WP:GOCE/REQ) for better prose, some of the image captions aren't very good, what encyclopedic information does the images show readers that the article itself doesn't show? Saying "Lewisville Lake at sunset." isn't that all helpful of what Lewisville looks like, we all know what a sunset looks like ;-) take a look at other GA-Class or FA-Class city articles and look at their captions as a model. Why is the "golf" section written as a list? This is just a general note (had to comment because my favorite singer had lived in Texas). Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Jappalang
  • File:Lewisville logo.png is a logo, not the Seal of the city. "The logo may be obtained from Lewisville, Texas." is not a good source; name specifically which webpage this image was obtained from. I fail to see how looking at this non-free logo helps me further understand the city. As such, it fails WP:NFCC criterion 8. Furthermore, this image is no longer the city's adopted logo...[1]
  • The lede is supposed to be a summary of the key points in the main text (WP:LEDE). As such, the current lede is too skimpy.
  • What is a "clubfitter"?
  • If it is a "major hub" and a "golf mecca", what impact does the golf industry have on the city?
  • What is "a 7.4 paddling trail"?
  • There may be lots of data in Demographics, but they are useless to me as presented. What do the numbers mean in terms of social impact and relationships? Are there any reliable sources that examine the trends?
  • It is not needed to list every council member and department head. The project's aim is for articles of encyclopaedic scope, not the yellow pages or a city hall guidebook. What is the political history of the city? Do they lean towards the left or the right (in American speak)? Was there any significant changes in how it was administered?
  • The list of Roads with their highway symbols is not appealing and is non-compliant with an encylopaedic goal.
  • It is needless to come up with a Top 10 employer list. Talking about the top 3 or topmost employer would be enough. It would be better to discuss what companies were significant to the city instead. Which contributed the most to its development and how? The breakdown of the citizens' income lacks a bit of explanation. What is their median income compared to the rest of the country or region?

Mostly, it is about the context. Data alone would not help people understand the subject. It is often better to tell a story about the subject, using the figures and names as support. Have a look at Poulton-le-Fylde. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Joanna Yeates[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested to know what it might need to get it to GA or FA. The case has only recently concluded, so I should make it clear I'm looking at this from a long term perspective. At present the article is quite comprehensive, although I feel the trial section may need expanding further. In all the article is 67KB in length and has 124 references which I feel cover the topic in a neutral style. Also it has been surprisingly stable given the subject and the amount of publicity given to this case in the United Kingdom. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My own thoughts (I contributed to the article in the past; and may do so again if I get the incentive :)).

  • The lead needs a bit of work; it doesn't need references for a start. Material there should be checked for existence in the main body - and if it is missing needs to be inserted. Otherwise a rewrite would probably make it flow better.
  • Find a good copyeditor to work through the article
  • The sectioning might be improved "Murder Case" is a largely redundant heading. I'd drop that & make use of the other existing headings; splitting it into two or three major sections with various sub-sections

I think all of the information is there in the article; it just needs going over and re-organising/cleaning up :) You might want to look at Death of Linda Norgrove which is a similar sort of article that was gotten to Good Article status --Errant (chat!) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'll do some work on it then ask someone to do the copyediting. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is probabloy close to GA and not too far off from FA - thanks for your work on it. I agree with the above comments, here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, however the Rewards totalling £60,000 were offered for information leading to those responsible for Yeates' death. is only in the lead that I can see.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see the memorials in the lead.
  • For Americans, tariff is not clear in Tabak was found guilty of murder on 28 October 2011, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 20 years.
  • The lead as an overview should have more general information and the body of the article can have the specifics. I am not sure all the newspapers need to be listed in the lead. Even if they are, I think it could be something like These two papers, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Record, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Star and The Scotsman were also successfully sued for libel ... I now see the libel papers are not listed in the body - this should be the other way around (detailed list in the body)
  • WP:HEAD says headers should not repeat the name or part of the name of the article if possible. Could the Joanna Yeates section be something like "Victim"? I think this is a case where it could be kept as a section name.
  • There are a fair number of short (one or two paragraph) sections. The article might flow better if these were combined, and the organization might be improved. I wonder if the first four sections could be part of a bigger section. I would have the first two sections combined as something like "Background and disappearance", and then the third and fourth sections could be combined as "Search, public appeal, and discovery of body". I am not sure what the overall name for this overall section could be - perhaps just "Crime" or "Killing" or "Murder"?
  • Murder investigation could just be Investigation - the subsections here are fine with the possible exception of First arrest and release - perhaps this could be combined in a "First and second arrests" subsection?
  • The article uses the {{quote}} template, but WP:MOSQUOTE says to use it on quotations of 40 words or longer and these seem to all be shorter.
  • I think it is OK to repeat a title with a name if it iahs been a few paragraphs since the person was mentioned, but I would use Detective Chief Inspector Jones on first use in the Further enquiries section (not where it now is)
  • Watch tenses Reardon was ruled out as a suspect and is being treated as a witness.[44] (should be "was treated")
  • The section on Tabak seems out of place - I wonder if it would work better either before the legalproceedings section, or perhaps after Murder charge and plea and before trial? I am not sure about this.
  • I wondered about Tabak's girlfriend - was he alone or in a relationship when he killed his victim? I see she is mentioned in a reference as devastated by the news, so that could be clarified.
  • The photo of Bristol Prison confused me - I thought the white van in it was being used to move Tabak (i.e. it was a photo of the actual move). Perhaps the caption could be something like Bristol Prison: Vincent Tabak was moved out of here for his safety.[84]
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - does pizza really need a link? Add links that increase the reader's understanding or are not likely to be widely known by the average reader - I would link QC though.
  • Watch punctuation of quotes - see WP:LQ
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Princeton University Chapel[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is currently a GA, and I'd like some feedback before trying what would be my first FAC.

Thanks, Lagrange613 05:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks generally impressive and well-researched in terms of detail, but there are numerous issues (some trivial, others less so) that need attention.

  • Repetition of terms in first line: you could probably get rid of one "Princeton"
  • No need to give the present-day values in lead, as they are given in the article.
  • What source are you using that provides these present-day values?
The article used {{inflation}}, which gets values from the U.S. Consumer Price Index. Since this may not reflect changes in chapel-building labor and materials accurately, I've removed references to present-day values. Lagrange613 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It isn't necessary to add "USD" to the $ sign; this can be asumed in an article on an American subject.
  • What are "opening exercises"?
Apparently, just a Princeton thing. Removed from lead. Lagrange613 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "at the time is was built" in lead
  • "the present chapel and McCosh Hall stand today" - you don't need "present" and "today"
  • I'd advise against using "as well" as a prose emphasiser; it's inelegant.
  • Example of clumsy construction: "Charles Connick, Henry Lee Willet of the studio that would become Willet Hauser, the Philadelphia-based stained glass artist Nicola d'Ascenzo, and several others contributed to the stained glass windows." It is not clear what you mean by "contributed to"; does it mean contributed to the design? I suggest rephrasing along the lines: "Among those who contributed to the design of stained glass windows were Charles Connick, Henry Lee Willet (later of the Willet Hauser studio), and the Philadelphia-based stained glass artist Nicola d'Ascenzo".
  • "Hibben led the dedication ceremony that same year" seems a little terse. I imagine that the dedication was quite an event, with press coverage etc, so is it not possible to say more? Like, for example, the actual date?
  • The sudden jump in the History section to he 1960s and Martin Luther King is disconcerting. Is there nothing to be said in the 30-odd years after the dedication? And then a 40-year jump to 2000.
  • "then-Dean" is ugly and awkward. Just call him the Dean
  • "The only precedent for a university chapel of this size was King's College Chapel, and only a small part of that chapel was used regularly." Why the past tense?
  • Exterior and interior description: it would greatly help readers to understand these sections and visualise the chapel in its surroundings, if there was some kind of plan available. References to "north side", "western end", etc are not very useful unless one has an idea of the complete picture. Is it possible to find and use such a plan?
  • Some of the linking is odd. There is an unnecessary link to pelican, followed by a piped link to the same page from "religious symbol". I'd say that the single link you need is thus: religious symbol.
  • On occasion I found it a little tiresome to have to keep using links to understand what was being said. For example; "A sculptor who worked on the chapel during its construction placed small carvings of his face and Cram's at the bottoms of crockets flanking the main entrance". It would have been useful to at least have the information that a crocket is a decorative stone feature. There are other similar instances.
  • Why are we saying "as of 2008" when we are almost in 2012? It makes the article seem already out of date.
  • What does "at the crossing" mean? ("78.5 feet (24 m) high at the crossing")
  • The phrase "burned to the ground", used in the History section, should not be repeated verbatim in the "Interior" section
  • Perhaps a brief sentence could be added on the significance of the USS Princeton, rather than relying on a link (to a decidely inferior article).
  • Don't link "oak". "An oak made pulpit" would read better as "A pulpit made from oak", or perhaps just "An oak pulpit"
  • "re-opening" recital? Re-opening of what?
  • The latter parts of the article are decidely listy, with three separate bullet-pointed lists. I don't actually see the need for any of these, and feel they could each be absorbed into standard prose. I also think that the use of bolding in these lists is contrary to MOS.
  • Historical point: perhaps most or all US readers will know who Adlai Stevenson II was, without further identification, but in Europe, unless you are about 75 years old you won't have a clue. So a few descriptive words would be most helpful
  • Does the issue of "relative size" really warrant a dedicated section of the article? I would have thought that this entirely unimportant information could be buried somewhere, if indeed it requires mention at all.
  • Page ranges in refs should use ndashes, not hyphens
  • Why are access dates given in British format?
  • The link on commencement goes to a disambiguation page

Lack of time has prevented me from giving the second part of the article the same level of scrutiny as I gave the first half, so a further careful prose check is advisable. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talk page if you wish to raise questions arising from this review, or if you'd like me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'm working through the items one by one, but real life forces me to do them in batches. I'm up to the point about the dedication ceremony. I've commented above only to answer questions or say something other than "Done, thanks". Lagrange613 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it recently failed a GAN and although some things have been addressed, it still has some way to go and PR seems the next logical step.

Thanks, Ykraps (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang
  • Please read WP:LINKVIO: I have removed several violations of these from this article. Do not link to unauthorised scans of copyrighted material. If the material is a source, cite to it properly. If it is from Kerrang! or other magazines, then {{cite journal}} should be used with the issue number, date, and page number, without linking to sladescrapbook or the other linkvio sites. {{cite news}} for a newspaper article and so on.
  • That said, Dave Kemp might have permission to continue the fan club (now online at, but did he receive permission to reprint the newsletters or their copyrights?
  • Be consistent in the citations (use only {{citation}}, the {{cite xxxxxx}} templates, or a single style). Right now, the article's citations are a mess with raw links and incomplete citations.
  • It appears that several parts of the article are not actually backed up by the cited source. For example, "The band's future was left in the balance as Slade refused to continue without their drummer although Lea's brother, Frank, covered Powell's position at the Isle of Wight Festival to avoid disappointing Slade fans." was linked to a scrap article (a linkvio now removed) that did not back up any of the italicised assertions. does not show anything for "It only made number 50 in the UK but was a hit in Poland where it reached number two." These failures cast doubt on the majority of the article.

With the mass of questionable sources, this article would require lots of work. It would be best to consolidate material from reliable sources and work anew, rather than trying to secure any material to back up what was already written in the article (thus trying to hammer square pegs into round holes, and pegs of questionable quality at that). Jappalang (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jappalang, thanks for the feedback. I became involved with this article shortly after it failed to make Good Article and (I think) been abandoned by the main contributor. As the references weren't mentioned in GA review, I didn't check them but having done so since, I have my own doubts over their validity. I have spent much time rewriting the article but agree it is the references which now need the most attention. If I get that bit sorted, would you be prepared to take another look at a later date? Thanks again--Ykraps (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Once you do that, bring it back to peer review (it always helps to have others' opinions). I will take a look if I have the time then. Jappalang (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Katniss Everdeen[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to bring this article up to GA. So far, I've reorganized the article's sections to something slightly unorthodox, to my understanding; broken up and copyedited (somewhat) the plot summary; and done a little bit of expansion work into the conception of Katniss' character.

I feel that the plot may be too long, and I am unsure as to if substantial amounts of uncited plot are allowable (they seemed to be when I was working on film articles). I changed the status of Primrose Everdeen (Katniss' sister) to deceased, as she was by the end of the trilogy, but I do not know if I should write as if this as if it were from before the books' plots began, or afterwards, as I thought. If there is something on your mind, feel free to express it. I am not familiar with working on articles such as these, and any assistance in turning me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(Talk) 08:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Glimmer721

  • See this for some automated tips; fix the contractions.
  • One disambig link: [2]
  • Prim's status as "deceased sister" should probably be removed as she died in the last book and was not dead to begin with. I would include a note which says that she dies in Mockingjay. On the subject of notes, I would also add one for Peeta's status as "husband" and say this is from the epilogue of Mockingjay.
  • The "Names" section is mostly OR as it is missing refs (unless you can find more); I would remove it and just keep the info from this article and say "Concerning her name, Elizabeth Baird Hardy said that..." etc. Though the ref is a blog, I consider it reliable as Hardy works with John Granger who has written academic analyses of Harry Potter (I have one of his books) and so this is the same website and in the same vein as those books.
  • I would just generally cut down on the "Appearences"...Mockingjay is in particular too long.
  • The "Characterization" section contains mostly OR; only things directly from the book, the author, or reviewers should be cited. You could even say which reviewer said what (like this contains a lot about her personality). Also, there's quite a bit Collins has said about Katniss's symbolic resemblence to the Mockingjay.
  • The "Possessions" section is irrelevent and should either be merged with "Background" or the appropriate book subsection.
  • Reception is good, but it can always be added to, especially with reviews from Catching Fire. Is there anything negative a reviewer has said?
  • The film of Catching Fire is due to come out in 2013...has Lawrence been confirmed for it?
  • Be aware of overlinking.
  • This is a fansite.

Porcine parvovirus[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was copied from "Diseases of Swine (8th edition)/Chapters 17". It's a master piece on swine industry.

NOTICE: According to its copyright statement, "Copyright is not claimed for Chapters 17, 23, 25, 31, and 64, which are in the public domain.".

Thanks, dingar (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I am not going to do a more in-depth review because I do not believe that I should be reviewing a copy of a published piece of work. I compared extracts from this article to that of the 9th edition and basically they are lifted from there. The chapters might be in the public domain, but the sources are vaguely attributed (in-line citations would address this and improve the attributions); in other words, it is not readily apparent which paragraph was lifted from which chapter or page. This might not fall foul of Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public domain sources, but I am not certain what purpose a peer review would serve for a straight copy of a public domain "master piece". Jappalang (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The 9th edition is almost the same from 8th edition. I plan use the content from book as a basic article and improve it according to the latest technology. The wiki system can give the article more feature also.

The reason I put it on peer review is that I believe this article can be a feature article. --dingar (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not in its current state if I have any say in it. As stated in the very first statement of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work". The current article is not your work (or of any of the editors here); the contents are simply lifted from a book and hence, no true work was done. Jappalang (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I haven't read these words. You are right. --dingar (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

United States Assay Commission[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I may nominate it for FA in due course. I'm working on a couple of images, but have only promises so far. It is short, but really, there isn't a heck of a lot to say about it.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang
  • The "0" for employees seem to make the Infobox an idiotic thing to have (it is dissolved, is it still going to have employees?)... Is it possible to not display that field?
    It never had any employees is the point I was trying to make. Can you think of a better way to convey it? The acid test means I just failed to convey it to you.
    Ah... okay... I think it just confuses. I tried clearing the field and "Employees" is gone from the Infobox. I think it might be better to do just that. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "... called the pix. [sic] This box ..."
    Is the [sic] originally in the quote? Otherwise, the error is not obvious to me. Ah... only till later do I read that the item is supposed to be a pyx. Perhaps this proper spelling should be inserted alongside the [sic]?
  • "Only the government members served on ..."
    The definite article seems unnecessary here.
  • "Carter signed legislation abolishing the Assay Commission, writing in a signing statement that ..."
    There seems to be some odd (redundant?) phrasing here with the "signed/writing in a signing".
  • "Although President Franklin Roosevelt had ended the paying-out of gold, ..."
    What is this practice? If "paying-out" is what I think it is (paying the assayers in gold), why is it said they received no compensation? Why is it not discussed earlier in the article?
    This, which I wrote, may be of help to you. It is paying out of gold to the public, not the assay commissioners in particular.
    After reading that, I think "Although President Franklin Roosevelt had ended the paying-out of gold," might be redundant. "... almost all of which were melted due to the end of gold coinage for circulation. Assay commissioners were traditionally allowed to purchase coins from the pyx which were not ..." seems to me a smoother read. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that Functions and activities should come before Commissioners; the destruction and purchase of unassayed coins is better explained by this section.
    Fair enough

Otherwise, this article looks good to me. Jappalang (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I will implement your suggestions later today once I catch up with one or two things and run a bunch of errands.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Zrinski Bridge[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to find out how to improve it before a GAN.

Thanks, Tomobe03 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this informative article. Here are suggestions for further improvement.

  • No dead links.
  • No dabs.
  • Image license looks good.
  • Looking at bridge articles that are rated GA or FA might give you some additional ideas. You'll find a few bridge articles among the FAs at WP:FA#Geography and places, though they all seem to be about much older structures than this bridge. You'll also find bridge articles at WP:GA/ET, such as Nordhordland Bridge.

Possibilities for expansion

  • Adding a locator map like the one in the infobox of Limyra Bridge would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with eastern European geography.
  • The bridge is quite new and therefore doesn't have a long history. However, it would be interesting to know how people crossed the river before this particular bridge was finished. Did this bridge replace an older one? Did people get across the river on a ferry? Did they have to drive to a different place to get across the river?
  • I think the article needs to include at least one image of the bridge. The border-crossing image is OK to include, but it does not show the bridge.

Prose and style issues

  • I would consider moving the History section to the top of the article, just below the lead.
  • The prose would be tighter if you changed passive-voice constructions to active voice. Two examples from the lead are: "The cost was shared equally by Croatia and Hungary. The bridge is maintained by Hrvatske autoceste and Állami Autópálya Kezelő Zrt." Better would be: "Croatia and Hungary shared the cost. Hrvatske autoceste and Állami Autópálya Kezelő Zrt maintain the bridge." The article has many passive constructions similar to these two. I think that rewriting 30 or so of these would be the biggest single thing you could do to improve the prose. Instead of "A was done by B", recast as "B did A". After you do this, you might need to combine a few of the short punchy sentences to avoid choppiness, but that's OK.
  • "a joint border checkpoint is located north of the bridge" - This appears in the second sentence of the lead. For non-European readers, it would be good to add "in Hungary" after "bridge".
  • Check to make sure all of the secondary units in the conversions to imperial measures are abbreviated. The primary units should be spelled out, but the secondary units should be abbreviated. In the existing article, some are and some aren't.
  • "Volume of traffic using the Zrinski Bridge/Zrínyi Bridge is not reported regularly by Hrvatske ceste in their annual bulletins on Croatian road traffic volume, even though it is a part of the A4 motorway where the traffic volume is normally measured." - To avoid repeating "volume" three times, I'd just delete the second one, leaving " ...annual bulletins on Croatian road traffic... ".
  • I would unlink Hrvatske autoceste in the History section (unless you move the History section up). The term is already linked in the lead and in the "Traffic volume" subsection. Generally once in the lead and once on first use in the main text is sufficient, especially in an article this short.
  • "Tvornica Betonskih Stupova - TBS" - If TBS is the abbreviation, the correct format is this: Tvornica Betonskih Stupova (TBS).
  • Change the all-caps titles in the citations to Wikipedia house style; e.g., Road Network in citation 14.
  • Use consistent date formatting in the citations. Most are like "5 October 2011", but some are like "July 29, 2011". The former looks like the right choice for Hungary and Croatia.
  • I would consider moving the image of the border crossing down slightly to avoid displacing the subhead. Or eliminate the subhead. That might be even better.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. Your comments are helpful and I appreciate them. I plan to implement these suggestions shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Kit Mueller[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this has a lot of new content in need of editorial refinement.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110
  • I would guess that there Mueller's birthdate is not recorded in any reliable sources. Is there anything out there that can help readers get a grounding for his age?
    • Since he never played pro and he played before the internet era, I don't know how to find his birthdate, but most readers will have an idea how old he is by the years he was in college.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead is nicely written and provides a good balance of lay and technical terms, and technical terms are nicely linked for further reading
  • In the third paragraph of the lead, "tenure" appears twice in as many sentences. Can this be varied?
  • Paras 1 and 2 of "High School" are like a wall of prose-ified stats. Is there any further information that can be included in this section to space out the stats?
    • I've added as much context as is reasonable for this subject. I.E., for this subject, this much pre-high school content is pretty exemplary. Not too many people at this level of notability have this much detail about their high school career.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bradley0110 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I've no further comments on the article; the College and post grad sections both run smoothly, and the references have clear and consistent formatting. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Centrum Arena (Prestwick)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I expanded the article from a stub. I've put alot of work into it and feel that it could be worthy of GA status. I would also like some feedback on the article so I can possibly make some improvements.

Many Thanks, Il cacciatore (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang
  • The lede (opening/very first section of the article) is a summary of the key points in the main article text (WP:LEDE). The current single-sentence lede is too short and does not summarize what is key.
  • It seems the article is divided into too many sections (as supported by the presence of several sections as being only of a one- or two-sentence paragraph). Judging from the available content so far, they can be merged into three sections: History, Operation, and Closure.
  • The language is flawed. The single sentence in The Site is awkward in construction, there is a period between "Chinese State Circus" and "and roller hockey", and errors such as "policy TOUR3" seem obvious.
  • Several statements in this article are uncited.
  • The Demolition section is over-detailed; when compared to the rest of the article, it becomes of undue weight.
  • The current section headers violate the Manual of Style. Section headers should not be in title case, but in sentence case; i.e. only the first letter of the header is capitalized.
  • Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources, as what was done with Ayr Scottish Eagles in this article. If an information from another article is to be used, cite the actual source from which that information came from.
  • The citing is also somewhat haphazard; it is before a punctuation, after a punctuation, between two periods, or has a space before it. Please be proper and consistent.
  • File:Centrum Arena.png: What sources did Martin Le Roy use to reconstruct the structure? Without indicating those sources, how can one verify that his computer generation is accurate in detail?

The main issue is that actual meaty information about the subject is quite sparse here and is not presented in the best manner. Consolidate them (like in the suggested three sections above) and think how to present the stadium in a encyclopaedic manner (How did it come about? What happened in it? How did it fail? When did it close? What happened after it closed?). Jappalang (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the peer review. I have amended the article in light of your comments and suggestions. Many thanks (Il cacciatore (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

International Academy of Business[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a good or featured article but I need a thorough copy-edit by someone with a better grasp of English.

Thanks, Mheidegger (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mheidegger (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - always good to see articles on Kazakhstan here. I agree this needs a copyedit, but it has other issues which would be a problem at FAC or GAN; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on colleges and universities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education which may be good models. Tuck School of Business is a FA and seems as if it would be a good model for this article.
  • pne dab link that needs to be fixed
  • one dead link that needs to be fixed
  • In general make sure the article provides context to the reader - see WP:PCR. Two examples of this:
    • the first sentence should mention that this is in Kazakhstan, as many readers will not know just from seeing Almaty.
    • The history starts with 1988, but does not provide any background as to why a new school was perhaps suddenly possible - I would give a few sentences on the breakup of the Sviet Union and new independence of Kazakhstan and how they led to the founding of the IAB. Also what exactly was "Union" Republican Cooperative Association??
  • The current lead does not follow WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but student life, awards, management and other sections do not seem to be in the current lead.
  • The article needs to be consistent on all the details - the lead says the former name was Alma-Ata School of Managers, the section header is Alma-Ata School of Management - which is it?
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - also years and months are not generally linked
  • I agree that this needs a copyedit, but PR is not the place to fine copyeditors in general. Try WP:GOCE instead.
  • Prose is really choppy - lots of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the narrative flow - try combining these short paragraphs wherever possible, or perhaps expanding them
  • I would also avoid bullet point lists where possible (conver to prose)
  • References need to be consistent - give language if the source is not in English. WOuld it be possible to translate the article / book titles into English too? (still give the original, but translating the title would allow non-Russian or Kazakh speakers some understanding of waht the source is)
  • Image galleries are frowned on at FAC.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Davenport, Iowa[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I need suggestions for getting the article up to WP:FL status. I am working on pictures, so other suggestions please.

Thanks, CTJF83 20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

This is an interesting list that will need a bit of development before reaching the standard of FL. I highly recommend having a look at User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check if you haven't already.


  • For FL criterion #2, the article needs a developed lead section. Things to consider including are an explanation of what the National Register of Historic Places is and what it means for a building to be included on this list, a brief description of Davenport, Iowa (what kind of town it is, when it was founded), what kind of buildings are included on the list (mainly industrial? commercial?), how many buildings are on the list, who decides which buildings are to be listed etc.
  • I believe the use of bold formatting in the lead sentence is discouraged for FLs.
  • The lead sentence doesn't actually make grammatical sense at the moment. ("The NRHP listings is defined as south of 5th St..."?)
  • "Properties in Davenport are somewhat concentrated in several of Davenport's neighborhoods." - Maybe it's me but I'm not really sure what this sentence is trying to say.
  • The note "This National Park Service list is complete..." seems to be floating a bit randomly. I'd suggest moving it either above or below the actual list.

Current listings

  • The first column should probably have a heading, not just a footnote
  • Other editors may have different opinions, but personally, I find the age of the building, or date it was built, far more interesting than the date it was listed
  • I'm pretty sure the "summary" column doesn't need to be sortable
  • "Roughly 3rd St. between Ripley and Myrtle Sts." - it's not clear what roughly means here. Is it on 3rd St or not?
  • Personally, I would try to avoid the use of sentence fragments in the summaries. It doesn't flow very well when you have a fragment followed by a full sentence. I'd stick to full sentences.
  • What does "Davenport MRA" mean?
  • I'm a bit confused by the "neighborhood" column. Firstly, unless I'm missing something, they're all the same, making it a bit redundant. Secondly, is it accurate to call Davenport a neighborhood? I thought this list was about the Downtown neighborhood?
  • Some entries are unsourced. How do we know for example that Bonaventura Heinz House is a Greek Revival style residence from 1860?
  • Number 56 does not have blue in the first column - is this intentional? If so, it's not clear why and there may be an accessibility issue
  • For accessibility, the table could do with a caption
  • "2nd. St.", "4th St." - punctuation here is not consistent
  • This may not be something you can answer, but on reading the list, I'm immediately wondering how a building (Ferdinand Ewert Building) that is now an empty lot is still included on the list.
  • Is the different formatting in #49 intentional?

Former listings

  • Do we know why these buildings were delisted?
  • "Also there is Claim House which was nominated but possibly not finally NRHP-listed due to owner objection." - not great grammar (ditto following sentence), and also looks like original research


  • References would benefit from consistency eg. in date formatting
  • Something's wrong with ref #42, causing the url to break

Hope this gives you something to work with. I don't usually watch peer reviews, so feel free to let me know if you have any queries.--BelovedFreak 20:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! CTJF83 14:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Les pêcheurs de perles[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Bizet, the composer of Carmen, led an erratic professional life during which he rarely tasted success before his masterpiece was performed in 1875 – and then he died. In the early 1860s he had great difficulty getting anything performed; Les pêcheurs was a rare breakthrough when it was staged in 1863. It wasn't much of a success, and Bizet got panned by the critics for his grandstanding at the opening night. A century-and-a-half later, the work is much esteemed. If for nothing else, people know it for the "Pearl Fishers Duet", which in the 1980s topped the list in a Guardian poll of the public's "best tunes". Opera snobs like me know there is much better music to be had than that. Anyway, the article needs looking over, and I'd be grateful for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Les pêcheurs de perles/archive1.

Malin Åkerman[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA, but I feel that it might need a peer review before that, since this is the first biographical article I have written.

Thanks, Pancake (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • See also - Are there any related articles that could be listed in a See Also section? (But dont repeat links already in body of article). --Noleander (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • terminology - ".. cameo appearance as a robot ..." : I think cameo is when famous actors play a small role; in this context she is an unknown playing a bit part. --Noleander (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Footnotes - There are several multiple footnotes, consecutive, as in "... negative towards her acting.[35][36][37]". It may be cleaner to use a single footnote, bundled, as explained in WP:CITEBUNDLE. This is optional, but you should consider it. --Noleander (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pretty good - Overall, the article looks in good shape, and I see no problems with a GA. I'm having trouble finding any issues that need to be fixed. --Noleander (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Pancake (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A Community of Witches[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important sociological study of the Wiccan community in the U.S. and believe that it has reached a sufficient standard that it deserves a peer review.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this review. I'm busy in Real Life for the next few days, but should be able to get to it soon. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


  • The InfoBox title is missing " ... and Witchcraft ... " from the book title at top. --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for pointing that one out! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC))
  • Section 'Academic books and papers" in the Bibl seems to have a lot of works. They should be limited to (1) works used as cited sources; (2) works about the book that is the topic of the article; or (3) other books by Berger. General works on paganism belong in the paganism article, not here. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sentence: "In Denny's preface to the book, he argued that it ..." ... I dont think Denny is arguing there. Maybe "states" or "describes the book ..." or something like that. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Consider adding a "See Also" section ... perhaps containing links to other books on similar topics. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The two sections "Influence and recognition" and "Berger's later work" are laid-out oddly. Maybe do this: (1) rename "Reviews" to "Reception & recognition"; (2) move the 1 sentence on the award up into the Reception section; (2) make "Berger's later work" a top-level section. --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking pretty good ... I'm having a hard time finding issues. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this Noleader! It was certainly a help! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC))
  • Small suggestion: try to expand that "awards" section. Like who gives out that award, and what is it recognizing, etc. If this is the only award it was nominated for, then consider re-naming the section to the singular "Award" maclean (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Plural Awards vs Award: That is a good question. WP:LAYOUT says that section names for references ("References", 'Footnotes", etc) should always be plural, even if there is only one. Not sure if that applies to other sections like Award(s). --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Abbreviation "Cambridge, Mas." - I think that should be MA or Mass. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Brownie Mary[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is somewhat complete but still rough around the edges. I would like to prepare it for GAR with the helpful advice of a reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, which I enjoyed. Here are some mostly minor suggestions for further improvement.

  • No dabs and no dead URLs.
  • I'd be inclined to use "Rathbun, Mary Jane" in the Persondata entry, "Brownie Mary" as the alternative name, and "medical cannabis activist" as the short description.
  • More images would be nice. Perhaps an image of a marijuana plant? Possibly an image of a brownie?


  • "distributing chocolate cannabis brownies to AIDS patients" - Link AIDS on first use?

San Francisco

  • For extra money, she would sell... " - Here and in the next sentence I would change "would sell" to "sold".
  • "along with Dennis Peron" - No need for the first name here since he's already been clearly identified.
  • "Police raided Peron's business in 1977 and shot him in the leg." - This is such a compressed version of events that it makes it sound like the police shot Peron offhandedly or perhaps to teach him a lesson. Would it be helpful to include a bit more of this story? Why did they shoot him?


  • "In New York in the early 1990s, cannabis activist Dennis Peron... " - Tighten to "In New York in the early 1990s, Peron... " since the other words merely repeat what's already been said?
  • "In 1992, Rathbun helped Dennis Peron" - Delete "Dennis"?
  • "According to Dennis Peron" - Just "Peron"?

Personal life


  • "She told Dennis Peron that she was considering traveling... " - Just "Peron"?


  • I would include the place of publication. If you don't have this in your notes, you can find it via WorldCat.


  • Perhaps it would be better to move much of the material in citation 7 to the Legacy section.
  • I'd also consider moving much of citation 42 into the Legacy section and explaining what NIDA and THC stand for.


  • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Instead of "1992, October 3", for example, I would use October 3, 1992. Ditto throughout.
  • I think I would drop the "a" and "b" from (1982a) and (1982b).
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful! I will make an attempt in the next two weeks to complete these tasks. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I find the YEAR MONTH DAY format much more informative and helpful to the reader and editor rather than MONTH DAY YEAR. I realize that few if any editors use this format, but it is the standard APA format for magazine articles.[3] Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding copyvios, User:Crisco 1492 expressed the concern[4] that this sentence was a copyvio,[5] and he changed it, but even if there is another source that says "Rathbun was a hospital volunteer in the AIDS ward of San Francisco General Hospital", that wording is simply an observation of fact, similar to saying the "The White House is located in Washington, D.C." It is not a copyvio to make that statement of fact, even though it appears in hundreds, perhaps thousands of sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pillow Pets[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already been under extensive copyediting from me and other users. However, I don't think that the article is good to go for GA status, so I will need a reviewer's opinions on the article.

Thanks, Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 06:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pillow Pets/archive2.


This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article is sufficiently detailed; would like a formal review to happen to iron out any kinks before going for a GAN. Thanks, Lynch7 08:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The page should be splitted as WP:SPLIT suggests. The page is currently 126,467 bytes long. Other than that, images should normally be at the right, not left. ~~Ebe123~~ → reportContribs 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have moved all images to right. Regarding splitting, I will like to know if any section on the article may be created as another article. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry it has taken me so long to review this - here is a start. Thanks for your work - sounds like an interesting movie, here are some suggestions for improvement.

