Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2009

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.



This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article for peer review because it passed a GA review a few months ago and has been somewhat languishing since then. We would like to take this article to FA at some point, and so any help towards that would be greatly appreciated. This is a long article that is trying to be an overview of an animal with a long history of interaction with humans, and is one of Wikipedia's vital articles, so we'd like it to be the best that it can be!

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is truly impressive, and I congratulate you. I have a few suggestions for improvement. Because the article is already so good, they are largely nit-picky and shouldn't give you much trouble.


  • "a male horse which has an undescended testicle" - "that" rather than "which"
  • "both Thoroughbred racing and harness racing defines" - "both ... define"


  • "The English-speaking world measures the height of horses in hands, abbreviated "h" or "hh," for "hands high," measured at the highest point of an animal's withers, where the neck meets the back, chosen as a stable point of the anatomy, unlike the head or neck, which move up and down; one hand is 4 inches (10 cm)." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The English-speaking world measures the height of horses in hands, abbreviated "h" or "hh", for "hands high", at the highest point of an animal's withers, where the neck meets the back. This is a stable point of the anatomy, unlike the head or neck, which move up and down. One hand is 4 inches (10 cm)." Commas go outside the quotation marks after "hh", and "hands high".

Colors and markings

  • "Horses which are light in color are often misnamed as being "white" horses." - "That" rather than "which". Delete "as being".


  • General question: What happens to the untrimmed hooves of wild horses? Do growth and wear-and-tear reach equilibrium at any particular size?


  • "The incisors show a distinct wear and growth pattern as the horse ages, as well as change in the angle at which the chewing surfaces meet." - Slightly awkward. Suggestion: "As the horse ages, the incisors show a distinct wear and growth pattern as well as a change in the angle at which the chewing surfaces meet."


  • "Horses are not ruminants, so they have only one stomach, like humans, but unlike humans, they can also digest cellulose from grasses due to the presence of a "hind gut" called the cecum, or "water gut," which food goes through before reaching the large intestine." - Too complex. Suggestion: "Horses are not ruminants. Like humans, they have only one stomach, but unlike humans they can digest cellulose from grasses because they have a "hind gut", the cecum or "water gut", through which food passes before reaching the large intestine."


  • "The horse's senses" - "A" rather than "the"
  • "with approximately 65° of this being binocular" - Suggestion: "of which approximately 65° is binocular"


  • "producing a riding horse with more refinement than a draft horse, but greater size and more phlegmatic temperament than a lighter breed." - Remove the comma.
  • "Prior to that time," - Suggestion: "Before that,"

The "Four Foundations" theory

  • Remove "The" from the head per MoS. Suggestion: Four foundations theory with a lowercase "f" and no quotations marks
  • "the "Four Foundations" theory - It's uppercase here but lowercase later. I incline toward lowercase.
  • Wikilink DNA and spell out on first use: deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
  • "The "Tarpan" subspecies: dun-colored, sturdy animal" - Insert "a" before "dun-colored".

Wild species

  • "subspecies which has no ancestors" - Suggestion: "subspecies with no ancestors"
  • "in the wild due to the conservation efforts" - Suggestion: "in the wild through the conservation efforts"

Origin of breeds

  • "Other horse breeds developed specifically" - Suggestion: "were developed specifically"

Purebreds and registries

  • "at the present time most mainstream breed registries" - Better would be "as of 2009... ".


  • "held around the world as venues in which horses are competed, exhibited and sold." - "Are competed" seems strange. Suggestion: "held around the world as venues in which horses compete and are exhibited and sold".
  • "well as "In-hand" classes" - Lowercase "i"
  • "There are three types: "flat" racing; steeplechasing, i.e. racing over jumps; and harness racing, where horses trot or pace while pulling a driver in a small, light cart known as a sulky" - Suggestion: "... 'flat' racing, steeplechasing (racing over jumps), and harness racing... "


  • "In agriculture, less use of fossil fuels and increased environmental conservation can be seen over time with the use of draft animals such as horses" - "Environmental conservation" is vague. Might they be better because they do less damage to the soil than heavy machines? Or something else?


  • Suggestion: Merge the orphan paragraph that starts this section with the one below it.
  • "(pregnant mares' urine). - The odd bolding should be removed per the MoS. Instead, I'd suggest adding an explanatory sentence: The word 'Premarin' consists of letters taken from the phrase "pregnant mare's urine"; that is, "pre", "mar", "in".
  • "in the United States Congress which would end export" - Suggestion: "in the United States Congress to end export"


  • Licensing. All the licenses look OK to me except for one that I can't be sure of. The licensing and description page for the lead image in the infobox links to a source that goes into a maze that I was not able to sort out. It may be fine, but it would be good to be certain before going to FAC.
  • Placement. The MoS says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." I see two that will need to be moved in the "Teeth" and "Movement" sections. In addition, the "free-roaming mustangs" would look better if on the left so that the horses are running into the page. It might be OK to move it to the left because the "main article" line shields it from the "Feral populations" head.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Bleach episodes (season 10)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing this article for peer review as part of my Seasons of Bleach featured topic. As the episodes have not concluded editing, this list cannot become a featured list, and as such, I am bringing the list here to be "audited". If there are no problems you can find, simply note that. The goal is to ensure that the article is sufficiently reviewed for the purposes of the FT. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The list is in good shape and well on its way to become featured, once complete. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

FYI, there have been a lot of anon edits between my most recent revision and now that I've reverted, so some of your comments may not apply. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "After the fight between Ichigo Kurosaki and Grimmjow Jaegerjaques concludes with Ichigo breaking through Grimmjow's strongest attack, Grimmjow attempts to continue the fight, and is attacked by Espada Nnoitra Jiruga." This is a long sentence and has some awkward structure. Consider breaking it up. Also, the noun + -ing ("Ichigo breaking") phrase is ungrammatical.
  • "Nnoitra uses Nel as a shield to prevent Ichigo from attacking him, and manages to pin Ichigo to the ground." "manages to" seems like unnecessary wordiness to me. Why not just: "Nnoitra uses Nel as a shield to prevent Ichigo from attacking him, and pins Ichigo to the ground."
  • "reveals that she formerly was the third Espada."-->reveals that she was formally the third Espada.
  • "Uryū and Renji struggle to fight their clones, as they copy all of their attacks." Comma not necessary.
  • "and use Cero Sincrético - a combination attack" Use a dash, not a hyphen.
  • "When Neliel attempts to finish off Nnoitra, she transforms back into her child form, and when Ichigo attempts to" Repetition of "attempts to" in the same section is distracting.
  • "After releasing his zanpakutō, and transforming into a minotaur-like beast" Comma not necessary.
  • "Kenpachi Zaraki shows up out of nowhere"-->Kenpachi Zaraki appears out of nowhere
  • "Byakuya cuts the his own tendons" Unnecessary word.
  • "Rukia regains consciousness, and Byakuya tells to rest" Missing word.
  • "Szayel, his senses heightened as a result of the drug"-->Szayel, whose senses are heightened as a result of the drug
  • "He charges Kenpachi, and Kenpachi kills him. "-->He charges Kenpachi, who kills him.
  • "Before he leaves, he lets everyone in Hueco Mundo know he's" No contractions please; add "that" after "know".
Rewrote that entire section that was added by an anon.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good from my end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

  • What is the source for the season arc name? Is it something put in the original episodes? A TOC would be nice :) Will leave detailed CEing to someone else, but from quick reading, I didn't spot any major issues. Checking the season 9 article, I'm guessing the first DVD hasn't been released hence the lack of image? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Cut the season name as I didn't find this edit summary very convincing. No need for a TOC with only three sections; only reason I put it in on other articles is to create more room for the DVD image. And naturally, no DVD image as there has been no confirmed release (and I would have the arc name from that too). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty :) I like TOCs even with three sections, just for easier navigation, but can understand your reason not to have it either. And cool on the removal of the name. Should be find till it starts coming out on DVD. Didn't see any other issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one albums of 1983 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature list status. Thank you

Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: As I said a few days ago, when peer-reviewing the 1999 list, there isn't a lot to review here. Assuming that the list is accurate, you are using a format which has proved acceptable at FL, so all I will do is point out some prose quibbles in the introduction.

  • "Billboard estimated [the] sales [for the album charts]... Words in brackets are redundant or repetitive
  • ", which was gathered..." would be better: ", using..."
  • Suggest rewording of last sentence, first paragraph: "Data was based on rankings by the record stores of the best-selling records, not on actual sales figures".
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph goes on for ever, and needs to be split into three.
    • Full stop after Business as Usual.
    • Then, "This recycled..."
    • Another full stop after The Police
    • Then, "It spent the last..."
  • What on earth does "absorbed the rhythmic spunk of reggae" mean? Note WP:JARGON
  • Comma needed after "Michael Jackson"
  • "... the seven singles hitting the top ten" - the top ten what?
  • A full stop is required after "top ten". Then, "Two of them..."
  • "...making it the first of three albums..." - "it" needs defining
  • nbsp check: 15 million, 25 years, 25 recordings
  • No comma needed after The Police
  • "white reggae formula" - term needs explaining
  • Done all.

That's all. The peer review process relies on the willingness of editors generally to spend time reviewing other articles. It would be greatly appreciated if you would be prepared to review one or more articles, given the current level at which you are sending articles here. We need more people. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry but the feature list candidates requiere a peer review, I would be happy to help in the peer reviews but I don't think I could do it because english is not my first language and is difficult for me to find errors specially the gramatical ones. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one albums of 1984 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature list status. Thank you.

Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Data was based" Should be "Data were based"
  • Changed
  • "and was the best-selling album of the year, making it the only album to be the best-seller of two years (1983–1984) in the United States" I think this should be a separate sentence.
  • Done
  • "Rock band Huey Lewis & the News, released " Comma not necessary.
  • Comma removed
  • "from other albums like"-->from other albums such as
  • Changed
  • "In 1984, singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen, released his seventh studio album Born in the U.S.A.." The second comma is not necessary and there is an extra period at the end.
  • Fixed
  • "Springsteen ignored the musical movements of the Second British Invasion, embracing instead"-->Springsteen ignored the musical movements of the Second British Invasion; instead, he embraced...
  • Changed
  • "The album stayed four weeks at number one, yielded seven top ten singles and sold more than 7.5 million copies." Comparable quantities should be written out the same, either all figures or all words.
  • Done
  • "Purple Rain the soundtrack to the film of the same name was the first Prince album recorded with and credited to his backing group The Revolution."-->Purple Rain, the soundtrack from the film of the same name, was the first Prince album to be recorded with and credited to his backing group The Revolution.
  • Changed
  • "and have constant reminders of Sly Stone, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, Little Richard, and Mick Jagger." This is a very vague phrase.
  • Changed the phrase
  • "the last 22 weeks of the year, sold more than nine million copies" Same comment here about comparable quantities. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Number-one albums of 1985 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature list status. I am specially concern about the size of the lead, I think that maybe it's too long. Thank you.

Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is generally good but need some copy editing before featured list:

  • The start of the second paragraph is misleading "There were 14...". This number didn't change as I understand and should be copyedited to " The chart included 14 1985 number-one albums " or anything that is better.
  • "In May, Like a Virgin" needs to be copyedited
  • Done
  • Big problems with references: You have multiple references linking to the same page but have different dates like the one of September 7 and August 31. The reference should be changed from to reduce the number of references. Yo u have done it that every two weeks have the same reference but a different date. This should be changed as the publication date was done on one day so this is one of the biggest problem in this list. I will try and do some references so you can see how it should be done.
  • Fixed
  • You should also clarify why the paragraphs are divided that way.
  • The paragraphs are divided only because of the lentgh of the entire article.