Resolved: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure the article needs to be cut back a lot - using the prose size tool - Prose size (text only): 55 kB (9333 words) "readable prose size" this is in the "May need to be divided " range at WP:SIZERULE
  • It is also OK to have images alternate between right and left justification in an article.
  • WP:MOSIMAGE also says that images should draw the reader's eyes into the page and not look off the page - so File:Premeire of 'Ra.One' in London.jpg should be left justified
  • I am concerned that some of the images which are marked as free in fact contain copyrighted material - for example File:Khan promoting Ra.One film in association with MacDonalds.jpg and File:Shahrukh Khan launches 'Ra.One' - Nvidia GEFORCE GTX 560Ti graphic card.jpg both have promotional images in them and the promotional material is almost certainly copyrighted by the studio and/or the firm doing the promotion. As such they likely need to be fair use. There are 2 fair use images already, so 4 is a lot.
  • Looking at the lead now, the most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. I think this needs some work before it would pass FAC. So The film features Shahrukh Khan in dual roles, and also stars Kareena Kapoor, Armaan Verma and Arjun Rampal in the lead. is problematic. First off, saying "also stars" should be sufficient (does not need to also say "in the lead"). If you would rather say "in the lead", it seems to me that lead is singular, but there are mutiple actors listed, so perhaps "in the lead roles"
  • I am not sure what "guest appearances" are in a movie - in America it sounds more like something from a television program. Is it what is sometimes called a Cameo appearance? In any case, are these really so important as to merit inclusion in the lead? They are not in the infobox...
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body, but Khan's role is not referred to in the body as goofy (game designer). Without a ref, seems POV too
Resolved: Agree with you, hence removed the word "goofy". -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead says the film faced censorship prior to release, but the article does not say it was actually censored - just that it was rated by the film board (and got the everyone can attend rating). To be censored, a film has to be cut in some way.
  • Even if it is called the Censorship rating in India, most ENglish readers will not understand this. I think just calling the section "Ratings" would be better.
Would it be okay to be called as "Censor rating"?, because if we change it to "Ratings", then Indian people will find it confused. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
First off the section is only one paragraph of three sentences - it might be better if it were just combined with the Release section. Second, if everyone in India calls them Censor ratings then I would use that here too. My point is that the over 900 copies of the film were shown "overseas" (outside of India) but there is no information on the ratings in any other country. Rotten lists it as unrated in the USA, which could be mentioned here. What rating did it get in the UK? Reviews (from other countries) may be a source of the rating in that country. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness - what were the film's ratings in its markets outside India? Dubai? London? Toronto?
If you're saying about searching for international reviews, find it here. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Not reviews, ratings - what was the British or Canadian or other countries' "censor rating" for the film? Please see above too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

More to come

Thanks a lot Ruhrfisch for taking the time to make a pre-FA peer review. Regarding the bit about overseas ratings, as far as I've seen, the MPAA has not rated the film, and neither has the UK. I'm not too sure about UAE, so I'll try to dig that up. I have consistently used Avatar as an article to compare with, though this hasn't gone down too well with some other contributors. While I know that Avatar is itself only a GA, I found it really impressive. I have also occasionally seen through Scream (for the lead section) and Lage Raho Munnabhai, the latter of which is an FA. While several editors have repeatedly asked for a cutback in article size, I strongly feel that a size cut will not do the article any good. I don't think it will be feasible to make separate articles for Marketing/Reviews/Production simply because there isn't enough content under these sections to warrant an entirely new article. Besides, a detailed article is one of the criteria for an FA. I support Karthik and wish the section to be called Censor ratings, as Indians are generally used to call the ratings colloquially as "Censors". I really can't help with images because myself and WP images are sworn enemies doomed to life-long problems with each other (please pardon the theatrics :D ). Yes, a guest appearance does mean a cameo appearance, and it shall/has been changed to that. Guess as of now, that's it. Thanks again! AnkitBhattWDF 13:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
More from Ruhrfisch
Resolved: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If you want to cut down on the size of the article, it does not have to be split. Just look for ways to make the prose more concise and focused - four examples follow:
    • In the lead is it necessary to mention the three cameo appearances? I assume these are well known Indian film stars, but I searched the article and Sanjay Dutt is only mentioned three times in the whole article (lead, cast, and that he was slated to appear - is this really important enough to keep in the lead)?
I suggest keeping the names of the cameo appearances. Please note that some highly well-known celebrities such as Rajnikanth have had a cameo appearance in this film. AnkitBhattWDF 15:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying to get rid of the mention of all cameos, just in the lead (if need be say in the lead the film featured cameos from many celebrities). By the way, Rajnikanth is mentioned only once in the article and is not listed as a cameo. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Even fairly short sentences can be trimmed down in many cases - to pick one at random from the lead Prior to its worldwide release, Ra.One had multiple premieres in Dubai, London and Toronto during the period of October 24–26.[8] Aren't all premieres prior to wide release (so you could cut "Prior to its worldwide release"). Even the word multiple does not really add anything - listing the three cities implies three premieres. Also sometimes a simpler word or phrase will do, so "from" might be better than "during the period of" - end result Ra.One had premieres in Dubai, London and Toronto, from October 24 to 26.[8] saved 8 words - not every sentence can or should be trimmed as easily or effectively, but it would help many
Resolved: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Keep the focus on this film and only include the barest of tangential material - so in the bit about Enthiran and possible similarities between it and this film, why is this sentence needed? "I will not like to talk about anyone else's film but Rajni sir is respectable to all of us." How does this sentence increase the reader's understanding of Ra.One?
Before few month to release, the movie was very much compared to Enthiran (another sci-fic Indian film), by both media and common people. Hence i feel the sentence is very much necessary. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
How does I will not like to talk about anyone else's film but Rajni sir is respectable to all of us. say anything about Ra.One? It might help to add a sentence on the plot of Enthiran so readers will see the similarities (scientist's creation turns on him), but a platitude that I am not going to say anything bad about someone else (who is not even clearly identified as the director of Enthiran) adds nothing to my understanding. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Avoid passive voice if at all possible - active voice is usually briefer too. So
In March 2011, it was announced that the television broadcasting rights for Ra.One had been sold to Star India for a then-record sum of 40 crore (US$8.11 million), surpassing the previous record set by 3 Idiots (2009) of 33 crore (US$6.69 million).[10] could be something like this
In March 2011, Star India bought the television broadcasting rights for Ra.One for a then-record sum of 40 crore (US$8.11 million), surpassing 3 Idiots (2009) previous 33 crore (US$6.69 million) record.[10]
Resolved: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think a copyedit would be really useful - not only for conciseness, but also to make the tone more encyclopedic in places - so "hit" in Initially expected to hit theatres on June 3, 2011, the release of the film was pushed back to the Diwali weekend of October 26, 2011 ... seems very slangy
  • A few places need refs - for example On October 21, Sinha tweeted that the film had been completed. and I could swear there was one about the audience being mostly children that had no ref - wait Families and children comprised the major demographics of Ra.One's audience.
Resolved: Added required sources. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Define abbreviations like SRK before they are used
Resolved: -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Much of the commercial analysis section seems needlessly repetitive - the accusations of plagiarism have already been discussed earlier in the article, or the mixed ratings.
Perhaps there are a few repetitions that can be removed. I'l do my best in this regard. AnkitBhattWDF 15:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Android operating system versions[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

See also Wikipedia:Peer review/Android version history/archive1 Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it is a FL

Thanks, Greg Heffley 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Is this the renamed "Android version history" article that I reviewed a few days ago? If so you need to check out the renaming process because the earlier name still exists. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a new one.Greg Heffley 13:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I think it has some way to go before it would pass at FLC; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - to start with, one paragraph seems a bit thin for an article of this size.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However Since April 2009, each Android version has been developed under a codename based on a dessert item. and The pre-release versions of Android were dubbed Astro and Bender, but these names could not ultimately be used for trademark reasons.[1] do not appear in the body of the article.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of the beta version that I could see.
  • In fact the first sentence seems to be contradicted in the body of the article - the lead starts with The version history of the Android operating system began with the release of Android 1.0 in September 2008. but the first section of the article is on the Beta version released in November 2007. The lead also mentions two pre-release versions, but only one seems to be mentioned here.
  • The first sentence also seems to me not to follow WP:LEAD - specifically WP:BEGINNING which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.
  • I am also concerned about a lack of references in places - for example the 2.2.3, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2 sections do not have refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The refs are not consistently formatted - for example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure the refs used meet WP:RS
  • Article has WP:OVERLINKING issues
  • Avoid needless repetition - for example Update to Android Market with automatic updates and easier-to-read Terms and Condition text is followed by the same information Update to Android Market app, allowing it to update on its own
  • I also question the level of detail in places - what makes easier-to-read Terms and Condition text encyclopedic (as opposed to cruft)? This is probably a WP:NOT issue too
  • I really expected there to be some more history - why was Android developed? Who was on the development team? What other software (Apple?) led to the decision to develop Android?
  • Or what were usage / sales figues for or critical repsonses to the different versions - what led the team to develop the next version?
  • The article has to meet WP:WIAFL - so many bullet lists does not seem to meet "professional standards of writing"
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hog Island sheep[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am working on it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011 and I feel that the article is off to a fairly decent start, and I want to make sure that it keeps moving forward as time goes by and to make sure that what I've done so far is acceptable and if not, adjust it accordingly. I would appreciate any feedback. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some ideas for expansion and some comments related to prose and style.

Possibilities for expansion

  • It might be useful to say what breed(s) are the ancestors of the Hog Island sheep.
  • You mention that "other breeds...are more suited to modern agricultural techniques". You might elaborate on this. What exactly makes other breeds more suitable?
  • Who colonized Hog Island? Did they come from elsewhere in Virginia, or did they come from England or elsewhere?
  • The problems of inbreeding could be explained in greater detail. Since the Hog Island Sheep have been distributed to several locations, the 200 animals are not living together. Are the separate batches (or individual sheep) transported from one place to another for breeding? Is the captured semen shared among the subflocks? What other sheep breeds have been mixed with the Hog Island sheep? What specific inbreeding problems arise in sheep?
  • Where exactly are the 200 sheep? Is it possible to give the sizes and locations of the subflocks?

Minor prose and Manual of Style issues

  • I'd mention in the first sentence that Hog Island is in the United States.
It says it's in Virginia, does that not imply United States? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Now, they are preserved by various organizations for their relevance to American history... " - Delete "now" and just say "They are preserved... "?
  • "Thus the sheep is relatively small but tough and hardy." - The word "thus" suggests that it was inevitable that the breed would become relatively small but tough and hardy. Is that accurate? Would any feral breed of any animal necessarily become relatively small but tough and hardy? Why not bigger as well as tough and hardy?
  • "Lambs are born with spotted or speckled fleece, while adults' fleece is mainly white with about 10% of individuals black." - The "with" phrase is a bit awkward. Maybe this would be better: "Lambs are born with spotted or speckled fleece. As adults, about 90 percent of these sheep have white fleece and about 10 percent black."
  • "In the 1970s, the island was bought by The Nature Conservancy, and most of the sheep were removed in order to prevent overgrazing." - Flip to active voice and tighten the prose? Suggestion: "In the 1970s, The Nature Conservancy bought the island and removed most of the sheep in order to prevent overgrazing."
  • File:Dark Hog Island sheep.jpg displaces an edit button because the first short subsection under "History" is not big enough to accommodate an image. Expanding the text or eliminating the subhead or moving the image down into the larger subsection would probably solve the problem. WP:MOSIMAGES has guidelines about image placement.
  • The Commons description line of File:Dark Hog Island sheep.jpg is incomplete. It says, "A dark Hog Island sheep at the Norfolk". I think this should be changed to say "A dark Hog Island sheep at the Virginia Zoo in Norfolk".
  • "Because the Hog Island sheep resembles the sheep that would have been present in colonial farms, they... " - Singular-plural problem. The first instance of "sheep" in this sentence is being used in the singular sense, but it doesn't match with "they". You need to say "Because the Hog Island sheep resemble... ".
  • "The Hog Island sheep population is very small, which means that preservation of the breed would necessitate preserving the breed's genetic characteristics in a pure line of descendants, but this would threaten the breed's survival by inbreeding some of the breed's "bad genes"." - This doesn't make sense as written. The size of the population by itself doesn't "mean" anything; it's just a number. Suggestion: "Because the Hog Island sheep population is so small, preserving the breed's genetic characteristics solely by inbreeding would threaten the breed with 'bad genes' passed from one generation to the next." Or something like that.
  • The date formatting in the Reference section should be consistent throughout.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 1 should include the journal name, "CW Journal", the issue (Summer 2007), and the publisher (The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation). To insert the issue, add the issue= parameter; to insert the publisher, add publisher=.
  • It looks to me like the Dohner page numbers should be pp. 142–43. I would also add the issue and the location of the publisher. If you ever need to add information like this that you don't have in your notes, you can probably find it via WorldCat.
altered the page numbers; I thought it was a book, should it have an issue?
  • If you want to add the missing hyphens to the ISBN, a handy converter lives here.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional suggestions:

  • Still some residual singular/plural agreement problems.
  • Ex: In the first sentence, shouldn't "was" be replaced with "were?"
  • Link words like "feral"
  • The Hog Island sheep was replaced as a breed by other breeds which are more suited to modern agricultural techniques, but are considered important for preservation because of their historical significance and because of the traits they have that modern sheep might lack, like their hardiness and reproductive efficiency. This sentence is so long. Replaced as a breed for what? And what other breeds?
  • The first sentence under the "Research and Conservation" section is also lengthy and could use some rewording.
  • Perhaps include a map of the island?

--Yohmom (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see where to go from here.

Thanks, The Haz talk 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have made a general appraisal of the current state of the article, rather than a line-by-line review. There are a number of basic issues:-

  • You need to be clear about the purpose of the article. It should be to provide information about an important centre of medical education for the benefit of the general reader, not for a potential student. At present, in places it reads like the school's brochure; for example, it isn't necessary in an article of this sort to spell out the MD programme in terms of individual semesters and modules; a general summary of the programme will suffice.
  • The article is very list-heavy. There are six or seven different list within the article. In some cases lists are unavoidable, for example a list of notable alumni, or a list of departments. In other cases, the need for a formal list is not evident. The two very short tables in the "Rankings" section are unjustified; the meagre information they contain could just as easily be expressed in a couple of prose sentences.
  • There seems to be basic information missing from the article: on the institution's sources of funding, fees paid by students, criteria for admission to the various programs, etc. We are told somewhere that "Each graduate group has its own admission policy", and that "All students receive a stipend in addition to a full fellowship", but neither of these statements is at all informative to the general reader.
  • The organisation of material in the article seems a little ad hoc, with information included as and when. Some of the sections have very little content and probably do not justify being independent sections. If you are really concerned to develop this article to a high standard, you should look at some of the existing featured articles on colleges and universities, for example School for Creative and Performing Arts (TFA on 1 December), Michigan State University or Georgetown University.
  • The lead does not meet WP:LEAD requirements as a concise summary of the article's content. The specific information about Penn Med's ranking among research-based medical schools should be in the body of the article, not the lead.
  • There are uncited statements in the article, particularly in the Medical advancements section
  • There are unformatted references: 17 is a bare url, 26 is incomplete
  • It's not clear what the criteria were for inclusion in the alumni list. Is this your personal selection? These lists are often problematic and for that reason don't usually appear in featured-standard articles.

These points are all areas in which work is necessary, if you intend to develop this article towards GA or FA levels. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested to see what would need to be done to get this to FA standard. No substantial changes have been made since its GA review at the end of last year, and I've pretty much reached the limit of what I can see to be improved. I'd really appreciate and comments/suggestions/criticism, bearing in mind the FA criteria. (I'm aware that a couple of reference links need to be updated.)

Thanks, BelovedFreak 14:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I had a look through (not really delving into the sources) and it looks pretty good to me. A few comments:

  • "The town is the borough's administrative centre, with its offices in Poulton Civic Centre."
    I'll try to track one down.--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand the demarcation of England, but what is the North West?
    You're right, this should be explained. I presume you mean its use in the demography section?--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, that is the section. Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have some uncertainty about Demography. A bit of additional caution(?) may be advised. Except for the urban population data, the rest is all about the borough of Wyre.
    Do you mean it would be better to lose this information, or to add a note reminding readers that it applies to a wider area?--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    As I see it, if it were excised, then the section would be left with only one sentence and a sub-section. But, a borough's demography may not match a town's (the borough's is a larger area that encompasses other settlements). The information may well be more relevant for Wyre. I think it best to move Wyre's data to its article and seek other studies for relevant data on Poulton-le-Fylde. Unfortunately, if they cannot be found, Demography would be a very skimpy section. By the way, is no longer available online. Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Flax importation was vital ..."
    Why not "Imports of flax were vital ..."?
    Indeed. Changed. --BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a disconnect between the ending of the first paragraph and the start of the second in Economy. One talks about 1850 and jumps into 2001 without any description of what 2001 was like.
  • It seems a bit strange to me to not elaborate the background/context for the Market Town Initiative on first mention (in Economy), instead doing so in Culture and community.
  • "... town's war memorial ..."
    To which war?
    I'll check this.--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, a bit more polish would give it legs to test the waters at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful comments. I'll get started on addressing them.--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional comments. I'm just waiting to get the chance to get to a library that might help me address the points you've raised. I don't know if I'll be able to fleash out the demography any more, but I agree with what you've said and it's worth a try. --BelovedFreak 13:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from RJH – Nice job. I have just a couple of observations:

  • I think this article tells of the recovery of a Bronze Age human cranium from near Poulton that has been dated to 1250-840 BCE.
  • This source suggests that there was a wider application to the suffix "le Fylde" than to just Poulton.

Regards, RJH (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for those leads RJH - much appreciated. I know I've been neglecting this since I asked for the review, but I've been very busy and waiting to get to a library. I will check those sources out though, thankyou.--BelovedFreak 10:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to featured list status but I would like some feedback first.

Thanks, HurricaneFan25 16:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think photographs which are given above the list should be next to storm name in the list. As a example you can have a look at this article List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. For the hurricanes which does not have their own page you can create redirects for the specific storm name/year links. The added benefit to this is on the list page, you can now use a shorter link name for each storm.--Vyom25 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe such formatting is deprecated in FLs; the U.S. cities by population article, which is an FL, doesn't use that format, nor does any FL I know of. HurricaneFan25 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Image captions that are complete sentances should take a full stop.
  • "During two fifteen-year periods from 1975 to 1989 and 1990 to 2004, an increase of thirteen Category 4 or 5 storms was observed." forgive me but I'm not sure, is that an increase of 13 in each period? Is there a reason why you wouldn't just say "During a 30-year period from 1975 to 2004"..?
    Reworded to something different. HurricaneFan25 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Source(s) column need not be sortable.
    I'm afraid I don't know how; can you tell me what code should be used?
  • Odd sorting going on with the Season column.
  • Use accessible symbols like {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} rather than just a graphic which a screen-reader can't say.
  • Time column needs to be sorted correctly as well.
  • Page ranges in the references should use en-dash, not spaced hyphen (e.g. current ref 26).
    Fixed the only one. HurricaneFan25 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad effort at all though. Look forward to seeing it at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; all the others have been addressed. HurricaneFan25 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Jud Süß (1940 film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to meeting the criteria for featured article status. I would like help in ensuring that the article meets the WP:Featured article criteria. In particular, I am concerned about the citation formats used for references that have multiple page references. I used two different approaches and would like advice on which one to apply consistently. See the Talk Page for more details on this question. Also, the GA reviewer raised a question regarding the neutrality of the article viz. he felt that there was a "slight bend towards excessive anti-Nazi feelings". I looked at many sources to write this article and most of them had this "anti-Nazi" sentiment. I would appreciate any thoughts as to whether there is a real problem here or if the article is as neutral as it can be considering the subject matter.

Thanks, Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A few comments: I doubt I'll have time to give this article a full review, at least not just yet, but here are a few initial points for you to consider:

  •  shortened lead to 4 paragraphs - Lead: WP:LEAD stipulates a maximum of four paragraphs; you have seven. Overall I think the lead presently goes beyond the requirement of a concise summary of the article and could easily be shortened'
  •  Removed mention of Mendes until later in the article where he is properly introduced.There is a mention in the second paragraph of "Mendes' philo-semitic film adaptation", but there is no explanation of who Mendes was. He needs to be introduced with his full name, linked, and preferably at least a nominal description ("film director")
  • There are a number of uncited statements in the prose. Here are some I picked up on, because they are at the ends of paragraphs and therefore very visible. There may be others:-
  •  Resolved. Sentence in question summarizes the points made in this section and the one following it. However, I have provided some references to help support the sentence."However, the project stalled out for a number of reasons including challenges in recruiting a suitable cast and difficulties in producing a script acceptable to Goebbels."
  •  changed the list of actors who declined the role and provided a source - "In the meantime, Brauer was working on recruiting a cast but with little success. He offered the lead role of Joseph Süß Oppenheimer to Emil Jannings, Willi Forst, Gustaf Gründgens , René Deltgen, Paul Dahlke and Ferdinand Marian but each of them turned it down."
  •  provided reference - "George's affiliation with the Nazis would have fatal consequences for him after the war when the Soviets arrested him as a Nazi collaborator. He died in 1946 while interned in NKVD special camp Nr. 7 located in Sachsenhausen."
  •  provided reference and rewrote sentence to follow the source more closely"However, between 1940 and 1943, it grossed over 6.2 million reichsmarks thus making it a blockbuster in a way that Der Ewige Jude never was. David Culbert attributes the film's box-office success in large part to "its lavish sets, its effective crowd scenes, its skillful script, and the splendid acting by most of the principals."
  •  On further review, this sentence is not directly relevant to the article. Deleted the sentence."The film's director, Veit Harlan, received the 1943 Universum Film Archiv award (the UFA was the major commercial German film studio in the early part of the 20th century) at a time when the award was under Goebbels' jurisdiction."
  •  provided reference - "In 2010, Oskar Roehler directed a film titled Jew Suss: Rise and Fall (German: Jud Süss: Film ohne Gewissen Jud Süss - film without conscience that premiered at the 2010 Berlinale."
  •  Commented out the sentence as I could find no reliable source for it."A controversial Hungarian web site has been distributing an unauthorized DVD version in Hungary."
  •  Resolved as part of a general rewrite of the section."For example, while the historical Süß was accused, among other things, of lecherous relations with the court ladies, he was never accused of rape."
  •  Resolved as part of a general rewrite of the section."The dramatic thrust of the novel focuses on Süß's desire for revenge and the tragedy resulting from his pursuit for vengeance."
  •  removed section from article - The information in the "Popular culture" section is pretty trivial and in my view is barely worthy of inclusion, especially as it's the only item in the entire section. If you caold slip the item in somewhere else, it would stick out so much
  • There are several links to disambiguation pages that need to be fixed - see the toolbox upper right of this review page.

Sorry I can't offer more at the moment. An important article, well worth polishing to top quality. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Brian, thanks for taking the time to review this article. The points you raised make sense to me and you've given me enough to work on for a while. Once I've addressed the points you've raised, I'd like to come back and ask you to give it another look. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed Brian's suggestions as noted above. I have also used the tools in the toolbox to address links to disambiguation pages, converted bare URLs into templated references and provided alt text for all images. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA if possible, and could really use some ideas. It should be noted that there would presumably be many sources in Dutch, especially from before the 20th century; I cannot read the language, nor do I have access to any of those sources, so I cannot use those.

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Interesting read, fairly well-rounded. I have a few comments.

  • I would actually expect some reference to Dutch sources in an article like this, since it is likely to be poorly covered in English sources. It is good that you have an Indonesian source; presumably Dutch sources will reduce dependence on it that is currently manifest. The lack of Dutch sources may cause some problems at FAC (criterion 1c).
  • Shorten long multi-clause sentences (I'm guilty of this one too). See e.g. the first sentence of the second-to-last paragraph.
  • You should link Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies at some point.
  • Done.
  • You should parenthetically explain what "Zeylan" is, since not all English-readers will recognize it.
  • Done.
  • "a group of hundreds"? "hundreds" will suffice
  • Done.
  • "Although at first some members" of what? (the most recent relevant noun is "the Chinese", which is probably not what you mean. "members" -> "councilors"?)
  • Done, that's it.
  • none of the non-Chinese non-Dutch ethnic groups are ever identified by name. You should explain how many there are (at least approximately) and identify at least a few major groups. This might put a proper "face" on the currently-faceless "ethnic groups" acting in the second paragraph of "Incident". (Dutch or other sources might even identify who leaders of some of these groups are.)
  • It was in the Setiono source as well, at the time I didn't feel it pertinent. Added.
  • was Batavia's ethnic diversity otherwise balkanized (i.e. groups living in separate neighborhoods/enclaves)? What is known about the town's ethnic organization?
  • The Dutch towards the end of their regime followed a policy of separating different ethnic groups. Not sure what happened in the 1700s.
  • Who was the Dutch military leader? Or did Valckenier actually direct the Dutch military operations in the field?
  • It sounds like the Dutch had a plan of attack, based on the description of the incident (e.g. placement of troops at the canal to catch escapers). Do we know whose plan it was? How much detail is known on the Dutch troop movements before they opened fire?
  • If a reasonably good period map of Batavia exists, consider marking it up (or create a schematic map from it) to identify relevant landmarks. (I understand this may not be easy or possible; I have my own battles with maps of this time.)
  • Closest one we have is 1681... a 60-year-old map won't help much, methinks.
  • At worst, the image can be removed.

-- Magic♪piano 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll try and work with a Dutch-speaking user to find the missing data. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Gallagher[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering listing it for Good Article. I'm not completely sure what Good Article reviewers are likely to be looking for in an article about a Paralympic medalist, especially when there is a possibility of limited sources. Feedback around organisation, completeness, need for any tables, spelling and grammar, and any other outstanding issues in the article that may hinder a GA review appreciated. :)

Thanks, LauraHale (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RJH Comments

  • I noticed that there are many, many sentences begin with "She". This makes the writing seem, well, a little basic. I'd like to recommend that you try rewording many of these sentences so this pattern is less apparent.
  • In the lede it says " a Paralympic alpine skier...". Since Paralympic is not linked, it might be good to explain this a little.
  • "When not competing, she is an osteopath": this is perhaps a little too brief. Do we know where she practices? Is she just an osteopath or a osteopathic physician?
  • "Her heroes are her mother, Mike Edwards, John Boas and Steve Gaffney": some context would be good here, such as who these people are and why they are Jessica's heroes.
  • There are a few sentences that, while technically complete, seem a little brief. For example, "She had a time of 2:04.35" and "She is coached by Steve Graham". Perhaps they could be combined with neighboring text?

I hope these observations help a little. Regards, RJH (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Observations good. :) I am really good at sourcing articles, but I have a major problem with formatting prose around facts I can write and cite. --LauraHale (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Wikilinked Paralympic alpine skiing in lead to provide an explanation. --LauraHale (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Added an explanation as to her coach was. Combined the time into the previous sentence. --LauraHale (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've looked and looked and I cannot find more information about her work outside athletics. :( --LauraHale (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Clarified who Mike Edwards, John Boas and Steve Gaffney are. --LauraHale (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Made those sentences longer, and tried to remove some of the occurrences of she. --LauraHale (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Basement12 comments

A nice article on a Paralympian, I know how hard they can be to find info for. A few comments some of which may be beyond GA criteria
  • I find the image in the infobox a bit strange - not only is it not of the athlete herself but the medal isn't even hers. Not a bad image to have somewhere but personally I wouldn't make it so prominent.
  • "When not competing, she is a registered osteopath" - a bit of a technicality but I assume she doesn't cease to be registered when she is competing?
  • Sports - I'm unsure of the ordering here, the lede suggests Gallagher is mostly a skier and athlete yet in this section others are brought up first. Chronologically this could make sense but the the skiing section says she competed in skiing because of problems with athletics classifications. The ordering of sections needs to be based on one clear criterion. I'd also remove the word competitive from the subtitles, the distinction from recreation is clear from reading the sections themselves.
  • "...event in Austria and won a medal" - was this a gold/silver/bronze/some other kind of medal.

Hope that helps - Basement12 (T.C) 00:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thurman Tucker[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering sending it through FAC; not sure if I will yet since it's a relatively short article. It's in good shape now but I imagine there are a few spots that I could do some work on, but it would need a fresh pair of eyes.

Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

I have done some copy-editing as I've gone through. As usual, please just revert anything that I have messed up or that you are not happy with. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • As usual, betraying my ignorance here, but is "posted" formal in baseball? If it is, no problem at all. If not, maybe "recorded"?
  • Link major league in the lead?
  • I would question the need to link WW2 but not a problem either way for me.
  • "major league scout and insurance agent until his death in 1993": This implies he worked right up until his death, which I assume was not the case.
Early life
  • "enrolled in a baseball school": They had baseball schools? I'm trying to imagine a cricket school... Could this possibly be expanded, as it sounds interesting (maybe it is commonly known what this is, if so I apologise) but at the very least suggests someone spotted talent. Do we know any details?
Minor league career
  • "changed positions": To avoid any ambiguity, would it be ok to say "fielding positions" or similar? (Not sure if this term is used in baseball)
  • "Chicago White Sox farm manager": I know what this is, but not everyone might. Can farm be linked?
  • It is a little vague with details of his 1942 performances.
  • I tweaked the 2nd paragraph a bit, but may have changed the meaning too much. Please check what I did and revert if necessary.
  • One minor concern here is that it is not clear how he progressed through the minor leagues; I do not think there is a sense of each move being a move "upwards" as suggested in the lead. However, I appreciate that this is difficult to explain and reference, so a compromise may be to add a generic comment somewhere around here that he "progressed" and reference it from a biography or something, or just to take that part from the lead.
Chicago White Sox
  • " team's leadoff hitter": Maybe explain or link?
  • "His hitting and fielding abilities, combined with the possibility of joining the Navy at any time, led to sportswriter Fred Lieb noting him as a breakout performer that year." Not sure I see the connection with his call up and this being a breakout season.
  • "He was the leadoff hitter in the 1944 Major League Baseball All-Star Game and went hitless in four at-bats." This is obviously not good, but could be spelt out more possibly. Maybe "but" instead of "and"?
  • "he was benched": Possibly too informal?
  • "At the end of July, both Tucker and George Case participated in a 75–yard dash at part of the White Sox's annual benefit for the war; Tucker lost the race to Case by a yard.": I'm struggling to see the relevance or importance of this, and it interrupts the flow of his achievements (or lack of them, at this point).
  • "Tucker was slated to be the starting centre fielder": slated too jargony?
  • "was relegated to his original status as a good fielder but a poor hitter": Not sure about relegated (as this suggests dropped or demoted) but this is the first mention of him being a good fielder and a poor hitter.
  • "while rookie Dave Philley was in left field and Taffy Wright and Bob Kennedy platooned in right field." Something missing here to make it make sense.
  • "did not play full time for the White Sox until the middle of May" (slight ce to this text): Does this mean he was playing every game or playing regularly? I think play regularly would read better.
  • "Tucker ended up splitting time with Philley due to his light hitting": Jargony?
Cleveland Indians
  • "the Indians made the move because they regarded Tucker as "the finest defensive player in baseball." (old text, now tweaked): Who said this? Needs in-text attribution.
  • "He missed a couple weeks of playing time": Can we be more precise here?
  • "scoring a run in the sixth inning on a walk": Help! Lost! Could this be linked or explained for non-specialists?
  • "Tucker and Allie Clark were both looking to crack the Indians roster": Jargon?
Later life
  • "and he contemplated retirement from baseball during a contract in February 1952." Not quite clear here; on first reading, it looks like a typo for saying during contract negotiations or something similar. If this was not the case, why mention his contract? It would be fine as "he contemplated retirement from baseball in February 1952".
  • I don't think the length of this article would prevent it being a FA.
  • Possibly the prose needs a little more polish. It is a little repetitive in the "In XXXX, he XXXX" or "The following season, he hit ...", that kind of thing. It also becomes dry stats a few times too. This could be improved but my shallow baseball knowledge can't quite manage to come up with anything right now. I also have an impression that a lot of sentences start in a similar way throughout; I tried to sort some in the c-e, but may have missed a few. Or even made it worse. Jargon is fine except for those mentioned above.
  • If possible (and I realise it probably is not), more details of his achievements, playing style and personality would be beneficial. Also personal life. It is a little light on particularly good performances he had, and on opinions on him; there is just the one reference to a good fielder and a poor hitter. Except in the stats, this does not come across.
  • Just to note, I have not looked at referencing or done spot-checks.
  • It is really could do with some images. Any fair-use ones that could be used? Stadiums? Other players mentioned?
  • Ping me if you want me to have another look at any point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. I found little on his personal life, to my surprise, even in the Sporting News articles which usually give me stuff to work with. I'll keep looking and address the other concerns. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to send it to FAC soon (fluorine, however, is not forgotten). The article isn't very large, but there's little to add, as it seems to me. It may need check for prose strength and bordering issues. Any help is appreciated!

Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Astatine/archive1.