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was formally featured and even on the main page once, but has since fallen from grace. I would like to fix that.

Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the usual grammar-style peer review is needed here. I think a specific section by section of what to add and what to cut would be best. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
David Fuchs
  • Turn lists into prose. Many sections, such as "fighting styles", look rather shoddy with internal lists. Likewise with "Awards and nominations"
  • Citation needed for "The divine medium who has descended upon the mortal world."
  • "Online game" is a stubby subsection that should be fleshed out or merged.
  • Likewise, what I think the article is missing the most (besides some pictures--see if you can find a free one of the creators) is content. There's lots of stubby sections and paragraphs.
  • The infobox is ridiculously long. You don't need to mention every voice actor and every writer.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of the essential 1,000 articles of Wikipedia, and in contrast to articles such as Domestic Sheep, Bird or Bacteria, it is nowhere near GA or FA standard. I'd like to hear ideas for new sections to be added, details to be polished, and so on.

Thanks, Fish-Bird (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point the article needs a lot of work before it's close to FA or GA status. This isn't a very detailed review, but here are a few ideas of where to start:

  • You'll probably want to rename Genetics to Evolution, and start with a narration of its evolution. This is a more accessible way to present the information. One or two good sources that explain Camel evolution are all that are needed here.
  • Distribution should probably include information about their historical distribution as well as the present. The map should be bigger--a picture is only worth one thousand words if you can see it :)
  • Avoid technical section titles like "eco-behavioral adaptations". It would be better to have this be "Ecology and behavior". Start out by saying why this is such interesting information--camels live in hostile deserts!
  • For this to even start getting close to GA standard, a big challenge will be finding reliable sources that contain all the information that is marked: Citation needed. If the information cannot be cited, it will have to be removed.
  • A section should be created explaining the basic biological differences between Bactrians and Dromedaries.
  • All citations will need to be in a consistent format. I would suggest using {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} for all the sources.
  • If there are conservation efforts for camels you'll want to mention them. A brief outline of camels in zoos and camel racing would also be good.

That should be enough to keep you busy for awhile. I'd be happy to come back and do a more detailed review at that point. --JayHenry (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my points about the article, thinking about how I wrote Domestic sheep.

  • Good first sentence! It states the obvious well and defines the subject in a scientific manner.
  • Create an In sport section that overviews camel racing and camel wrestling, making sure to include a link to Animals in sport.
  • Instead of an "Eco-behavioural adaptations" section, try and start with a Description section that catalogs all the physical dimensions and attributes of a camel. Don't forget to state the obvious here (weigh/heigh etc.) in focusing on the amazing physical adaptations of camels. Anything then not a part of a Description can then go in either two separate Behavior and Diet sections, or one Ecology section that combines those topics.
  • In Description ideally, you need to talk more about the differences between Camels and other camelids, as well as the difference between the two true camel species.
  • I concur about renaming Genetics to Evolution.
  • Obviously Camel farming needs to either removed as a section or expanded. I would suggest taking it and combining it with Dairy/Meat in to a general Agricultural importance (or uses) section, rather than cuisine.
  • Jay is 100% correct about standardizing the refs. I would suggest putting in-line references in to one section (like Footnotes or Notes) and general listed sources in a References section. One important point: GA will not usually require page numbers for direct citations, but FA will.

Overall, It's helpful in sectioning and looking for things to expand, to ask what a reader who didn't know anything about camels would want to know. Examples: what do they eat? what is their behavior and social structure? how big is a camel? what makes a true camel different than other camelids, and what makes camels different from each other? I hope this helps! I'll try and poke around to help you once you go for GA (and beyond?) Steven Walling (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Gillender Building[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… it should be an interesting reading (I hope) but it needs third opinion, copyedit, probably more modern sources. This is a weird and, in my opinion, already comprehensive story of New York's shortest-lived skyscraper (13 years from completion to demolition). Created a week ago, copyedited by User:LilHelpa but suffered another round of expansion afterwards.

Thanks, NVO (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating article. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • All of the quantities in imperial units should be converted to metric units. Some of them in the existing article have been converted, but others haven't. I find the "convert" template here handy for doing these because the template does the math correctly, adds the spellings or abbreviations preferred by the Manual of Style, and keeps the digits and units from separating on line break. I added three of these templates to one sentence of the "Construction" section. The template will accommodate all sorts of units, and you can add a hyphen with the |adj=on parameter.
  • The building measurements appearing in the lead and elsewhere in the article look odd to me because the metric units are given more precisely than the imperial units. I'd suggest rounding to 8 by 22 meters in the text even if you have to say "about".
    • Done with about. NVO (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Direct quotes need sources. In "Construction", the phrase "what the pedestrians see from the street" appears to be a direct quotation, as does its companion phrase. Where do they come from? Another quote without a source appears in "In fiction". In this case, it's clear that you must be quoting the novel. You could use the "cite book" template and fill in the author, title, etc., including the exact page number for the quoted material.
    • Good point. It is not a quotation, actually, rather a sort of a textbook explanation indoctrinated back at college - they call it truthiness :). I'll see how to get around it smoothly, need a check against English textbooks.NVO (talk)
  • The "In fiction" section lacks sources. Even though you don't quote directly from the Rubenfeld novel, it would be good to use "cite book" here too, giving the page numbers for the final scene you mention.
  • done
  • The New York Times stylebook and the Wikipedia Manual of Style differ about the use of "Mr." and "Mrs." In the existing article, "Mrs. Helen H. Gillender Asinari" should be changed to "Helen H. Gillender Asinari" and on subsequent reference to "Asinari". She appears twice in "Construction", once in "Takeover" and again in "Demolition". If you think Asinari alone would not stress the Gillender connection adequately in every case, maybe Helen Gillender Asinari would be better than plain Asinari at the end of "Demolition".
    • looks like done NVO (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style generally frowns on one-sentence orphan paragraphs. You only have one of these, at the end of "Site". You could either expand it, or you could merge it with the next paragraph up.
  • moved up
  • Rather than "extant", which is a little unfamiliar and slightly ambiguous, something like "still standing as of 2008" would probably be better.
  • removed
  • In "Site" it would be better to use Knight's first name rather than "captain". Also, it's not clear what kind of captain or officer he was. You might include that information if you have it.
  • Khight. John Knight. Sounds like SYN, but he was the only Knight around Dongan (e. g. here is one Knight-Dongan trade from 1685 but I cannot ascertain that it is the same lot. A search show dozens of references to Khignt-Dongan trades, but this link is the only FUTON found. NVO (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope these brief suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

comments by Doncram I agree the article is fascinating. Great job.

  • It is stated that Mrs. Gillender hurried to build the new tower before the new, stricter building codes were effected, which explains the shortcomings of the Gillender Building[15] (in fact, the regulations were not effected in full until 1916.... I am not familiar with that use of the verb "to effect", and think it must be unusual usage for most readers. I would prefer "before the new, stricter building codes came into effect" and "the regulations did not come into effect until 1916".
  • done
  • The narration is chronological until it is mentioned in the demolition section that 200 photographs are on-line. I found that mildly jarring, and would mildly prefer mention in the External links section, providing additional description to the photos link there: ", which includes 200 photos of the 19xx demolition in process" or whatever. In particular it is the "on-line" mention there that is jarring to me, when it is not possible at that time to have photographs put on-line, unless some other meaning of on-line is meant. Perhaps it would not take me out of chronology if is mentioned in the demolition section that 200 photographs were taken (and remain available today).
  • done

Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

History of slavery in Indiana[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think it's just about ready for FA status, and want to know what little tweaks are needed to get that accomplished. I know it could use a few more cites, and the person who wrote those paragraphs without citing will lace them on this weekend.

Thanks, King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Without wishing to discourage you, I have to say that at present I believe this article has a way to go to reach FA standards. There are significant problems with prose and also with under-citation. So far, I have only read down to the "Southern influences" subsection; I have done some copyediting myself, but have still produced the long list of issues below – and that's barely a third of the article. So a considerable amount of work is likely to be necessary to bring the article up to the required standard.

  • Lead:
    • You are entitled, under WR rules relating to image display, to enlarge your lead image. I have raised it to 300px.
    • First line: "occurred" is the wrong word. "...existed" would be OK
    • "...with a few traces of slavery afterward" contains awkward repetition. Try "...with a few traces thereafter".
    • "When the United States first took control..." "first" is redundant. Giving a year woud be useful here.
    • "Opposition against slavery..." I would reorganize this sentence; opposition doesn't organised itself. Suggested rewording: "Organized opposition to slavery in Indiania began around 1805"
    • Clarify that the "constitution" mentioned here is the state constitution
    • The sentence beginning "With the end of slavery in the state..." needs some work. Something like: "With the ending of slavery in Indiana, the state's position as a border state with the South became an important factor in the later fight against slavery" - or something like that.
    • You must not assume that everone reading the article will know what a Hoosier is.
    • "came to play" should be "played"
    • This is clumsy: "Indiana remained anti-slavery, and in the American Civil War remained with the Union and contributed men to the war that would result in the end of slavery in the United States." A rewrite might produce something like: "Indiana remained an anti-slavery state, loyal to the Union, and in the American Civil War contributed large numbers of soldiers to the struggle that would end salvery in the United States".
  • Early existence
    • The map as it stands in unhelpful, since it doesn't clearly identify Indiana.
    • "Slavery was already a present institution..." should read "Slavery was an existing institution..."
    • Suggest comma after "French". The phrase "who had controlled the area only 20 years earlier" is uninformative. You should indicate why they had ceased to control the area (ousted by the British?) and give a date.
    • No capital in "population"
    • Say "150 years", not "one hundred and fifty years". Also, end the sentence here – the rest is redundant
    • The revised sentence needs citing to a source.
    • "René Robert etc etc..." - no need to spell out his full formal title. Just call him "Robert de La Salle"
    • "exploration" should be singular, not plural.
    • I have copyedited the latter part of the first paragraph, and have indicated where I think facts or quotes require citation.
    • The second paragraph belongs more properly, I believe, in the "Southern influences" section
    • "Many Virginian natives..." I think "settlers" is a beter description of the Virginians
    • "Fear of French rebellion..." needs some explanation. Was there a substantial French population?
  • Southern influences
    • Can you date Larrabee's remark?
    • I don't think initial immigration can be attributed both to the Revolutionary War and to the 1812 War, given the thirty years' time difference.
    • The statement that Southerners of all classes immigrated to Indiana prompts the question as to why they did so. A brief explanation would be appropriate.
    • "But others immigrated to Indiana like Levi Coffin, a North Carolina Quaker who was an outspoken abolitionst." This sentence needs rewriting along the lines: "Other immigrants to Indiana, such as the North Carolina Quaker Levi Coffin, were outspoken abolitionists."

I am continuing to read the article carefully, and will give you further comments later. Meanwhile it would be useful to have your reponses to these initial comments.


  • Treatment of slaves
    • "prisoners of war", not "in war"
    • "the decline..." not "the declined..."
    • "Early slaves were often Native Americans who were sold to pay debts". Is there a source for this? Does it mean that they were captured and then sold to pay debts?
    • "While part of new France" is imprecise wording. I assume you mean "While the territory was under Frnch jurisdiction..."
    • Two successive sentences begin wth "Other laws...", which should be avoided
    • William Henry Harrison and George Poyser Clark have prewviosly been linked. No need to link them at every mention.
    • Prose and punctuation in the short last paragraph look in need of attention - this is true of mst of the prose, though I have made some fixes.
  • Indiana Territory
    • The images should exchange positions, as both men are presently tending to look away from the article. See MOS about image placement.
    • "Both men were appointed by the President of the United States which was held..." Ungrammatical
    • Harrison is linked again. The tendency general to overlink is present through the article and need sattention
    • "They sought to have a new law..." who is they?
    • I notice a tendency to repeat information. For example we are repeatedly told that Harrison was interested in having slavery legalized. The section - indeed, the whole article - could do with some careful pruning.
  • Fight to end slavery
    • Citations are required for the information concerning Jefferson at the beginning of the section, and for "the fact that he almost succeeded, and likely would have done..."
    • Carelessness: "used him as and agent"; "attempt to legalized slavery"; "signed an circulated"
    • General wordiness: "Dennis Pennington and others put forth speeches and resolved to put a stop to the attempt to legalize slavery. They declared their intention to put an end to the 'despised institution'". All this could be condensed to someting like: Pennington and others called for an end to Harrison's attempts tolegalize "the despised institution".

I think I have reviewed sufficient of the article to have highlighted the need for some considerable attention to the prose, and also for the need for greater citation. It would be to the article's advantage if an uninvolved editor with copywriting skills could work on the prose. The subject is interesting, and considerable effort has clearly gone into the article. It would be worthwhile for these efforts to continue, towards the further improvement of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's quite close to FA-status; content-wise I think it should be up to scratch. But when I've nominated articles for FA before, there's normally been some comments about the language. I would really appreciate if someone would go over and wash the language. Also, I'd like to know if the meaning comes across clearly.

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have read the lead and the first three sections, and my comments are shown below. I will continue reading, and provide further comments later.

  • Lead
    • I'm not sure about putting the Latin tags in the very first line; it's a bit unwelcoming to the reader. The terms properly belong, with explanations, in the body of the article, but I personally wouldn't lead the article with them.
    • "Warwick eventually ended up restoring Henry VI" is not very elegantly put. At the very least I think "eventually" should go, and "to the throne" should be added to the phrase. But I still don't like "ended up", and it would be good if that could be rephrased, too.
  • Becoming Warwick
    • It's not clear why Richard's claim to be heir to the earldom of Warwick was superior to that of Edward Beaufort, which you also refer to.
      • I've put an explanation in the reference.
    • "By 1445 Richard had been knighted". Any indication as to why (he was only 17). You say he appears to have entered King Henry's services at an early age, but you seem to be talking about 1449, when he was 21 years old. Was that really an "early age"?
      • Probably to coincide with the coronation, it was not uncommon to be knighted at that age. I've removed the "early age" thing.
    • We learned earlier that Richard had become heir to the earldom, but now we hear that he had become the earl. When, and in what circumstances, did he succeed?
  • Beginning disputes
    • Cryptic section title - not sure I understand it
    • "took custody of the lordship of Glamorgan" - what does "took custody" mean, in this context?
    • On 27 March the political situation had changed sufficiently for the duke of York to be appointed protector of the realm. A few issues here:-
      • Shouldn't the first word be "By"?
      • The change in the political situation in unexplained. Any brief details available?
      • Who appointed him protector?
    • I suggest "Marching at London" should be "Marching to London"
    • "By February next year..." It would be better to say which year.
    • I'm not clear as to what "resulted" in Warwick's appointment as Captain of Calais. Perhaps "resulted" is not the right word?
    • The term "staple" should be explained, not just linked
  • York triumphant
    • Again I have trouble with a section title. I take this to refer to the triumph of the House of York. But until now, "York" has been used to describe Richard, duke of York (who dies in this section). So I'd reconsider this title.
    • "...fresh off his victory" - "from his victory" would be more usual
    • Not sure about "congregation" in this parliamentary context. Perhaps "assembly" would be better?
    • We have the first mention here of a political establishment. Who would they be?
    • "...a compromise was arrived at instead" should be simplified to "a compromise was agreed"
    • In "up until that point", "up" isn't necessary.
    • "...the prince was proclaimed King Edward IV" - by whom?

Perhaps you would consider these points. I will continue the review later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Warwick' apex
    • "Altogether..." (one word), not "All together..."
    • What is £7,000 worth in today's values? It might be worth consulting,. which will give you a present-day value for any sum in any year.
      • Thanks, but that only seems to go back to 1830. In any case, it's hard to make any meaningful comparison with a much less money-based society. The way I see it, if you're the richest guy in the country, you're pretty rich.
    • There is unnecessary repetition of the phrase "rose up in rebellion" ("...the north rose up in rebellion..." and "Ralph Percy rose up in rebellion") in close proximity.
    • "The English decided..." Wasn't this a civil war, so weren't they all English?
  • Early tensions
    • "...the promotion of George" - at this stage we need to be reminded of who "George" is.
    • "...who now had been created treasurer..." - "now" is unnecessary
    • "...which was not amended..." I'm not sure of this choice of word. Wouldn't "lessened", or "ameliorated" convey a better meaning?
  • Rebellion and death
    • Robin of Rededsale - suggest should have full rather than single quotes
    • Edward "revealed" the plot? Surely, "discovered"?
    • We need a helpful reminder here as to who Edward Prince of Wales was (at least, I did)
    • the word "attainted" is uncommon and needs to be explained.
    • Aftermath: I wonder what the relevance is to this article of the distant fates (in one case 60 years' distant) of the duke of Clarence's children.
      • The relevance is that this is the end of the Neville line, I've tried to make that clearer.
    • Family tree. A note of explanation should be added, showing the distinction between plain and dotted lines, and also explaining the more complex relationships, e.g. that of Edward Prince of Wales to the Neville family.

That completes my review. Most of the issues I have raised can I think be dealt with easily. On the face of it images and sources look fine, but I am not expert in these areas. Overall, this is a classy article which I would expect in due course to see at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for a thorough and helpful review! Lampman (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA and want it to be looked at before I do…

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article focused mainly on the relationship between two men. Its title suggests a biography, but it's heavy on the Wolters-Speers relationship and light on other kinds of information. That's not necessarily bad, but I'd consider adding some new data to add a little balance. For example, Wolters' wife, Erika and his son, Fritz, are mentioned, but I was surprised to read no more about them. Did he have other children? What sort of domestic life did the family have? Did Wolters have siblings? I have two other areas of concern: the images and some of the prose. Here are some comments and suggestions:

  • To reach FA, you'll need more images. You only have two, and one is questionable. (See below.) Try to find a usable photo of Wolters if you can, and add it to the infobox. The Bundesarchiv might have other work you could use. Some of the pages that you've linked to have nice images of the universities. You'd need to check the licensing information, but one of these might work nicely in the "Early life" section. If you search, I think you can find more images for the other sections.
  • Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 146III-373, Modell der Neugestaltung Berlins ("Germania").jpg looks good to me, but Image:Coesfeld Fußgängerzone.jpg lacks the minimum required licensing information. The source is listed at the Commons as "Own picture" but doesn't say who "own" is. The user named in the User column is Stahlkocher, but there's no link to a user page. A note on the licensing page says, "This picture may have usage restrictions" without specifying what that means. To be acceptable, the description should include the author's name and method of contact. The sentence about usage restrictions needs to be more explicit. If it means GFDL, that's OK, but if it means something else, it might not be OK.


  • "Wolters, who was born to a Catholic middle-class family in the northern German town of Coesfeld, obtained his degree and doctorate in architecture from the Technical University of Berlin, during which time he became a close friend of Speer." The phrase "during which time" is awkward because no specific time is mentioned earlier in the sentence. In addition "degree and doctorate" is odd. Does this mean undergraduate degree and doctorate? How about "Wolters was born to a Catholic middle-class family in the northern German town of Coesfeld and obtained his doctorate in architecture from the Technical University of Berlin. At the university, he became a close friend of Speer."?
  • "In addition to receiving and organizing Speer's clandestine notes from Spandau, which later served as the basis of Speer's bestselling books of memoirs, Wolters quietly raised money for Speer, which was used to support Speer's family and for other purposes, according to directions which Wolters received from Speer." This sentence is too long and complicated. I suggest breaking it in two after "money for Speer" and starting the next sentence with "This was used to support... ".
  • "until the two men became embittered to the point that" How about "until the two men became so embittered that"?
  • "Wolters was involved in the reconstruction of West Germany following World War II, reconstructing his hometown of Coesfeld" Re-cast to avoid repeating "reconstruct".
  • "Wolters also wrote several architectural-based books... " How about "Wolters also wrote several books about architecture"?

Early life

  • In his privately published memoirs, Segments of a Life, Wolters described his father as "a serious, conscientious and diligent man, always concerned about the future" while he saw his mother as "a highly practical woman, full of zest for life, who in hard times thought nothing of serving a delicious roast without letting on it was horsemeat". This is understandable but has too many clauses for comfort. I'd suggest breaking it in half before "while" and starting the next sentence with "He saw his mother... ".
  • Nazi era
  • "Head of Department in the Planning Bureau" All lower-case unless Planning Bureau is its formal name.
  • Kindergarten. Lower-case in English.
  • "since Speer found that Party" Lower-case "party".
  • "Much of Wolters' work at GBI was connected with Hitler's plan to reconstruct Berlin on a massive scale, of which Speer was in charge." Speer was in charge of the plan rather than the scale. This might be better: "Much of Wolters' work at GBI was connected to Hitler's plan to reconstruct Berlin on a massive scale. Speer was in charge of this plan."
  • "a three-mile-long" MOSNUM suggests expressing quantities like this in both imperial and metric units. I like to use the "convert" template for this because it gets the spellings and abbreviations right as well as the math. I added one of these to make the three-mile conversion. Since this is a German-centric article, metric comes first. You shouldn't convert the quantities in quoted passages, though. The 1,000 kilometers in the Wolters' quote about Churchill, should stay as is.
  • "The material which he recorded" It should be "that" rather than "which". They aren't generally interchangeable. My rule of thumb is to use "which" when it starts a clause that needs to be set off with a comma or commas.
  • "The material which he recorded would later prove embarrassing to both Wolters and Speer, since it detailed the GBI's responsibility for administering a 1939 amendment to the Nuremberg Laws which allowed non-Jewish landlords to evict Jewish tenants with virtually no notice." Too long and complicated.
  • "which would utilize" The Manual of Style prefers "use".

Architectural work "Lübke instead turned to politics, rising quickly through the political ranks of postwar Germany, and in 1959 became President of the Federal Republic of Germany, a position in which he served almost ten years before he resigned over questions about what he may have known about forced labor while working in Speer's department." Too complex.

The Spandau years

  • Shouldn't have "The" in the head, per MoS.
  • "anything to apologise for though the" Needs a comma between "for" and "though".
  • "even though Lübke, President" President of the Federal Republic of Germany.
  • "above all to delete certain parts on the basis of which Speer and one or another of his colleagues could still have been prosecuted. The Ludwigsburg Central office for 'war crimes' was still at work and an end of the persecution of National Socialists was not in sight." Something seems to be missing here. It seems unlikely that Wolters said all of this.

Speer released

  • While Speer's initial draft of the book, written while in Spandau, does mention his "old university friend, Dr. Rudolf Wolters, to whom was assigned the most essential task, the Prachtstrasse" in connection with the Berlin project, Wolters' name appears nowhere in the published version, and no mention is made of Wolters' help, essential to the writing and preservation of the draft memoir." Too complex.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a lousy reviewer though, but I will see what I can do. Wolters pictures seem to be almost unobtainable, but I'm still working on it. "Party" with a cap P, is considered appropriate when you are repeatedly referring to the same party, especially in this case. The bulk on the Speer relationship is unavoidable, Wolters did not come to public view until Schmidt published his book in 1982, by which time he was dying. Kindergarten under these circumstances is a proper noun. The long quote is direct from Wolters; he did indeed say all that. I suspect in Segments (which is not obtainable, I've searched google in both English and German) he was trying to justify for posterity his decision to censor the Chronik. The rest sound good. I don't know what do do about the images, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Survivors (2008 TV series)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Although it's a relatively young article, it is well referenced and avoids in-universe prose. It would be good to get some more eyes to look at this with ideas for how to improve the text, new content that could be added and suggestions for where to find further references.