Dylan and Cole Sprouse[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently (October 6) relisted as a GA, and I'm looking to improve it even further, hopefully even to FA status. I'm looking for specific areas and things to improve. Any suggestions you may have for improvement would be great! :)

Thanks, Purplewowies (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I do not think it is anywhere near ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many biography articles which are FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies - I note that there are two separate FA biographies on siblings: Jake Gyllenhaal and Maggie Gyllenhaal which may be useful models. It may that at some point in time this article may have to be split into two
  • Biggest problem I see with the article right now is a lack of references (I am a bit surprised this was not an issue at GAC, but it would be a quick fail at FAC in its current state). For example these need references:
    • As with many twins, the two have often played the same role, allowing more time for the character to be filmed. At eight months old, the two appeared on the ABC-TV series Grace Under Fire from 1993 to 1998, playing single character, Patrick Kelly.
    • During the early 2000s, the twins appeared in episodes of The Nightmare Room and That '70s Show, as well as in MADtv: Season Four (1998-1999) (episode #425) and the feature films The Master of Disguise and a voice-over role in Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights. In 2001, Cole began appearing in episodes of the television show Friends, as Ross Geller's son Ben; this role was not shared with Dylan.
    • ...and the twins have become very well known among pre-teen and teen audiences. As part of their involvement with Disney, the brothers also became part of the 11-member group, the Disney Channel Circle of Stars, and sang the song "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" along with the members of the circle, for a video that was released as bonus material in the special edition version of the Disney film Cinderella. They also participated in the Disney Channel Games from 2006 to 2008.
    • Article has no refs for their roles in the Filmography or the Discography section
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • References need to be consistent - for example Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Or this ref "Popstar! Magazine. May 2007. Print." needs page, article title, author (if given).
  • All caps is rendered in Title Case per the MOS
  • Make sure all refs meet WP:RS - IMDb is often a problem, for example. I would also get as many third-party independent sources as possible. Or what makes Buddy TV a reliable source?
  • Looking on Amazon there are a few books on them which seem like they might be useful to get and cite here
  • I realize that they are young, but the article is pretty short and seems like it could be expanded. One of the FAC requirements is that the article be comprehensive (see WP:WIAFA). I think the brevity of the article is especially worrisome since this is about two actors (albeit twins who used to share a role)
  • Looking at model FAs which are biographies of actors, there are critical comments on the acting for most roles interspersed in the article. This is just a list of roles, with no real critical responses to their work that I saw. There have to be some reviews out there.
  • There are lots of little MOS things which would be a problem at FAC. For example, there is some WP:OVERLINKing - does the average reader really need a link on twins?
  • Alternate names in the lead should bold, not italicized
  • Although this is the English Wikipedia, I am not sure that all readers will know that "Bros" is an abbreviation for "Brothers" - it would help to spell this out (know collectively as the Sprouse brothers, usually abbreviated as Sprouse Bros).
  • Watch out for consistency on little things - so is it "Bros" (no period) or "Bros." (period)? Both are used
  • Also is the phrase Sprouse Bros in italics or in quotes or in regular font (all three are used)
  • Or is it pre-teen or preteen? Also note that links should be on the first use (preteen is linked on second use now)
  • Use "double quotes" for everything but a quotation inside another quotation (use 'single quotes' only for that)
  • Avoid vague time terms like "currently" in The brothers are currently represented by William Morris Endeavor.[23] Something like "as of 2011" works better
  • Similarly "between" is not used correctly in Between the years of 2002 and 2003, they both appeared in I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus and Just for Kicks, ... - there is no other year between 2002 and 2003
  • Provide context to the reader - explain things that may be obvious to you, but are not well known - see WP:PCR Three examples - child labor laws in the US lead to the hiring of twins to play the role of an infant or young child, and what is Dannon Danimals (childrens yogurt), or who are the Olsens (I know, but it is not explained or linked)
  • Prose is OK - will need a copyedit before FAC, but fix everything else first. One example of bad prose In 2008, the brothers ended their association with the Olsens' Dualstar and continued their clothing line which is 'on hold'; the items in their clothing lines are sold exclusively online.[28][29][30] Too busy - probably needs to be split into two sentences (and since we never heard of the start of the association it owuld help to have an eralier sentence on this). Then the sentence seems to contradict itself on the clothing line - first they continue it, then it is 'on hold (should be "on hold"), then it is internet only sales - which is correct?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Werner Hartenstein[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded it greatly. Please provide feedback on grammar and content.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


A few thoughts from me:

  • "Gustav Julius Werner Hartenstein (27 February 1908 – 8 March 1943) was a Korvettenkapitän with the Kriegsmarine during World War II and commander of U-156." - I know all the individual words are linked, but if you don't know the period, you probably wouldn't realise from the first sentence that he was a famous German submarine commander. It might be worth expanding out slightly to make this clearer.
  • "Prior to joining the military service studied" - a missing "he"
  • "He signed in at the..." - I don't think I've come across "matriculated" described as "signed in" before. I'd suggest "entered", "joined" or just "matriculated".
  • "on 1 April 1928 as a member "Crew 1928" (the incoming class of 1928)" - might be worth finding a way to remove the third "1928", as it seems slightly repetitious.
  • "After he underwent basic military training in the 2nd department (II. Abteilung) of the standing ship division (Schiffsstammdivision) of the Baltic Sea in Stralsund (1 April 1928 – 30 June 1928), he was transferred to the training ship Niobe (1 July 1928 – 15 October 1928) attaining the rank of Seekadett (Naval Cadet) on 11 October 1928. " - this wasn't the easiest sentence to read - I'd advise breaking it into two at "he was transferred".
  • "Attached to commanding torpedo boats before the war, " - should this read "Attached to command torpedo boats..."?
  • "Hartenstein took command of torpedo boat Seeadler on 20 November 1938. In October 1939 Hartenstein transferred and switched command of torpedo boat Jaguar with Kapitänleutnant Franz Kohlauf who took over command of Seeadler. On 30 March 1941, command of Jaguar was given to Kapitänleutnant Friedrich-Karl Paul and Hartenstein transferred to the U-boat force, and on 4 September 1941 given command of U-156. For his service on torpedo boats" - I wasn't sure if the incoming commanders' names added a lot here?
  • "group new land" - should this be capitalised? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Mjroots

I've changed the flags to show those actually used. Technically, Great Britain refers to the  Kingdom of Great Britain from 1706-1801. I've used the {{navy|United States}} template ( United States Navy), but with the name tweaked to display as United States, although it links to the article on the USN. Nice article, BTW!. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

much appreciated MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)



This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is presently a GA and I intend to take it to an FAC. Most of the gaps have been filled and issues, fixed. However, there might be some which might have escaped my eye. Also, I wish to get some creative feedback from fellow editors before proceeding further. Thanks, RaviMy Tea Kadai 05:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Ravichandar, I read through the article once. My impression is that the content is satisfactory with supporting references. Some amount of copyediting can make it fit for an FAC, I think. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've requested some expert help in this regard :-) I request you, too, to help in improving the prose and replace sentences which are poor.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • File:Abhishek Raghuram et al 31A.jpg may need replacement. It is unclear, dark and grainy.
     Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please archive all web links: using or Web references die an early death.
  • "Tiruchirappalli is believed to have been named after the three-headed demon Trishira of Hindu mythology who is believed to have indulged in penance and obtained favours at this place." in lead seems promotion of 1 POV. The etymology is not universally accepted.
  • "In 1736, the last Madurai Nayak ruler Meenakshi committed suicide and Tiruchirappalli was conquered by Chanda Sahib[23] who ruled the kingdom from 1736 to 1741 when he was captured and imprisoned by the Marathas." Break sentences like this one, where 3 things are combined making the sentence confusing.
  • "The idol of the Hindu god Ranganatha in the temple of Srirangam disappeared at about this time and was not recovered and reinstated until more than fifty years later" seems to be a WP:UNDUE. A notable fact may be establishment of the temple and flourishing of the place as a temple town
    The invasion of Srirangam is an important event in the history of the city and there are ample legends and folklores associated with it. The article Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam contains whole paragraphs on the subject which I've condensed to a single line. On the contrary, a description of how the place "flourished" would consume a few paragraphs and would end up violating both WP:UNDUE as well as WP:NPOV. Srirangam is after all just one of Tiruchi's four zones. I've accordingly added a couple of lines on its architecture in the Arts and culture section and a few lines on urban planning in "Geography" section. Most of the stuff on the origins of the temple are mythological and there is almost nothing available on the historical origins of the temple.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:OVERLINK: Rockfort, Tamil Nadu is linked numerous times. Linking irrelevant things like winter, fog, dew, reservoir, bazaar. Removed some
  • A map of city may be included.
    There is already a map of the city in the article-RaviMy Tea Kadai 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Saw that. It is a historical map (1955). Is it still accurate? Also, Srirangam Island is not included. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The merger of Srirangam and Golden Rock with Tiruchi took place only in 1994 which is why even Golden Rock is shown as a separate township. But there have not been many new localities or suburbs since 1955. Well, the only accurate and reliable maps of Tiruchi that are available are published by the government and are copyrighted. Well, there are a couple of maps drawn by fellow Wikipedians but can we consider them to be as accurate and reliable as those published by government agencies. If it is "just another article" or a locator map, its okay. But can we use them for featured articles? -RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The 1994 fact needs to be in the article. Maps drawn by Wikipedians based on a RS would be considered reliable. The 1995 map is OK, if most info is concurrent. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact is there in the article in the "Administration and politics" section.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead needs a line or two about geography: like an island within the city and Kaveri need to be mentioned
     Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Spelling inconsistency: Kaveri/Cauvery
     Done Commander (Ping me) 10:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Talk 18:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The age of many references being than 80-100 years old is a cause of concern. Such dated references may be questioned at FAC. The grounds of questioning: These may/may not be concurrent or relevant. There may be newer developments/findings or consensus in scholars. e.g.
    • "Cash crops such as tobacco and a variety of fruits including grapes, mangoes and pineapples are also grown." (Annesley, James (1841)): Current crops may be different
       Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "There are also sizeable populations of Gujaratis and Marwaris resident in the city" R. Burn, J. S. Cotton, ed (1908). Imperial Gazetteer of India.: They may not leaving any more
      Can you provide any source which claim that they don't live there anymore.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
       Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 04:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
       Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "Most Muslims in the city are Labbays" ((1908). Imperial Gazetteer of India.) Other Mulsim communities may have migrated like Lankan Tamils
      Any sources to support it.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
       Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 04:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
       Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Hemingway 1907.
    • Yule, Sir Henry; Burnell, Arthur Coke (1903).
    • Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta (2000) [1935]
    • Sathianathaier, R. (1924)
    • Caldwell, Robert (1881)
    • R. Burn, J. S. Cotton, ed (1908)
    • Moore, Lewis (1878).
    • Aiyangar, S. Krishnaswami (1921)
    • Subramanian, K. R. (1928). etc
  • Some references do not have all necessary data: (All references should have author, year, publisher, isbn - if present, pages)
    • Tamil Culture: missing author, add ISBN
    • Rao, M. S. A.. Urban Sociology in India: add year
  • Arrange references in alphabetical order of authors.
    I feel that it would be better if someone more knowledgeable on the subject comment on whether these authors are reliable or not. Deciding on the reliability of a source based on the date of publication sounds extremely amateurish.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutrality of references: "Rome of the East" needs a neutral reference, rather than Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited, who might have coined it to promote tourism
    I am removing the same.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the authors whose books you considered "obsolete" are legendary historians. Some of the books you've mentioned such as The Cholas by Nilakanta Sastri (which is used in two featured articles and a B-class article), Sathianathaier's History of the Madurai Nayaks and Subramanian's The Maratha Rajas of Tanjore (used in a GA) are the best available books on the respective subjects. They form a part of the academic curriculum taught in graduate and post-graduate courses. And then, most of these old sources are used only in the "History" and "Geography" sections (of course, in eighty years you won't be able to see Tiruchi being transplanted to San Francisco). The rest of the sections rely almost entirely on contemporary sources.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 01:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess all the issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed. Are there any more comments forthcoming? If not, I'd rather suggest closing this review.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what people on here think of the article I wrote as my friends and family think it is pretty good, and I also don't think it is as good as it could be so I was wondering how I can improve it?

Thanks, Skyline0304 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: You are a new and, I imagine, young editor, and this is your firat attempts at creating an article. You've done reasonably well to summarise this weather phenomenon in the lead section, but there is very little thereafter – just a few random and parochial "effects". There are hundreds, probably thousands, of weather-related articles on Wikipedia, many of which have gone through the Good Article and Featured Article processes. If you wish to build this into a quality article you should study some of these, to get a better idea of how to construct a good-quality article. Examples:-:

Of course, these are dealing with totally different weather situations, but they give you an idea as to the level of detail that you need to include for a comprehensive, good quality article. For your article, I would see the basic article structure as follows:-

  • Lead: Broad general summary of the article, without too much detail
  • Background: outline recent UK weather history, mention global warming etc
  • Indian summer: broad account of the UK weather from late Sept to mid-Oct, highlighting the maximum temperatures achieved in some locations. Include in the discussion the extent to which the heatwave covered the whole country – were there areas that missed it? Did it rain anywhere?
  • Effects: Expand the present section to give a better range of examples of how the weather impacted through these few weeks. Mention the extent to which the unusually warm weather was experienced outside then UK, e.g. in Europe.
  • Aftermath: It may be too early to write much, but the question of winter drought might be an issue worth considering.

It is up to you to decide where to take this article, after a promising beginning. Peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate," so a full review is premature at this point, but I hope these comments give you some idea as to how to move the article forward. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I've made a start by formatting the lead section and placed the information into a timeline section, and also got rid of the prelude section which seemed irrelevant. I've added some more specific information about which places were affected and how they were. However, I've struggled to find any more information to go in the "effects" section could you give some examples? Thanks. Skyline0304 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Penn State sex abuse scandal[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers a current event with significant BLP concerns; even naming the article required considerable debate. It's unlikely to reach GA status as the events unfold, but in the meantime this review is requested to comment on balance, structure, and comprehensiveness. I started a thread asking participating editors if there are other areas which a review should focus on; it can be found here.

Thanks, ~TPW 22:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few initial queries before any closer reading:-

  • The first, and main concern, is that this is an ongoing affair. I'm not a lawyer, but are you sure you're entitled to call something a "sex abuse scandal" in this definitive sense, when nothing has been admitted or proved? I have looked at, but not read in detail, the long discussion on the talkpage about the title. There does not seem to be total agreement on this.
  • You are adding to the content even while the article awaits peer review; in the last section you mention civil suits filed a few days ago, with the hint that there will be many more. This indicates that the article is not yet stable, and that any detailed review would be premature at this stage.
  • I'm also worried about the chart, which includes numerous assertions, particularly about individuals' prior knowledge—assertions that could be challenged by those individuals when the main case comes to court. The chart uses the term "related cover-ups" as though cover-ups were proven facts.
  • Non-standard layout: It is standard format in WP articles to show Table of Contents on the left. What reason do you have for varying this, for this article?
  • The lead is too short for an article of this length and detail. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, touching on (though not amplifying) all the main areas discussed in the article.
  • Essential date information should be included in the lead. For instance, what was the period of the grand jury investigation? What was the date of Sandusky's indictment? Without this information, a casual reader would not be immediately aware that this is a contemporary case.
  • There are small-scale issues such as MOS and reference formatting, which I won't bother with just now, because I think the above matters need to be cleared up first.

As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews at the moment, perhaps you would ping my talkpage when you have responded? Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Utah State University[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to look for areas for improvement. I'm looking for improvement on the entire page. If I had to pick a section that I thought needed the most improvement, I would think "Academics" but I'm not sure how.

Thanks, Jhunt47 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this intersting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on universities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education which seem as if they would be useful models.
  • The lead is not long enough - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be exapnded.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However is accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. is only in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the headers do not seem to be in the current lead - ice cream for one.
  • There are a bunch of dead or problematic links here (via the external links in the toolboix on this PR page)
  • Most of the references used seem to be from USU itself - the article should use independent third-party reliable sources as much as possible. See WP:V and WP:RS
  • Some places need more refs - the first two chapter of Athletics have none, for example. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Research and environmentalism also needs refs for several of the claims - would be useful to read WP:RECENT too.
  • Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which impede narrative flow. Combine these with others where possible, or perhaps expand them
  • Watch out for POV and peacock language - one example "impressive" in This meant closing all departments in Logan, including the already-impressive music department, which did not fall under that umbrella. See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK
  • Starting with SYstem seems odd - I think History might work better
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll work on these in the coming weeks (during the Holiday Break from school most likely). Jhunt47 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

IPhone 4S[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to Good Article status and want to know what would help.

Thanks, Zach Vega (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a few inital comments from Glimmer721 talk 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC):

  • One dablink: [6]
  • Make sure all references are formatted with {{cite web}} or other similar template and ahve as many perameters filled out as possible.
  • Ref #12 is dead.
Comments from Jappalang
  • I envision such an article about a device to tell me:
    • What is the product?
    • Features
      • What are its features/capabilities?
      • Any unique ones?
    • Development/production
      • How was it conceived?
      • Where was it manufactured and for how much?
      • What was its performance/reliability?
    • Release
      • How many did it sell?
      • What awards did it receive?
    • Impact
      • How did society/consumers receive it?
      • What was its impact on the company?
      • What was its impact on the industry?
    This article failed to do so for me. Information is scattered here and there and interrupted by spiels of irrelevant information. The Impact section has nothing about the impact of the device at all. I do not need a price/contract/service provider guide. This sort of things are ephemeral and trivial unless the phone only works with one service provider out of several (as per the first iPhone in the US for a time). Thus the Availability section is entirely unencyclopaedic in my opinion.
  • The piecemeal sentences (several paragraphs simply comprise a single sentence) in this article does not reach the standard of prose requested for Featured Articles. Furthermore, sentences like "Its not clear what the impact of Siri speaking in public will be, but it does not have to speak out loud and can be used with headphones" have grammatical errors ("Its" is the possessive form of "it"; I doubt it is Siri that "[has] to speak out loud") and an unencyclopaedic tone (the intent is to use the contraction "it's", which is not encyclopaedic; neither is the proposition of stating "We do not know what the item is like, but ..."). In short, heavy copy-editing is required to phrase the sentences properly and to cast them in an encyclopaedic light (just reporting the facts).
  • There are uncited items like "One unique aspect was that the whole management team of several people took turns discussing the new products" (frankly, that is not unique at all), the Design section, and various other sentences in the following sections.
  • This ultimately is supposed to be an article about a common handheld electronic device, almost integral to everyone's life. Hence, its contents are supposed to be accessible to everyone who wants to learn more about it. It is not a DNA centrifuge nor a neutrino generator. It does not need to be phrased thoroughly in "tech speak" or full of little stuff that makes the technically-inclined happy but confuses the majority of the readers.
  • In my opinion, the lede is already an overwhelming mass of "tech speak", as illustrated by the first sentence itself—"The iPhone 4S is a touchscreen slate smartphone developed by Apple Inc." While most likely know of touchscreen, what the heck is a "slate smartphone"? The "smartphone" is a marketing jargon and serves nothing except to obfuscate ("so the phone can think?"). Much more can be done with the simpler "The iPhone 4S is a mobile phone with a touchscreen interface. It was developed by Apple Inc and released to the public in October 2011." Readers readily comprehend what this sentence is saying without having to deal with technical jargon. Wiki-linking is no justification. Forcing readers to go to some other article to learn what a term means and losing them there (either because the article is more interesting or they gave up because it is the same mess of technical confusion) is a disservice to both the readers and the project. Wiki-links are supposed to provide extra information for the readers, not as links of convenience for article builders. Either cast the technical terms into context (such that the meaning can be easily guessed at) or provide a brief explanation of the term. Above all, write in a clear and concise manner.

All in all, it is time to clean out the house in this article if one aspires it to be of better quality. Take what is presented in reliable sources and present data that informs the reader clearly on what the phone is and its impact. After that, ask someone who is experienced in the English language (and, preferably, not a "tech nut", so he or she can spot any stumbling point in the sentences) to go through and brush up the prose. Jappalang (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The X Factor (Australia season 3)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA. But firstly, I would like some feedback on the article for any improvements.

Thanks, Oz talk 10:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the article and it's about time that it is promoted because it is too good to be a Start class articles. The amount of details it provides is very good.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have any feedback for me? :) Oz talk 22:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I think if the photographs of other 2 judges if available should be added. Or you can remove the photographs of the 2 judges which are already included and substitute that with a group photograph of all the contestants if available. Otherwise in the matter of content I don't think anything is missing.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your feedback. Oz talk 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Avoid bold links in the start, no need for The X Factor to be bold here. Done
  • Broadcast dates in the infobox need a spaced en-dash, not an unspaced en-dash. Done
  • Three dabs, Rob Thomas, Aspergers, Someone Like You, need to be fixed. Done
  • "is split" now it's finished, shouldn't this be "was split"? Done
  • Try to be consistent with referencing in the lead. Some info is referenced, but, say, the whole final para of the lead is unreferenced. Done
  • "In season 2011" ->" In the 2011 season" Done
  • "having originally been" -> "having previously been". Done
  • While not strictly required for GA, you could think about WP:ACCESS and not simply use colour to convey information, e.g. in the table where you use blue green and pink for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place, consider using a different symbol as well for each one.
    • Theres a key above the table to explain what those colours are for. See The X Factor (UK series 7) for example. Oz talk 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not the point. If someone can't distinguish one colour from another, a colour-only key is of no use. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Added symbols. Oz talk 07:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • A lot of "he cites" "she cites", shouldn't this be past tense? In any case, it's a little tedious to read this on every line... Done
  • No need for Rugby League to be capitalised. Done
  • "She regularly performs..." does she still do that? Or was that just prior to the competition? Added past tense. It was prior to the competition. Oz talk 00:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "they've recorded" avoid contractions. Done
  • Similar WP:ACCESS comment applies to the big results summary table. Done
  • In fact, you use row and col scopes in the subsequent table, but not the summary table. You should be consistent and use these throughout for screen readers. Done
  • Are the blue and pink colours in the tables explained somewhere in a key?
    • Yes. Oz talk 00:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Judges' vote to eliminate[49]" you don't put the reference in a consistent location for these sections (at least, not for Week 4). Done
  • "made comments towards" probably made comments "about" the other judges. Done
  • "More controversy erupted " reads a bit tabloidy.
    • Fixed. Oz talk 00:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Another contestant Luke O'Dell appeared" feels like there are a couple of commas missing here. Done
  • "The premiere episode on 29 August 2011, topped the nights overall " take the comma and turn it into an apostrophe, i.e. "The premiere episode on 29 August 2011 topped the night's overall " Done
  • "nights overall ratings.[86]" apostrophe. Done
  • Don't see a good reason to have the ratings table in slightly smaller font nor with that format of table, just keep the tables consistent (it looks like there are at least three styles being used here which is unsightly).
    • Should I format the table like this? Oz talk 00:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Well that's better. The biggest issue in this article is the variety of table formats. Pick one and stick with it and make sure it's accessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Done
  • Maybe my browser but the "Notes" under the Rating table have a large space between ratings and position. Perhaps you're inadvertantly using columns?
    • Fixed. Oz talk 01:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For references which are Yahoo!7's X Factor ones, shouldn't "The X Factor Australia." be a work, i.e. in italics? (as you have in the External links section)... Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA and make it as good as possible. One specific question I have is: Note the coord ref in the lead which was done with a template. This makes the format of that ref different from all the others. Will this be a problem?

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 02:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Review by User:JonRidinger: I personally don't think you need the coordinates in the lead. Being compleyely unfamiliar with the topic, it's somewhat difficult to get an idea of where Yogo Gulch is, so I think a more general description in the lead and even the text is fine, using some better-known cities as references. If you use the coordinates, I would keep them in the body of the article rather than the lead and specify that the coordinates are for Yogo Creek or that Yogo Gulch is located near the coordinates since the source is not for Yogo Gulch, but for Yogo Creek. In FAC, they will really nitpick everything, but especially the lead. If there's any fact in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, they won't like that. If they feel the lead doesn't give a good summary, they won't like that either. In examining the lead, does it touch on every major point in the article? Basically look at each subheading in the article and make sure there is some kind of summary in the lead. As for the source, I don't think it will be a problem. The format didn't seem to be anything different. Usually they don't like where sources have different date formats than the others (like day month, year vs. month day, year, or using all numbers). I would italicize "Yogo" in the lead and the article for the sentence where it explains what Yogo means instead of having it in quotes.
In the location section, I would flip it over...mention "The area where Yogo sapphires are mined is a region historically inhabited by the Piegan Blackfeet people. In the Piegan Blackfeet language, the word "Yogo" means "romance, blue sky", although there is some debate about this." first, then go into the details about the area itself. The opening of every section should establish why the section is being included in the article and how it relates to the topic. You would likely need to do some rewriting here, but mostly just for flow. The ending where it mentions "some debate" may be something FAC will want you to elaborate on, even if it's a sentence or 2. When I went through FAC, small facts I didn't think were important (like the name of a local park) were things they wanted a little explanation for (who the person was and why the local park was named after them). Since the sources available don't seem to answer the question as to "what else" Yogo could mean, I would definitely encourage a little explanation. It doesn't need to be lenghty by any means.
I will need to read more of the article to comment further, but at first glance here I would definitely advise breaking up the mining history section and renaming the main heading "History". Make sure A) everything in there is directly related to the subject, B) that it is organized, and C) that there's an opening paragraph, again, that connects the section to the main topic. Having that many paragraphs in a row without a lower level subheading is difficult for most readers. Adding a subheading or two would help it be better organized. Breaking the history into periods is usually the best route because it's what most people expect (chronological). On the picture captions, see if some can be trimmed down. The picture captions shouldn't be paragraphs unto themselves.
I think the state gem section could be a subheading of the history section, since it's mostly talking about history anyway.
I will have another look tomorrow. Hopefully what I have so far has been of some help! All I can say for FAC is get ready for things you think will be over-the-top nitpicking. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have worked this except only started subheading the history section as I'm not sure what else to do/where to subhead it. Thanks for helping.PumpkinSky talk 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What you have done so far is great. In the history section, see if you can group the paragraphs into some kind of eras or periods. I'm not sure the MOS for this, but 3-5 paragraphs is a good place to break a section. For history, there could be subheadings about the different time periods or whoever owned the mine at the time and the state gem section could be moved into the area it chronologically happens and incorporate other events that happened at the same time. If you can't seem to find a clear place to break, do a little movement of sentences to get certain decades together. There are several options. The subheadings just make for an easier read and navigation. Also, while this is not a problem in most of the article, make sure each paragraph ends with a citation. There are only a few places I noticed this. It was something that came out a lot in FAC. One is in the first paragraph of History and the other is the first paragraph of Location. It may just be as easy as moving where a citation is. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
External links: One more thing I noticed is the External links section. Really examine that and be sure to read WP:EL. I think the list could be trimmed a bit. Like the JSTOR article is great, but people who don't have a subscription to JSTOR can't read the whole thing. Also, if there is uncertainty on whether an external link could be used as a reference, it probably shouldn't be used as an EL. Also make sure that ELs are directly relevant to the topic. The Smithsonian link, for instance, should link to an example of the Yugo sapphire directly rather than the general page. This article isn't about gemstones in general, it's about a specific one, so the links need to provide additional information on the subject that couldn't otherwise be included in the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Worked all this but I'm getting brain freeze on the history breakup. I'll have to try tomorrow. If you're inclined, take a stab at it.PumpkinSky talk 02:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I can totally understand that. I will try and look it over this evening or tomorrow and see if I can come up with anything. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I sectioned it by decades and did some minor moving around. PumpkinSky talk 00:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Greater Scaup[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been expanding upon it since October. It started out as a stub and is now a sizable article, complete with pictures and a range map. I feel that I have gotten the article as far as I can without an offical peer review.

Thanks, --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


  • The wikilinks Newfoundland, Sterile and America are ambigious. Link them more specifically per MOS:DAB
  • Capitalisation of scraup is inconsistant, not sure which is correct but not both upper and lowercase. 'so that if the Scaup is killed by a hunter', 'Since the 1980s, scaup populations', 'rafts of scaup that can number in the thousands'
  • The last external link 'Greater and Lesser Scaups, Environment Canada' appears to be dead, remove or replace it.
  • Fossils, a search on google scholar( shows some fossil information for 'Aythya marila fossil' is available. It would seem appropriate to mention a fossil timeframe. page 214 says recorded from the Pleistocene. So the appropriate {{fossil range}} can be added to the {{taxobox}}; parameter is called fossil_range if I recall correctly
  • units metric/imperial. In the description it's metric first '39–56 cm (15–22 in)' in the feeding section it's reversed. ' 20 feet (6 m)'. I think it's suppose to be metric first as this is international topic
  • Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Map is unsourced.
  • Use of Male/Drake and Hen/female, aren't they the same? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Selena Live![edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it and would like it to be a GA article in the near future :)

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Comments

Sorry for my bad punctuality. The article does not look bad, although are a few things you need to look out for before GAN:

  • What is "Latin type" certification? Is it necessary and how is it different from the normal RIAA certification, which is written as "(standard)" in this article?
    The Spanish certification (Disco De Platino), their certification requirements are different from RIAA's standard certification. For example, a gold certification would be 500,000 copies in Spanish the requirements would only need to be 50,000 copies. Platinum is 1,000,000 in Spanish its 100,000 copies. :-)
  • Careful of words like "upon", which may be considered a bit too formal. Try "following the album's release".
  • "Live! had won two awards from the Billboard Latin Music Awards" - what year?
  • Too many sentences begin with "The album" and it makes the prose bad and repetitive. Try variations like Live!, The live album, The release, It, etc.
  • Same with "The song". Try variations like The track, The singles (if the song was released as such), The recording, It, etc.
  • "Live! incorporated three cumbia-influenced studio tracks" - you mean it no longer does? Use present tense instead to describe the album's content.
  • Be careful how you use the word "also" Most times, it is completely redundant and has no effect in the sentence's structure and meaning whatsoever. Example: "Another original song performed by Astudillo, '¿Porque le gusta bailar cumbia?', is also included in the track listing of Live! and was released on Como nadie."
  • Do you have a source to the Track listing?
  • I suggest chart tables be formatted according to WP:ACCESS.
  • FN 11: Publisher/label? Also, a catalog number (publisherid) and page numbers are recommended.
  • FN 17: Format this like I told you in the GAN.
  • FN 35: Try Template:Cite album-notes.
  • FN 36: There should be a period (full stop) at the end of that sentence.
    I can't change it, I believe that's the way it is supposed to be.
  • Check FN 37. It may be dead. Don't forget to deal with all dead links before GAN. WP:Checklinks is a great tool. Click on the "external links" on the toolbox to the right.
  • All web sources need access dates. Check FN 37 for this.

Work still needed before taking this article to GAN. Hope my advice helps. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope I Fixed all the concerns you addressed. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Note; the number found on Amazon is not a catalog number. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done Sowwry :-) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez filmography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have listed this article for a peer review because I am planning on taking it to FL and would like some input on it beforehand.

Thank you, Status {talkcontribs 00:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Swifty Comments
  • I'd suggest finding some more sources for the lead. And it looks like it might need an expansion. It just seems too short to me. If she was nominated or won any awards for any of her roles that maybe worth posting in there. But I really think it looks okay for the most part. Swifty*talk 03:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The awards are really what this article is for. I think maybe some box office info (not like exact numbers, but whether it was a success or not) should be included in it somehow as well. Don't wanna make the lead too long though; I'm sure that won't fly well with FL. ;) Status {talkcontribs 03:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I originally had planned on putting box office numbers in the tables. What do you guys think? Or is that too much? I want it to be detailed as possible. Status {talkcontribs 03:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It definitely looks a lot better bud. The only thing I can say is that be sure everything has a source. :) Swifty*talkcontribs 16:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
WP Comments
  • The lead could be expanded, as Swifty said.
  • Avoid the use of vague terms such as "several".
  • You are inconcsisent with your use of commas. Example: "She gained her first high-profile job as a fly girl dancer on the television comedy program, In Living Color in 1991." Reword to "Her first high-profile job was in 1991, as a fly girl dancer on the television comedy program In Living Color." Commas do not directly precede names of works, films, etc.
  • FN 1: ISSN?
  • Your italicization for web publications is not all that consistent. AllRovi is not italics but MTV News and Box Office Mojo are? I suggest no italicization for web-exclusive publications. No italics for Country Music Television either.
  • I suggest {{cite news}} for all newspapers.
  • Who are the creators of DanceLife and Como ama una mujer?

WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Could I have some specific suggestions on what should be added to the lead? I'm very unsure about what to do with it. The reference issues seem to all have been corrected, although, a few may still stand. (I'm still getting used to doing it myself; I seriously didn't know how to do refs very well before JLO's discography FL.) As for the missing creators, I couldn't find that information anywhere. Status {talkcontribs 20:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe elaborate on the reception of her film work? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Legolas – The body of the article is orgasmic, but the lead is where it fails. As the other two reviewers said, expand on the critical reception, especially for Selena and her string of hits like A Wedding Planner, The Cell, Maid in Manhattan etc. At present you are just touching the films with the reader wondering whether they were hit or flop etc etc. Some other things are pointed out by Wikipedian Penguin, like the italicization thing, but you will take care of it (lol, I thought so after J.Lo discography). All in all, a hard work I can see. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead. I mostly just used Rotten Tomatoes as a source the reviews, hope that's fine. (Why wouldn't it be, it complies a bunch of reviews, LOL). Could I have some grammical suggestions now? Some words seem a bit too overused. Status {talkcontribs 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks great! I think I am happy with it now. Not sure what others think. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from JohnFromPinckney: My first peer review. Hope it doesn't hurt.