Thanks, Deadly∀ssassin 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sgeureka

  • Unless the lead says something really controversial, refs should generally not be used in the lead
  • Done: References shifted to the body of the article
  • Refs should be ordered by increasing number. (The agreement, which was signed in 2007, took months of negotiations.[6][2])
  • Done
  • Try to combine one- or two-sentences-long paragraphs with a bigger paragraph.
  • Done with the most obvious problems in the production paragraph, rest of paragraphs make better sense, with the exception of the differences section
  • Refs belong after the punctuation (the maternal protagonist and moral compass[8],)
  • Done
  • Some editors feel that summarizing differences between two works of fiction is original research if sources aren't privided. I agree in as far that sourcing helps to weed out nonnotable differences that only hardcore fans would notice, or which generally put undue weight uon differences. Thus, it may be advisable to find some sources for the section "Differences from the source material" needs sources if you can find them.
  • Done I'm luke-warm on the section as well, but didn't want to face the moans if I removed it. I have found a few sources which corroborate.
  • I can't comment on the prose as I have only skimmed the article, but concerning comprehensiveness and structure (ignoring the points above), this looks pretty much like a Good Article already.

sgeureka tc 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sam & Max: Freelance Police[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm putting this up for peer review to get some third-party opinions and a comb-through for a future FAC. The article, which passed GAN last month, concerns a Sam & Max game developed by LucasArts, before being abruptly cancelled in 2004. As such, there's not much to say outside development and critical commentary on the subject; very little info was revealed regarding gameplay and plot, so that's all been put into a single section. All sources should check out or otherwise be justifiable and the images all have rationales. The main thing I'd like to get out of this is something that satisfies the criteria for "brilliant prose" as I always have trouble hitting that target on my own. There's also likely to be elements of my British English amongst it that need to be weedled out. Ta, -- Sabre (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Although I have never heard of the game or the comic book it was based on, this is interesting and generally well done. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks.

  • Would it make sense to add the start date to the first sentence of the lead, perhaps something like Sam & Max: Freelance Police was a graphic adventure computer game developed by LucasArts between 2002 and its cancellation in 2004. ?
  • Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE quotations in the lead need a ref, such as ... the "Freelance Police", an anthropomorphic dog and "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" ... and ... citing "current market place realities and underlying economic conditions".
  • Awkward sentence - would it make sense to split it into two? The cancellation of the game was received very poorly by fans of the series, Steve Purcell and the video game industry's media, many of the latter seeing this move as the culmination of the decline of the adventure game genre.
  • Is "used" the correct verb here - would "played" be better? the minigames featured in Sam & Max Hit the Road, many of these minigames would be entirely optional as to whether the player used them or not, ...
  • WP:MOSQUOTE says refs for quotations should follow the quote as closely as possible, so many of the sentences with direct quotes need better refs.
  • Awkward verb Although the game was estimated for release in the first quarter of 2004, no additional details were revealed by LucasArts.[8] perhaps Although the game's release was projected for the first quarter of 2004, ... ?
  • Define abbreviations, so change it to ... at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) convention ...
  • Awkward again The convention reaffirmed the estimated release date of early 2004.[10] A convention can't affirm something. LucasArts reaffirmed the projected first quarter 2004 release date at the convention.
  • I think "might" would be better than "may" in leading the media to speculate that Freelance Police may suffer a similar fate.[13]
  • Specific attribution of quotes is better (especially at FAC) than vague things like The industry's media described the cancellation as "another nail in the coffin of the adventure genre on the PC",[15] ... - the industry didn't write that - one reviewer didm, so identify him and IGN too
  • Make sure the sources used meet WP:RS.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll se what I can do. -- Sabre (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian killings of 1965–66[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of fairly basic/standard reasons: it's a topic I was interested enough in to start and develop the article. Now I would like general advice on how to improve towards GA and even FA.

Thanks, Merbabu (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Review made on this version

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about a set of events that seemed hidden from view for a long time. GA has six criteria. This article seems to me to meet four of them. It seems factually accurate, broad in coverage, stable, and it seems to have a neutral point of view. The one cleanup tag will need to be addressed, but that shouldn't be difficult. The writing is fairly good, but I have concerns that I elaborate upon below. In addition, more copyediting would be a good idea. The complete lack of images is a big problem. To earn promotion to GA, the article will probably need three or more images. Aiming for one image per section is a good rule of thumb. You might have to resort to images of buildings, landmarks, rivers, or generalized things that seem to fit if you can't find specific images related to the conflict. I'm guessing that you can find licensed photos of Suharto and Sukarno on the Commons.


  • You should try to include a mention of the ideas in the "Impacts" section in the lead. I'm thinking specifically of the historical and scholarly analysis mentioned in the last paragraph. It wouldn't be unusual for an article this long to have a three-paragraph lead.
  • The phrase "incumbent and Indonesian founding president Sukarno" is a bit awkward. I'd suggest re-casting, breaking the sentence in two if necessary.


  • "Guided Democracy" - Lowercase? Or is this a formal name?
    • A formal term. But I've put it in inverted commas --Merbabu (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "With much of Indonesia's top military leaders" - "Many" rather than "much"


  • PKI chairman, Aidit, had flown to Central Java in early October, and where the coup attempt had been supported by leftist officers in Yogyakarta, Salatiga, and Semarang. - This is an example of a passive voice construction that you could easily render in active voice: "PKI chairman, Aidit, had flown to Central Java in early October, where leftist officers in Yogyakarta, Salatiga, and Semarang had supported the coup attempt." - Active voice is often better than passive. I see quite a few other passive-voice constructions in the article. Try to make more of them active.
  • "Adit" - Dipa Nusantara Aidit. - On first mention, it's customary to give the full name. Adit is OK on second and subsequent references. Ditto for Njoto and Lukman. It might also be good to include a brief title or job description for readers who might have no idea who Njoto and Lukman were.
    • Done - although it seems Njoto might only have one name which is quiet common amongst Javanese (ie, Sukarno and Suharto) - although Njoto doesn't strike me as overally Javanese-sounding. --Merbabu (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The situation varied across the country and the role of the army has never been fully explained; in some areas the... ". - Period instead of semi-colon
    • Hmmm - I thought that was OK, but changed nonetheless. --Merbabu (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Many of the bodies had been dumped in rivers, so much so that in parts they became clogged with corpses." - Repetition. I'd suggest deleting this sentence and merging the other two sentences in the paragraph with the paragraph above them.
    • I deleted the sentence as recommended, but left the rest as a short stand-alone paragraph. I know this looks odd, but it is about the end of the killings - ie, i think it might get a bit lost if I joined it up with the preceding paragraph. --Merbabu (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "the mystical Solo River" - What makes it "mystical"?


  • "amongst" - The MoS prefers "among".
  • "The killings extended to more than PKI members; in Java many considered 'left PNI' were killed, others killed were just suspects and other killings were simply the settling of old grievances with little or no political motive." - This sentence is spliced together with a semi-colon and a comma, and I notice a tilt toward this kind of punctuation in the article. Something like this might work: "The killings extended beyond PKI members and Javanese labeled "left PNI". Others who died were merely suspects or the victims of old grievances unrelated to politics.
  • "left PNI". I don't think PNI appeared earlier in the article unless I am missing it. If this is the first instance, it should be spelled out thus: " 'left PNI', meaning left-leaning members of the Indonesian National Party (PNI)".
  • "The Muslim group Muhammadiyah proclaimed in early November 1965 that the extermination of "Gestapu/PKI" constituted Holy War ("Gestapu" being the military's name for the '30 September Movement'), a position that was supported by other Islamic groups in Java and Sumatra." - This should be recast to pull the almost complete sentence in parentheses out of the middle.
  • "truckloads of arrested communists" - Throughout the article, Communists is sometimes uppercase in the article and sometimes lowercase. Unless you have a reason for using both, consistency would be good, most likely uppercase since they either were members of the PKI or were being portrayed as such.
    • Done - changed to upper case. --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Where there had been communist centres in Central and East Java, Muslim groups portraying themselves as victims of communist aggression justified the killings by evoking the Madiun Affair of 1948." - The MoS generally frowns on paragraphs this short. The two solutions are to expand the paragraph or to merge it with another paragraph.
    • Done - i shuffled sentences and paragraphs around. --Merbabu (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "traditional mysticism" - Repetition of "mystical". Also, it might be good to elaborate on the mysticism. What kind? What did it involve?


  • "around the plantations" - What plantations?
    • Done - i just removed that phrase. --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "The regional revolts of the late 1950s complicated events in Sumatra as many former rebels were forced to affiliate themselves with Communist bodies to prove their loyalty to the Indonesian Republic. The quelling of the 1950s revolts and 1965 killings were seen by most Sumatrans as a "Javanese occupation". - I don't understand what is meant here. What were the former rebels before they affiliated with the Communists? Who forced them? How is this related to the idea of a Javanese occupation? "Quelling" and "killings" don't mean the same as "occupation".

Deaths and imprisonment

  • "In the first 20 years following the killings, thirty-nine serious estimates... " Numbers from 10 and up are usually written as digits. For consistency, thirty-nine here should be 39. You should check throughout the article for other similar situations.
  • "2 million" - two million. Ditto for one million. Numbers from one to nine are usually spelled out.
  • "1.5m" - 1.5 million
  • "as did their children" - as were their children?
  • "Conflict resolution methods have broken down, and Muslim groups and the military adopted an "us or them attitude", and that when the killings were over, many Indonesians dismissed as something the communists had deserved. - "Had" broken down instead of "have? This probably should be two sentences, the second saying, "When the killings were over, many Indonesians dismissed them as something the Communists had deserved."


  • It seems counter-intuitive, but if you use the "work" parameter instead of the "publisher" parameter in the cite news template, it will correctly italicize the newspaper name. I fixed citation 52, so you have an example. Citation 56 also needs italics, and maybe those are the only two.
    • Done - i think. There are nine other uses of "publisher" but these are associated with books and the book template. --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. This is the most helpful review I've seen. Very detailed, and clearly a lot of effort went into it. cheers. --Merbabu (talk)

Outliers (book)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the first article about a book that I've written, so there are probably a few issues with it still. The book is still at number one on the New York Times Best Seller list as of January 9, 2009, and has been there for seven weeks so far. I'd like to get as much feedback as possible before I bring it to WP:FAC. In particular, the Synopsis section might be a bit long, but I think that it also discusses several of the book's themes, so I believe it is acceptable. I don't think it needs to be split out into a separate Themes section because it works better when that information is mentioned along with the rest of the Synopsis. Synopsis could perhaps be organized better, though, so I'm open to suggestions on that. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A couple very quick comments; I don't quite feel like doing a full review right now, maybe in a couple hours.

  • Before submitting to FAC, take a look at Race Against Time (Lewis), for an example of an excellent book article.
  • "When remarking that all of his books focus on singularities"
  • "best seller" Hyphenate.
  • "All of Gladwell's books focus on singularities" Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I browsed through a few recent book FAs including The World Without Us, Getting It: The psychology of est, and David Suzuki: The Autobiography as examples but didn't come across that one, so I will check it out. For "all", I think it should be there as without it, it seems a bit vague as to how many of his books; it really means all three of his books, so I think it makes more sense to leave it there? I removed the "of" in "all of", though, as that is used incorrectly. For "best seller", there are so many variations of the phrase; I think "bestseller" is also correct, though, so I've used that. Gary King (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "At the end of the book, Gladwell talks about the unique roots of his Jamaican mother, Joyce, who descended from African slaves." He doesn't actually talk; maybe "discusses" or "writes about".
  • "the Austin American-Statesman still reminded" reminded whom?
  • I found a couple reviews which may be useful: [1] [2] and here, from a business reviewer's perspective: [3].
  • I like the integration of the themes in Synopsis section. However, this makes the Synopsis section veer away from the actual synopsis of the book a bit. I see the beginning and the end, but what is in between is a bit unclear. Perhaps you could compromise by organizing the presentation of the themes in the order that they appear; a chapter-by-chapter summary wouldn't hurt either. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay fixes done. I'll add the reviews in a bit later, either tonight or tomorrow. The themes are actually in the order that they appear. There are nine chapters, it might make the Synopsis a bit long? Gary King (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've added the three reviews into the article. Gary King (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments This is looking pretty good. I made some changes along the way and tried listing everything else below. I'm used to a "Themes" section but that is for fiction. I'm not sure it's necessary for non-fiction but we'll see what other reviewers say. As it stands, the sections are a bit long and you might consider breaking them up. Synopsis, Themes, Reception, Publication Details, etc.
    • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit hard to understand. What you've written read like he writes books about singularities because they have a good chance of making the front page.. which of course doesn't make sense. Some clarity is needed about how his penchant for writing articles about singularities has translated to books.
    • "... he wanted people to realize that what society does for each other ..." Something is amiss here, grammatically. Maybe, "what people in society do for each other"?
    • I think it might be "The New York Times's"; can you verify somehow?
    • "The link between Gladwell's background and the rest of the publication to tie it all together was also appreciated." Your message is unclear here.. I'm not sure what you're saying.
    • "Several reviewers appreciated the questions asked by ..." Hm, "posed" is preferred to "asked". It's a book, after all.
    • "His speciality of academic material..." His familiarity with academic material...? His academic expertise...?
    • There's a bit of parallelism lacking when you describe his father as an academic and his mother as a Jamaican.
    • "His first opportunity to take a step towards success ..." Either step here or step later in the sentence, but not both please.
    • "He wanted to show that there were a lot more variables involved in an individual's success ..." You mix tenses in this sentence... "hopes" to "hoped", I think.
    • "Focusing on outliers, defined by Gladwell as ..." You give the term in the plural here and then the definition is of the singular.
    • "He also notes that he himself took ..." Two clauses marked by em dashes seems too much for one sentence.
    • "Gladwell points out that Langan has not reached a high level of success because of the environment that he grew up in." The second "that" is unneeded. I caught some of these, but check throughout.
    • "Noting that they both encompassed innate natural abilities ..." Encompassed isn't the right word here.. maybe typified?
    • "When he was about to be expelled from the school, he was able to '[talk] his way out of jams'" But that was one jam...
    • "The book has been generally well received by critics." This is a bit "current", will we be maintaining it?
    • "The magazine points out how the link between race and achievement are given substantive analysis ..." The link is or the links are?
    • I'm sort of out of the "reliable sources" loop but is are you going to get hassled for using the A.V. Club? Is that considered a reliable source? It is connected with The Onion, after all.
--Laser brain (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright I think I've gotten everything. As it stands, I don't think the sections are too long (my monitor is 22" however, so YMMV). If I split it up, then the new sections like Themes and Publication details would be too short. User:Ealdgyth says that the AV Club is acceptable. Gary King (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. This should pass GA easily. I could see someone at FAC asking for "more sources" so you might want to get an argument ready for that. --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Lede is a bit large, could cut that down a bit.
  • Lots of large paragraphs throughout - these could be split apart.
  • Not sure if anything relates, but could have a Further reading section?
  • Background - seems to be all about the Author - perhaps retitle this subsection to Author or About the author ?

Cirt (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see where I can trim the lead. Although, the lead here is about 15% of the article, which is roughly similar to most other FAs. Regarding large paragraphs, I originally had them smaller, but since they can only be split in certain areas of each paragraph (to not disturb the flow) some paragraphs that were split off were way too short on their own. I'll find some books for Further reading if they are relevant, like perhaps some psychology or sociology books; although, Outliers is so new that I'm not sure if there is anything out there that really relates to the book. I'll think about renaming the Background section, although I like the vagueness of it as "Author" seems to imply that the section is about the Author, and not necessarily about relating the author's background with the book's development. Gary King (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


  • In Background I would like to see more focus on when/how/where the book was researched/written. I'm not a big fan of the biography aspect of the author
  • Look to add a Style and/or Genre section. A comparison to the author's previous writing can be made here. The more neutral descriptions of the book/writing currently in the Reception can be made in the Style section. Genre could explain how it is a popular science book and to what extent it is an autobiography.
  • Maybe add a quote box with a sample of the writing. A quote can often illustrate the writing style better than an entire section trying to explain it. --maclean 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ringo Starr[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to improve all articles on The Beatles' personnel to GA status. Therefore, I would like input on how I can get this to GA status.

Thanks, Dendodge TalkContribs 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is broad in its coverage, and it seems stable and neutral. However, in some other areas it falls short of GA. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead of a Wikipedia article should summarize the whole article. The existing lead does not begin to do that and should be expanded. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the central ideas in each of the main text sections. Please see WP:LEAD for more ideas.
  • Large parts of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that is unusual or might reasonably be questioned. I'll just give one example: "Starr generally sang at least one song on each studio album as part of establishing the vocal personality of all four members, a quality that is rarely seen in other bands." The "at least one" claim and the "rarely seen in other bands" claim need sources.
  • Fond of The Beatles as I am, the writing seems less clear in the lower sections than in the top sections. I find the level of detail in the lower sections a bit much in places, and some of it is confusing. An example would be "In fact, Rotogravure turned out to be Starr's last top 40 album in the US to date peaking at #28 on Billboard and the Single turned out to be the last top 40 single in the US in the 70s 'A Dose of Rock And Roll'." This has so many qualifiers that it's hard to understand what it means. "To date" is ambiguous, and it's not clear whether "last top 40 single in the US in the 70s... " refers to all records or just Starr's records.
  • The Manual of Style (MoS) generally deprecates orphan paragraphs consisting of only one sentence. The existing article has a lot of them, and I think most could easily be combined with other orphans or bigger paragraphs.
  • The MoS deprecates fancy quotation marks such as those used in "Drumming ability and appreciation". I see other minor errors or breaks with the MoS throughout the article. A copyeditor familiar with the MoS could probably catch and fix these.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. If possible, they should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. It's not always possible to find all of these, but citation 2, for example, has nothing but a title and an url.
  • Not everyone will understand all the special terms and jargon. Examples just from "Drumming ability and appreciation" include "tonal rings", "drum kit pattern", "the bridge", "hi-hat rolls", "snare drum", "B-side", and "maracas". These could be linked or explained.

I hope you find these brief comments helpful in your pursuit of GA. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Your sources are: one book and eight million websites? That raises many concerns about depth of coverage. plus as noted above, the citation style is puzzling... is that a standard format of any kind? Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 08:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay - that citation style is used in many Beatles articles, as a number of references (particularly books) are used multiple times. We've gotten past GAN with it with The Beatles, Paul McCartney, John Lennon and (hopefully soon, when someone gets round to reviewing it) George Harrison. I'll take the other comments on board, thank you. Dendodge TalkContribs 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is almost ready for WP:FAC, but want more eyes to look at it critically before then. I had a lot of information from the article on Plunketts Creek, which the bridge crosses, and from the bridge's National Register of Historic Places and Historic American Engineering Record entries - hopefully the article does not go into too much detail. I have been the main author on several covered bridge articles (which served as models), but this is my first article on a stone arch bridge. Sadly the bridge was destroyed after a major flood in 1996 and is no longer extant. Thanks in advance for any input, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3/archive1.


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recent GA and I would like feedback to help move it along to A-class and FA status.

Thanks, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and nicely illustrated. Since I know virtually nothing about the subject matter, I can only offer advice about syntax, style, spelling, layout, and similar matters apparent to a general reader. Here are my suggestions:


  • "Finnic" - This links to a disambiguation page. Perhaps Finnic peoples is the intended target page.


  • "kylfa can club or cudgel" - Missing word, "mean"
  • in connection with the word hjúkolfr which means "meeting" or "guild", where the second element kolfr would refer to an arrow used as a fiery cross - Prose flow suggestion: "in connection with the word hjúkolfr, meaning "meeting" or "guild", in which the second element kolfr refers to an arrow... "
  • "more or less synonymous with "viking"." - Cap V on Viking


  • "to refer to an "club" in the sense of organization" - "a" club rather than "an" club


  • "have assigned a Danish origin for this tribe" - "to this tribe"
  • "Holm (1992) consider such suggestions" - "Holm considers... ".
  • "due to the fact that" - Suggestion: "because" rather than "due to the fact that"
  • "as distinct from other Varangian and viking groups" - Cap V on Viking

Finnic peoples

  • "distinguished between them in the same manner a they separated" - "as" rather than "a"
  • "Additionally, both East Slavs and Byzantines sources explicitly associate" - This should be written as "Additionally, East Slav and Byzantine sources... ".
  • "Another difference is the fact that the Byzantines sources" - "In addition, Byzantine sources... ".
  • Suggestion: Wikilink ethnonym.
  • I had to look up the meaning of "appellative" in my Webster's dictionary, and Wiktionary doesn't list it. I'm not sure what to suggest. It appears to be an adjective meaning "relating to the giving of names" in this context. Would "can be associated with the noun, vadja" be correct?
  • "the Norse learnt of the meaning" - "learned" rather than "learnt"
  • "and in the case of some of the Dnieper rapids" - Wikilinked and spelled out thus: "and in the case of some of the Dnieper River rapids"
  • "The theory that the Kylfings were votes" - Cap V on Votes


  • Austkylfur is hyphenated, spelled with an extra "r", and italicized in the heading, not italicized in some places in the main text, and not hyphenated except in the lead. I think Austkylfur without italics and without a hyphen would be best throughout.
  • Suggestion: Wikilink philologist to Philology with a pipe, thus: philologist.


  • Where possible, it would be good to include ISBN numbers and places of publication for books.


  • The beautiful photo in the Finnic peoples section should be moved away from the second-level head because images directly under heads at second or third levels can cause display problems on some monitors. The image can go lower in the section or to the right.
  • Usually images are set to "thumb" size except the first one in the upper right-hand corner or infobox.
  • The image licenses look fine to me. It would be good, though, to add a more complete description of Image:Norwegian petty kingdoms ca. 872.png to its description page at the Commons. The description should say what the map is and what base map User:Tokle used to create it, where the base map can be found. This would be helpful to people who might want to use the map in other articles.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Sunderland A.F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a very comprehensive look at how I can eventually bring it to FAC. My previous FAC did not go to well after the FAC was used as a peer review, so please be as thorough as possible. :) Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Eddie6705[edit]

  • First paragraph of lead. "Sunderland are England's sixth most successful club of all time" No need to link 'of all' as well. Done - Moved outside the brackets.
  • The final sentence does not need the 'in' between 'runners-up' and 'a'. Done - Removed redundancy.
  • Second paragraph of lead. The second sentance needs a comma between '1992' and 'where'. Done - Added a comma.
  • Also there should be a comma after '1985 Football League Cup Final'. Done - Added a comma.