  • The page starts with "Jennifer Lopez ... is an American actress, etc.," and lists recording artist last, although that's how I think of her primarily. I'm not saying you have to change the order, just that it's a bit surprising when I read that. Then, the first paragraph goes on to say she was in several roles, of which many received negative reviews. By the end of that first graph, I'm wondering, "did the critics hate just the shows/movies (although she was great), or was she the reason for the bad reviews?" It's a wonder she's the highest-paid Latina actor, with such a pathetic-sounding start (and then she made Gigli and Jersey Girl).
  • As I think about the above, I come to the idea (which I see the other reviewers have already had) that the lead could be more about discussion of her success in TV/films, and how that weighs against her success in music. This lead does a lot of what I think is overdone in music discographies: she did this, then she did that, then she did that one and won an award, then did that and didn't, then... etc. The list of works is below; tell me about what it means. Give me some context. I'd like to see discogs emulate The Beatles discography more. The leads of Marlene Dietrich filmography, Michael Jackson videography, Dolores del Río filmography seem to go in a direction I like. The lead for Cher filmography is way too long to me (suffers from discographius recentium). Better for length and focus is Gene Kelly filmography (like Jackson's article, promoted to FL in 2009 in slightly different version).
  • Thinking about WP:WIAFL 3(a): Maybe more discussion of international impact? Is she big only in the US?
  • No period in the (non-sentence) caption.
  • If you keep their mention in the lead, you could refer to "its spin-off, Hotel Malibu " following Second Chances.
  • In "she became a judge of the reality television singing competition American Idol", I'd prefer "a judge on"; as otherwise it sounds like she's a critic analysing the show.
  • We should de-cap the col headings down to U.S. box office, as in Peak chart positions on discogs (WP:TABLE).
  • I think I'm not happy with the wording of some of the table captions, but I'm not sure what to recommend that I'd like better. "Television roles as an actress" sounds a bit wrong to me, as does "Television works as a crew member". Maybe the word "credits" in place of "roles" and "works"? Not sure here.
  • I haven't studied the refs too much, but Refs 64 and 71 (possibly others) use "The New York Times (The New York Times Company)" as work & publisher, which is redundant and, I believe, advised against somewhere in the {{cite}} docs. I'd probably complain (and bother to look it up myself) at an FLC.

I hope these comments are of use to you. Again, it's my first PR, so forgive me if I've criticized at the wrong level of detail or scope. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The order is only like that because I decided just to do ABC. What do you suggest then? I add the highest paid actor part to the end? I suppose I could try to add some more other details, but I mean, if I added information about her music career, the lead would be hella wrong. And in reverse, wouldn't I have to add the same to her discography? I didn't really mention US or world only in the lead; so I'm going to assume you are referring to the table. I could add the world box office, as well as the US, and have it like sales in discographies? The only reason I picked US only is because a lot of earlier films didn't have worldwide sales noted. The rest of the issues I will address after I get back from school. Status {talkcontribs 12:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it's fine. Detail is fine. :) I opened this because I don't want to have as many issues as I did with her discography, you see. ;) Status {talkcontribs 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The order's fine, really; I hadn't realized (or remembered) that she started as an actor. But here are a few quibbles on phrasing of the text:
  • The 2nd sentence has "... spanning across a 25 year old career." We can span, or we can stretch across, but we don't need to span across. Also, the "old" is unneeded. Better: "... spanning a 25-year career."
  • In " often dubbed by critics as her breakout role", I would replace "dubbed" with "seen" or "cited". I would dub this a criticism of the wording, but I wouldn't dub it as a criticism, if you get what I mean.
  • "The film was met with positive reviews" probably doesn't need the "was". An alternative might be "The film was met by positive reviews" (although I prefer the former).
  • I just (in the last two days) saw some guidance somewhere (WP:Albums?) that we should avoid the term "sophomore album" (also used here). The reason is that the term sophomore is not widely used outside the US (apparently). Try replacing with "second album".
  • That "considered one of the worst films of all time" is begging for a source.
  • Spell-check on "mixed reveiws", please.
  • (Scraping the barrel now): I am not sure, but I wonder if somewhere in the Manual of Style (or maybe Wikiproject Film?) there's not something about sorting titles so that the "The" and "A" at the begging is ignored. The Cell would sort under "C" then, not "T". I have no idea if this is actual WP guidance, or even prefereable, and I have no idea if you want to fool with that for this review.
I like the lede's scope and the table & section headings more than I did earlier. The sorting looks good. At FLC I'd strike my earlier, resolved whinings but here I guess I leave them. I hope this helps. Good work and good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments from AJona1992

For her role as "Selena Quintanilla", wouldn't it be more suitable to just simply say "Selena"? According to all of these sources, they only say "the role as Selena" and not "the role as Selena Quintanilla" because she was only known simply as "Selena". Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As a Selena fanatic; Lopez became the first Hispanic actress to be paid US $1 million for her role as Selena. You can pick any of these sources. That's all for me :-) Good luck with the nomination. Happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the comments. I will finally get to the rest of the issues tomorrow. I have been incredibly busy with school recently, and have had no real time to invest into this in the past few weeks. Status {talkcontribs 04:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think the refs should be placed right next to the film titles as I don't really see the need for a separate column. Do you agree? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I originally had it like that, but it looked messy, and I was advised to make it into a separate column. Status {talkcontribs 01:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright then. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John. The issues remaining have been resolved. About the "The" and "A" issue; I believe there's something on that. Lemme look into it... Status {talkcontribs 03:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Found it, and done. :) Status {talkcontribs 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks, gracias. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is just superb work! Congrats, this already looks FL quality. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange thing is, it took him less than a matter of days. I wish I had his motivation. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

- Thank you guys so much! I'm gonna close this now. I would really appreciate it if you guys would also take part in the FL. :) Status {talkcontribs 22:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Grounds for divorce (United States)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I am trying to get the article to be good enough for GA status, but there are prose/grammar/style issues that are preventing it from getting there. I and the article's other editors have reached out to various people to help us copy-edit, but our GA reviewer felt that the page still needs work. I was hoping that someone here might have some suggestions for how we might improve the page further.

Thanks, Ntj2 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

  • Section title "Irretrievable breakdown" - probably should be "irreconcilable differences" ... latter seems much more common.
  • Lead - maybe list some major states that are "fault" states, and list some that are "no fault"
  • Wording - ".. the acquisition of no-fault divorce." Acquisition doesnt seem right: re-structure sentence: maybe "... provides for divorces to be granted without assigning fault .." or similar.
  • "Marriage partners who are living apart have grounds for no-fault divorce...." is that all states? or just some states?
  • "Like Louisiana, various states have statutes requiring the parties to live apart from one another for a certain predetermined period of time" - this needs to be re-worded. Maybe: "Many states have statutes requiring the parties to live apart from one another for a certain predetermined period of time before a no-fault divorce can be granted"
  • "Every state within the United States accepts some form of no-fault divorce" - "accepts" doesnt seem right. Try "provides for" or "accomodates" or 'has provisions for"
  • Two duplicate sentences: "A fault divorce is a divorce which is granted after the party asking for the divorce sufficiently proves that the other party did something wrong that justifies ending the marriage.[7] The party filling for the divorce must prove that the other party has done something to justify ending the union." Those 2 sentences are nearly identical: combine into 1 sentence.
  • Money: "Another benefit of a fault divorce is the monetary gain." - This is critical, and needs to be elaborated upon. In Community property states, the property division is always 50-50 regardless of fault vs no-fault. But in non-Community property states, what is the $$ consequence of fault vs no-fault. Does the aggrieved spouse get a windfall?
  • Section title: "Other/unusual grounds" - dont use slashes in titles (or in the prose body either). Try "Other grounds".

... I'll come back and do more later.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments thus far, Noleander; we'll be making these changes shortly. Ntj2 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

William Lax[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want an external opinion on improvements I need to make and I would like the article to receive a letter on the quality scale. Reviewers need to be aware that biographical information on Lax is extremely limited and essentially everything that is readily available in terms of data is already in the article.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reviewing this article at some point more fully in the next week or so. For now:

  • Referencing needs a lot of tidying up - three examples: the ODNB article is cited twice when that could be consolidated into a single reference (see also Template:ODNBweb); the citations to the Royal Society fellowship nominations need to be more than the current bare URLs; and the brittlebooks library bare URL needs fixing as well.
  • It is always useful to say somewhere (such as the talk page) what the most authoritative and/or recent source is. I'm assuming the ODNB entry is the only recent biographical work on Lax, but looking at it it is very short. The rest of the sources seem to be brief mentions of Lax, which is not a bad thing but some care needs to be taken to be clear what information is from where (the ODNB entry, for example, does not name his mother as Helen - where is that information from?) and whether the right balance is being struck in presenting this information (for those with book-length biographies, this is not a problem, for those with only short biographical entries, it can be more difficult).
  • Some of the external links look like they are used as references as well. Some consistency is needed here. If some of the external links are used as references, they should be cited and dropped from the external links, unless there is a large amount of further reading that might be of interest to readers (unlikely in this case).
  • The public domain papers of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society are now freely accessible online (possibly only relatively recently). This will include Lax's two papers that you mention, so it should be possible to link to them.
  • It should be possible to provide convenience links for some of the references, such as the Journal of the British Astronomical Association one (i.e. link to the actual article using a doi number, as well as linking the journal as I just did here).
  • Cavendish: the experimental life needs more details including year of publication. In fact, many of the references need year of publication. The ODNB citation is not complete (it was originally by Agnes Mary Clerke in 1892, and revised by Anita McConnell in 2004). This is part of what I mean above by "tidying up" the references. Have a look around at some other articles to see what I mean here, or ask and I'll help out where I can.
  • You give pictures of his school and one of his churches. Why not a picture of Trinity College, Cambridge? Preferably one from the time he was there, or a building that would have been there when he was there.

Hopefully the above will be of some help. Please let me know if you want specific help with tidying the references. Carcharoth (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Garret Hobart[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA, likely by the end of the year, my second vice president. Garret Hobart. Often forgotten or mocked, he has long been overshadowed by his prominent successor, Theodore Roosevelt. This is the other guy to be McKinley's vice president. He turns out to be very interesting and as one who grew up in New Jersey and for whom the place names are more than place names, well, I couldn't resist.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of brief comments:

  • The first link is a piped one behind "24th", which annoys me for some reason. Experienced editors and readers will know what is going on there, but I fear it will throw new readers, but then any new reader will fail to understand a piped link until they've clicked on it. I guess I'm saying that the very first links maybe shouldn't be a piped one.
  • Have just been reading List of Vice Presidents of the United States and Acting Vice President of the United States and the infobox here seems slightly misleading. The infobox says "Succeeded by Theodore Roosevelt". Technically, the position was vacant for over a year (November 21, 1899 to March 4, 1901). Is it possible for the infobox and article to make this clearer? For example, the succession box at the bottom of the article says "Vacant; Title next held by Theodore Roosevelt". Probably not relevant to this article, but following Hobart's death, did this bit apply and to whom? "Under the 1792 Act of Succession, in the absence of a Vice President, the President pro tempore was next in line for the powers of the presidency."
I am not sure. I know the PPT was second in line as late as 1868, because that would have been who succeeded in the event of Johnson being convicted after his impeachment. Yes, I will play with the infobox and with the piped link.
  • No picture of the statue? Is any of the history of the statue or mausoleum known (including sculptor/architect and date of erection of the mausoleum)? Any details of the funeral? Were any details ever released about the nature of the 'serious heart ailment' (our article on his wife says 'heart failure', but that might be over-specific)?
We don't know. No source I have gets specific, and medical technology of the 1890s was ... scary. The statue. I did go to Paterson last month, the City of Paterson happens to put their Christmas tree ... well you guess. There is an image in Magie, I will use that if necessary but I am hoping for better. There will be something there one way or the other by FAC. The mausoleum is not unusual, I walked around it and saw no inscriptions, memorials, etc, the only difference between that and any other mausoleum at the cemetery is that Hobart's is unusually large. Yes, I can add details on the funeral. It was a full dress affair, as you would expect. Yes, I can add the sculptor but as I recall it is not notable.
I see that you've added a picture of the statue and linked the sculptor's article. The fact that we have articles on lots of these sculptors is one of the things that reassures me that Wikipedia is still going in the right direction in terms of gradual expansion into areas where you might not have expected articles a few years ago. About the mausoleum, it's really the date of its erection in relation to the death of Hobart and (later) his wife, that I was hoping for. It should be mentioned somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sources all look great. One thing I'm finding it difficult to get a handle on is the relative weighting of the sources. Which ones have been used most and which ones only in passing? On a quick glance, I see 14 citations the 1910 biography by Magie. I presume those are mostly filling in biographical details that are not in any way contentious, and that any analysis is sourced to more recent publications (such as the 2010 New Jersey Historical Society paper). The latter is 20 pages and the former is several hundred pages. Can you give a bit more background on the relative merits of each of these two sources and the credentials of either the authors or publishers or both? The authors are Magie (referred to once in the article as 'Hobart biographer') and Connolly (who you cite prominently right at the end of the article).
Princeton has his papers, but nothing on Hobart or I would have paid a call "Consists of papers of Magie (Princeton Class of 1897, professor of classics at Princeton University) relating primarily to his activities as a member of the staff of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace in 1919, including a transcript of his interview with Woodrow Wilson on May 22, 1919. Also present are background notes and memoranda by Magie, William Yale, and others on Syria, Lebanon, Armenia, Greece, and other Near East countries, his report "The Kurds of the Ottoman Empire," and his notes taken as a student of the classics in Germany (1901-1904)." He's qualified enough for a biographer, for his time, but that is another reason why I was careful in what I relied upon. Biographies from 1910 need to be used defensibly. Connolly seems a well qualified historian, his page is here. He cites Magie extensively, by the way, for considerably more than I do.
Many thanks for these details. Magie's work negotiating the peace after WWI sounds interesting! Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Are the external links to four other web biographies and the Find-a-Grave page needed?
  • Is the 'Republican Party' navigation footer template really needed?
  • Is the biography portal link really needed? (Am personally ambivalent here - if there are such links it should be on all biographies, not just those where someone cares enough to add or remove them).
It is the sort of thing that I am reluctant to remove because when I do I get a shirty comment on my talk page. Ditto on the template, etc.
  • Lead says he died aged 55. Main body of article is silent on the age at death.
  • Is there a reason a picture of his wife isn't included here - it would seem a logical choice.
I'll add one.
  • The infobox here names four children. His wife's article says they had two children, one of whom died. The main body of the article is silent on their children.
Two of them died in infancy; the third died in young adulthood. No great trouble adding the info. Garret Jr. was the only child to survive him.

Overall, the article looks in good shape. Carcharoth (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. This will be next to FAC once Mark Hanna clears the page and I will have implemented your comments by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. You missed a few comments (ignore the first one I made, that's just me grouching about piped links). It's the comments on external links and age at death (which you could cover at the same time as adding the funeral details). Not sure whether you intend to come back to those later, so just mentioning it here. I'll keep an eye out for a week or so, but if I lose track hope all goes well at FAC and hope someone does a more thorough review of the US politics aspects of the article (which I skimmed over - it made sense, but I didn't have anything more useful to say than that). Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not implement all your comments yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm up to date. I think we should keep the official sites. Find a grave really doesn't seem necessary, as we tell the reader where Hobart rests.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
All looks great. Thanks for looking up and including the funeral details (just wish I could access the NYT article). Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If you send me an email, I will send you a screenshot. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Acharya Institute of Technology[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to get to GA status.

Thanks, Sourav Mohanty (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this. --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Noleander comments -

  • "Some of the facilities are :" - no space before :
  • " MoUs" - spell out abbreviations when first used in article
  • "University tie-ups" - "tie up" is not a commonly used word. Try another word, such as "relationships" or "affiliations" etc
  • "a crowd of over 30000+" .. "over" is redundant with the plus sign. Also, 30000 should be 30,000.
  • "associations/forums" - avoid using slash. Instead say "associations and forums"
  • Placement section: If a top-level section like Placement has only one subsection, like "Placement cell" then there should be no subsection. So, just eliminate the "Placement cell" subsection title
  • Lead: WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs for the lead. Recommend that you combine the small paragraphs together.
  • Box: in section "Various technical chapters" the organizations are listed inside a box. They should not be in a box.

That is all for now. I'll revisit this and provide more later. --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

More comments

  • Table text: "Name of the club" -> "Club"
  • Footnote #74 is a dead URL. Please click on all the external links in the footnotes, and if they are not valid, they must be removed. Try to find another citation to replace them.
  • Images: The article has a few too many images. Move some images into Wiki Commons: Commons is where most images should go. WP articles are really not supposed to just be containers for images. Also, Commons is a better place to store images than WP encyclopedia.
  • Images: the long columns of images on the right side are not very pretty. WP:MOSIMAGES suggests that images should relate to the section they are in/next to. Some things you can do: (1) remove some images; (2) make sure they relate to the section they are in; and (3) consider moving some of the images into a image gallery at the article bottom.
  • Text: "24x7" -> "24/7"
  • Some sections are very small, such as "Hovercraft" and "Other" under "Student projects". Probably should just eliminate the sub-section titles ("Hovercraft", "Other" ) and have all the text within "Student projects". Same for several other 1-sentence or 2-sentence sub-sections, such as "Ethnic day".
  • Lead Wording: " It offers eleven courses at undergraduate level and six courses ..." - The word "course" is used in England (& India?), but in the U.S. the word is "major". In the US, "course" means a single class, so the current lead wording will confuse readers from US. Recommend putting US wording in parenthesis as in " ... eleven courses (U.S. - majors) ..."

That's all for now. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments
  • All external links can be checked here
  • Perhaps "course(s) of study" could be used? *Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Android (operating system)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it's up for GA

Thanks, Greg Heffley 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Greg: Can you clarify a bit ... the GA process include a review comparable to a Peer Review. What specifically is your goal for this PR? I wouldn't mind doing this PR, but I'd like some clarification first. Thanks, --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The peer review is for major mistakes in the article.Greg Heffley 23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on the article, which is interesting but choppy. I learned a lot about Android reading this and the other article on it that I peer reviewed. I am not an expert on Android and so doubt if I would find a major mistake, but I can point out some places where the article could be improved. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A mdoel article is useful for ideas and examples to follow, There are several FAs at Category:FA-Class Computing articles that may be useful models, including Opera (web browser) which seems like it would be a useful model.
  • Several dead links here
  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - for one thing it is five paragraphs and WP:LEAD says not to go over four.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nNothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Refs 7 through 23 are used in the lead, but only 4 fo those are used again the article.
  • The lead does not have to have references except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims - the idea is that everything in the lead is also in the body of the article, and the ref can be in the body too.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but some section headers like Privacy do not seem to be in the lead.
  • The prose is very choppy and does not flow well. There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and several short (one or two paragraph) sections. IN moist cases these should be combined with others to improve flow, or even expanded if needed.
  • The article reads more like a series of lists than a polished piece of prose - does Retail stores really need its own one sentence section at this point? I would convert most lists to prose.
  • The use of bold font in the Features section does not follow WP:ITALIC
  • Avoid vague time terms like "current" or currently or today or now if at all possible. Current features and specifications can quickly become out of date - better to say something like "as of December 2011"
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - terms are generally linked once in the lead and once in the body, at first mention. Andy Rubin is linked twice in the body.
  • Also the MOS says once a person is introduced using their full name, the article typically refers to them by their last name only (unless there are two or more people with the same last name, or someone who goes by their first name). See Rubin and the other founders
  • Figure in Usage share needs a caption / explanatory text
  • The chart in the same section is also not super clear to me - more explanation helps. See WP:PCR and provide context to the reader.
  • Any free images of any of the people involved in this that could be used? Variety in images makes an article look more interesting and this has lots of screen shots so variety would help spice it up.
  • Per WP:See also, links in this section are generally not also in the article (but Google Chrome is linked in the article already)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jack Crawford (cricketer)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC fairly soon. Crawford was an exceptionally promising young cricketer in the early 20th century whose career ended under a cloud after a dispute with his club president over including some professional cricketers in the Surrey team. Any suggestions on prose and accessibility to non-cricketers would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Is it accurate to say in the first paragraph that the disagreement with Surrey "curtailed" (i.e. cut short) his career, since he thereafter played several seasons in Australia and, as you say, occasionally played for Surrey after the First World War? Rewording necessary, I think – but as the disagreement and its consequences is noted in the third pararaph of the lead, your best option in the first paragraph might be to end the sentence at "an unusually early age".
  • Comma after "schoolboy" in second paragraph
  • It is usual, I believe, to refer to the Marylebone Cricket Club".
  • The word "However" is not necessary at the beginning of the third paragraph. I would also remove "ongoing"
Early life and career
  • Can hr really be said to have "begun his career" with his schoolboy feats at St Winifred's? Rather, these youthful achievements anticipated his career, I'd say
  • The quote from Benny Green needs a bit of amplification. Simply saying that he "caused chaos" could be read as meaning that Crawford was disruptive or disorganised.
  • Third paragraph: it is a little odd, after reading that Crawford was "probably the best ever schoolboy cricketer." to read at the beginning of this paragraph that he "steadily improved" his cricket. Also, in this paragraph the citations here look odd, with most of the statistical information looking unreferenced.
  • Give the year that Crawford was first chosen for Surrey
  • "In total, Crawford took 44 wickets..." etc. Make it clear that "in total" refers to the seasom (and clarify which season".
  • All these done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • By the fifth paragraph of this section I am thinking there is too much information on Crawford's school exploits. We don't this level of detail to illustrate that he was exceptionally talented.
  • You are probably right, but I'll need to think how best to do this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Tour to South Africa
  • This section to some extent typifies a weakness in this article, in that it consists of very little beyond performance statistics. I don't know the literature, but I would have thought at least one source would have commented on a player being picked for a major MCC tour straight from school, with only a handful of first-class matches behind him, and then going directly into the Test side. That seems a more remarkable fact than Crawford's individual match figures. Apart from the bland "played two good innings" (which doesn't deserve quotes), is there any information on how Crawford played the deadly googly bowlers? Or how his relative successes with bat and ball compared with other performances?
  • Agreed; I'm not sure that much exists, but I'll see what I can find. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Surrey cricketer
  • Does the "six fifties" include the 148 previously mentioned?
  • Although you have pipe-linked "Gentlemen against the players", I would alter the text slightly, to: "...the representative Gentlemen versus Players matches..."
  • "noted" and "noting" in close proximity
  • "only ... only" in same sentence
Tour to Australia
  • Give the opponebts in the first and second first-class matches of the tour
  • Crawford's career Test figures are somewhat tangled with his figures for this particular tour. It would be better to reorganise the information.
  • THe last paragraph of the section might be better placed as an intro to the next section, as it has nothing to do with the tour.
  • "to captain the team" occurs twice in quick successsion (followed by "captained the team")
Later career
  • "Having settled his disagreement with Surrey..." How? Did he apologise? Did the committee withdraw (evidently not, from the last line of the article)? Or, more likely, was it just a case of a new committee with a different view? More information needed.
  • Not known and maybe impossible to find out, but I shall do a little more digging. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "After appearing for the Gentlemen against the Players, he returned to play for Surrey, scoring 144 not out against the Australian Imperial Forces, later described by Wisden as the innings of his life." Too many sub-clauses, and slightly dodgy grammar. Try: "After appearing for the Gentlemen against the Players, he returned to play for Surrey against the Australian Imperial Forces. He scored 144 not out, which was later described by Wisden as the innings of his life".

A good effort, bringing to light a cricketer I had never heard of, with quite a story behind him. As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you want to raise issues arising froim this review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Olympus scandal[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article was created by me, its sole editor. An objective appraisal is hereby requested.

Thanks, Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few concerns after a quick glance-over:-

  • Does the article have the correct neutral, encyclopaedic tone? The caption in the lead image uses the adjective "disgraced"; section headings such as "Spending spree", "Enter and exit Woodford", "Heads roll" are more suggestive of investigative journalism than an encyclopedia.
  • Another issue is the use of unexplained terms which the general reader will have difficulty understanding. What, for example, does "goodwill" mean in this context? Or "highly-geared? What is the meaning of the sentence "When the main business is struggling, we need to earn through zaitech"? These are just a few examples taken from the early part of the article. Some of this may need rephrasing; otherwise more use needs to be made of wikilinking and/or brief explanations.
  • I am very dubious about the justification for the three non-free images. The reader's understanding of the article isn't assisted by knowing what certain individuals look like, so what is the central rationale for their use?
  • Subheadings necessary in References section, to distinguish citations from sources.

The article looks interesting and I would like to give it a more detailed review, though at present my time available doesn't permit this, but perhaps you would give some consideration to the above issues. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for the feedback. It's much appreciated. Rare to see such corporate drama played out in public, and so easy to get carried away with such an interesting story. I'll work on making the changes as you suggest. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Noleander comments - Cool article. I don't have time to review it, but I noticed one little thing:

  • "After Woodford was deposed, ..." - "Deposed" can mean dethroned, or legal questioning. Probably should use a less ambiguous word here. --Noleander (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I was wondering when someone would pick it up! ;) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Olympus had replaced KPMG with E&Y after it ..." - "it" could refer to either of the three preceding entities. Replace "it" with one of their names. --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "... a success fee .." - that term won't be known to most readers .. define it, or re-word it.
  • Section "Intermediaries" begins very abruptly .. .what is the flow from previous section? "Intermediaries" needs to be defined (in context) in the 1st sentence of that section.
  • Section "Intermediaries" - title is not too informative. I think this section is trying to list the questionable business transactions? Then name the section "Questionable business ventures" or something like that.
  • Section "Catalyst" - title is too abstract, too poetic. Title should be more factual, encyclopedic. Maybe name the section "Woodford presidency" or something like that.
  • Stock chart: - This article would be much better if it had a stock price charge from, say January 2011 to December 2011. I think that is public information, so you should be able to visit any stock website and do a screen capture of the chart. But I'm not sure about that: you may want to check at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
  • Section "Resignations" - The quote at the beginning is off-putting. The section should start with prose, and the quote should be just supplementary. Perhaps just move the quote to the right side. The {{Quote box}} template lets you align quotes off to the side.
  • Perhaps use {{Quote box}} for all quote boxes in this article, to move them to the side. Quote boxes that span the full width interrupt article flow. --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Phrase: "... two men who were appointed to the board in June – Yasuo Hayashida, physician and visiting professor at Juntendo University, and Hiroshi Kuruma, ..." is a bit confusing. Too many "ands". I'd suggest only naming one occupation for Hayashida to fix it.
  • The footnotes are not very user friendly. Let's say I want to learn more about footnote #46 " Financial Times, 8 Nov. 2011". I click on the link #46, and my browser jumps down to the References section ... but I am in the middle of the References section ... I don't see which of the dozens of bullets in the References section that matches #46. I suppose I could hunt for a bullet that says " Financial Times, 8 Nov. 2011": I look at a few and cannot find it. That seems rather unsatisfactory. I cannot find the author of the Financial Time article; nor can I find the article title; nor can I find a a URL to go read the Financial Times article. It is obvious that a lot of work has gone into the cites, and there is a lot of detail, so I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth; but the fact is I cannot find the sources, and that is a pretty fatal flaw.
FYI: I posted a query at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Help_needed_with_odd_footnote_behavior to get input from other editors on this footnote approach. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Another editor confirmed what I suspected: the footnotes should be using the {{sfn}} template .... that will produce the desired result, and help readers follow the citations. In other words, all the citations should be changed to use {{sfn}}.
  • User Gadget850 also points out some improvements to cites: They say: "The shortened citations are using work-date styles, where author date is more common. The Citations list starts with author but is ordered by work, which is a bit confusing. And months should not be abbreviated per WP:MONTH.".

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all the comments. I will try to integrate them over the next couple of weeks. Truth be told, I was inspired by the work done at Question Time British National Party controversy , and then searched articles that use different styles. I couldn't understand how to use harvard or equivalent citations without needing to put all the cites into those dreaded {{citation}} templates, so I stuck with the original model. AFter your comment, I'm encouraged to look at the method described. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Son of God (TV series)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if I can get it to GA standard. Having never written an article about a documentary series before, my main area of concern is the "Episodes" section - is the way that it jumps from past to present tense appropriate? Most other synopses that I've found on Wikipedia are written in the present tense, but I'm not entirely sure. I also welcome any advice on how to improve the quality of the prose, and anything else that could make the article better. Thanks very much in advance, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Interesting, and no serious problems with the prose, but a little more work needs to be done. As to a possible GA nomination, it's hard to say how it would fare. Absolute rubbish sometimes gets the GA insignia, while worthy and well-constructed articles may not; it's all down to the whim of an individual reviewer who may or may not be competent to exercise judgement. Here are some areas where I think the article could be improved.

  • Citations: awards are dealt with in the main text and don't need triple-citation in the first line of the lead. Other facts (e.g. the computer-generated image) should be cited as the occur in the text.
  • Removed all.
  • Generally, the lead should be a brief overview of the article, without recourse to detail. At present the third paragraph has too much critical reception detail. For example, the quoted comments properly belong in the critical reception section.
  • Rewritten third paragraph to contain fewer quotes.
  • Personally I don't like the construction "countries such as", and would recommend a slight rephrase.
  • Rephrased slightly.
  • Too many redlinks in the fitsrt paragraph; realistically, how many of these are going to be the subject of WP articles (unless you propose to create stubs)?
  • Whittled down to just one red link.
  • "...Ruth Pitt, who had worked on similar documentaries such as 42 Up and Channel 4's The State of Marriage." To what is "similar" referring?
  • Well, "similar" is the sense that they were documentaries, like Son of God. Have removed the word, since it is clearly confusing.
  • I don't think presenters are "cast"; Bowen wasn't playing a role. Suggest "chosen"
  • Done.
  • "Despite not being religious himself..." The word "himself" is redundant
  • Removed.
  • "...his narration was dubbed by American actor Tom Hodgkins." Can you clarify: were Bowen's words simply spoken by Tom Hodgkins (as implied by "dubbed"), or was a different narration used?
  • Changed "dubbed" to "redubbed". Does that it clearer?
  • "...became popular enough to be still performed live several years after the show had finished airing". Some very awkward phrasing here - and why does this incidental fact require triple citation? (You tend to use multiple citations rather frequently, often without obvious need)
  • Yeah, I guess that it is a somewhat minor fact. Have removed it entirely.

A general criticism of the episode sections might be that Bowen is too prominent; there's a tendency to present everything through his eyes.

Hmm... Not really sure how I can change that, I'm afraid - the series was pretty much told from his perspective. I shall have a think about it.
  • Be consistent about representing numbers greater than 10 either numerically or written out.
  • Found and changed all (I think).
  • I found this very confusing: "According to astronomer Dr. Michael Molner, astrologers from around time of Herod the Great would have believed that Aries would have symbolised his kingdom and the lands that he controlled – during 6 BC, the year that some scholars theorise that Jesus was born, a rare planetary alignment meant that Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun and the Moon would have all appeared in Aries." I'm not sure what you mean by "appeared in Aries", but the whole passage requires clarification.
  • Ah, yes, I should really have specified that it was the constellation Aries. Have done that now.
  • "Jewish, pagan and Christian sources all confirm that Jesus was born out of wedlock, as do both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke." Hmmm, yes... but the Christians also claim that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Surely, that needs to be mentioned?
  • That's true, but that was never mentioned in the programme. To me, including it would be original research.
  • "the former site of Jerusalem's temple" - it's not the "former" site.
  • Removed.
  • "The Mission" section needs tightening up. The first paragraph in particular is disjointed, with leaps from Jerusalem to the Galilee boat, to Peter's house, etc., and no explanation as to who Hanin ben Dosa was, thereby forcing your readers to use a link. There are other instances, e.g. "Jehohanan", where your readers can only keep abreast of the story by using links. Your article needs as far as possible to be self-contained.
  • Expanded those two points, and I shall look out for some more.
  • "Experiments performed by Zugibe in Rutland County, Vermont also suggest that the traditional view of Jesus's crucifixion, with the nails of the cross driven through his hands rather than wrists, may have been possible if his feet were supported." What on earth were these "experiments"? Who did they try it out on?
  • "a leading department of forensic science": doesn't the source identify this?
  • No, unfortunately. But I shall have another look.
  • In the final paragraph of the "Final Hours" section, there is rather repetitive prose, with "a facial reconstruction ", "a face is constructed" and "The face that Neave constructs" all close together in the first three lines. Slight rephrasing could avoid this.
  • Rewritten the middle one to try to avoid repetition.
  • General point: it isn't necessary to use quote marks for everyday commonplace expressions, e.g. "well placed", "rather interesting", etc. These should be absorbed in paraphrases.
  • Removed most of them I think.
  • "and one of two consultants" - identify?
  • Rewritten.
Ratings and awards
  • "considerably high" doesn't make sense. Perhaps "considered high"?
  • Changed.
  • The word "Americans" is redundant at the end of the second sentence (you don't know if all 12 million viewers were Americans)
  • Removed.
  • There's not enough information to justify the adoption of a tabular format. This information should be rendered in prose.
  • Why the French "premièred"?
  • It's a pretty common word in English too. I have changed to "premiered", if that's any improvement.
  • "As of 13 October 2011" - maybe update? Also, the words "to buy" later in the sentence are unnecessary.
  • Done.
  • Link DVD, VHS
  • Done.
  • How can a programme about Moses be described as a "sequel" to the Jesus programmes?. By definition a sequel derives from or continues a previously related story - it "follows on".
  • Renamed section header.