Early years and title success: 1879–1913[edit]

  • "Their first kit was an all blue strip, in a sharp contrast..." Don't need to use 'in' and 'a' together. Either will do. Done - Removed "in".
  • " James Allan's boarding school, and would change..." Need a they between 'and' and 'would'. Done - Added "they".
  • "Sunderland joined the Football League in time for the 1890–91 season, which was only the league's third season. Stoke, one of the twelve Football League founder members dropped out after two seasons." I would reword this to something like this; Sunderland joined the Football League in time for the 1890–91 season, the league's third season. They replaced Stoke, of the original League founder members, who dropped out after two seasons. Done - Changed.
  • "This was followed up successfully in the 1892–93 season" Replace 'in the 1892-93 season' with 'the following season' (keeping the link in place). Done - Changed.
  • "Manager Tom Watson resigned as manager" 'as manager' is redundant and not needed. Done - Removed redundancy.
  • In the fourth paragraph, '6th' neededs to be fully spelled out. Done - Spelt out.
  • "McCombie, however, saw the money..." The first comma isn't really needed. Done - Removed comma.
  • "..six directors were being suspended for two and a half years" The being isn't needed. Done - Removed "being".
  • "and be help in Newcastle's spell of league success of the era" This sounds awkward. Done - Changed to "and help towards Newcastle's spell of league success of the era".
  • "The 1907–08 season included the club's record win, a 9–1 win against Newcastle United at St James' Park" I would replace the second win with victory. Done - Changed to "victory".

Further success and First World War: 1913–1939[edit]

  • "Sunderland finished in eighth place in Division One of the 1914–15 season" I would reword this as; Sunderland finished in eighth place in 1914–15 Division One season Done - Changed.
  • "Charlie Buchan broke to 30 goal mark" 'to' should be the. Done - Changed to "the".
  • "Birmingham won the match and took Sunderland out of the cup" knocked may be a better phrase to use rather than took. Done - Changed to "knocked".
  • "Sunderland managed to surpass the runners-up spot and win their sixth league title. They scored 109 goals through the season, with both Raich Carter and Bobby Gurney hitting 31 each while they won the league by 8 points." this could be reworded as; Sunderland managed to surpass the runners-up spot and win their sixth league title by eight points. They scored 109 goals during the season, with both Raich Carter and Bobby Gurney hitting 31. Done - Changed to that.
  • "when they reached the semi-finals, they came up against Huddersfield Town but were beaten 3–1" replace 'they came up' with coming up and insert a comma after 'Huddersfield Town' Done - Added a comma.
  • "retirement from management. after" should be a comma. Done - Changed to comma.

Second World War halts progress: 1939–1959[edit]

  • "shortly into the 1939–40 season to halt progress with the new manager..." reword to something like; shortly into the 1939–40 season, halting the new manager's progress. Done - Changed to that.
  • "The league resumed in the following season" No need for the 'in' Done - Removed the "in".
  • " December 1952 was a memorable date for their stadium, Roker Park, as floodlights were experimented with for the first time in a match" 'their stadium' is not needed. Done - Removed "their stadium".
  • "They played Manchester City at the Wembley Stadium" Don't need 'the'. Done - Removed "the".

FA Cup glory and Europe: 1959–1979[edit]

  • "The FA Cup win in 1973 led Sunderland to qualify for European competition for the first time..." 'for a European competition' Done - Added "a".
  • "After 1973, winning FA Cup manager Bob Stokoe became ill in the 1976–77 season, he stepped down from the job, where he was replaced temporarily by caretaker manager Ian MacFarlane." Don't need 'After 1973, winning FA Cup' Done - Removed.

Two cup finals: 1979–1997[edit]

  • "They played an "England XI" side, featuring teams from both Newcastle and Middlesbrough" shouldn't 'teams' be 'players'? Done - Changed to "players".
  • "Knighton managed the club for 94 games leading the club to a 2nd position finish, in which they were promoted to the First Division.[83] Although he was sacked the following season with Sunderland struggling towards the bottom of Division One." Should all be one sentence. Done - Made one sentence.

Recent times: 1997–present[edit]

  • "Over 40,000 fans travelled from the North-East to see an game against Charlton Athletic"" 'the game' Done - Changed to "the".
  • "Sunderland finished seventh, shortly missing a place..." replace shortly with narrowly Done - Replaced with "narrowly".


  • All positions needed to be written out in full rather than being abbreviated. Done - Spelled out.
  • Link the first mention of 'caretaker manager', so there is no need to link it again. Done

I hope you don't think I have been too critical of the article. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all, this is exactly the type of comments I'm looking for. I'll get to them ASAP. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Good job on making the changes so quickly. I 'll have another look through tomorrow. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

South African Scout Association[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed as a FAC, and I would like to find out what should be or could be improved in the article.

Thanks, -- YiS, Jediwannabe 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the FAC review? It is not connected from the Talk page. Also, I note the automated review calls for more inbound and outbound links. When i check "what links here", I notice many links, including Protected areas of South Africa, which happens to seems unusual so I go to check on what is the relationship, but then I can find no link to South African Scout Association from there. doncram (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
FAC review is linked in the article milestones section on the Talk page. Majority of those links are due to the South African topics template that is included on most South African pages. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. The milestones were within an unexpanded box and i didn't realize that. Odd that South African Scout Association should be on a "South African topics" template. It doesn't look right to me in that template's "Culture" section: "Art · Cinema · Cuisine · Education · Language · Literature · Music · Poets · Public holidays · Religion · Sport · Media · Scouts." One particular proper noun youth organization does not compare with Education or Literature or Media or other topics. I'll comment on the template's talk page. doncram (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Later: It's not just an issue for that template page, it's an issue for this article. A previous reviewer and/or automated reviewer was concerned that there are not enough in-bound links. Putting it onto the template page does not provide appropriate links of the kind desired. It would succeed in tricking an automated review, and it makes it difficult for human reviewers to evaluate the inbound links. doncram (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are talking about. However I believe that the article has been part of the template for quite a while (longer then I've been editing the article I think). I see that it has been removed now. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 06:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by doncram I think you have a good article here. Here are my first thoughts; i shall return later to add more specifics.

My most major reaction reading this is surprise that it was not asserted that Scouting began in South Africa, which is what i thought. It is here represented that scouting began in England in 1907 and then spread here, and it is presented mysteriously how it started here. It was as if the blueprint for Scouting was posted on the internet, and started popping up everywhere. This is in contrast to my awareness of how the Girl Guides / Girl Scouts movement started in the United States, from the very specific founding of a first group by one person who had in mind starting a larger movement. Or at least that is how it is represented in a historical article regarding it that i read (specifically the PDF document linked from Juliette Gordon Low Historic District, a U.S. National Historic Landmark. It was started by an adult who thought it would be a good thing; it did not develop, grassroots style from the youths themselves. (Not saying u implied the latter, but it was what i was imagining, given lack of details similar to Juliette Gordon Low's specific actions.)

In fact, the Baden-Powell article states: "In 1899, during the Second Boer War in South Africa, Baden-Powell successfully defended the city in the Siege of Mafeking. Several of his military books, written for military reconnaissance and scout training in his African years, were also read by boys. Based on those earlier books, he wrote Scouting for Boys, published in 1908 by Pearson, for youth readership. During writing, he tested his ideas through a camping trip on Brownsea Island that began on 1 August 1907, which is now seen as the beginning of Scouting." It is imperative that these earlier roots in South Africa of what became the formal scouting movement be claimed and explained in this article. Also, I am not a sociologist, but I imagine that there was a lot special about South Africa's terrain, peoples, conflicts, and the nature of the British rule that formed a milieu relatively ripe for the idea of scouting movement to emerge. The British military activities there involved, I project, lots of camping and patrols and tracking and so on, which were attractive features for a program that swept the world, so to speak. I expect that this milieu was NOT present in other areas of the world at this time that the world was ripe (perhaps) for a scouting-type movement. Romantic ideas of the American west and its Indians / native Americans did inspire, I think, Campfire Girls and other organizations, which I think postdated Boy Scouts, but the actual era of scouting-type missions for military purposes was long over, beforehand, while I believe it was semi-real still in 1904 in South Africa. I project that there must be learned articles in peer-reviewed history journals which accurately and rather completely describe this early history. Get thee to a library, and SHEESH, TAKE SOME CREDIT! And please tell about the Mafeking siege. Get a copy of Baden-Powell's 1904 booklet and include quotes from it and include illustrative copies of original pages in this article. Also, please research and explain how scouting formally got started in this county in 1908. Was it British military men, currently serving or post-service, who knew Baden-Powell, who opened the first troops, when where how etc?

Hope this helps for a start. I hope you don't mind my perhaps breezy style here. I am continuing to read the article carefully, and will give you further comments later. Meanwhile it would be useful to have your responses to these initial comments. doncram (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I will try to find more information, unfortunately most of the libraries I have access too are rather limited in their selection. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 06:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Wainwright discography[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope this discography will eventually reach FL status, and I'd like to get some feedback before nominating this as a candidate. I have looked at other discographies with FL status, and believe this article is similar -- I am ready for comments and suggestions!

Thanks so much! Whataworld06 (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion:

In your introduction you make the statement, "After becoming the first openly gay musician to be signed to a major record label …" Is this true? Can a reference be cited to verify this? Jimknut (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right! Yes, it is true, and I forgot to go back and find a reference for this. Thanks for the reminder. The claim was made on VH1's special program, Totally Gayer, on March 10, 2004, and on a recent episode of the Sundance Channel's "Spectacle: Elvis Costello with..." Both references have been added to the list. I will continue searching for a newspaper article or other written source citing this accomplishment. Thanks again! -Whataworld06 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


  • 'includes' or 'consists of'?
  • one reissue compilation → one compilation album
  • three music DVDs → three video albums (per infobox)
  • several singles → nine singles
  • "After becoming the first openly gay musician to be signed to a major record label,..." Do you think this sentence is really relevant for a discography?
Done. The statement has been removed.
  • "His most successful album to date, Release the Stars charted in twelve countries..." What positions and in which countries? I do not accept answers like: "see in the table".
Comment: Twelve stats is quite a few to list. Perhaps I could just say "including #2 in the UK" (a particularly noteworthy achievement)? I'd appreciate any other thoughts or suggestions.
  • Studio albums and Live albums - Album → Album details
    • Remove the columns of AUT, DEU, and ESP; per MOS:DISCOG
Comment:,, and are considered reliable sources. I am not sure I understand why these columns should be removed.
Haha, I know that all are reliable sources. (In the case of multiple-charts, "comprehensive" does not necessarily mean an exhaustive list of countries and charts the artist has charted on. A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart.)
    • Put the certifications in normal size.
    • What formats were released? (CD, cassette, LP, DVD-A...)
Comment: Working on this now... DONE.
    • "—" denotes releases that did not chart
      • You have how prove that all albums were released in these countries?
    • Remove the empty columns in the Live albums' table. As suggestion, see In Flames discography
  • The section "singles", don't looks good.
Comment: Why does it not look good? What can I do to improve it? I see you assisted, and I added "—" denotes releases that did not chart.
  • Note: Promotional music videos consisting of live concert footage for "Vibrate" and "Beautiful Child" can be purchased on iTunes. Remove this propanganda please.
My goal is simply to indicate that promotional music videos exist for these, and they are indeed available on iTunes though I am not sure of the production information. Is there a way I can display their existence without it coming across as propaganda. Certainly I am not trying to promote iTunes.
WP:SPAMMER: Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place.