I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, so if you want to raise a question with me, or if you'd like to look again, please alert me via my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of a concern expressed by a GA reviewer it was incomprehensible to the nonspecialist (in this case, the nonphysicist). Would like feedback on whether the vocabulary is too loaded with physics and math jargon.

Thanks, Ajoykt (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Noleander comments

  • Lead could be better: The lead is a bit hard to grasp, but the body (following the lead) is not excessively technical. Just a few tweaks to the lead should be able to remedy the over-technical issues.
  • Once the Lead is fixed, I think the body of the article is not too technical. I think the body, as it stands today, is comparable to other articles on advanced scientific topics. Articles on advanced physics cannot be too simple, or else they could not describe the topic accurately.
  • Key tasks: focus on making the lead simpler. Laypeople should be able to read the lead and get a good understanding of the essential facts of the article. Sections following the lead can be more detailed (but not too: this is still a general encyclopedia, not a scientific journal)
  • Picture: Probably the best thing to do is supply a simple schematic time-vs-distance diagram (not to scale), that shows the neutrino flight vs light-in-a vacuum, and show graphically how the n. got there faster than light would.
  • Lead: in the lead, define the special relativity corollary: "Nothing can travel faster than light"
  • Lead: emphasize how the Sp. Rel limitation was considered to be an ironclad law for around 90 years, and no scientist has ever observed a particle exceed the sp of light until this experiment
  • Lead: name the speed of light, 300 kps; and name the approx speed that the measured n's were travlling ( 300.00001 kps or whatever, I have not computed it)
  • Lead: Clarify which collider was used in the experiment ... the new Large Hadron Collider has been in the popular news a lot the past year: was it involved? or an older CERN collider?
  • 4 paragraphs: Don't forget that the lead can be up to 4 paragraphs, so make it bigger if need be.
  • Merge: It looks like someone proposed a merger with the Opera Experiment article. On the face of it, it sure looks like they should be merged. That should probably be resolved before moving forward with another GA. Never mind, I see that was done here: Talk:OPERA_experiment#Merge_proposal.

End of Noleander comments.

Another reply to Ajoykt's question:

As someone with a scientific background who is curious about the topic without having in-depth knowledge of physics, I did not find the vocabulary "too loaded with physics and math jargon." Necessary technical terms are wiki-linked. It is unrealistic to expect an article like this not to make judicious use of carefully introduced technical vocabulary. On the other hand, I thought some of the writing could be made rather more reader-friendly on stylistic grounds. Here are just a few examples which caught my eye on a rapid read through (my italics):
  • "The OPERA neutrino anomaly is the detection of apparently faster-than-light neutrinos by the OPERA experiment as publicly announced in September 2011." As this is the opening sentence of the lede, might it be gentler for the general reader to start with something like "...detection by the OPERA experiment of neutrinos that appear to travel faster than light, as announced..."?
  • "OPERA collaboration scientist and spokesperson Antonio Ereditato explained..." To my ears, "OPERA collaboration scientist" sounds like bureaucratic jargon.
  • "To topographically link the surface GPS location to the underground detector traffic had to be partially stopped on the access road to the lab." A comma after "detector" would certainly help.
  • "In their replication of November, OPERA scientists repeated the measurement over the same baseline without any assumptions about the details of neutrino production during the spill, such as energy distribution or production rate, by using a new CERN beam[14] which provided proton pulses of 3 nanoseconds each with up to 524 nanosecond gaps." Maybe split in to two sentences: something like "...or production rate. To do this, they used a new..."
  • "The early arrival time of 57.8 ns in accordance with the main analysis was estimated as follows:" Multiple issues of flow and clarity around here, perhaps partially linked to an unfortunate paragraph break.
  • "Astronomer Royal Martin Rees and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss state neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova explosion arrived almost at the same time as light, indicating no faster-than-light neutrino speed." Final clause needs expanding and contextualizing, imo.
In brief, I feel the prose still needs careful copy editing throughout. Hope this helps a bit.
(Note: I deliberately avoided reading Noleander's comments and other PRs before giving an opinion.)
--MistyMorn (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Entre a Mi Mundo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just expanded the article and would like to see it be a GA, though in the near future would like it to be a FA article

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. It has many of the same issues I have seen in previous Selena articles - poorly written and confusing or even contradictory in spots. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

I'll try and get someone to copy-edit the article.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs on albums which seem as if they would be good models.
  • I am just going to read and start pointing out problems. I will not mention every grammatical problem as there are too many - this needs a copyedit. Here goes.
  • I would include the date or at least year of its re-release in the lead
  • Needs to be consistent in the little details - is it "Chris Pérez" or just "Chris Perez"? Both are used
  • Production and development focuses mostly on her relation with and marriage to Chris Pérez, but it makes it sound as if the whole album was completed after she eloped After Selena had eloped, she decided to release a more Tejano and Mexican music-influenced album sticking to her roots.[2] This seems very unlikley as she eloped on April 2 and the album was released on May 6, just over a month later, which hardly seems enough time to write songs, record them, do post production, and manufacture the albums.
According to Selena herself (while being interviewed about the production differences of the crossover album and her Spanish albums) she stated that it usually takes only 2-3 months to finish her Spanish albums (the crossover took more than 2 years and she only recorded six songs before being killed) the source is in the Patoski book (which User:Secret has as well, just in case you don't WP:AGF with me). "Entre a mi mundo" took a more longer route because of Selena's father threatening her that he will disband the group if she disregarded him and kept seeing Perez. So while this was going on, the production of the album was already a go, let alone her first number one single "Buenos Amigos" became increasingly popular (1991-92 period), which made her tour even longer now that she was booked in South America for the first time. So adding all of this, production of the album must have began (can't find a source to give me ANY information on when production began, besides a year) prob between late-February and mid-March 1992 (but since I don't have a source, I won't add what I think).
  • The infobox says the album was recorded into 1993, after it was released???
lolz minor mistake my good friend :-)
  • The article is not consistent and contradicts itself in several places. For example the SIngles sections says "La carcacha", released as the first promotional single, was written and produced by A.B. Quintanilla III, Pete Astudillo and Bebu Silvetti. but the Track listing table only lists Quintanilla III, Astudillo as writers, and then Silvetti is not listed in the Songwriters section after this in Personnel.
The key word here is "... was written and produced by ..." the only writers of the song are Quintanilla III and Astudillo, Silvetti is the producer. Should I use a semi-colon so no one would be confused?
The problem is that almost anybody would read "written and produced by A, B, and C" as meaning all three of them both wrote and produced the song. If you mean A and B wrote it, and A, B, and C produced it, then you say something like "The song was written by A and B, who produced it with C." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the Track listing table only lists four song writers, with three more listed in the 20 Years of Music version section. Then Personnel lists 12 songwriters, which does not include the three in the 20 Years of Music version, and eight of which are not listed in the Track listing section.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Pete Astudillo is linked three times in the body of the article, for example.
  • The MOS also says to use someone's last name only after introducing them with their full name (if there are not two or more people with the same last name)
  • Release section is just a mess - all sorts of contradictory sentences. For example the article says both Entre a mi mundo sold 200,000 copies in Mexico.[39] and In Mexico, Entre a mi mundo was certified triple gold, representing shipments of 300,000 copies.[45]
  • Or the same Release section says By July 1995, Entre a mi mundo had sold 1,000,000 copies,[42] and was certified platinum.[43] but the same section later says it sold 600,000 copies and the Charts and certifications table also says nothing of sales of a million.
Well according to the sources that's what they indicate, but I only used the RIAA as the RS at the end of the day (I think books over exaggerate the sales; though if there aren't any other source to prove it wrong, I would add it; if I didn't wouldn't it be POVish?)
I think it is our duty to go with the most reliable sources we can find. If the RIAA says it, I believe it. I would either not mention the 1 million figure or perhaps put it in a footnote. If a source said someone won a gold medal at the Olympics but there was nothing in the Olympics official website or in Sports Illustrated on that person doing this, I know which sources I would believe and use in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no way this is ready for GA let alone FAC.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I know I'm not that good, but no one is perfect either; I read your comment to my unblocker and I did respond. BTW, I'm glad that you say things like I'm not a good writer (not joking), because those comments makes me brainstorm in proposing new projects that could help users like me achieve FA status (about to publish one today). Happy holidays from my family to yours and also best :-) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
While I like you as a person, I have serious doubts about the value of your edits here and will be commenting on your userpage. I also wish you and yours the best for the holidays and new year. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in need of improvement, and I think a peer review will help that effort. It is my intention to get this article to GA and eventually FA status. Thanks, Son (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Every paragraph should have at least one ref
  • Punctuation comes before refs, not after, with no spaces between them
  • The 3 "further info"s in Rides should have summary paragraphs
  • Trivia sections are frowned upon, merge it elsewhere and add a ref
  • Not sure about the gallery section, but those all need to be free images
  • An article this size should have more than four refs. These need to be consistently formatted: url (if web ref), title, publisher, accessdate at a minimum, dates in same format. The 2 Hersheypark official sites is a self published source and should be in external links
  • Suggest you ask User:JonRidinger to look over it too. I'm not good at copyedit reviews.
Hope this helps. PumpkinSky talk 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - I agree with all the comments above. Here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Idlewild and Soak Zone is a FA on another Pennsylvania amusement park and seems like a great model
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article that follows WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. There seems to be a number of things only in the lead - the distance to Philadelphia and the IAAPA award are two examples
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the Themed areas in general and all the ones I checked in particular are not in the lead now.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Article needs more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There is a toolbox on this PR page with a dab link checker that finds some dabs that need to be fixed
  • I would intersperse the pictures in the article - if there is a picture of something, I think it should be mentioned in the article.
  • Admission section is way too detailed and fails WP:NOT - this is an exncylopedia not an ad for the park or an amusement park guide
  • Avoid vague time terms like now or current - use things like As of 2011 or as of December 2011 instead
  • Avoid trivia sections
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking to worth this article into shape, looking for advice. Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang


  • "It distributes branded spandex costumes, based on the existing zentai concept."
    I see a few faults with this statement. There is imprecision in casting the concept as "existing"; is this idea constantly changing? If so, which version is this suit based on? Is "existing" still valid three months from now? A sole link to "zentai" is not really a good move. Readers may find that article more interesting and never come back to this one. Explain here what is zentai, e.g. "based on the Japanese concept of full-body tights (zentai)." Readers will go there if they are more interested in zentai, but at least those who are willing to read Morphsuits first would not be lured away.
    I've removed the word "concept", reformatted the sentence.
    You have created a red-link, skin-tight garments. Is that another name for "full-body tights"? Are you planning to turn the link blue (create the article)?
    Oops, fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "As of May 2011, it claims to be the world's largest fancy dress brand."
    I do not think that even directly expressing such claims as the company's own would befit WP:NPOV. "World's largest" is simply too controversial to leave it as a primary claim. A secondary reliable source is definitely needed in my view.
    I've moved it down to the corporate section.
    The concerns still remains, regardless of where it is stated. I do not believe such claims of performance are encyclopaedic if there are no supporting secondary sources. Jappalang (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The trio had jobs at Barclays, Procter & Gamble, and BT, which they left after the first year."
    After their first year at the job, or one year after setting up Morphsuits?


  • "... which a friend was wearing a zentai bodysuit. At the event, the friend became somewhat of a celebrity, ... Researching the fancy dress market, the friends invested ..."
    Who exactly is the "friend"? If he is part of "the friends", why is he not identified?
    They have never publicly identified the friend, but it was not one of the three founders.
    If he is not one of the founders, then that creates a problem. He is now confused as being one of "the friends". "The friends" should be clarified as to who are they. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    Reworded. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The moniker of "Morphsuits" stemmed from the fact that 'we noticed that everyone who wore them morphed into a more fun version of themselves', says Fraser Smeaton."
    This demands a rephrase in my view. In its current structure, the article is stating Smeaton's opinion as "fact" ("stemmed from the fact"). This is not true. It is just the opinion of the suit's creators that people "morphed into a more fun version of themselves".
    Fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    Better in tone but the "... that ... that ..." is sort of repetitive. I boldly went and tweaked it. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "a lot of 2 a.m. finishes"
    Finishes in what?
  • "Since then outsourcing has raised their indirect staffing to 200 as of August 2011."
    "Since then" is redundant when you have "as of xxxxx".
  • "One early boost to their sales was eight red Morphsuit wearers ..."
    The sale of eight red Morphsuits boosted their sales?
    Reword, two sentences into one.
    I think the change is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "The company received a boost to its sales when its products were spotted in the sports coverage of 2009 British Lions tour of South Africa; shots of eight prominent fans in red Morphsuits among the crowd were featured in the newspaper photographs and on television."
    I apologise for leaving a incomplete suggestion, but care and independent decision should have been taken. The current statement "The company received a boost to its sales when sports coverage of the 2009 British Lions tour of South Africa, at which eight fans wearing red Morphsuits, which covered extensively by sports journalists and photographers." is quite awkward. Jappalang (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "... North America in fact weren't their brand ..."
    "In fact" is not needed and is discouraged in encyclopaedic writing. So too is the use of contractions.
    Changed both occurrences.
    There is still a contraction elsewhere in the article. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    Would you mind identifying where? As far as I know, the only time apostrophes are used in the article are for posessive pluralizations and for the title of a television series. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "Trained with "FMCG marketing" at Gillette and later Proctor and Gamble, leading marketing on Pantene, Pringles, and Gillette."
    This sentence is incomplete; it has no main clause.
    Please check the tenses ("he lead marketing"?). Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lawson is brother of Rory Lawson, son of Alan Lawson, and grandson of Bill McLaren."
    What pertinence does this relationship have with Morphsuits?
    Early association of the items was with sporting events. Fair enough? I've clarified their backgrounds.
    No. I see nowhere in the article that states their marketing strategy involves targeting sporting events or the participants. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What does "sell up" mean?
    To allow an acquisition. Clarified.
    Linking "sell their company" to takeover is ill-advised per WP:EASTEREGG (a sell-out is also not a takeover). Remove the link (or clarifying what is this actually suppose to mean) and this issue would be resolved. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The company has had overtures from private equity investors in mid-to-late-2011, since their Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Awards nomination in Scotland;"
    The current sentence should be rephrased; it is not clear what "mid-to-late-2011" refers to.
    When was the company nominated for Entrepreneur of the Year? Jappalang (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "the company suggests that they're too busy to pay much attention ..."
    Again, ditch the contractions. Also the usage of mass noun is consistent. Either use single or plural throughout a sentence, not flip-flopping like in here.
    How's the new sentence "they have suggested the business has kept them too busy to consider any of the offers."?
  • Please interpret the source and present its information in terms the layman would better understand. Does "return rate" refer to the profit they receive from selling a suit or the number of products returned by the distributors (for what reasons)? What is "SKU"?
    I've tried to clarify, but this was intended to be a business article.
    It is not supposed to be a business article. According to the project's aims, it is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article about a business and is accessible (readable) to the layman. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


  • I fail to understand "Within photos, 'firsts' are a common occurence."
    Eh... I see the fragment of a sentence, "Many wearers of"; I presume this is the intended clarification. Where is the rest of it? Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    "Many wearers of" has been removed, but I see nothing to resolve the original concern. Jappalang (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "In reference to rugby, they have described their technique as 'scrum marketing'."
    What is "their technique"? As far as I can tell, nothing was elaborated about it. Earlier sentences as summarized is simply "The company has a Facebook page with competitions." How does this tally with the image of rugby scrums?
    Deleted the sentence.
  • "Being one of the earliest brands to court a general market, the terms "Morphsuits" and "morphs" regularly are applied to events related to any sort of zentai suit."
    The reference (from The Sun) does not support the first clause. The second clause is also not borne out by this source (The Sun uses the terms but does not state them as regular uses).

The article fails to note the founding date of the company (the BBC article would point it as 2009). Are there any criticisms over their products? I understand that as a recent company, it has comparatively less attention and history than more established companies; as such, the article may not be "broad" in coverage in terms of WP:WIAGA, but this article cab be improved by polishing the language and presentation. Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What Lies Ahead[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed its GA nomination, and I would like to promote it to FA soon. I would like some feedback on it.

Thanks, —DAP388 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Noleander

  • Caption for 2-building picture: "Similar to the episode "TS-19", this episode depicts Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre (left) as the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (right)." I find that confusing. Apparently the building on the right is the real CDC, and it does not appear in the TV show? I'd recommend showing only the left building (the art center that is purported to be the CDC). Showing the real CDC adds no value and will confuse readers. -Noleander (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Capitalization in quotes: The article has some quotations that start with caps: " He continued: "With ...""; or " He wrote, "At the very least, .."". WP:MOSQUOTE indicates that the initial cap is converted to lower case in those situations.

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


  • Two disambiguation links, one in one of the quotes, one in the template, both "The Walking Dead", link to a dab page.
  • "occurred outside" a bit passive, perhaps "took place outside"?
  • "In anticipation of its initial airing" I think you've sort of lost what "it" is here, so perhaps "In anticipation of the episode's initial airing"
  • "the episode averaged a 2.0 rating in most television markets." I'm a Brit and consequently that means nothing to me, despite the claim this a worldwide thing...!
  • "Daryl rescues him by stabbing a walker and then pulling them both ..." sort of loses who "both" are here, him and the walker or him and T-dog?
  • "with Rick pursuing her" presumably Rick is pursuing the three of them?
  • "he doesn't come" avoid contractions.
  • Don't really see a need to link Christ.
  • Shouldn't full length be hyphenated in "a full length trailer was..." (similar to the "A six-part internet...").
  • "mostly occur outside" -> take place.
  • Hmm. Then you'd need to avoid repeating it in the next sentence, or be creative. Just not keen on "occur" as that's just not active enough.
  • "Smyrna, GA " not keen on the US proclivity to add state abbreviations which mean nothing to the rest of the world...!
  • At the end of the Production section, you repeat actors names and their character names (you've mentioned most of them in the Plot section), is there really a need to do that?
  • "in over 122 countries" 123? 190? The source just says 122.
  • Again, I think you need to explain or link to what a 2.0 rating means.
  • "increased by 513% from the previous season premiere" the source says from the "Yr 1 season average", not premiere. It was a 30% increase over the previous season's premiere according to the source.
  • Should make it clear that these claims (like "second most watched programme in its timeslot") applies to pay television only. Free to air channels would clearly smash these ratings.
  • "Concluding his review, Goldman gave " no need to repeat Goldman so soon.
  • "Handlen praised the" no need to repeat Handlen so soon.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently updated and expanded the content of the stub article and would like to have its status upgraded to article. Suggestions or comments to encourage the article's upgrade from a stub would be appreciated. I would like all sections of the article reviewed.

Thanks, Pchauvet (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I think this is "start" class rather than "stub", and I removed or updated the stub templates. I don't think anyone will complain about this. I would call this a start-class article with potential. It needs a bit of Manual of Style polish and a slightly expanded lead. I've made specific suggestions below, and I've added a couple of ideas for expansion.

  • If you can find them, statistics about sales of Dexatrim over the past 30 years would be useful to add to the History section.
  • It's often useful to look at GA or FA articles to get ideas about how to proceed. You can find articles on medical topics at WP:GA and WP:FA. Aspirin is an example. It's much more developed than this article, but I immediately note the infobox in the upper right and the illustration further down. As you develop this article, I think you'll want to add an infobox and at least one image or illustration.


  • The lead should be a brief summary of the whole article. The existing lead doesn't mention the History or Controversy sections. I would be sure to add a couple of sentences to the lead that include the main ideas from those two sections. WP:LEAD has tips about writing leads.
  • "Current Dexatrim products available are in capsule form... " - It would be less ambiguous to say "Dexatrim products available in 2011 are... " since words like "current" and "now" generally refer to the time of writing, and readers have no way to be sure when that was.
  • "The major active ingredients found in current Dexatrim products... " - Same problem with "current". Here I think you could solve the problem by simply deleting "current".


  • The Manual of Style recommends telegraphic heads and subheads that do not repeat the main words of the article title. It also says to lowercase most of the words except the first word and any proper nouns. The first head "Active Ingredients: Weight Loss Efficacy & Potential Side Effects" is too long (not telegraphic), and it uses too many capital letters. This would be better: "Active ingredients, efficacy, side effects". I would likewise shorten the other two heads to "History" and "Controversy". The subheads should be altered to "Green tea extract" and so on.


  • "products ranges from 50-400 mg per day" - Rather than a hyphen in constructions like this, I'd use "50 to 400", which is how you would read them aloud.
  • "no more effective in promoting weight loss as compared to a placebo" - Tighten by changing "as compared to" to "than"?

Green tea extract"

  • "There is currently insufficient data... " - Delete "currently"?


  • "Currently, no over-the-counter weight-loss supplements have met criteria for recommended use by physicians." - Maybe something like "Through 2011, no over-the-counter... " to avoid the ambiguity of "currently".
  • "Currently, no over-the-counter weight-loss supplements have met criteria for recommended use by physicians." - It might be helpful to say who decides what is "for recommended use by physicians"? Is it the American Medical Association or another group or legislative body? Who decides these things?
  • "Dexatrim claims to provide a powerful benefit for weight loss despite the lack of scientific data to support their claims." - Since Dexatrim is an "it", the pronoun "their" doesn't work grammatically. Maybe "Dexatrim advertisements claim" instead of "Dexatrim"?
  • "In addition, the use of Dexatrim or other OTC weight-loss supplements presents a possible factor in establishing disruptive eating patterns... " - Awkward. Suggestion: "In addition, Dexatrim or other OTC weight-loss supplements may disrupt eating patterns... ".


  • Citations to web sites should generally include the date of most recent access. I find the "cite" family of templates helpful in reminding me what each citation needs and how to arrange the material. It's not necessary to use citation templates, but they can still be interesting guidelines. See WP:CITET for more info. If you use templates, don't mix the Citation and Cite families, which are both found at WP:CITET.
  • Citation 11 is missing an URL. Citation 13 is missing the publisher. Some of the other citations may be incomplete as well. Generally, you should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and access date for web citations, if all of those details are known or can be found, and citations to journals or books require additional data.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hadji Ali[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The quirky and bizarre is fascinating, and a professional regurgitator is that. A lot of work has gone into this, especially given that the available sources are almost all newspaper articles, many covering the same details but adding a new fact here and there which needed to be woven together into a whole. I would like to take this to FAC and would appreciate a second set of eyes before doing so as to all aspects: a copyedit to the extent deemed necessary; organizational criticism; anything else you see. I am much obliged in advance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede and Infobox

  • The Infobox should not be titled "1913 Adolph Friedländer Company poster showing Hadji Ali performing water spouting". The Infobox's name is for the subject of this article (Hadji Ali), not a poster.
    • Done.
  • I am also not certain whether it is better to put in an abstract image (poster) as the lede picture when we have a photographic capture (the photo from the National Photo Company Collection).
    • I think it's a striking image of him that sets the stage for an article dominated by material about his performance (since there's little else that can be found).
      • It is your choice; I think you would have to be prepared for this argument if you are going for FAC though. Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure there needs to be so much bold-face titles. I think only the most common performance should be highlighted here (I presume these would be the ones for his US performances). In any case, the current six titles are not noted in the main text (and cited). So that exclusion fails WP:LEDE.
    • All alternate titles are now cited. We list and boldface alternate titles normally in the lead (though it's true that this subject has far more than your typical topic). I'm not sure what you mean by "performance" in this context--they're names he was known by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I meant "most common performance name(s)". The gamut of constantly-changing names suggest to me that all these titles are just fluff (names coined by the promoters); they never stuck to the man, who is more likely to be known by everyone as Ali or Hadji Ali, the super "regurgitator (vomiter or whatever they think of his act)". Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
        • The use of these names was not just by promoters. It was how he was billed and referred to everywhere. The titles appear in articles about him and in his own and other's posters and advertisements. There are hundreds of uses of these names (unfortunately, so little else is ever explored about his life).
          • My issue with this is that the promotion titles are not the names of the subject; they are not his stage names (which could be Hadji Ali as far as we can tell). Bold facing them violates the recommendations in MOS:BOLDTITLE and Wikipedia:Article titles. Those performance titles are not common names: Ali is not known by those promotion titles that change from place to place and year to year. They just appear on the billboards and posters to attract attention. Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, and Evel Knievel have been billed with many different titles that have been forgotten as time passed, and I would equally protest if someone were to put in bold faced titles in any of their ledes, cited or not. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I've simply removed the boldface.
              • I think the italics are not needed either, but I find them less objectionable than the bold face. Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "... Ali's daughter sorrowfully stated to reporters ..."
    The emotional appeal in this sentence is definitely not WP:NPOV approved.
    • Removed. It actually comes from the sources themselves, though I see how it could be read as editorializing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Presuming that Ali's daughter knew her father's age, this renders an 1892 date of birth an impossibility."
    This should not be here. It is not to us to make assumptions and conclusions. What should have been simply stated is that the 1888 birth year is taken from Ali's daughter. No judgment should have been made about the other sources. Which year to take is supposed have been the common editorial decision (guided by policy) taken by major contributors to this article. It is not an uncommon thing for performers to spread misinformation about the details of their origins to increase their mystique or to dodge certain laws; media sources depend mostly on revelations by foreign performers, so it would not be amiss to recognize that either the daughter or the sources could be stating the wrong information.
    • I have changed it to list both years and tweaked the footnote.
  • The opening lede sentence seems too long and could probably be broken into two.
    • Done.
  • "However" is needless for the following sentence. I found it to break the reading flow as well.
    • Done.
  • The opening sentence of the second paragraph (particularly the break between the preceding and last clause) reads awkwardly to me: "Ali performed ... and gained ..., worked regularly and for good pay."
    • Done.
  • "Two films of the day" is kind of awkward and vague (since he performed for decades); "Of the day" is meant for one day if I am not wrong ("It was the news of the day"). Why not just "two films in the early 1930s", which is more precise and clear (and we could eliminate "1930" from the later "1930 short as well—an oddity when Politiquerias has no year attached to it)?
    • Done. Note that "of the day" is a common idiom meaning during a particular era.
  • "Two contemporary documentaries" would mean to be documents that were produced at the same time as his acts. "Contemporary" is not the word you are looking for here. It would be best to remove it.
    • Done.
  • "Because of his unusual gastric abilities, during his lifetime rumor had it that a large sum was offered for his stomach upon his death."
    The main text stated that such rumor existed before and after he died. The current sentence is also a bit confusing as to when the rumor started ("during his lifetime ... a large sum was offered ... upon his death"). "His unusual gastric abilities led to rumors that the Rockefeller Institute offered a large sum of money to obtain his stomach on the event of his death.
    • Done.


  • "Born in approximately 1888, according to his daughter, Almina Ali, her father became aware he had an unusual gastric ability at seven years of age, when he inadvertently swallowed a fish and an ample volume of water while bathing in the Nile river."
    It seems a bit strange to name the daughter but not the father (who is the subject of the article). This sentence could be broken up into two to deal with this (first sentence: birth, second: awareness of his ability).
    • I have completely restructured this section.
  • The Niagara Falls Gazette did not identify "his unusual duodenal facility" as related to "the first part of the small intestine immediately beyond the stomach, leading to the jejunum."[7] I would rather just put it simply as "his unusual ability".
    • Done.
      • Using "facility" in place of "ability" (even though a definition of facility is "natural aptitude") seems a bit awkward to me, but I do not see it as a big issue. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "... that he had naturally discovered as a young boy that he could swallow a large amount of water while swimming in the Nile and blow it out like a whale spouting, and that he continued to develop the ability as he grew older."
    The second clause is awkward (with "that ... that"). These clauses could be broken down into their own sentences. Note that the semi-colon preceding these statements make for an awkward break in reading.
    • Section restructured.
  • "... while in Cairo Ali met an Italian man who signed him ..."
    Suggestion: "... Ali met an Italian man in Cairo who signed him ..."
    • Done.
  • Any information about European circus performances?
    • Nothing. I've attempted to check the archives of a smattering of publications that would not be found through Google Books or News such as Die Zeit, and using various different searches such as the alternate spelling seen in the German poster and the billing name it provides. I may head over to the Russia Wikiproject and ask for help with a search in Cyrillic, given that he performed for the Tsar.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Almina played the part of assistant in her father's act, billed as 'The Princess'."
    With the italics and the current sentence structure, it reads to me as if the act was The Princess. Is this the case?
    • Done. I changed it to "... billed in his show as "The Princess" for clarification.
  • "Once gaining some notoriety, ..."
    I prefer "Once he had gained some notoriety, ..."; is there a date to this?
    • Done. There is no date.
  • "A $1,000 per week salary in 1937 translates to approximately $15,300 per week as of 2011."
    You need a source for this or state/explain the inflation method used. FAC reviews have been getting opposes for using the wrong methodology or unsourced figures. Personally, I would rather just put out cited information of what $1,000 could have bought in 1937 (what a house or luxury would cost then would also be good) instead of messing with extrapolation.
    • {{Inflation}} takes its data from United States Consumer Price Index. I will provide in text attribution to that index.
      • Take care there, the template has a big warning of original research if used inappropriately (I am not an expert in economics what it can be implicitly applied for). Perhaps, asking User:Fifelfoo for advice would help. Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I have used in text attribution as well as a footnote using {{Inflation-fn}}.


  • "Water spouting was followed by Ali downing a quantity of one kind of unshelled nut, approximately 30 to 50 hazelnuts was typical (though one of Ali's posters advertised 40 pecans), and then one solo nut of another variety was taken in, such as an almond. Ali would bring them up one by one ..."
    Suggestion: "Ali's next trick in his act was to swallow 30 to 50 unshelled hazelnets (although one of his posters advertised 40 pecans), followed by another nut of a different variety, such as an almond. He would bring the nuts up one by one ..."
    • Done.
  • "Similarly, Ali would swallow ..."
    Suggestion: "In another trick, Ali would swallow ..."
    • Done.
  • Since the comments following the tricks are reasonings of their workings, then perhaps the first two paragraphs should be combined instead. Right now, the first paragraph ends with the nut trick, but the workings are explained in the second (which starts with the handkerchief trick).
    • I have moved once sentence from the second to the first. The division between the paragraphs now is that the first explains three tricks, and the second explains some of their workings.
  • "... and other oddments."
    I think "oddments" ("a remnant or part of something, typically left over from a larger piece or set")[8] is wrong here. "Odd objects" seems to be what is being sought.
    • Done.
      • Note that "delicacies" seems wrong, as some of the items are definitely not "choice or expensive food", so I boldly tweaked the sentence. Jappalang (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
        • This is an everyday word. This was mild irony, juxtaposing things that are very obviously not normal food objects or even foods with “delicacies”. I don't believe anyone would come away from this saying "wait a second, those aren't delicacies!"
          • This matter of "twisting" a word to produce mild irony is, in my view, "editorializing". A certain amount would help to liven up the reading, but I believe this has crossed the boundaries. Delicacies is defined as food, which some of the listed objects is definitely not. I believe an encyclopaedia would not "twist" the facts, even as obvious humor, to present information (that is for Wikipedia:Do you know). Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
            • It remains nixed, though I think it was a rather mild and obvious use of language to liven the reading, not a "twisting" of the facts in any way.
  • "... swallowing the smoke of multiple cigarettes ..." reads to me as if he lit multiple cigarettes in front of himself and swallowed the smoke. Is the act more like he lit the cigarettes, stuffed them in his mouth and smoked them (or continuously smoking them one by one), then exhaling the cigarette smoke in one belch? Or did he swallow those lit cigarettes whole (as seemingly suggested by his manager's quote)?
    • I have clarified the description. Regarding the quote from his manager, it is about swallowing cigarettes, unrelated to the volcano trick.
  • What is a "pint chaser"?
    • Clarified.
  • I think "The stage thus set, to a drum roll, Ali becoming a human flamethrower, eructating the accelerant in a long stream over the sacrificial structure, setting it spectacularly ablaze." is not an actual complete sentence. It seems to be lacking a main clause.[9]
    • I think "Ali became a human flamethrower" is the main clause (I don't know how "becoming" crept in). In any event, I have rewritten the entire section.
      • I took a shot at tightening the sentence further (there was also the odd capitalization of kerosene). Please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Great.
  • "While all such feats were performed, a panel selected from the audience was allowed to stay in close proximity to Ali, to verify as best they could that no trick mechanism was being employed; that he was actually swallowing the items in question and delivering them back through an act of regurgitation."
    Suggestion: "Ali's acts were performed in close proximity of a panel selected from the audience, allowing them to witness that he employed no trick mechanisms: he swallowed the items and delivered them through regurgitation."
    • I have tweaked the sentence. The colon may work but I don't think it making it declarative after the colon does because it no longer reads as defining what the jury was there to verify.
      • One problem I have with the original and tweaked sentence is the semi-colon followed by "that". That breakage does not read well to me. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Changed to a colon. It does not work without the "that".
          • It seems okay to me, but I am no expert in the proper use of the English language to be a judge of it. Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Despite the nature of his feats, essentially controlled vomiting, one newspaper reported that they were performed in 'a manner without the least bit of unpleasantness or anything bordering on repulsiveness.'"
    I think we can avoid the social bias here. i.e. "One newspaper reported that his feats, essentially controlled vomiting, were performed in 'a manner without the least bit of unpleasantness or anything bordering on repulsiveness.'"
    • Done and lead in sentences tweaked.
  • "Not all were so sanguine."
    I fail to see how this was a bad or difficult situation.[10] "Others did not agree/had different opinions." would work better in my view.
    • This is standard usage and to my ear works perfectly here. Please see this search.
      • I disagree. The phrase is grammatically correct, but the usage/context seems wrong to me. As defined by Oxford, "sanguine" means being optimistic in a difficult situation. In the examples you linked, we have the thoughts of those in wars, facing difficult decisions that affect the countries, and such. In this article here, the statement is being used to comment on reporters who are judging Ali's performances. I cannot fathom how they were in any difficult situation to type their reports. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Not getting bogged down in this. I have simply changed it.
          • Eh, this is a peer review, so all this is just pretty much my opinion. They can be disregarded if one desires; there is nothing really to be "bogged down" over... (it is at FAC (and GAN) where reviewers might feel some things are worth opposing or supporting). Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Film appearances

  • "... two films of the day ..."
    Per my above comments about this in the lede
  • Done previously.
  • "Two contemporary documentaries ..."
    Again, per my above views
    • Fixed. It's often difficult to know whether contemporary's use is to the setting of what you're writing about or to the time of the writing.
      • "Contemporary" is still in there. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Oops, done for the body as well.
  • "... PBS' American Masters series ..."
    Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations, an abbreviation should be listed in full on first mention. Since the Public Broadcasting Service (I am presuming this is what PBS is referring to) is only used once, then the full name with no abbreviation should be used.
    • Done.
  • "Speaking about the democratic nature of vaudeville, Vaudeville's writer and executive producer, Greg Palmer said, referring to Ali, that the film 'embraced everything from Caruso to a guy who threw up.'"
    Suggestion (mainly to eliminate the repetitive "vaudeville, vaudeville"): "Vaudeville's writer and executive producer, Greg Palmer, referred to Ali as the "guy who threw up" when speaking about the theatrical genre's democratic nature."
    • I've tweaked the section and removed some of the detail.
      • I am not that certain about using the title of the documentary to name it as "the art form" (the descriptive clause). If one does not see it that way, he or she will be left wondering what is the "art form". Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I've tweaked it so that vaudeville is not right next to Vaudeville.
  • "By contrast with Palmer's negative description, in episode 30 of the Sundance Channel television program Iconoclasts, featuring renowned magician David Blaine and artist Chuck Close, Blaine enthusiastically spoke of Ali. While together in a car, Blaine shows Close part of Ali's footage from Politiquerias on his phone (allowing the television audience to see the clip as well) and says while they watch Ali do his kerosene and water finale, that Ali is his 'favorite magician ... it's real but nobody's been able to do it since ... his name was Hadji Ali ... he's my favorite of all time.'"
    Suggestion (too much detail and was Palmer's comments actually "negative" in nature or just "matter-of-fact"): "David Blaine, a magician, was more enthusiastic than Palmer in his opinion of Ali. In an episode of Iconoclasts, a documentary series about celebrities, Blaine showed a clip of Ali's kerosene and water finale in Politiquerias to Chuck Close, an artist, and said that Ali is his 'favorite magician ... it's real but nobody's been able to do it since ... his name was Hadji Ali ... he's my favorite of all time.'"
    • Also tweaked.
      • The tense of the second sentence (present) clashes with the first (past). I think pointing out they were in a car is also superfluous. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Tense changed and car detail removed.