This is all so far. Cannibaloki 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH for your feedback and suggestions. Many edits have been made so far, and I am working on others at the moment.
  • Questions from article creator/nominator for feedback:
- Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall is a live tribute/cover album. Should the infobox and article have this album labeled as a live album, or a tribute/cover album?
Live album. Cannibaloki 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!
- Where should the Operas section be in the article? I feel operas are major works, so they may need to be towards the top so that the section is not overlooked. However, I am not sure where exactly it should be placed.
Remove. This opera was released in which form/type? (Prima Donna is the name of Rufus Wainwright's first opera, which is currently in the process of being written.)
The opera is being premiered in a few months at the Manchester International Festival. While there is no word yet if the opera will be recorded and released as an album or not, this is certainly a major work that deserves to be credited. No?
No. Remember that is a discography, not a list of operas created by Rufus Wainwright.
- Also, can the Operas section be added to the infobox?
I thought the infobox could be edited to incorporate 'other' options, but I will leave the Operas section unlisted for now.
- Is the Contributions section laid out properly, with the Soundtrack, Compilation, and Guest appearances listed? Should references be included for any of the contributions, if possible?
Yes; All should be referenced. Cannibaloki 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Working on this now...

Just a few questions I came up with while taking another look at the article. Thanks! -Whataworld06 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wind power in Romania[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to know other oppinions about it.

Thanks, Mario1987 09:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about an interesting topic. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The Manual of Style generally deprecates one-sentence paragraphs. Most of the paragraphs in the existing article consist of only one sentence, while the others have only two. Two solutions are possible. You can either expand the short paragraphs or combine them.
  • "Wind power in Romania" in the first sentence should have a lowercase "W" since it comes in the middle of the sentence and is not the first letter of a proper noun.
  • "MW, up from the 3 MW" - Multiple problems here. Terms that are abbreviated should be spelled out on first use, like this: " 3 megawatts (MW)". Furthermore, MW is linked to a disambiguation page. When this happens, you should choose from the disambiguation list and link to an appropriate page, in this case Watt#Megawatt. The # in this link makes the link connect to the megawatt subsection of the watt article. You can pipe the link to appear as MW even though the link is to Watt#Megawatt in this way MW. (Look at this paragraph in edit mode if my explanation isn't clear.) Also, MW needs to be linked only once in an article as short as this. More than that is overlinking. See WP:Overlink for more details.
  • "turbines with a 100 metre hub height" - Quantities in metric units need to be expressed also in imperial units, like this: 100-metre (330 ft). I find the convert template handy for doing the conversions and getting the spellings correct automatically. You can find more details at Template:Convert. I added the |adj = on parameter to the template to create a hyphen. You can make a | with a shift-backslash key combination.
  • "there is a significant number of companies" - subject-verb agreement: there are
  • Each set of statistical claims, each claim that might reasonably be questioned, and each paragraph should be attributed to a reliable source. Some of the paragraphs in the existing article are unsourced. Where does the 23 terawatt-hour figure come from?
  • Shouldn't the 23 terawatt-hours really be terawatts? Does this include power generated by coal, natural gas, and all other means? A brief explanation of the difference between a terawatt and a terawatt-hour might be helpful here. A lot of readers won't know the difference between them or even realize that they differ.
  • Wikilinks should not be bolded. They are already bolded automatically, and the Manual of Style frowns on double bolding. The bolding should be removed from the links in the big table.
  • References should include author name, title, publisher, publication date, url, and access date, when feasible. A handy way to do the citations is to use the cite family of templates. You can find details at WP:CITE and the templates at WP:CIT. Copy-and-paste works well for adding the templates to your article or sandbox, where you can fill in the appropriate data.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Cameron Rutherford[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This recently became a good article, and I think it's close to FA quality. However, I wanted to get a few more opinions before I brought it to WP:FAC. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review (so far)! For clarity's sake, my responses will be in italics. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


I know very little about Canadian politics, and absolutely nothing about Canadian provincial politics, so this is new territory for me, and most interesting, too. I will confine my comments for the moment to the lead and first few sections, with more to follow:-

  • Lead
    • "articled" in the professional training sense is a pretty obsolete word, and needs to be linked, via a pipe, to articled clerk.
    • I have never met "articled" as a verb before. Is this standard North American usage? In UK we would have said "was articled"
      • In Canada, everybody describes it as "articling", as I've written in the article. However, that appears to be more colloquial than I'd realized, so I'll change it.
    • Overdetailing: informative though it is, I think the lead is too long. It has a lot of detail, rather than the summary sweep which should characterise a lead. For example, I would reduce the first paragraph to something like this:-

Alexander Cameron Rutherford (February 2, 1857–June 11, 1941) was a Canadian lawyer and politician who served as the first Premier of Alberta from 1905 to 1910. Born in Ormond, Ontario, he studied and practised law in law Ottawa before moving with his family to the Northwest Territories in 1895. Here he began his political career, winning at the third attempt a seat in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. In keeping with the local custom Rutherford ran as an independent, though he generally supported the territorial administration of Premier Frederick W. A. G. Haultain. At the federal level, however, Rutherford was a Liberal.

This is offered as an indication of the level of detail I would expect to find in the lead, not necessarily as the wording you should use. Similar contractions could be made in the other paragraphs.

  • Early life
    • "two years previous"? Does this mean "two years previously"? (is it NorthAm usage again?)
  • Move west
    • " investigate the disappearance of a cousin" is intriguing, but cryptic. Is a brief explanation possible?
      • Sadly, I haven't found a source that expands more than that on it. I debated leaving it out for that reason, but it seemed too interesting a detail not to include.
    • "The Rocky Mountains and the west coast Chinese immigrants left a great impression on him, as did the coastal climate which he found "very agreeable". A number of issues with this sentence.
      • The phrasing seems oddly sequenced; there seems no reason to link the Rocky Mountains and the Chinese immigrants, with the coastal climate as the afterthought. It might be more logical to have the Rocky Mountains and the coastal climate together, and the immigrants as the afterthought.
      • Or, since the Chinese immigrants are not mentioned again in the article (so far as I can see), need they be mentioned here?
      • The phrase "very agreeable" is an everyday expression, which doesn't need to be in quote marks.
        • It's a direct quote from Rutherford's description of his trip.
    • Need to be consistent about where he moved to when he went west. In the lead it says Strathcona, here it says South Edmonton. It seems these are different names for the same place, but there needs to be more clarity.
      • They are indeed the same place; I just assumed the Strathcona, Alberta article would have covered that, but it appears not to. I'll modify either that article or this one to make it clearer.
        • Actually, rereading the article, it includes "He was an early advocate for the incorporation of South Edmonton, hitherto an unincorporated community, and when incorporation came in 1899—as the Town of Strathcona..." - is that not sufficiently clear?
    • It would read better to say he defended a native American rather than a "native"
    • " a time when most lawyers wouldn't" is not very encyclopedic. Suggest "at a time when most lawyers refused such cases".
    • General: as with the lead I think there is too much small detail. Things which don't really add anything include "with a car load of furnishings", "a four-room house built on a single storey", the lengthy list of his local offices, and POV-ish statements like "Rutherford fast became a pillar of the community".
  • Early political career
    • "and advocated for..." The "for" is unnecessary – "advocated" means argued for.
    • "Also" is unnecessary in "Rutherford also criticised..."
      • Overuse of "also" is a pet peeve of mine; I am sore abashed.
    • The following sentence goes on and on and on..."It at first looked as though he would run unopposed..." – ending 64 words later. This needs splitting, perhaps into three sentences?
    • "prevented the Northwest Territories from meeting their obligations." Some indication of what these obligations were would be helpful.
    • Check linking of Northwest Territories. This should be at first mention.

I will return as soon as I can. Meantime you may wish to consider the above suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Next bite

  • Selection as premier
    • Laurier should be referred to as the federal PM
    • Certain names that occur should have forenames added at first mention - it is not always immediately possible to remember them by just the surname. Thus, Frank Oliver, Peter Talbot, George Bulyea.
      • I wonder if you happen to know if there's an MOS rule about this (I'm not so hot with the MOS). My natural inclination is to provide first names the first time a person is mentioned in each section, on the assumption that a lot of readers do what I do and read articles section-by-section rather than starting at the beginning. However, I know that we're not supposed to do that with wikilinks (which would also be my inclination), so I thought the same might apply with first names.
    • "wasn't" and "didn't" are too informal
    • "...announced that he would stay in Regina." For the benefit of us outsiders, what does this mean?
    • "Bulyeaasked Alexandr Rutherford..." no need to include the "Alexander".

(OK, only a bit, but progress all the same) Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


  • 1905 election
    • "to which to propose legislation" is correct, but inelegant. How about: "to which he could propose legislation"?
    • "...Bennett. Bennett..." is avoidable by slight rewording: "...had already selected R.B. Bennett as their leader. Bennett..."
    • "especially egregious". Not sure: "egregious" means "outstandingly awful" – can you be "especially outstandingly awful"? I love the word, but it may not be the right choice here.
    • The sentence beginning "Bennett attached..." is another rambler, even longer than the one I highlighted earlier. It needs to be split.
    • – and the following sentence is longer still!
    • Numbers of seats won or predicted should be numeric (apart from the two), thus 18, 25, 21, 23. I'd suggest a slight rewording: "Immediately after the election it appeared that the Liberals had won 21; when all the votes had been counted they had won 23 seats to the Conservatives' two."
  • First legislation etc
    • I think "most enthusiastically" is POV
    • I'd suggest: "...motions to select each of these..." (of these added)
    • "Legislation...passed the legislature." Again, correct but awkward-sounding, seems repetitious. What about: "A bill establishing the University was passed by the legislature, but left the Government to decide the location"?
    • "Perhaps most significantly..." Who says "most significantly"?
    • 140 – number starting sentence. This is one of those wikipedia no-nos that I've never really understood. To write out "One hundred and forty" would be absurd, but you could rephrase: "In the first year of Alberta's existence [as a province], 140 new schools..." etc
    • "normal school" should be briefly explained, beyond the link
    • Image of Rutherford as Premier. If his dates are to be believed, he was between 48 and 53 when this picture was taken. He looks much, much older – maybe 75, maybe 80. Are we sure of the photograph's date?
      • The source from which it was taken (the Babcock biography) gives the date as between 1905 and 1910. Besides that, in my view he looks about the same age as he does in this image, which i. includes a precise date (which gives more confidence in its accuracy) and ii. includes a photograph of a man who died in 1912. Besides that, here's a photograph of Rutherford at 81; I think there's definitely at least a couple decades' difference between that photo and the one in the article.

More to follow Brianboulton (talk)

  • Labour unrest
    • "The winter of 1906–07" would be more usual (otherwise it sounds like two winters)
    • "called" a commission? "appointed", perhaps?
    • "it came together" → "it met"
    • In the sentence beginning "Its recommendations included that..." the grammar is not quite right. Suggest amend to "Its recommendations included the prohibition of children under 16 working in mines..." etc. (Note: 16 should be numeric)
  • Public works
    • "This did not stop them..." sounds a bit informal, possibly
    • "shouldn't" and (later) "didn't" are definitely informal
    • 37 and 41 should be numerics
    • The first sentence of para 3 reads POV. In the following sentence I wonder if "a kind of mania" is an expression used by the source. If so, it should be in quotes; if not, it shouldn't be used at all.