  • "... the ghoulish rumor had ..."
    "Ghoulish" can be done away with; let us not comment on the nature of the gossip.
    • Done.
  • Would it not have been better to cite to the direct blog post?[11] From the date of the poster, it would be in 1937 (since September 27 occurs in that year).
    • Done, and the archive link has also been updated.
  • "Postmortem, a Rockefeller Institute manager said the offer had never been made but that nevertheless, 'we should very much like to see the body.'"
    That is not how I see "postmortem" as being used.[12]
    • Did you read the adjectival definition in the link you provided: “happening after death”? provides “of, pertaining to, or occurring in the time following death” and even generically “occurring after the end of something; after the event: ‘’a postmortem criticism of a television show.’’”
      • I know it is an adjective; by the same reasoning, "Fast (adjective), he ran" is not sound to me. Adjectives modify nouns.[13] "Postmortem" modifies nothing in this sentence. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It can be used in this way. See, e.g. [14]. Anyway I've removed. No reason to get stalled over this.
  • "Upon her arrival in the U.S. Ali's daughter donated her father's remains to Johns Hopkins for study."
    Suggestion (eliminating redundancies): "Upon her arrival, she donated her father's remains to Johns Hopkins for study."
    • Done.
    Question: So what was Johns Hopkins' conclusion about Ali's ability?
    • There's nothing, and I don't know that this would be published anywhere even if a conclusion had been reached (and even more likely to not be published if they found nothing, which is also likely).
      • That may be that, but it appears on page 13 of the New York Post (November 29, 1937) that Hubert Julian accompanied Almina (or is that Alemani according to the newspaper) Ali and her father's body back to the United States. Curious question would be why is Ali given the title of royalty? Perhaps that is the standard of journalism in those days but Julian's role seems established (as also noted on pages 1-A and Five-B of the California Eagle, December 9, 1937). The NYP article also noted that Ali's body would be interred in Egypt after the examination. These information could help to establish a conclusion. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I cannot find a single other reference to her name presented in this form (other than a Chicago Tribune article that appears to have the identical text). Looks like someone was taking the piss, since they were not actual royalty, or at least numerous articles say she was "billed as the princess" and never mention any actual royalty, even speculating he was not even from Egypt and his origins were unknown. I have incorporated material about the body being taken back to Egypt. As a point of speculation, Ali was a sideshow act, while Julian was quite famous in the U.S. The article was really prompted by him, not the Alis, and Julian was described on the first page of the California Eagle you reference, here as the "world's greatest publicity seeker" who had put on a monocle for his own sideshow with the" royalty" he was accompanying. Anyway, the royalty schtick seems to have carried over to a few other newspapers reporting on mainly Julian's return (one of which gives Almina yet another name "Almenia"). Her age keeps changing in these stories, and its interesting to note that, as they feed from the same trough, they all parrot each other in saying gasoline, when there are hundreds of sources (including primary) providing kerosene. I did find one more detail from this line of inquiry though: Apparently Johns Hopkins refused the body, which I've added in, so there is no conclusion for them to have reached.
          • The article now has a more conclusive ending. I am questioning the omission of Julian though. He might be exploiting the Alis (if the "world's greatest publicity seeker" has more than a grain of truth to it), but he could equally be an acquaintance who is worth of some note. Regardless, I do not see his omission as something that would fail the "comprehensive" requirement of FAC. Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm confused: What omission? He's named in the article as his manager, described briefly and it says that he accompaniend them back to the U.S. on the Queen Mary? What more can (or should) we say about him?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Oops. I really have to apologize. I was of the mind that the manager was another Herbert Julian... Mea culpa. Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "According to a November 29, 1937 article in the the New York Post, ..."
    I am not too sure whether there should be a comma after "1937" in this case... Would it be better to just omit the date entirely? It (the date) does not seem to add value to the sentence. Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason I put in the date for this is because it felt to me that it gives some structure to the time frame for when the date of the announcement of the offer's decline occurs. I personally don't think a comma is needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


A most interesting article and it seems whatever can be gleamed from the sources is here. I still feel it left me a bit wondering who Ali was as a person though, and the ending left one big question. I think the prose could also do with a bit more polish. Jappalang (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jappalang, thanks much for the thorough review and follow-ups!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think that is all I can offer in suggestions and critique for this article. I think we have pretty much hammered out the sources, images, and structure. You might want to actively seek another editor's advice (especially about the other areas) since the peer review has been opened for some time. You could try for FAC after that or now if you wish. My personal view is that the personal life aspect is still a bit weak (we only know his early life, but we do not know about his character or other adult aspects of his life, e.g. wife, social status among Egyptians, etc), but that may be due to the availability of sources. Other editors would likely have different opinions. Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Preaching to the choir. If I had found anything else I would have included it. He has a daughter but who was the mother? Was he married? Where did he live? etc. but I haven't found anything, and not for lack of looking. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Missoula, Montana[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because substantial improvements have been made since last evaluated as B-Class. The goal is to bring this page to A-Class or Good Article status. I'd like some feedback on how much farther there is to go and any advice on how to improve the article.

Thanks, Dsetay (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Review by User:JonRidinger: I will just go section by section. Some general comments: first, in terms of bolding, only the first instance of the city name and any former names should be bolded. There are several terms bolded in the article that shouldn't be. I noticed some in the Geography, Media, and Highways sections. Also when using a decade (like the 1970s), there shouldn't be an apostrophe after the number (1970's--->1970s) since the apostrophe isn't standing for anything and isn't showing possession. Also, there are several bare links for references. Every reference needs to be placed in the appropriate citation template. Along with that, make sure the citations are placed after punctuation, either a comma or the period. I would also cut down on subheadings. Most of the lower level subheadings could be eliminated.
Lead: I'm someone who tends to do the intro last after the article is written since it is supposed to summarize the entire article. In some ways it could be condensed (the entire last paragraph simply duplicates what is in the 3rd paragraph), but it other ways it could be expanded (no mention of geography, culture, limited mention of notable residents, etc). Also, several sentences begin with "Missoula". Try and use other words for Missoula and reorder some of the sentences to get variety.
  • Gotcha. I actually didn't bother to redo the lead, yet. It habitually filled with random trivia and I wasn't going to bother with it until the very end.
History: I'm glad to see that History of Missoula, Montana has been created. My only comment for this section is make sure paragraphs have at least three sentences in them. There are several one-sentence "paragraphs" throughout the article. The sentence right at the end of the history section "With the decline of the lumber industry, healthcare, education, and tourism became a more visible part of Missoula's economy." needs a source.
Geography: The coordinates in the text should be removed. Instead, simply describe where it is located in Montana and within Missoula County. I personally think the Glacial Lake Missoula section could be removed since the lake is already mentioned as part of the geographic features and has its own article, not to mention that while a feature of the city, it encompasses an area much larger than the city itself. "Reservation Divide" should not be bold as mentioned above.
Flora and fauna: my one concern here is that the main source is for Missoula County rather than the city, though not a huge deal. The concern is that what is true for the county as a whole may not necessarily be true specifically for the city. Also, watch out for POV words like "unfortunately" and flowery language like "endowed with".
  • I would be quite surprised if any information about flora and fauna were available at the municipal level. Especially in a rural state, I think it is safe to assume there isn't a marked biological variation between different parts of the county.
Climate: This section needs sources for the prose. The chart is cited, but nothing in the paragraph is.
Cityscape: This largely seems like it could be worked into other areas of the article. The neighborhood councils should be under government, for instance, and some of the layout of the city could be in the infrastructure section. It is mostly history rather than explaining any architectural styles and trends in the city, which is typically what cityscape sections are for. For a city the size of Missoula, I don't think a cityscape section is really needed. Also, List of tallest buildings in Missoula now redirects to Downtown Missoula.
  • I'm glad the List of tallest buildings page is gone now. It was ridiculous to have in the first place.
Demographics: I would eliminate the subheading for the Missoula Metro area because it implies the section is about the Metro area and it isn't. The Metro area needs to be presented in relation to the topic, which is the city of Missoula. Mentioning that the city is part of the Metro area, the principal city of, etc. is appropriate, but that's about it.
Economy:This section could be its own section rather than a subheading of demographics. It could also be expanded and has several one-sentence paragraphs. The lower subheading for fastest growing occupations should be eliminated and worked into the section as a whole.
  • I only made this a subheading because that's what the City's Project page suggested. It makes more sense to be independent.
Culture: I think this could be expanded and broken up, like separating culture and parks & rec (with sports). The listings on the NRHP from the cityscape section could be listed here. Should probably eliminate at least one of the photos so you don't get pictures on both sides of text.
Government and politics: This seems to be a bit on the excessive side as far as detail. It has almost nothing about the government structure of the city, but has quite a bit of detail about its "liberal" leanings (which is rather normal for college towns). Also while I know what is meant by "progressive", it needs to be wikilinked to Progressivism since it's referring to a specific movement rather than a POV term (not everyone considers progressive legislation or ideas progressive :)). It is also not clear how the city is represented at the state level...are the reps for the city or the county? Do all the Missoula County districts include parts of the city?
Local politics: I personally think this section isn't needed. If you feel it was a significant event (like it got some significant coverage outside of Missoula), it could easily be included in the history section since the history section ends in 1995. The rest seems to fall more under trivia than encyclopedic. Many college towns have passed similar ordinances all over the country.
    • Comment: Missoula's "local" politics routinely make statewide news due to the community's general reputation, such as the time they gave the Governor a citation for not having his dog on a leash! It's a big part of what makes Missoula, well, Missoula. Montanabw(talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sure they have, but remember the whole issue of notability not being temporary. There are ample examples for this, but they key evaluating them in the bigger picture and providing the most notable ones to make the basic point. What is in the section now is too detailed and completely dominates the section that is supposed to be about the basic functions and organizations of local government. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I may have gone overboard on the liberal reputation thing. However, within a relatively conservative state like Montana, Missoula is hardly mentioned without some reference to its liberal tendencies, occasionally with an expletive thrown in. The way people speak around the state you would think that Missoula was Berkley, California and the the rest of Montana was Utah. A lot of what I wrote was to address these issues so that when a reader heard of the city's liberal reputation they could separate fact from myth. The local politics is also relevant at the state level to the degree that the new legislature elected in 2010 actually tried to outlaw city ordinances to overturn them. I agree that more needs to be written about the basic form of city government and representation. However, given Missoula's identification (rightly or wrongly) with liberal causes around the state (a reputation Montana's other college town, Bozeman, does not have), more than the usual explanation of liberal tendencies needs to be explained.
That's fine. I think it could be streamlined and a lot of the "liberal" reputation is going to come through in other aspects of the article. In reading it, I was definitely seeing a lot of my own hometown (also a college town) in it, even before I got to the local politics section. Only work in the most notable examples of city ordinances that have been targeted or overturned by the state. The point can be made that Missoula is more liberal than Montana without it taking over the section. I think that could be worked into the overall section on the city government itself or worked into the history section like I mentioned previously. Same with the presidential voting trends. The point could be made with mention of, say, the last three presidential elections rather than a chart fot the entire history. The main thing you're trying to do here is give a thorough, yet still general, overview of the city.
    • Comment: However this is smoothed out, Missoula is unique in Montana, as it is the only major Liberal Arts college town in the state. MSU, the land grant "cow college" is a vastly different community and far less progressive. Helena is probably just as liberal, but not a college-dominated town. While this may be a typical pattern in many states (UT, Madison, UC-Boulder and UW-Seattle come to mind), it nonetheless continues to stun many Montanans, as well as many tourists who come here thinking we are cowboy land, not expecting to find white hippie kids with dreadlocks at home anywhere in the state. Montanabw(talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure many people are surprised (I'm not one of them). As someone who lives in a small college town (smaller in population than Missoula) that is home to a very large university in Ohio (much larger than UM), it doesn't surprise me at all. We have several college towns that are just like Missoula in terms of being unusual for the area of the state they are in. Montana just happens to be a larger area landwise, but populationwise it's similar if not smaller. Many of the "things that make Missoula Missoula" are going to come out in the culture and history sections. The point isn't to have every little unique thing about Missoula here; it's to give the reader a general idea. That Missoula is unique in Montana is not disputed. It's the amount of detail needed to illustrate that point that I think is overkill. As someone who wrote an article about his hometown, it's sometimes very difficult to evaluate what's really important for the sake of the article without an outside perspective. And not just outside of the city, but the region. For instance, the local politics section could be pared down to a sentence or two that mentions some of the most notable instances were Missoula's actions have been at odds with the rest of the state. A long list of actions and ordinances, however, isn't really needed because the point is made. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Organizations and non-profits: I think this could easily be worked into the Culture section as a paragraph or a subheading. It's directly related to Culture.
Education: The "history" subheading isn't needed. That paragraph is a header for the section itself and should also include "See also" for the University of Montana and the school district (if an article exists). Biggest concern with the sections here are the large amount of lists. To be honest, I don't think every school needs to be listed in this article; only the ones with articles. Also, the chart for educational demographics should be in the demographics section and could easily be presented in prose. Generally, you only need to compare the city with the state and national averages and possibly 1 or 2 nearby or comparable cities.
  • I agree with the general premise of only including the important schools, or at least just the high schools. However, I expect that they would be consistently added back. Though, I will try. As for the chart, I think after moving it to the demographic section that it could be accompanied by prose, but I don't think it could be replaced. Reading statistics that could just as easily be represented as a chart is annoying and less informative to many people.
They may be added back, but that's part of article maintenance. This would be a good place to start an article for the school district, since there doesn't appear to be one. As for the stats, again, I think the chart itself could be pared down if not integrated into the entire demographics section. The main comparisons that should be made are when Missoula's percentage is significantly different than a comparable level, like the state or national level. In looking at the chart, most of Missoula's percentages are fairly close with the state and national levels as well as the other Montana cities listed. I would definitely point out that those with a bachelor's degree and graduate degrees are somewhat higher than the state and national averages. What I prefer can be seen at the Kent, Ohio#Demographics section, which is still being updated as 2010 census info is released. The education comparisons are the very last paragraph.
Media: This section just needs all the bolded terms unbolded :)
IN looking at it again, there are a few abbreviations (like "ch. 11") that need to be spelled out in mong form. The section could be expanded a bit so it's not just a paragraph list.
Infrastructure: Here, most of the subheadings could be removed since each section only has a few sentences. The history of the airport probably isn't needed here, or it could be reduced to a sentence or two about the airport. The highway section should be combined and the icons removed, along with the bold terms.
  • Here, I am guilty of my own pet peeve. More people have read travel guides than encyclopedia articles on cities and the articles begin to sound like one. I tried to make this section as navigable and useful to Joe Public. However, I see your point of making it into a paragraph.
Notable residents: This has been changed to "Notable people" in most articles. Even though it has a link to the larger list, there should still be a summary paragraph here that lists some of the most prominent people from Missoula and why. I tend to be someone who doesn't list someone as a notable resident if their only time in the city was when they were a college student. This section should also link to the alumni list from the University of Montana (See Kent, Ohio#Notable people for an example of what I'm talking about).
  • UM ALUMNI LINK  Done Page needs to be created first
Sister cities: Not an issue for GA, but for FA, this would need to be expanded into prose.
Gallery: I've mentioned this before, but the gallery should be removed. Galleries have fairly specific purposes and uses and city articles aren't one of them. There is a link to the Commons page for Missoula at the bottom, which serves as a gallery for all images of the city.
  • REMOVE  Done
I don't mean to come across as overly critical. There have been TONS of great improvements here and most everything is well-sourced and well-written. The things above are ways I think it could be improved based on my own experience with GAN and FAC. Overall the article is in great shape! --JonRidinger (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the great feedback. You didn't come across as overly critical at all. Direct and backed up reasoning is the best kind. I'll try to make the improvements you suggested as soon as I can. Thanks again. (You probably noticed, but I added bullet point comments to the section above)Dsetay (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I think for this article, the key is emulating city articles that are from cities of comparable size. What I've been seeing with this article and related articles is that because a city like New York City, Cleveland, or San Francisco has this section or that accompanying article, therefore Missoula must have a similar section or article too (hence the List of tallest buildings among other examples). It's not a perfect match for all cities of the same size (which is why there is some flexibility), but they're generally going to have the same scope and coverage. Some FA articles of cities that are relatively similar size are like Erie, Pennsylvania (108,000), Ann Arbor, Michigan (113,000), Hillsboro, Oregon (91,000), and Kent, Ohio (29,000). I used the Hillsboro article as a model when I was writing the Kent article. In reality, there are very few small city articles featured. Most FA city articles are the major metro centers. From your description, Missoula sounds a bit like Oberlin, Ohio, which also has a reputation locally for being very liberal, at times over-the-top. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_86#Keith_Raniere_and_NXIVM

Thanks, Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Some spare whitespace at the top of the article looks weird.
  • " It offers classes and seminars that encourages" encourage.
  • Two disambiguation links (surgeon general and Stephen Cooper).
  • Very brief lead, could be expanded.
  • Why unlink New York in the infobox but link US?
  • "Some of its clients include " -> Some of NXIVM's clients...
  • "manual to others. [8]" remove spaces between punctuation and references.
  • References need consistent date formats, need to have full parameter lists, i.e. publisher, work, accessdate, publication date, author etc wherever applicable.
  • "The three critical articles " not NPOV, just stick to "Three articles..."

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

1986 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to GA status. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Lead is quite brief, per WP:LEAD.
  • "producing $2 million damage and 2 " -> "causing $2 million damage and two deaths"
  • "They were four notable storms this year." grammar fail.
  • "most notably Estelle.[3][1]" refs in the right order please.
  • Agatha - "One-E becomes " became.
  • Agatha - too many sentences beginning "Agatha..." more variety for elegant writing please.
  • Celia - same comment. In general, use some other terms, e.g. "the hurricane" when it's obvious you're talking about Celia etc.
  • Darby - "40 mph (60 mph)." hmm?
  • Darby - "began to a weakening trend" I don't understand this.
  • Estelle - " veered to west" -> to the west.
  • Estelle - "two drowning" +s.
  • Frank - "1800 UTC July 23" on July 23.
  • Frank - AOR is a dab link.
  • Georgette - "23-45 mph (37-75 km/h)" en-dash required for both these ranges.
    • I think end-ashes are already in here, correct me if I am wrong. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Georgette - "it's peak intensity as Typhoon Georgette. [3][1]" (a) "its peak", (b) remove the space before the refs, (c) order refs numerically.
  • Isis v Javier - any reason why one is Imperial (metric) and the other metric (Imperial)?
  • Javier - "Javier had weaken directly" +ed
  • Javier - "Javier weaken into a depression" +ed
  • Javier - "a dangerous hazard" hazards are dangerous so you don't need to say dangerous.
  • Javier - "collided with an" I think you mean coincided?
  • Newton - "minimal pressure" minimum?
  • Yea. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Newton - "20,000 customers" customers?!
  • Yea. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Paine - "flooding from Paine worsened flooding issues; the flooding" flooding x 3 is repetitive.
  • "the final advisory was issued.[1][26][3]" ref order.
  • "was issued.[26][3]" ditto.
  • "600 UTC" -> 0600 UTC
  • Fixed. YE Pacific Hurricane
  • UTC is overlinked in the other storms section.
  • Fixed. YE Pacific Hurricane
  • Why is just Paine and Roslyn linked in the other storms section?
    • Because they are relevant in that section. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't mix date formats in the refs.
  • Newspaper refs should have page numbers were applicable.
    • Not needed IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Fine, added for online newspaper links. I'm screwed with the rest since their archives have gone offline and are no longer avialbe ot google AFAIK. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ensure spaced hyphens and page ranges use an en-dash instead.
    • Everything looks correct, but I'm not good with stuff like that. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Tool is showing a couple of bad links.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Wow, thanks for bothering to return.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and comments :P YE Pacific Hurricane 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This is a high quality article which could become an FA. Several editors have collaborated on improvements, and now an outside reviewer is needed to point out what parts still need improvement.

Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Mostly a good read, I have a few comments and issues.

  • I have a sense (without checking) from the writing that some of the article's language is remnant from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 (which it probably started out from). If this is the case (i.e. the article has not been completely rewritten) it should be acknowledged.
  • Why is a website named "" used as a source? (I don't expect you to answer why such a site has a bio of Marie on it...)
  • The reliability of that and other web-based sources may be questioned at GAN/FAC.
  • Article is heavily dependent on a single source. Is there really only one detailed bio of her?
  • Article is incompletely cited.
  • Her godparents should be identified by name.
  • "After all" is unnecessary.
  • "were treated to gardens and menageries" - clarify: does this mean they were given them as gifts, or that they were allowed to play in them, or what?
  • "allowing relaxations in the type of people who could come to court" - rephrase
  • "Court" does not normally need to be capitalized

More to come. Magic♪piano 16:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Echoing Brianboulton's comments, images are biased toward portraits of Marie; portraits of von Fersen and some of her confidants would not be out of place here.
  • In some places images are placed directly opposite each other, bunching the text between. Images should be staggered, roughly alternating sides of the text.
  • "she concentrated mainly on horticulture, redesigning in the English mode the garden" - awkward
  • quote cited "(Weber 132)" needs to be properly integrated
  • "More importantly was" --> "More important was"
  • "Though many believed it was entirely the support of the queen that enabled them to secure their positions, in truth it was mostly that of Finance Minister Jacques Necker." - "in truth" is unnecessary. This sentence also needs clarification -- are the many believers contemporaries or historians? Whichever, some names would help.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE#Italics_and_quotations, quotations should not be italicized unless they are in the source
  • In 1786-1789 (and possibly elsewhere) there are long multi-clause sentences. These should be broken into shorter sentences.
  • "This lack of solutions was unfairly blamed on the queen." This sentence, already tagged for citation, also demands clarification - who blamed the queen?
  • "In reality, the blame should have been placed on a combination of several other factors" and following. -- This is post-hoc historical analysis, and should be openly attributed to the historian doing it.
  • "Around the same time, Jeanne de Lamotte-Valois escaped from prison in France and fled to London, where she published more damaging lies concerning her supposed "affair" with the queen." -- this requires more context (who is this person, when was the supposed affair, how/why imprisoned, etc)
  • "The queen, however, was present with her daughter, Marie-Therese, when Tippu Sahib of Mysore visited Versailles seeking help against the British." -- Tipu Sultan never came to France; this is presumably a reference to an embassy he sent.

-- Magic♪piano 14:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Just a couple of issues - I have not read the article through:-

  • There are around 16 portraits or other images of Marie Antoinette in the article. This seems like way, way too many. You would be better advised to make a selection from these and reduce the number of redundant images.
  • I noticed a couple of problems in the lead:
    • "In April 1770, on the day of her marriage to Louis-Auguste, Dauphin of France, she subsequently became Dauphine of France." Remove the word "subsequently".
    • The last paragraph is very weakly written and reads badly. I have attempted to rephrase it thus:-

"After her death Marie Antoinette became part of popular culture. A major historical figure, she has been the subject of several books, films and other forms of media. Some academics and scholars have deemed her essentially frivolous and superficial, and that her attitudes were contributory to the French Revolution. Others have claimed that she has been treated unjustly by history, and have sought to portray her in a more sympathetic light."

Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Will Beback. I never worked on a peer review but I'll give it a try! I would like to recommend you Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. It's a FA I wrote sometime ago about an Italian born Brazilian Empress. It will be useful to you. Trust me. Some points I'd like to raise:

  1. The lead should have at most four paragraphs. Not five as it is now. Each paragraph should be a little larger than it is now. There shouldn't be any reference on the lead, since we presume the information will be later found in the main text.
  2. I really don't like this article's organization. You should drop the years on the section titles. You should also try to create more sections and less subsections, just like in Teresa Cristina's.
  3. Each section should not be larger than the photo that is used to illustrate it. Is it a rule? No. I learned one thing about readers: they get tired if they see one huge section. Try to either make them shorter or divide them in subsections. Again, see Teresa Cristina's.
  4. Pictures must have a meaning and they need to be well-organized. Try to follow a standard of one picture per section and one picture to the left, other to the right, then another one to the left, etc... See Teresa Cristina's and you'll get the idea. Why you should do this? Well, the article will look prettier and readers like pretty things. Also, try to follow a timeline with the pictures, ranging them from her childhood until her last pictures. I really hate when I see an article with the character at age 60 in the beginning and later at age 25 in the middle. It's confusing. Don't commit this mistake.
  5. The legacy section looks odd. It's small and when I read I can't stop thinking that a bunch of different people wrote different things there. I want to read a section and have the impression that it's going from point A to point B.
  6. The titles section should have sources. I don't see a good reason to add "Madame Capet" and "La Veuve ("the widow") Capet". These weren't titles, but just a way people called her.
  7. Try to add a posterity section too. I don't like to have to search across the text to see who were her children. I want something easy (and yes, I'm playing a part here, of the "spoiled and dick reader"). Perhaps a "Genealogy" section and two subsections (ancestry and posterity). See Teresa Cristina's. You'll find there a good model.
  8. You should differentiate notes from footnotes. If you can, don't use internet sources, not even from well known newspapers. Use books. I want to have the feeling that you actually made a research and not merely looked on google. You also need more sources. You need far more sources. The article is entirely build upon Fraser's Marie Antoinette. Try to use at least three different biographies to fill the entire article. Use at least other five books to fill gaps (like legacy section, or minor information that for some reason couldn't be found in the biographies).
  9. Remove the further reading section. Who cares? And still, the reader will wonder why you bothered to suggest other books when you used only one book to write the entire article.
  10. Remove all external links with the sole exception of the commons' link. Keep it. People like photos. Imagine your readers as children. That's what they are.
  11. There is a note on the succession box? Why? Remove it.

That's it. Sorry if I was rude, I was playing the part of some of the reviewers on the FAC. You'll hate them, hate the FAC process and wonder your self why you bother to write articles if have to endure some dick and arrogant editors on the FAC. Here is why: share knowledge. Share it. How many good articles about this queen you can find in the internet? I mean, really good articles? None. Good luck! --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks to each of the reviewers: Magicpiano, Brianboulton, and Lecen. These are all specific, actionable items. This article is a true collaboration (meaning I'm not responsible for any of its good content.) It has some good editors working on it and these suggestions will give everyone a "to-do" list. I'll transclude this page. I think we all agree that Marie Antoinette is an important topic and the article is worth burnishing. Thanks again for your time and attention.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Sheen[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like feedback on what needs to be done to get this article to FA status. I nominated it as a FA a few months ago but it failed. It failed because no one offered feedback, so I'm a bit in the dark about what needs to be done to improve it. It was recently promoted to GA status.

Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry it has take nme so long to review this. It looks a lot better than the last time I reviewed it, but there are still prose issues that would be a problem at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The most difficult criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. I will try to point as many examples as I can of places where the prose could be improved.
  • I note that his name (Sheen) is used only twice in the lead, but seven sentences there start with "He". I think in a biography the subject's name should be used at least once per paragraph so the antecedent for pronouns (like he) is clear.
  • I still think some more context could be provided - although they are linked, I am not really sure who Kenneth Williams and Brian Clough are, so could one or two word descriptive phrases be added?
  • I know screen includes television as well as movies, but would it make sense to note 30 ROck is a tv show in the lead?
  • The lead is the summary and as such should have the more general comments, with the specifics in the body of the article. However the end date of his run as Hamlet is given only in the lead that I can see
  • WOuld it make sense to add a "since YEAR" to this? He lives in Los Angeles, California. so He has lived in Los Angeles, California since 2005.
  • Although it is pretty clear from context, should the quote "It was a brilliant youth theatre, and it taught me not only a lot about acting, but also about work ethic; it was very disciplined."[12] be attributed to Sheen?
  • MOS says to have the link at fist occurrence (so look at London in Early life, which is linked on the third occurrence) and the article also needs to be consistent - why say "London, England" on the third use in a section when it was just LOndon before?
  • The MOS says Decades are written in the format the 1980s, with no apostrophe. Use the two-digit form ('80s) only with an established social or cultural meaning. Avoid forms such as the 1700s, which may be ambiguous. so fix things like "Sheen worked predominantly in theatre in the nineties and has since remarked that ..."
  • Article uses "also" 22 times, whcih seems a bit much - cannot change it in direct quotes obviously...
  • In Career it was not always clear to me when he was doing stage work or film work or television work - I think when it is a series of performances in the same medium it is OK, but I would make it clearer when he switches to something new - this is done well in some places but in others it is not as clear
  • I wondered if some other pictures could be added - there are several of him on Commons, but there are free images of Tony Blair and Kate Beckinsale that could be used in the 2002–2006: The Deal, The Queen and Fantabulosa section (Blair) and in the Personal life section (Kate)
  • Or is there a nice photo of Port Talbot or the RADA for Early life?
  • I have seen Awards as a table in many articles - would that help here?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Second look - the more I thought about this, the more I thought it is pretty close to FA already with some prose polish and minor MOS fixes needed. I am re-reading it and here is what I am noticing.

  • Lead seems to need more polish than the rest of the article.
  • MOS says to use numbers if greater than 10, so "age of twelve" needs to be fixed (age of 12)
  • I like the new images - the "upright" parameter can be used on vertical images to make them a bit narrower.
  • The upright paramet will probably help, but I would also try to keep images within the sections they are in - currently on my monitor every second image in a section overalps at least a little bit - this is barely an issue for the Old Vic, but the image of Kate Beckinsale is pushed halfway into the Awards section

Please let me know when this is at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari 250 GT Lusso[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a translation of a FA version on fr wiki and i want to get it to GA status.

Thanks, :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Don't use spaced hyphens, use spaced en-dashes, both in the opening part of the lead and the infobox year range.
  • Do you have a reference for those alternative names?
  • Lead says it wasn't intended for grand touring but it's called GT and you've classified it in the infobox as Grand touring. Is there a ref that says it wasn't inteded to be a GT? Can you expand on this point?
  • What is the Ferrari "tradition"? Any reason it's in quote marks?
  • Link "coachbuilder" (I haven't heard this term before...!)
  • "mid 1964" hyphenate.
  • "The auto shows often provide an..." Don't think "The" is needed.
  • "of introducing new" -> "to introduce new".
  • "as only "modifications" was to be made" -> "as only modifications were to be made".
  • "Ferrari 250 GT SWB Berlinetta|250 GT SWB " think there's a format issue here.
  • "secondly - particularly - to meet " en-dash again. But a reword, "secondly, and in particular,..."
  • "which can be felt with regard to the weight" not particularly good English, this may need a good copyedit from someone who can write better than me.
  • "the GTL was negotiated in 2010 between $400,000 and $500,000." not sure I understand this, do you mean "GTLs were sold in 2010 for between $400,000 and $500,000"?
  • "of 250 GT and 250 GTO" missing "the" here.
  • "Pininfarina has led the design " remove "has".
  • "it also attracted personalities of that time, such as Steve McQueen." No ref, and do you mean he bought one, or just liked it?
  • "is responsible " was responsible, this construction happened in the past, right?
  • "boot lid", "bonnet" - British English, "aluminum" - US English. Be consitent.
  • "Typical of cut" I don't understand this.
  • "wings nd even the chrome bumpers" typo.
  • "and positioned front, vertically beneath every position light" I don't understand what this means.

I'm going to stop here. I think your best bet is a very serious copyedit, perhaps by someone who is interested in this subject matter who can interpret some of the phrases you've used here that, unfortunately, I can't quite understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do the copy edit, however is [15] a RS?
You tell me, does it have any kind of editorial control over its content? Is it referenced elsewhere in other reliable sources? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As per [16], it seems that there is a editorial board. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I Need You (album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to a GA status and would like some input on it beforehand.

Thanks, Swifty*talkcontribs 11:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to nominator: This is your second nomination for 7 December; WP:PR rules allow only one per day from a single nominator - please bear that in mind for the future. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Infobox - "1999–02" should really be "1999–2002".
  • "The album was also compared to Faith Hill's album, Breathe (1999)." is this relevant in the lead? And what were the results of the comparison?
  • "certified gold" or "certified Gold"? Be internally consistent.
  • Why don't "You Are" and "Soon" have articles?
  • "between the years 1999 and 2001" no need for "the years".
  • "At the time, during the litigation with her label" not sure you need "At the time" here at all.
  • "Rimes was asking " Rimes asked.
  • "The 2001 release of the album" repetitive from previous sentence. Suggest a merge "... Curb Records, and featured..."
  • "of four minutes and fifty-eight seconds" + "duration".
  • "a ballad[23] song" don't need "song" here.
  • "Mark Huxley at Barnes & praised the " followed by "Mark Huxley at Barnes & praised the " repetitive.
  • "that Rimes "comfortably adopting some..." not grammatically correct.
  • "saying that "The good" no need for that here.
  • "-- " replace with an en-dash.
  • "two and a half" usually see this hyphenated.
  • "did quite well on" reads too colloquially, perhaps "peformed well".
  • "it fell to" -> "falling to".
  • "Internationally the album did quite well" ditto as above comment.
  • "as high as number five" just "at number five" will do.
  • "Year-end" any need for that Y to be capitalised?
  • "as well as four other countries" the RIAA isn't a country. Perhaps "as well as in four other contries" or "as well as four other organizations".
  • Year-end charts table sorts strangely because the 2002 heading moves...
  • Sales/shipments column doesn't sort correctly.
  • Don't mix date formats in refs (e.g. ref 30, 34 etc).

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sparks Fly (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have listed this article for a peer review because me and Status eventually wanna get it to a GA article and would like some input on it beforehand. Thank you. Swifty*talkcontribs 11:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • "years of age" -> "years old" (so that there's some variety between the lead and the main part of the article).
  • "of the song, the song" repetitive.
  • "had a lot of requests " "had many requests".
  • "The song speaks of falling in love with somebody that may not be appropriate to fall in love with" badly phrased in my opinion, maybe "The song describes falling in love with someone inappropriate."
  • "believe the song could turn things around for Swift and praise it" (a) what do you mean by "turn things around"? and (b) odd tense choice, this happened in the past, so should this be "believed... and praised it..."?
  • "Other claims have praised Swift's lyrics of the song and have also claimed " repetitive "claims... claimed..."
  • "song crosses the line " perhaps "is a crossover from..." (see Crossover (music))?
  • "on Wednesday, August 10, 2011" is the actual day important?
  • "The song is the opening song" repetitive "song .. song"
  • "before the release of her self-titled debut album (2006)" would prefer "her eponymous album in 2006".
  • "to country radio" do you mean several country music radio stations?
  • "package that is exclusive" that was.
  • I don't see the "free headphones" etc in ref 6, nor any evidence of its exclusivity.
  • "The song, written solely by Swift, was written " repetitive "written ... written".
  • "calls the song " called... check the whole article for this type of thing.
  • "to make Swift the first act to have ten songs debut on the Billboard Hot 100 in the same week. " ref?
  • "Year-end Country Songs " which chart is this?
  • "on the week of" in the week.
  • "The performance uses electric guitars instead of banjos.[38] The performance was released on Swift's first live album called Speak Now: World Tour Live.[39]" I would merge so you don't have to repeat "The performance" two consecutive sentences.
  • Don't mix date formats in the references.
  • Ref 35 is a bare URL.
  • Ref 8 (for instance) needs en-dashes instead of hyphens in the title.
  • Difference in format between ref 29 and ref 30 despite them both being Billboard links...

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Monster (novella)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A short novel/long short story by Stephen Crane, which has received a bit of revival over the past forty years. The article was recently promoted to GA, and I hope to bring it to FAC by the end of the month. Any comments or suggestions regarding the FA criteria would be very welcome! Thanks, María (yllosubmarine) 13:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Yomangani

I don't know much about the FAC requirements now (it's all MOS and citation violations, isn't it?), so the comments aren't about that in particular well, that's useful considering that was what was requested:

  • Why is "Judge" in quotes in "Port Jervis resident "Judge" William Howe"?
  • "Judge" was a nickname, as he was in fact a lawyer. María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How do you feel about footnotes? It looks odd as it is but I don't think it warrants any more explanation in the main text and it would be a shame to drop it. I never feel an article is complete unless it has sections for Notes, Footnotes, Citations, References, Sources, Bibliography and Further Reading. Yomanganitalk 16:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Footnotes are okay, but I think it would be weird to create a new section for just one little nickname. So as not to drop it entirely, I've added it to the newly created William Howe Crane -- with a source and everything! María (yllosubmarine) 19:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, thank you. He's an incredibly dull man, but at least now I have an idea of what Stevie may have looked like had he lived long enough to hit a mid-life crisis. María (yllosubmarine) 21:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the "Background" and the writing part of "Writing and publication history" overlap a little in their scope. (opening sentences: "Crane wrote The Monster in the summer of 1897 while working as a journalist"; "Crane began writing The Monster in June 1897 while living in Oxted, England with his companion Cora".) Perhaps "Background and writing" would be a better fit than "Writing and publication history".
  • Good point -- I've combined the sections as suggested, with some rearranging. María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "the only recorded lynching of a black man in New York during the 1890s" It would be good to get some more context for this: were there hundreds of lynchings outside New York in the 1890s or in New York in the 1880s?
  • Added this snippet: "Of the 1,134 reported lynchings throughout the United States between 1882 and 1899, Lewis was the only black man to be lynched in New York." María (yllosubmarine) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "there were detailed accounts published in both the Port Jervis Gazette and the New York Tribune, the latter to which Crane contributed" He contributed to the account or just to the New York Tribune in general? If it is the former then the tone of this part of the article strikes me as a bit odd - the implication here is that the newspaper reports are further evidence that Crane would have known about the lynching, but if he contributed to the report then it is certain he knew about it and we don't need to heap up evidence that he did so.
  • He contributed to the Tribune, not the reports on the lynching published by it. Made this clearer. María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The publication history was a little confusing; I've changed English to British to avoid the country/language issue. I was a bit puzzled as to why "novelette" was used there and in quotes, but this is later explained at the end of the Style section. I'd either move the explanation up from the style section or drop the "novelette" here.
  • I added the "novelette" mention in this section because of one of the GAC comments, but I agree with you that it's odd. I've removed it for now, but may play with it later. María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "he desperately required funds". Why? Is this because of costs accruing from the accident? If so, you need to make the connection clearer. If not, why?
  • See, this is what happens when you've written so much about a particular person -- you tend to assume that everyone knows what you know! Crane was always in need of funds, which is what generally spurred his prolific creative output at this time. I've made this clearer, using material from Crane's main article. María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • These first edition descriptions may or may not be useful: [17] [18]
  • Using "African American" in the plot summary struck me as a little anachronistic.
  • Political correctness comes second nature. The story uses "negro", so I'll switch to that for the plot. María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the Style section. I wonder how long "some critics" will escape a "who?" tag.
  • "The Monster relies heavily on Crane's signature irony, imagery and symbolism. For example, fire—both literal and symbolic—features prominently throughout the story." This seems a little clunky, both in the flow and as an example of "irony, imagery and symbolism". Perhaps it just needs expanding a bit.
  • What is the "major" climax at the end of the second section? There's Henry's accident at the end of the first section but Tresscott's wife no longer receiving visitors doesn't strike me as comparably climatic.
  • I find "paradoxical" a little strange in "paradoxical themes of deformity and monstrosity" and the subsequent explanation. It isn't really paradoxical - as far as I can see, while the townspeople are monstrous in their treatment of Henry, they were never presented as paragons, and Henry isn't an angelic monster either. Does the "paradoxical" appraisal come from a critic?
  • Yes, that's from Mitchell. I'll see if I can make it clearer. María (yllosubmarine) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Henry does not stay far from a racially-implicated stereotype". Is "stay" right there or should it be "stray"? Also, what is a "racially-implicated stereotype"? Is that just a racial stereotype?
  • Doh, it's supposed to be stray -- slip of the finger. Changed. María (yllosubmarine) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The English edition of The Monster was the last volume of Crane's work to be published during his lifetime." The edition published in London was posthumous and the US edition was not the last volume of his work published according to this, so either I'm missing something or this is wrong.
  • My fault; according to Weatherford, The Monster and Other Stories (1899) was the last volume of Crane's work published during his lifetime. María (yllosubmarine) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weatherford is wrong though according to the bibliography. Last major collection maybe? Yomanganitalk 15:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see what you mean. Changed to "collection", much better. María (yllosubmarine) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There are quite a lot of "upons" (based upon, set upon, call upon, spilling upon). Fowler hates "upon", he thinks it is "elegant variation". I'm not that keen on Fowler myself but you might want to de-"up" a couple.
  • The first edition image might have to be brought over to en WP if the image checkers are being particularly picky, as it is not a 2D reproduction (and therefore the photographer is said to have some creative input). Borderline case though - you'd have to be a real pedant to insist on that (Yes, that is directed at you, person checking the images at FAC and looking back at the PR)
  • TK said as much during the GAC. I personally think it's silly, so I'm hoping it won't come to that! I'm prepared to simply substitute a portrait of Crane if need be, but I won't be happy about it, grumble grumble. María (yllosubmarine) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And lastly: it's an interesting, comprehensive, well-balanced and easy read. I'd let it have a star after a little dusting (applications for my rival FA programme will be invited soon).

Yomanganitalk 13:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You're awesome like a hot dog. Many, many belated thanks! María (yllosubmarine) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
Ahalya is a GA since June. I plan to nominate it to FAC. Ahalya is a paradoxical figure in Hindu myth, both venerated and condemned and who has become famous in story due to her sexual behaviour. Suggestions pertaining to WP:FA? are required, especially about clarity of text, jargon and flow of ideas. Thanks a lot, Redtigerxyz Talk 11:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber[edit]

I can honestly say I have never heard of Ahalya and am not that familiar with the stories. Anyway, I'll jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC) accept his sexual offer. - a more conversational way of saying it would be, "to accept his advances."
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd link "atone" - an unusual word for many.
It means "To make amends, as for a sin or fault". The atonement article about the Christian concept and is unrelated to the Hindu concept. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It is very frustrating when there is no appropriate article to link to. I have been in this situation many times. Options are - expanding target article, or looking at wiktionary definition and linking there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Linked. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
As per the literal meaning of her name "unploughed", Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941) literally Ahalya as a symbol of stone-like, infertile land that was made cultivable by Rama. - sentence missing a verb?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahalya is examined in new light by "several" modern renditions in various Indian languages -why the quotation marks around "several"?
ditto "widespread attention" in the next sentence
Words taken from the sources. Removed quotes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
They are pretty mundane words so not needing quotation marks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
link or explain "Subrahmanya"
[19] says "Subrahmanya is a loud invocation at the soma sacrifice" Feller p. 131 defines "Subrahmanya formula" (a newly coined word in scholarly circles) is "a chant which the Subrahmanya priest sings while the soma is conveyed on the soma-cart to the sacrificial enclosure".--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, a link to a stub maybe? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I have simplified the definition of the Subrahmanya formula. Please check. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Another thing - is there any other commentary you can find about the evolution of the story, or any other famous film interpretations in Indian cinema? I suspect that might be worth mentioning. I am not sure there is any data in either category but something to think of for comprehensiveness.
Evolution is covered in "Name and development". I will check about films. There must some films in 1920s-30s, when mythological films were popular.--Redtigerxyz Talk 09:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
While non-scriptural books are discussed while discussing Ahalya by references, I could not trace any Ahalya-centric articles which discuss names of particular films. "Filming the Gods: Religion and Indian Cinema" in an article discussing mythological films in nature notes only 1 film on Ahalya, which is included. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall, looking pretty good on prose grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from AroundTheGlobe[edit]

Like Casliber, Im not an expert on this topic either, just giving my comments as below:

  • Shouldnt [20], [21] have an Indian PD license?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the section 'Name and development', 'mahabhaga' IAST has been included. Iv not seen the IAST being used in the middle of an article, though its commonly mentioned in the lede. Im not sure on this, just bringing it to your notice.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the section 'Non-scriptural Sanskrit works', a redlinked word 'Mahaviracharita'.
A start class article can be created. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the section 'Modern renditions: curse, redemption and thereafter', 2 more redlinks - 'P. V. Ramavarier' and 'M. Parvati Amma'
Can create stubs or remove the links. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Would be good to do either before the FAR. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

On the whole, its a good FA candidate. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from TheMandarin[edit]

"Bala Kanda book of the Ramayana – an 5th to 4th century BCE epic which narrates Rama's life – is the first to explicitly mention her extra-marital affair."

Probably the part "extra-marital affair" can be reworded as "sexual encounter with Indira" or simply "encounter with Indira". "extra-marital" indicates concious decision on Ahalya's part, and few versions say that Ahalya was tricked.
Yes. That's what I want to convey - concious decision on Ahalya's part. In Bala Kanda, it is a concious decision. The most later versions replace the theme with trickery. Also, the purpose is remove repetition of "encounter".--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"In contrast, Ahalya's adventure is purely erotic, not resulting to procreation and thus Ahalya faces the ire of the scriptures.[28][29] "

Probably needs POV attribution; This part reads a bit like WP:EDITORIALIZING. Also "adventure" might not give a accurate meaning, since in several versions, it is a "misadventure". (probably "encounter" captures the essence?). Rewording as "Ahalya's encounter is regarded as erotic, not resulting..." reads a bit neutral.
"regarded" is needed. Adventure is used in sense of a "risky or unexpected undertaking". So I thought it is appropriate. The purpose is remove repetition of "encounter". --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"...places her in the care of the sage Gautama until she reaches puberty."

Does "womanhood" instead of "puberty" reads better.
puberty is "The stage of adolescence in which an individual becomes physiologically capable of sexual reproduction." Womanhood after adolescence. May change meaning. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good for FA candidate, good, extensive work.

--TheMandarin (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


The article is very neatly compiled with necesary cavets. Some sections like children are well researched. A few points

  • Valmiki Ramayana is the first source - all derived versions were actually based on the Valmiki's, akin to the period they were written. In some places, Ramabadracharya's or other' seems to overshadow the original(esp in Name and development).
The Brahmanas are the first source hinting, while Valmiki Ramayana crystallizes the story. It may be noted that the "popular" retelling digresses considerably from the original Ramayana, where Ahalya is not innocent, does not turn to stone and Rama does not touch her with his foot, but touches her feet giving obeisance.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The context of "unploughed" can be removed. By most sources, she had an intercourse and I feel it doesn't apply to have it. The comparison of fertile land after the touch of Rama, though looks very apt.
Different scholars as well as writers have interpreted the "unploughed" meaning. All of which are notable. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comparison with Greek mythology - It was a promised episode by Zeus and the tricksome part is rather minimal. Also definition of chastity in Indian context is totally different. So i am not sure the analogy is a right fit here. Example is in Kamba Ramayana, where Rama doesn't even touch her.
The analogy with Alcmene is the thoughts of scholars Renate and Wendy. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest adding this source - Rajaji's Chakravarthi Thirumagan, a Sahitya academy winner - translated here - [22]. It has lot of practical explanation.
Chakravathi Thirumangan is different from Ramayana (C. Rajagopalachari). After the abridged translation of the Valmiki Ramayana (which is already covered), Rajaji digresses to the topic of Devas and Rakshasas.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried getting the location, but couldn't get. But from originals, till the point of Bala Kanda, there is hardly any mention of Rama travelling south. The Godavari location is practically questionable.
As the article says, "Valmiki Ramayana"/Ramayana says it happened in the forest near Mithila. However, Puranas which are also regarded as scriptures give different locations. Note in the Godavari version, Rama is not the cause of redemption, the river is. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The overall story from original mentions Vishwamitra explaining the history to Rama to explain a cause-effect theory. Rama applies it in many future instances like when he was set to exile, tested by Sugriva etc. This is explicitly given in Kamba Ramayana.
It will be original research to include this. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • One more comparative review here p. 213 - [23]
The Zvelebil reference, found by you was added. The analysis of Kamba Ramayana backs the Ramanujan analysis already in the article.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 23:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt

Comments from Binksternet[edit]

  • You cannot put an en dash in a range and say something falls between the range: "dated between 5th–13th century". It falls between two dates, so you say both dates separately: "dated between the 5th and the 13th century". Or you get rid of the word between: "written during 400–1300". There are a bunch of these in the article, and all should be corrected.
Fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence needs the en dashes spaced, not unspaced: "Ahalya requests Indra–her "lover" and "best of gods"–to flee and protect both of them..." Same here: "the Ramopakhyana– the condensed narrative of the Ramayana in the Mahabharata–does not mention..." Same here: "servants–who were deceived by Indra's disguise–as witnesses..."
Fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The formatting following this announcement is strange: "A well-known verse cited about Ahalya runs..." It should not be followed with an en dash and then a parenthetical statement prior to the foreign language verse. The statement in the parentheses should be explained after giving the example. The foreign verse does not have to appear in the article since the encyclopedia is English. However, if it is to stay for some reason, it should share formatting style with the English translation. Perhaps both should be in two lines of text. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't want to add the note to the start of the para "Orthodox Hindus..." as it breaks the flow. So I had added it as parenthetical statement. Changed the formatting. The verse is needed as I say "this daily morning prayer" in the next sentence. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments[edit]

The article is quite well-written and generally clear to me, though I am a complete outsider. I note a few style issues below, but I see that you've already addressed some of them.


  • "Raja Ravi Varma (1848–1906)'s Ahalya" - Rather than making the date range a possessive, maybe: Ahalya by Raja Ravi Varma (1848–1906)
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


  • Should any mention of the children appear in the lead since a section is devoted to "Children"? Maybe just a sentence or a half-sentence.
Children do not form an important facet of her life, nor do the scriptures on names or number of her children or foster-children. IMO, "She had children" would be absurd in the lead, while naming all the children would be too much detail. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "but still takes the conscious decision to accept his advances" - Tighten to "but still accepts his advances"?
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "describe Rama as the eventual cause of her liberation" " - Would "agent" be better than "cause"?
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "and is purified by offering Rama hospitality" - Maybe "and how she is purified by offering Rama hospitality"?
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Her story has been retold numerous times in the scriptures and lives on in modern age poetry and short stories as well as is presented in dance and drama" - Tighten to "Her story has been retold numerous times in the scriptures and lives on in modern age poetry and short stories as well as in dance and drama"?
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Name and development

Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "While the Bala Kanda mentions Ahalya's conscious decision to have sex... " - Tighten by deleting "conscious"?

Creation and marriage

  • "(dated between 6th–10th century) and Harivamsa (dated between 1st–3rd century)" - Perhaps "(dated between the 6th and 10th centuries) and Harivamsa (dated between the 1st and 3rd centuries)"? Ditto for similar constructions later in this section.
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana – considered a later addition to the epic relates one version of the story... " - Punctuation? I think you need another spaced en dash after "epic".
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "It further tells the question of Ahalya's marriage was determined through an open contest." - Missing word, "that", after "tells"?
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "One day, as the sage carried out his puja, the cow gave birth to a calf... " - Present tense instead of past; i.e., "carries" and "gives" to match the other verbs in this paragraph?
While the story is in the present tense, Narada mentions an event happened in the past.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Gautama went around the wish-bearing cow Surabhi at his hermitage" - I'm not sure if "went around" is meant literally or not. If it means that he walked around the cow in a circle as part of his ritual, perhaps you could say that directly.
Linked. Replaced with circumumbulated - the word generally used by scholars as a translation of pradakshina. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "Dr. Söhnen-Thieme of the School of Oriental and African Studies feels that the Kaushika... " - First name rather than academic title, Dr., and then a brief description? Something like "Renate Söhnen-Thieme, professor of (whatever) at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London" might do.
She is a Research Associate, teaches some courses in the school and member of some committees pof the school.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "to carry his shame in the form of a thousand vulvae on his body" - Perhaps a link to vulva?
Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments[edit]

I agree that this looks pretty good. As requested, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • I would use "her unflinching acceptance" in Due to the unflinching acceptance of the curse and loyalty to her husband, Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins") ...
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I would make this the second to last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead Her story has been retold numerous times in the scriptures and lives on in modern age poetry and short stories as well as in dance and drama. (and make the current second to last sentence the last - I prefer going from the general to the specific.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably should have a reference Ahalya is purified by offering Rama hospitality.
There in a ref in the detailed "Ramayana" section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Also needs a ref - if nothing else a note identifiying some of these modern versions However, in modern Ramayana adaptations where Rama is the hero, the redemption of Ahalya is still just a supernatural incident in his life.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Needs a ref - Dr. Pratibha Ray's Oriya novel Mahamoha (1998) deals with Ahalya's tale. also does the use of Dr. follow the MOS?
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not need both "sometimes" and "in some versions" in this Sometimes, a fourth child called Vellala is added in some versions.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I would mention the children in the lead somehow per WP:LEAD - perhaps the last few sentences of the third paragraph could be something like Her story has been retold numerous times in the scriptures and lives on in modern age poetry and short stories as well as in dance and drama. Other traditions deal with her children. While ancient stories are Rama-centred, modern writers tell the story from Ahalya's perspective.
Great suggestion. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • et al. is usually italicized as it is a Latin abbreviation
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

1995 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because with the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season being one of the most active Atlantic hurricane seasons on record, and it marking a huge change in the number of tropical cyclones we have seen since, I want to eventually get it up to Good/Featured Article status. Before I change a lot on the article, I want to know what needs to be fixed. Comments?

Thanks, -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Just me perhaps, but using the word "hurricane" four times in the intro sentence is somewhat bland.
  • " tying with 2010, 2011, and 1887." any reason these aren't in chronological order?
  • "produced strong waves that drowned eight" wind doesn't typically drown people.
  • Note one is next to "major hurricane" but describes an average season. Note two is next to "major hurricane" and defines (on its second instance) what a major hurricane is...
    • For Note 1, it was talking about the whole sentence in general instead of just the major hurricane part. It'd be a little weird to have two notes side by side, right? So, I just put the major hurricane note next to the next instance "major hurricane" is used. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The final note about Allison could be merged into the sentence where you already talk about Allison in the first para (besides, you've over linked Allison in any case).
  • "began on June 1, and activity in 1995 began on the next day with the formation of Hurricane Allison on June 2." don't think you need "the next day" and "on June 2" here.
  • "19 of the depressions " I would merge this with the previous sentence like ", 19 of which...."
  • "1950-2005 average of two per season. " en-dash here, and ref?
  • "but that storm never " don't think you need "that storm".
  • "which almost thirty days" grammar fail.
  • Not sure the storm chart meets WP:ACCESS since it uses only colour to convey the SS category of each storm.
  • No category for 118 km/h?
  • Allison - Cuba overlinked.
  • Allison - "rated as F1" - what does that mean?
  • Dean - "$720 thousand" odd, why not just $720,000 like all the others?
  • Erin - "Erin managed to briefly intensify " just "Erin briefly intensified" would read better to me.
  • Erin - "over 1 million people" - over one million.
  • Erin - "The pecan crop in Baldwin County lost 50 to 75 percent of its total portion" - "Between 50 to 75 percent of the pecan crop in Baldwin County was lost".
  • Felix - "A tropical wave existed " odd way of saying it.
  • Felix (and others) - sometimes you convert damages to 2011 US$ and sometimes not. Any reason for the discrepancies?
  • Gabrielle - "Though according to t" I wouldn't start a sentence with "Though" if I could avoid it, you could simply merge this and the previous sentence and put a comma before "though".
  • Iris - "Iris would approach land" - just "Iris approached land" is neater.
  • Jerry - a common issue I suspect, "33 miles (53 km)" and "40 mph (55 km/h)" - 7 miles equates to 2 km? I don't think so...!
  • Jerry - "there eight fatalities" grammar fail.
  • Karen - "Karen within 65 miles." no conversion here?
  • Luis - RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 - ship names are usually italicised.
  • Opal - "the first to receive an 'O' name since Atlantic hurricane naming began in 1950." ref?
  • Opal - "Yucatan" previously you had a diacritic on this.
  • Retirement section is unreferenced.
  • Season effects table could be sortable.
  • Luis entry - Newfoundland is a dab link.
  • Why are country/state names bold?
  • Season Aggregates -> Season aggregates.
  • Don't mix date formats in the references.
  • Refs 27, 28, 53, 54 are incompletely formatted.
  • Ref 56 for instance, year range should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Ref 31, NO NEED TO SHOUT.
  • Ref 3 v Ref 5 - be consistent with author names, first last, or last, first.
  • Further reading, some really odd formatting going on there...
  • Tool showing ref 22 is dead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fuck Them All[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article was written by a non-native speaker of English (me) and it was nominated for GA but failed. Reviewer advised me to "go through a peer review and then re-nominate again".

Thanks, Europe22 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Maybe picky, but "It was the lead single from her sixth studio album, Avant que l'ombre..., and was released on 14 March 2005." I'd see it the other way around, "Released on 14 March 2005, it was the ...."
  • You link acoustic guitar but not musical bridge. Seems a little odd to me!
  • "but criticized for " but criticized it...
  • " and the performance is available on" sounds a bit sales pitch, perhaps "the performance was released on the ... "
  • "two &ndash and evantually " no need for the &ndash and typo on eventually.
  • Don't think you need to wikilink France in the infobox.
  • And would link SNEP not France for the certification.
  • "On January 2005, the exact title, " > "In January 2005, the title, "
  • "strong probability" -> "strong possibility".
  • "Thus, as noted " not sure you need Thus.
  • " like a too direct" -> "like too direct a "
  • "was eventually played for" no need for eventually.
  • "'mother f... vocal mix" really? Just checking, we're not censored after all.
  • CD Maxi is overlinked.
  • "war between the sexes" normally refer to this as "war of the sexes".
  • "place in History" is History capitalised?
  • In the Music and lyrics section, feminism is linked on the second instance.
  • Also don't think you need to link guitar.
  • "a so direct message" -> "so direct a message"
  • "theoretically represent the human soul in its worst states" is this a direct quote? Needs a ref.
  • scarescrows = typo
  • "and breaks the wooden crosses" break.
  • "that turns to crow" crows.
  • "In France, at that time released only as a CD single," -> at what time? And perhaps "In France, it was released as a CD single only..."
  • "CD maxi - Digipack" etc, use en-dash to separate these, not a hyphen.
  • Page ranges in the refs need en-dash, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • Same goes for the hyphen in ref 1, should be an en-dash.
  • Refs 70 to 73, spare ].

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll try to fix all the things listed above. --Europe22 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good luck with any GA or FA nominations. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Juhu Aerodrome[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Iv been working on it from time to time and Id appreciate some feedback on how it looks.

Thanks, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

I am considering that you would like to nominate for GA and commenting considering WP:GA?

Frankly, I dint know where it exactly stood, hence the PR. Its historically important since the first commercial flight in India landed here in 1932. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed the 1 line section "Airlines and destinations"
I see you have already done that. Thanks! Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Any statistics like dates like "around 1928", 28 May 1968 incident need references. Served as city's airport and "Two bitumen runways were in operation and a third was planned for construction in 1939 but this never occurred." also need references
Added some more info and John Stroud ref. Removed the 1968 incident - that was actually a crash it seems, not at Juhu. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • When the second runway became defunct needs to be noted
Cant seem to find that, but Iv found newspaper refs to say there are encroachments around the secondary runway. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते
  • "the Maharashtra Home Guard who will soon hand over charge" may be a dated statement. The hand over may have happened. Please check. If you are unsure of the current status, note that it was announced in June 2011.

I think noting it was announced June 2011 would be the way to go as I cant find any sources saying its been done. Infact, as of September it has still not been taken over. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The lead needs to be expanded to elaborate on current status
  • I am unsure about the reliability of the last 2 references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Iv supplimented the Slumdog one with a Livemint ref (part of Hindustan Time/Wall Street Journal JV). Also added another shooting info Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz is spot on. Are you sure that A Wednesday movie's climax was shot there. It is mentioned in the movie that is a fact but it is possible that it was shot somewhere else so check it out.--Vyom25 (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Like a Prayer (song)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the usual rub. Brilliant article, went through GA, can become Featured article, just needs the usual third-eye for it. Ruhrfisch is most welcome here. He's brilliant.

Thanks, — Legolas (talk2me) 10:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Article is well-written and very comprehensive. I haven't read all of it in depth, but a few issues jump out at me.

  • The second paragraph in the intro is a bit choppy, with some awkward phrases. The prose can be tightened to give it a better flow.
  • "Like a Prayer" is used a bit repetitively in the into (for example, 3 times in the first 4 sentences; 8 times throughout the intro) Maybe it's just me, but try throwing in a couple pronouns.
  • "But she understood that as she was growing up, so was her core audience." Jarring sentence, especially because it does not follow logically from the preceding point being made.
  • "She had certain personal matters on her mind which she thought could be the musical direction of the album" Review "that" vs "which" in sentences like these. The sentence requires the former.
  • A few awkward phrases in the "Development" and "Recording" section that need fine-tuning:
  • "Together they wrote and produced the title track, while naming it "Like a Prayer" (the second clause needs adjusting);
  • "Once Madonna got the idea of how to interpose the music that Leonard developed with her thoughts, it took her just three hours to write it" (needs rephrasing);
  • "Madonna’s further inspiration for the song came from the Catholic belief of transubstantiation" (you can drop Madonna's name from the sentence);
  • In author J. Randy Taraborrelli's book, Madonna: An Intimate Biography, Leonard explained that he was not comfortable with the lyrics and the sexual innuendos present in it. He gave the example of the first verse for "Like a Prayer" which went like "When you call my name, It's like a little prayer, I'm down on my knees, I wanna take you there."[9]. Needs fine tuning throughout. How about "In author J. Randy Taraborrelli's book, Madonna: An Intimate Biography, Leonard voiced his discomfort with the sexually ambiguous nature of the lyrics. In particular, he criticized the song's first verse "When you call my name, It's like a little prayer, I'm down on my knees, I wanna take you there" as a possible reference to someone performing fellatio." Or something similar.
  • "Madonna and Leonard met with musician Andraé Crouch and signed his choir as one of the background vocalists." Consider rephrasing because it refers to a choir as "a background vocalist".
  • "Recording was briefly held up when Madonna and Leonard fought over the production of the bridge of the song, resulting in the singer's leaving the studio". No need for apostrophe.
  • "Pratt was eventually not fired, but as recording started for "Like a Prayer", he realized that Madonna would not forgive him so easily; she called him at late nights for his opinion, and urgently asking him to come to the recording studio, only to dismiss him." Awkward sentence construction. "urgently asking him" for example should be "urgently asked". Instead of "Pratt was eventually not fired, but as recording started for "Like a Prayer", he realized that Madonna would not forgive him so easily", how about "Although Pratt was not fired..."

There are no MOS issues that seem present. However, a thorough copy-edit is needed for clarity and flow. I'll pop in periodically to help straighten the prose, but this article has to be in queue as I've promised about 3 other editors that I would help them, and I haven't gotten to any of them yet. The the article is well-researched and comprehensive and interesting to read. You should be proud. Orane (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP Comments

I will review the Music video section, my favorite part of the article. All comments are from a FAC reviewer's perspective. I have copy edited parts (see my diffs) and any questions I have about clarity are listed here:

  • "Madonna wanted the video to be more provocative than anything she had done before." Although I cannot verify this because I do not have the book, are you sure anything is accurate?
  • I am still skeptical about the expression "keep with".
  • "especially a sexual one" - awkward clause.
  • "in the ecstasy part of the plot" - "part" is not the right word. Revise also: "...that the religious ecstasy part should be included".
  • WP:LASTNAME asks to use the last name of people on subsequent references. Why do you continue to refer to Robinson by his first name instead and not "Robinson's face" etc?
  • A question about the screenshot; different people with various religious perspectives may look at this differently, but how much does a women standing in front of burning crosses add to the article? There are more symbolic scenes in the music video that can be captured and illustrated instead. Again, my personal view of WP:NFCC#8.
    • I cna understand from where you are coming from. But which other scenes would you think can be better illustrative of the provocative nature of the video? There are many I know, that's why i couldn't make up my mind and thought this was the best one. Any suggestion is fine. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The pic can stay if it has been the subject of much critical analysis. But I'm thinking along the lines of the kiss? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes I thought of that too, but the fact is there is no proper angle for taking a shot of that scene. Either one of their faces gets covered. I did try the shots much before developing the article. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Have you tried anywhere around 2 minutes into the clip? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Yes, I have. But still I'm not exactly able to capture both of them. It either comes out as blurred, or Madge's face as dark making it as if two black people are kissing. What's the point then. WP, let's get through the other points then we can decide on the shot. For this video, there are many stills which can pass NFCC#8 actually. (Listening to "Masterpiece" for the 8th time)Legolas (talk2me) 14:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
              • " if two black people are kissing." Lol, okay fine. You have fallen in love with that track despite it being a low-quality leak? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you get more specific than "to do the right thing"?
  • "Madonna to a $5 million deal to use her and 'Like a Prayer' in a television commercial for them." Are you talking about the song or the music video of "LAP"?
  • "Taraborrelli pointed out about the music actual music video that" - lolwut?
  • You seem to flip between "PepsiCo", "Pepsi-Cola", "The Pepsi Company" and simply "Pepsi". Consistency please.
  • "They called for the national boycott of Pepsi and PepsiCo's subsidiaries" - repetitive. Try "They called for the national boycott of Pepsi and its subsidiaries"?
  • "Allen Metz, one of the authors of The Madonna Companion: Two Decades of Commentary, noted that when Madonna enters the church at the beginning of the video, the line "I hear you call my name, And it feels like.... Home" is played." Is that a fact or an observation; it reads like a fact.
  • "Freya Jarman-Ivens, coauthor with Fouz-Hernández," - Author of what publication?
  • "Metz noted that when Madonna dances with the choir in the altar of the church, a young Black boy joins her." - again, fact or observation?
  • Be consistent if you will capitalize "Black" or not.
  • Possibly the most difficult thing to do would be to make sure that even readers who know nothing about Christianity, denominations, the Pope, etc are satisfied by and understand the article. Words like "divinity" and "stigmata" will leave them flipping through dictionaries and other pages on Wikipedia.

Hope this helps. This is the kind of FA topic Wikipedia needs; not that mainstream bull that plays on the radio these days. Very interesting and comprehensive article indeed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello to both Orane and WP. I have started work on the issues pointed by you. I will tell you how I'm doing it. I normally take printout of the article, leaving out the references. And then I read it like a book. That way more prose errors and glitches appear and I strike or rewrite them in a notepad. Then I superimpose those writings in the original article. I do this after a few days of not touching the article at all, so that familiar parts become disillusioned and I can grasp issues better. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tony? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
D'uh. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NoteUser:Moisejp has kindly volunteered to do some copy-editing on the article hence I'm refraining from editing it at present. {Gives me more time to look back.. yeahhhhh)Legolas (talk2me) 06:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Moisejp's comments: All right, sorry for the delay. Here are some comments from me.

  • Three of the five first sentences begin with "Like a Prayer", and one other sentence also contains the phrase. How about something like: "Written and produced by Madonna and Patrick Leonard, the track denoted a more artistic and personal approach to songwriting for Madonna, who believed that she needed to cater more to her adult audience. The song is about a passionate young girl in love with God, who becomes the only male figure in her life. 'Like a Prayer' is pop rock and incorporates gospel music."
  • "She introduced liturgical words in the lyrics, but changed the context in which they were added." I agree with WP: Penguin above that this is one example of a very difficult religious word. (Heck, even I don't know what it means—not that I'm especially religious.) This is just an idea, but one solution might be just slightly de-emphasize some of the religious specifics. I know the religious element is very important in the article, but if you could find just the right balance of covering the religious element, but without going too deeply into certain aspects that require specialized vocabulary, it might work. Again, just an idea.
  • " 'Like a Prayer' is more memorable for its accompanying music video, which Mary Lambert directed." Sounds subjective.
  • "They boycotted products by soft drink manufacturer Pepsi, which used the song for a commercial. Madonna's contract with Pepsi was subsequently canceled, although she was allowed to retain her initial fee." Maybe OK and clear enough, but it'd be all the more ideal to say explicitly that she had a contract with Pepsi before saying it way canceled. (I know, the fact that the song was used in a commercial implies some kind of contract, but it's just not very explicit.)
  • "Alongside its respective album, 'Like a Prayer' has been marked as a turning point in Madonna's career." Not totally sure about this usage of "respective". Would "Alongside the album Like a Prayer, the song" be clearer? But if you feel very comfortable with how it is now, that's fine. Moisejp (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "The year 1988 had been a quiet one for Madonna, on the recording front." Kind of awkward phrasing? I'm not sure how you want to rephrase it, but it shouldn't be too hard to improve on. If you decide to keep it as it is, I think you should definitely get rid of the comma.
  • "Feeling the need to try out something different, Madonna wanted the sound of her new album to indicate what could be popular in the music world." Is "indicate" the right verb here? Do you mean something like "push the boundaries of" (or something along those lines but less strong)?
  • "Thoughtfully, she sifted through her personal journals and diaries, and began considering her options." Do you need "Thoughtfully" here, and is it the best word? For me, "thoughtfully" usually means "showing consideration for others" but I can't say for certain that its usage here is definitely wrong—it's just not how I would probably spontaneously use it.
  • "She had certain personal matters on her mind which she thought could be the musical direction of the album." I'm not sure if you care, but you use the exact same sentence in "Oh Father" and "Dear Jessie"—but if that doesn't bother you, then fine. Moisejp (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "Both of them wanted to bring their unique style to the project, and the first step they took was developing completely different music for the title track." I guess you mean "completely different" in relation to each other, but maybe this could be clarified. Or do you mean "completely different" in relation to what she has done before?
  • "Together they wrote and produced the title track, while naming it 'Like a Prayer'; it became the first developed song for the Like a Prayer album." Consider removing "while" or possibly even the whole phrase "while naming it 'Like a Prayer' "? I'm not sure the best, clearest solution, but if you consider "title track" as indirectly naming the song, you have "Like a Prayer" mentioned three times in the sentence.
  • "She described 'Like a Prayer' as the song of a passionate young girl 'so in love with God that it is almost as though He were the male figure in her life.' " If it were me, I would say "She has described" but it may be a question of style. (But grammatically speaking, I do think you pretty much need the "has". There's no time expression such as "in 1989" indicating when in the past this utterance occurred.)
  • The second paragraph is another case where the difficult, specialized religious words get in the way of easy understanding. Again, one solution might be to keep the overall religious element in the article, but to whatever extent possible try to find a balance of de-emphasizing the overly difficult aspects, if that's possible. Moisejp (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "Madonna and Leonard met with musician Andraé Crouch and signed his choir as one of the background vocalists." I agree with Orane above that "as one of the background vocalists" is problematic.
  • "Madonna and Leonard met with musician Andraé Crouch and signed his choir as one of the background vocalists. Since Crouch was the leader of the Los Angeles Church of God choir" The second sentence reads awkwardly since you have just mentioned the choir in general terms, and now you mention "the Los Angeles Church of God choir" as though it was the first mention of the choir. Also, I wasn't sure everything that was implied in the word "Since". I understand that he's the leader of the choir, so he wants to take responsibility for what they sing. Hmm, I guess it's because I wasn't 100% sure you were talking about the same choir, because of the issue I mention above. So, if there's a possibility that it wasn't the same choir, I was a little confused whether the emphasis was less him taking responsibility for the content of what they sing, and more him having to uphold his reputation in the religious community—just a subtle difference, but if just made me stop and think.
  • "he researched the lyrics of the song". Maybe OK, but is "researched" the best word? Kind of sounds like he went to the library and did a bunch of searching of I don't know what about the lyrics. Suggestions: "scrutinized" or "studied". Just a thought.
  • "Recording was briefly held up when Madonna and Leonard fought over the production of the bridge of the song, resulting in the singer's leaving the studio." To clarify: this was the bridge of the song as recorded by the choir? Moisejp (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The next day, Leonard hired guitarist Bruce Gaitsch and bass drum player Guy Pratt as musicians for the song. Pratt had in turn hired some additional drummers who were supposed to reach Jonny Yuma in the morning." The time line is very unclear here. I think you mean that Leonard you mean that Leonard hired Gaitsch and Pratt at some point in the past but they were meant to come in the next day? "Pratt had in turn hired" also supports this interpretation. If you don't mean that, then "had in turn hired" is problematic.
  • "However, the person cancelled at the last minute" Which person? Ah, I guess from the next line we find out it's Pratt? This is confusing—at first I thought it was one of the additional drummers.
  • "he realized that Madonna would not forgive him easily; she called him at late nights for his opinion, and urgently asking him to come to the recording studio, only to dismiss him." I think it would be better to spell out more explicitly that Madonna was doing these things because she was angry with him. I guess from the context it's relatively clear, but I think it could just be a little clearer.
  • "Madonna had her own opinion of how the different musical instruments should be played to achieve the sound that she envisioned." Would this be clearer at the start of the next paragraph? When I first read it and didn't see anything after it, I thought it was an incomplete idea.
  • "She wanted drummer Jonathan Moffet to 'do less of the high-hat in the middle eight, and more of a fill towards the end. Guy, I want duck eggs [semibreves] on the end, and Chester, bring in your guitar on the second verse.' " The change from she to I is a little awkward.
  • Maybe the sentence above would be a good place where instead of using a direct quotation you could paraphrase it. It's true you do have wiki-links, but there's a lot of specialized musical jargon in there. If you paraphrased it you could use different, easier expressions. (Hmm, now that I look at it again, I see that hi-hat is the name of the kind of symbols, so maybe there's no other way to say it?) Moisejp (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "Author Lucy O'Brien explained how the song's lyrics describe Madonna receiving a vocation from God:" I may be splitting hairs here, but if it was me I would try to find a verb that more objectively conveys her subjective interpretation. Words like "explain" and "note" could be interpreted as saying "it's a definite fact that the lyrics describe Madonna receiving a vocation from God, and O'Brien explained how". But if you disagree with me, I don't have a really strong opinion about this. Hmm, "explain" could kind of be in the grey zone. There may be words that would be worse.
  • "The album version featured bass guitar played by Randy Jackson, while the 7" version had a different introduction by Pratt, doubled by an analogue Minimoog bass synthesizer." Wouldn't the present tense be better here? If you have a copy of the album or the 7" single, they still feature these things. Moisejp (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


  • "However, once Ciccone presented her with a packaged version of the 12-inch single, where the painting was included along with the scent of patchouli, she was impressed." "...and decided to use it."? Moisejp (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception:

  • "O'Brien felt that the most remarkable aspect of 'Like a Prayer' was Madonna's usage of liturgical words." Maybe here's another place where, if possible, you could use an explanation of "liturgical" rather than using the word itself.
  • "In a review for The Immaculate Collection compilation album, David Browne of Entertainment Weekly wrote that the “frothier” texture of the song added poignancy to its spiritual lyrics." So the "frothier" aspect is in reference to the Shep Pettibone remix version? Do readers need to be reminded of this here? Just a thought.
  • Hmm, I think I also mentioned this in my GA review for "Oh Father", but for me a Critical reception section, if possible, should try to show some structure. For example, when I copy-edited "Dear Jessie", I put all the Beatles references together. I'm not saying it's necessarily possible to always do it perfectly, but if you can try to look for themes or repeated phrases or ideas within the different quotations and references, and then using transition word like "similarly" and "likewise" and "also" and "in the same way" group the reviews into some kind of order, it just seems more satisfying for the reader. Right now it just seems like a bunch of random reviews in no particular order. Or, just for example, a Critical reception section could be organized by reviews that focus on the music, and then ones that focus on the lyrics. Again, that's just an example, but I'm saying there are different ways to organize. Of course, in the case of "Like a Prayer", all the reviews are positive, so you can't organize by separating the positive and the negative reviews, but that would be another example. Moisejp (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance:

  • I've been meaning to ask you why you always use number & n b s p ; in your articles (I'm sure you have a good reason). Well, I noticed one where it wasn't used: "while reaching number three on the Hot Adult Contemporary chart". Moisejp (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I just had a guess—does it ensure the whole thing stays on the same line? Moisejp (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Music video#Development:

  • "[Lambert] listened to the song with Madonna a number of times and came to the conclusion that the religious ecstasy part should be included." This seems like an incomplete idea to me, because presumably Lambert couldn't make an decisions without getting Madonna's consent, right? After this sentence I was expecting something like "...and she convinced Madonna that it was a good idea." (It previously said that Madonna's ideas were a little different.) So after I read this sentence I thought, "So what if Lambert thought this? It's Madonna that's got to come to this conclusion, more so than Lambert." Moisejp (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


  • Throughout this section you talk about Madonna's character as being "a girl". Is there a reason why she's not described as a woman?
  • "She escapes to a church and sees a caged saint who resembles the black man on the street." Is the caged saint a statue? If so, this should be clarified.
  • Does the interracial love affair aspect of the story end up in the video? If so, I couldn't tell where from the synopsis. Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pepsi commercial:

  • "the global media buy and unprecedented debut of this long awaited single will put Pepsi first and foremost in consumer's minds". This should be "consumers' minds". Is this error in the source material? If so, maybe you should use [sic].
  • "A week later, the ad was premiered during The Cosby Show." Is it worth mentioning that at the time The Cosby Show was the most popular show in the USA in terms of weekly viewership? You'd have to confirm that in 1989 it still was, but I think the point is that Pepsi didn't premier it at any old show, they premiered it at the most expensive time of the week, which emphasizes the investment they were putting in it. Moisejp (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Reception and protests:

  • "Taraborrelli pointed out about the music actual music video that 'Madonna danced with such abundance in [it], as if she knew that she was about to cause a commotion, and couldn't wait to see how it would unfold.' " This is another spot where I wouldn't use "pointed out". It sounds too much like we're stating what follows it to be a fact, but really it's just his opinion. Something like "argued"/"believed"? Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Themes and analysis:

  • "In that respect, Madonna alluded herself to be one from Harlem, but also refers to her own name as the divine returning to the Church." I think the first part of the sentence is pretty straightforward, but the second part of the sentence might need to be spelled out more.
  • "Nicholas B. Dirks, author of Culture/power/history, argued that Madonna falling into a dream is the most important point of the narrative as it signified that 'Madonna is really not putting herself in place of the redeemer, but imagining herself as one.' " I don't really understand this distinction. What would "putting herself in place of the redeemer" mean? And what kind of redeemer does she imagine herself as? I'm not sure there's enough context given here.
  • I think WP:Penguin mentioned this above, but in the Synopsis section you use a small b for black, but in Themes and analysis you use a big B.
  • "During the second chorus, as the crime scene is shown in detail, an identification is established between Madonna and the victim." I wasn't sure whose interpretation this goes with. Robert McQueen Grant's? If so, I don't follow how this sentence falls into the author's larger interpretation. More explanation may be required here (or the sentence could be dropped?).
  • "Benson described the erotic scene between the saint and Madonna"—so there was an erotic scene in there? Did I miss it in the Synopsis section? All I caught from the section was that there was a kiss on the forehead.
  • Overall, I felt this section jumps around from theory to theory a little too fast, without, in some cases, giving the reader a chance to really understand the writer's interpretation, because not enough context is given. I'm not saying that the best solution is necessarily to beef up all the descriptions with lots more details, because the section would get too long. A couple of ideas: 1. Possibly focus on the most compelling interpretations, and cut out the more minor ones (if there are any), giving you a little more space to develop the ones you keep more. OR 2. Really think about the transitions from one reviewer's interpretation to the next. If you could make it clearer in what ways each reviewer's ideas were similar or different, it might be easier to grasp the essential of each one. But I realize these suggestions would probably take a lot of work and thought to implement. You could keep the section as it is—it does have lots of interesting points and is in some ways pretty good. I'm just expressing my opinion about how it could be even better. Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cover versions:

  • "In the United States, the song debuted at number 27 on the Billboard Hot 100, while entering the Hot Digital Songs chart at number ten, with sales of 87,000 copies." It "debuted" at number 27 and "entered" at number ten, but more importantly, what positions did it eventually reach?
  • "DJs Meck and Dino did a mash up of his 2007 single 'Feels Like Home' with 'Like a Prayer' " Just to confirm, does "his" refer to Dino's (or Meck's)? Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


  • I don't know if you want to do this or not, but it's just a thought (totally up to you). As you probably know, the 2004 Rolling Stone list of the 500 Greatest Songs was updated in 2010, and most songs slipped down a few positions. In my recent collaborations for Blonde on Blonde and "Visions of Johanna#Legacy", for comprehensiveness, we mentioned both rankings. Again, just a thought. In the 2010 list, "Like a Prayer" was No. 306. Moisejp (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The author asserted that the video metaphorically 'attacked' the Church's demand for female compliance, indicted the Church's precept of a dichotomy between body and spirit, and at the same time assailed the Church's denial of female spirituality." This is another bit that uses pretty specialized religious vocabulary.
  • "As author Judith Marcus argued in her book Surviving the Twentieth Century, Madonna used the church to make her point on victimization. For Marcus, the main impact of the video lies in the fact that Madonna emerged from the role of a victim by "empowering" herself. The author asserted that the video metaphorically "attacked" the Church's demand for female compliance, indicted the Church's precept of a dichotomy between body and spirit, and at the same time assailed the Church's denial of female spirituality.[124] Campbell noted that the video does not follow any definite narrative, although there is a plethora of images in it." Are these few sentences relevant enough to Legacy? They seem like they would maybe fit better in the discussion of the video (in Themes and Analysis).
  • How about this, is it relevant enough to Legacy? "The main topic discussed was the fact that there can be different metaphorical meanings of the song, as the word 'like' can be taken in separate contexts. Shirley explained that although when one thinks of 'Like a Prayer', they would first think of its visual aspects, but for him the lyrics are far more important as they reinforce the postmodern nature of the video.[125] The ambiguity of the word 'like' blurs distinctions between a human lover and God, evident strongly in the line "Like a child, you whisper softly to me".[125] This was further explained by Katz, who added: 'The music of 'Like a Prayer' is probably a mitigating one, blunting and softening the harder edges, the more challenging content of the lyrics and the video.' "
  • "This was further explained by Katz, who added: 'The music of 'Like a Prayer' is probably a mitigating one, blunting and softening the harder edges, the more challenging content of the lyrics and the video.' " This idea seems dense to me, and once you finally understand it, its relevance to the previous sentence doesn't seem that worthwhile.
  • For me, in the second two thirds of this paragraph, the most relevant point to her Legacy is simply that she had reached a level where university professors were holding seminars to discuss her lyrics. That's what I got out of that chunk of text. The specific conclusions that the professors reached, to me anyways, don't seem to add anything to her Legacy. Moisejp (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess that's everything for now. I haven't looked at any of your sources, just at your prose. If I have time to look at your sources later maybe I will, but I'd like to wait and see—it depends how long before you take this to FAC and how busy I am with other stuff. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Neuroepithelial cell[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the other contributors Guru and Spencer and I would really like to get it up to snuff with some of the other assorted neuroscience pages, at least so it's no longer a stub, and possibly GA status.

Thanks, Leomagrini (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - absolutely state right now that I'm no expert, but this review will be technical and hopefully useful!

  • Lead is too brief, it should summarise the article - see WP:LEAD.
  • If you use abbreviations (like CNS), make sure you put them in parentheses after the first use.
  • And avoid using them in section headings.
  • Nothing major, I guess this is a USEng article, fetus just looks wrong to me!
  • Induction is a disambiguation link.
  • Suggest you link "invaginates".
  • "and the basal side is oriented outward," replace and with while.
  • "neural tube" is overlinked.
  • "hree distinct regions of growth.[3][1] " order the refs numerically.
  • Should "self renew" be hyphenated?
  • "antiproliferative gene" and "proliferative" - any decent links for these?
  • Why not "During the G1 phase" rather than just "During G1..."?
  • "them multipotent - a definite distinction " should be an en-dash, not a hyphen. Check other instances.
  • Link mitosis.
  • "On a whole, neurogenesis" what does "On a whole" add to this?
  • "o be seen. [6]" remove space before ref.
  • "Dysembryoplastic Neuroepithelial Tumors are a rare, benign tumour" no need for the capitalisation and you have "Tumors are a rare, benign tumour..." mixing up the numbers plural/singular...
  • "children and teenagers under the age of twenty" pretty obvious that teenagers and children are under 20.
  • " little to no long term" normally would expect some hyphenation.
  • "the ages of 20-50 " en-dash required.
  • Image caption is in bold, why?
  • " problems [10]." -> "problems.[10]"
  • Glucocorticoids - is this a proper noun?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Caroline Earle White[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It was an assignment for my Women in US History course. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to better wikify my article. Thanks, Mlm957 (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am reading through, and will post some specific review comments shortly. In the meantime, one issue you may wish to address concerns images. The fact that the images were created before 1923 does not mean you can use the PD-US licence; this is only valid for images that were published before 1923. Thus you need to find out and provide details of where and when these images were first published. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Further comments:

  • Too short: needs to be expanded to meet MOS requirements for a concise overview of the article. You also need to sort out this tangled sentence: "She founded the Women’s Branch of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (WPSPCA), as well as the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), and co-founded the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA)".
Early life
  • Link African Americans
  • You should date Earle's new constitution for Pennsylvania
  • The abolitionist party for which Earle stood as candidate for vice president in 1840 was called "Liberty", not the "Anti-Slavery" party.
  • "Caroline was educated on Nantucket Island in Massachusetts. She studied astronomy, and was well versed in Latin and spoke German, French, Italian, and Spanish." Are we talking about her schooldays here? A adte context would be helpful
  • Uncited: "Her family’s wealth gave her many educational opportunities not available to other girls of the time."
  • "Well-known" in this context requires a hyphen
  • "After a year of study..." I think you mean "prepartion" rather than study.
  • To maintain the neutral encyclopedic tone, emphatic adjectives or adverbs should generally be avoided, e.g. "...and ardently supported women’s suffrage", and "White firmly believed..."
  • "In fact White firmly believed that one social injustice could lead to another, as evidenced with her involvement with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union." The words "In fact" are unnecessary. Also, "as evidenced with her involvement" is not the right phrasing. I think the meaning you intend is "From her involvement with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, White believed that one social injustice could lead to another".
Animal advocacy
  • It's not clear to what organisation the initials SPCA are referring.
  • "Finally brought together by Henry Bergh, S. Morris Waln provided financial support while White and Muckle, with Richard White’s assistance, drafted the group’s charter and corresponding laws." Unnecessarily cumbersome; try "After the group was brought together by Bergh, Waln provided financial support while White and Muckle, with Richard White’s assistance, drafted the group’s charter and corresponding laws."
  • "S. Morris Waln was elected president, but White was excluded from an official position." No need for Wain's full name. On what grounds was White excluded from office?
Women's Humane Society
  • "The Morris Refuge Association for Homeless and Suffering animals..." Isn't "animals" part of the organisation's title, and therefore requires a capital A?
  • "felicitating" → "facilitating"
  • "WPSPCA supporters also expressed their animal welfare concerns through campaigns and legislation." Campaigns, yes, but "legislation"?How could they do that?
  • The second paragraph is very muddled chronologically: 1909, then back to 1871, then forward again to 1896. Needs better organisation.
American Anti-Vivisection Society
  • A "strenuous" resolution? Perhaps "strongly worded"?
  • "Although the group harbored an absolutist stance, AAVS initially pursued a more flexible approach to attempt to end the practice." This reads very oddly; what does "a flexible approach" imply here?
  • "Partnering with the Massachusetts SPCA, AAVS successfully campaigned to ban vivisection in elementary and secondary schools in Massachusetts." They practised vivisection in elementary schools? This seems somewhat incredible - that young kids were allowed to cut up live animals. Can you check that this was indeed the case?
Later life

Rather weak, and not really informative about her later life. Perhaps retitle "Other activities", and try to expand? Incidentally, the journal title Woman’s Progress should be italicised.

  • Ref 1 lacks publisher information
  • Ref 2: Newspaper name should be italicised. In the absence of an online link, page references should be given
  • Ref 7: The New York Times should be italicised

As I am not able to watch individual reviews, please contact my talkpage if you have any questions arising from this review, or if you would like me to take a further look. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Helen Fabela Chávez[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would love some feed back on this article I have been working on. If anyone has any constructive criticism which would make the article better (linguistic, grammatical, informational etc.) would be appreciated. If anyone knows of any other sources or could possibly help me post a photo I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you in advance, F ventouris (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: My guess is that you are a fairly new editor and this may be your first attempt to create an article. I found it informative, but at the same time, the prose is very rough in places. There are also Manual of Style issues; I'm not sure how familiar you are with WP:MOS. I have gone through the first couple of sections line by line, and identified numerous prose fixes that are required. I suggest you work on these, and then have a try at redrafting the later sections; I'd be willing to look at the article later, when these things are done.

General points
  • The article is seriously under-referenced, with many statements lacking citations, Such references that you have are not properly formatted; please study WP:CITE to see what is required here.
  • As to getting a photograph, all published photographs of Helen Chavez will be under copyright. Someone who has taken a photgraph of her may post it and licence it for publication here. Or you may seek permission from a copyright holder to use an image, but it is unlikely that you will get it.
  • Lead is too short, and needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article (per WP:LEAD), rather that a brief introductory statement.
  • Give full date of birth, not just year, in the opening line.
Early life
  • Many readers (especially non-Americans) won't know about the Mexican revolution. Rather than requiring that they use the link, could you include dates for the revolution in the text?
  • Pronoun issues: "Both worked as migrant laborers, first in the Imperial Valley and later in the San Joaquín Valley and thus exposed her to the hardships of labor at an early age". You need to identify "her", and "She" in the next sentence.
  • Informal language: "she quit high school" - better say "left"
  • Remove semicolon after "family", and replace "consisting of" with "which consisted of"
Married life
  • Remove capital in heading ("life") This applies to all the section headings. Thus: "Union Organizing", "Dual commitments", "Later involvements".
  • "Soon after the Cesar's WW II service ended.." Surely not "the" Cesar? Also, "WW II" should be spelled out: "World War II"
  • As a matter of WP convention, once past her childhood the subject of the article should generally be referred to as "Chavez" (or "Helen Chavez" if there is possible confusion with Cesar. She should not be referred to as "Helen"
  • Quotations should be attributed as well as cited. Use ndashes rather than hyphens in the text.
  • "The couple was wed" → "The couple were married"
  • "Then the two returned to San Jose, California for a church wedding": why does this information require a quotation?
  • "They retreated to a two week honeymoon.." Wrong word - better to say "departed for". And "two-week" requires a hyphen
  • The general WP convention is that values below 10 are written, 10 and above are given numerically. You don't have to follow this provided you are consistent, but at present you have "19 years old" and "twenty years old" on successive lines.
  • "at the time of their union" → "at the time of her marriage"
  • The information about the growth of the family over a ten-year period needs to be presented min a more encyclopedic fashion. We don't need the names, nor the number of grandchildren, nor the information about favorite meals and birthdays. I would suggest a brief extension to the previous sentence: "The newlyweds settled permanently in Delano, California, where in the following ten years eight children had been born".

As I say, I haven't read through the later sections, but I think some of the problems I've identified will recur there. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews (too many), perhaps you would contact my talk page when you are ready for me to look at the article again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

South Park (season 1)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was wondering what is missing before getting it to FAC.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

Hope this helps, someone else will review the prose. Happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweet! I will fix these over the weekend. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There's No Place Like Home[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the season finale for Lost's fourth season, while it's already in good shape, I've recently considered pushing the article to FA status. I added new data, replaced some dead links and fixed some parts of the reception section. It would be widely appreciated more input on what the article needs.

Thanks, igordebraga 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Original air date in the infobox omits Part 3. In fact, it seems this is the case in the lead as well. Is it worth saying early on why it's called "...Parts 1, 2 and 3" yet you make no subsequent mention of "part 3" anywhere?
  • Infobox again, "Episode 12, 13 and 14", should be "Episodes".
    • It's automated, no way to put the "s".
  • Is there a reason why just three things in the lead are directly cited? I think there's a general FA trend to move away from referencing the lead, simply because there should be nothing in the lead that isn't expanded upon (and therefore cited) in the main body of the article.
  • "escape the island ... moves the island"... reads a little repetitively.
  • Last thing on the infobox, are "Guest stars" those which the credits call "guests"? Just wondering why we have a bunch of non-notable actors playing characters like "Guy in car" listed here.
  • Is "Numbers" really capitalised? The link used doesn't appear to capitalise it.
  • "island, i.e. whether" picky, but not at all keen on "i.e." here, not terribly engaging.
  • You could link the strike by pipelinking "strike".
  • Any reason to link Ugly Betty but not Gray's anatomy?
  • Ref 31 seems to not link directly the stuff you're trying to reference.
  • Aha, I've just found and read Note A, kind of makes sense now... I wonder if the note should come right after the article introductory sentence...
  • In that note, you have an ugly in-line reference, this should be turned into a normal reference.
  • Don't mix date formats in the references.
    • All dates in refs should be in one format only. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "18-49" in various references should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Kristin dos Santos doesn't have a capital d in her dos.
    • Ignoring this comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I fixed only on the ref, missed the one on the article body...

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Transcortical sensory aphasia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been working with a group to better this article, transcortical sensory aphasia, as part of a project for our neuroscience class. We would greatly appreciate any and all feedback on how to achieve "Good Article" status.

Thanks, --Quallsk (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - no expert in the area but can provide a technical review.
  • I don't think a link to "speech" is needed, that's a fairly basic word given the complex nature of this article.
  • " and naming" what do you mean by this?
  • "exhibit paraphasia. [2]" remove space before ref.
  • "However, transcortical sensory aphasia..." you've already abbreviated it, so use TSA here. Apply hereinafter.
  • "repetition of words. [3]" remove space before ref. Check others.
  • "beginning speech therapy. Speech therapy methods" try to avoid the quick repetition of phrases like "speech therapy".
  • Brain caption needs a period (it's a complete sentence).
  • " heard.[1] [5]" avoid spaces between refs.
  • " e.g. when " just me, but I'd prefer "for instance" over "e.g."
  • Last sentence of Verbal comprehension section is unreferenced.
  • "or uses words in " - "or use words in"
  • Last three sentences of Imaging are unreferenced.
  • "does not appear overnight" - takes a significant period of time, or something, this "overnight" speak is a wee bit colloquial.
  • Wernicke's caption could be expanded a little to make it interesting and useful.
  • You don't need to relink aphasia again, and I'm sure you don't need to link brain by this point.
  • motor centers.[18] [19] - avoid spaces between refs
  • Don't need See also for articles that you've already linked in this article (e.g. Aphasia etc).
  • Ref 3 and ref 19 need an en-dash in the page range (per WP:DASH)
  • Don't mix date format in the refs, DMY or MD,Y but be consistent.
  • Refs 8, 9, 11 and 12 appear to have bare URLs, that will need to be addressed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Will Zimmerman[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article failed a good article promotion. It seems the problem lies at the development section (the reviewer argued it had trivia) I have since rewritten that section, but I feel more can be done to identify some more issues (in development and elsewhere). I want the article to be brought to GA standard.

Thanks, Matthew RD 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • I'm not familiar with in-universe articles. Is it common to refer to the subject by first name? In biogs, it's last name. Check out some recently-promoted in-universe FAs character profiles?
  • Some weaknesses in general prose. Examples from the first few paragraphs: "head of the Sanctuary Network" (wassat?) "to become her recent protégé" Recent? As opposed to? Do you mean latest? Or would it be better not to have a word, especially as it has run more than one season? What's a "web series"? You've not yet mentioned anything about where this programme appears and I'm not familiar with this jargon. "Critical reactions behind the character" Where? "with some television critics comparing Will to Stargate SG-1 character Daniel Jackson" implication being that's a good thing, rather than a neutral observation. "Constellation Award" wassat? "Character arc" wassat? "are said to" makes it sound like you have no source, but I think you do. Surely all the character's backstory is "said to", but there's no need to spell that out. "Jack Zimmerman (Dunne)" does that mean the same actor plays his own ancestor? I think you mean that, but it's unclear. "violent creature" are we talking lions, dogs or aliens? "Victim of Bigfoot" is unclear on several grounds.
  • Much of the plot material is written in present tense, which I personally find jarring. But I'm just one person... is that what recent similar FAs have done?
  • Hard for me to comment, as I'm no expert, but seems to cover most of what I'd expect, but here are some thoughts:
  • Any book, magazine or comic coverage of the character?
  • You mention the character's appearance only when it deviates from the norm. What's the norm?
  • I have no idea what you mean. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Something brief about where this can be seen would be good
  • Someone other that me can check on the licensing of the ones you have, but there's not many there - be creative, but not ridiculous and see if you can introduce some images of other characters or locations important to the character
  • For GA level, it's reasonably densely referenced. However, it depends heavily on primary source material, which is not a great idea. Not sure how to get round it for this kind of topic. Again, check out recent FAs and see how they handle it.
  • The episodes (primary sources) are the episodes, which are only really found in the plot section. One example of this is Rachel Berry. WP:TVPLOT also states "Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable." -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems to be laid out in a logical manner.

That's it from me - hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to peer review. The notes do appear to be helpful. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)