Comments on remaining sections will have to be brief:-

  • Railway scandal: Scandal? does this affair really warrant being called a "scandal" – it seems fairly tame to me. Up to you, but it could perhaps be downgraded to "controversy". Also, you say "and looked as if it would continue to do so." To do what?
  • Later political career: The opening sentence ("The 1913 election was not the first time..." etc) sounds very journalistic, with its hints of revelations to come. I wonder if the sentence is necessary at all? And, as we jump back to 1911, it should be: "...several local Liberals...had asked..." rather than just "asked"
  • Professional career: I found this section a bit over-detailed, especially in the first paragraph
  • University of Alberta: clarify that Aberhart was the provincial PM. Also, you should briefly state what authority was removed from the senate, and to whom it was given.
  • Community involvement: I don't know what the existing record is for the longest sentence in a wikipedia article, but your entry is clearly the sentence which begins: "He was a deacon..." and ends, approx. 140 words later, with "...Canadian Authors Association". I'm almost tempted to say you should keep it, for record-breaking purposes, but perhaps you had better split it up.

This concludes my review. I have found the article interesting, and it has taught me something about early 20th century provincial Canadian politics, not an area I have encountered much before. A little too much detail in places, perhaps: a sometime tendency to veer away from encyclopedic language and use journalistic forms; overuse of parenthetical information which disrupts the prose flow. Also see my detailed comments which are mainly nitpicks. The article looks a natural for FAC after a little work, and I look forward to seeing it there.

Peer review is short of reviewers. It will help to keep this key stage in article development going if you are able to review an article from the PR backlog – see WP:PR#backlog

Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Halo: Uprising[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in gathering feedback prior to a featured topic nomination; the next issue will theoretically be coming out in March, but as it's been delayed more than a year so far I'd rather just improve it now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is straightforward and generally clear. I have some mostly minor concerns about the prose. Here are my suggestions for improvement.


  • "and publisher by" - "published"
  • "but due to numerous delays the final issues have not yet been released" - Redundant. Delete "due to numerous delays".
  • "including the one-shot Halo Graphic Novel" - I'm not sure what "one-shot" means. Maybe it means that the book was not part of a series. If so, you could just say "including the Halo Graphic Novel".

"*Brian Michael Bendis said he was 'honored' to add to the Halo lore" - Just "Bendis" on second and subsequent references.

Bendis caption

  • "Brian Michael Bendis struggled to write a proper tone" - Suggestion: "create" rather than "write"


  • "responsible for contacting Bungie" - Who or what is Bungie? It should be spelled out, linked, or explained on first use. I see "Bungie Studios" lower in the section.
  • "well as discuss the possibility" - Suggestion: "as well as to discuss the possibility"
  • "the possibility of tie-in comic book series" - Should this be "a" tie-in comic book series?
  • "something not easily found imparted in the games" - Suggestion: "something not easily imparted through the games"
  • "Bendis was not able to do anything he wanted" - Do you mean "everything he wanted"?
  • "While using established characters meant Bendis was not able to do anything he wanted in Uprising, he said that the change was a challenge he enjoyed; "you can get pretty bloated and sloppy with total autonomy all the time," he said." - Too complex. Suggestion: "While using established characters meant that Bendis was not able to do everything he wanted in Uprising, he said he enjoyed the challenge. "You can get pretty bloated and sloppy with total autonomy all the time," he said.
  • "Bendis suggested that the series might be delayed unexpectedly due to the cooperation between Marvel and Bungie." - Cooperation caused delay? Maybe something like "delayed unexpectedly by discussions between Marvel and Bungie" would be better.
  • "Due to a last minute change in a major plot point of Halo 3 by Bungie it was decided that the plot for Halo: Uprising needed reworking." - Awkward. Suggestion: "A last-minute change by Bungie to the plot of Halo 3 led to a reworking of Halo: Uprising."


  • Myras remains calm" - Last name on second use and subsequent uses: "Tyla remains calm"?
  • "but Ruwan states he knows exactly what it is" - Maybe "where" it is would be better.
  • "On Earth, Ruwan and Myra" - Here she turns into "Myra", but it's either Myras or Tyla. It should be Tyla unless that is not her last name.


  • "On the other hand, IGN stated" - Suggestion: "On the other hand, Imagine Games Network (IGN) stated"
  • "On the other hand, IGN stated the series' appeal was mostly superficial, as 'try as they might to replicate [Halo's] visceral moments, Bendis and Maleev just can't replicate the same feeling on the printed page'." - For smoothness, I'd stick a "that" right after "stated", and I'd put a terminal period after "superficial". The next sentence would read, " 'Try as they might to replicate [Halo's] visceral moments, Bendis and Maleev just can't replicate the same feeling on the printed page', the company said."
  • "was also seen as a major fault. Reviewers also did not understand" - Remove the two unneeded instances of "also".


  • Citation 14 needs fixing. It consists of only an url.

Other thoughts

  • I just want to be sure that Ruwan Jayatilleke and the character Ruwan are both correct. If so, using the name in the story must have been deliberate, a kind of in-joke, perhaps.

If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Carsten Borchgrevink[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a biography of a major, but relatively unknown, Antarctic explorer whose achievements deserve a wider audience. Much work has been done since the article's GA review, but I would like it read by fresh eyes, and also a check on its images, with a view to dealing with any problems in advance of a possible FAC.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Professional mastermind network service[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I truely would like to get this article Professional mastermind network service notability. Help with the structuring a credible article - so that other Wikipedians will wish to edit the article and help improve the topic. Further more, I would like to close the deletion discussion on the articles page.

Thanks, Danholmesdxb (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is nominated at WP:AFD so I am archiving it. If it survives, please renominate it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose and the comprehensiveness of the lead. …

Regards, Efe (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments by Sillyfolkboy:
  • Prose suggestions
  • "hip hop duo Outkast's "Hey Ya!" began its peak position in 2003, and is thus excluded." Why is it excluded? And it what way is it excluded? I understand the methodology is to include the songs which first hit the #1 spot in 2004 but why is a continuation at the top spot not counted? Is this to do with Billboard's way of assessment?
  • Yes. That's how they count the number of singles that chart in a particular year. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "13 acts achieved each a first US number-one single" sounds a little awkward. Why not try something like "In 2004, 13 acts achieved their first US number-one single"?
  • I'm still confused with this. It would also sound that they're one achieving also one number-one single. Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe just switch it to "13 acts each achieved...", that flows more naturally. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "seven collaborations singles went number one". It's collaboration singles surely?
  • Agree. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • "Usher had four number-one singles that appeared in the 2003 issues". Did you mean 2004?
  • Oops. Corrected. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Usher is the most-successful act". I think was is better, considering the rest of the article's tense usage.
  • I think it should be is because it doesn't change. Usher is forever that year's most successful act. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the meaning is clear and I think "is" and "was" equate to the same thing here (2004 has finished and it's obvious that no one superseded or will supersede him as the most successful act). However, the following sentence's use of "he had" and "topped" causes a little awkwardness in the tense. Feel free to disagree though... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Usher had 28 weeks on top, the most weeks achieved ever by an act". Maybe this would sound better: Usher had 28 weeks at the top – more weeks than any other artist has achieved in a calendar year.
  • I am worried with the use of dashes. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha! Don't fear the dashes! They are there to help you clarify the meaning and improve readability—there are various ways in which they improve a sentence. However, in this case you could use a semi colon (;) or comma and it works the same. I'm not a punctuation Nazi. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comma is better. Per MoS, we use em dashes sparingly. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The MoS also says you should never use "--" yet you've got it as part of your signature. The MoS says a lot of things. If an emdash works then it works. English is, by nature, very flexible in its usage. Also, the usage of English is—by its very nature—flexible. Don't be afraid to write things in your own style, as long as you don't go dash crazy! Remember: uniformity does not guarantee quality. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. My rule is when its clear with comma, don't use dashes. Hehe. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The feat also broken the record by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra, whose records monopolized the top spot of Record Buying Guide—a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s—for 26 consecutive weeks in 1940."
To prevent difficulties that the clausal phrase creates, try:
  • The feat also broke a record set by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra; in 1940 their records spent 26 consecutive weeks at the top spot of Record Buying Guide—a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s.
  • "The feat also broke the record set by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra; in 1940, their records spent 26 consecutive weeks at the top spot of Record Buying Guide, a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s." I removed the emdash. --Efe (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "On the Billboard Hot 100, he is the first ever artist to top the chart that long, over half a year, in a calendar year." Does this mean anything different from the sentence which starts "Overall,"? Is there a half year record too? If so, who had this record previously?
  • Did some changes there. --Efe (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional info

  • Perhaps note that Fantasia's "I Believe" and Ciara's "Goodies" were their debut singles.
  • We'll add that later. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A comment about genre is surely relevant: the fact that every number one single was either R&B or Rap is interesting (though I'm not sure what that Fantasia single was like, being from across the pond...)
  • If I can find sources. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, sourcing could be a problem. Give it some thought though because historically the genres' dominance in this period will be quite noteworthy. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • On a minor note (Em perhaps... ho ho ho), why are the retrieval dates in the references in international style (day first)? I think that US style (month first) or ISO (YYYY/MM/DD) would be more appropriate.
  • That's how the template are formatted. The important is the consistency throughout the article. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've asked the techies why the template works this way. Awaiting a response but it's largely unimportant in terms of the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, why not add a couple more images to fill up that white space on the right? I think these pictures of Snoop and Pharrell will do just fine. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am afraid, again. We only use images if the performance of their singles were very notable. I'll try to look for another one or two images, but maybe not them. --Efe (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Do you mind if I move this article to start "List of..."? Consensus at WP Record Charts leans this direction, and all promoted FLs and current FLCs follow this format. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs. --Efe (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PR now closed. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Nashville Sounds all-time roster[edit]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
    • All applicable suggested corrections/improvements made. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to get it promoted to Featured List status. This could be the first FL for an all-time baseball team roster. That being said, there is no template to follow for such a list—this could set the standard. I am particularly looking for ideas to make the lead the suggested 3 to 4 paragraphs. It would be nothing but subjective to list "top" players, and I don't want to go too deep into discussing award winners, all-stars, etc., as there is a separate list for that. Any and all help/suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions from KV5
  • One option for expanding the lead is to talk more about franchise history (consider paraphrasing material from other Wikipedia articles on the Sounds) and superlatives. Discussing award winners or franchise leaders is certainly valid, because it's noted in the table.
  • Due to the seemingly disproportionate number of red links at some points, I would suggest removing red links for players who won't meet the requirements for WP:N.
  • Since the list is so long, I recommend indexing it by splitting it into 3-5 approximately equal sections using the last name alphabetically. Yes, I know that the table is currently complete and sortable, but I don't believe that is paramount to having it easily navigable.
  • At least one image is necessary for FL. I know that there are some players on this list that have images.

Others may have additional comments, but this is a start. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All done. Thanks KV. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what an improvement. Cheers. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to bring it up to Featured List status. I've never attempted a Featured List, so I thought I'd start here. Bringing my attention to any problems or inconsistencies would be helpful. Any suggestions or comments are welcome. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711 comments

Just a few small things:

  • Artist in the picture is a redlink. Can you either put together a brief article or find an image by an artist with an existing article? Whatever image remains, a more descriptive caption would be good. Maybe an image of a specific identified valkyrie or valkyries including their names?
  • I'm unclear from the lead what it means to be attested as a valkyrie. I'm assuming that you mean "work includes such-and-such valkyrie who is named Foo" or something similar (and more coherent) but "attest" means "to declare to be true, correct or genuine" and since we are talking about creatures of myth they are by definition not truly or genuinely valkyries. Similar concern with the section header "Attested valkyries" and column heading "Attestations"; maybe simply "Named valkyries" and "Source work" or "Source"?
  • "In addition, some valkyrie names appear solely outside of these lists" is a bit over-written. Maybe something simpler like "Other valkyrie names appear solely outside these lists"?
  • "Some scholars" in the lede is a bit WP:WEASELly.
  • "...has been theorized as pointing..." → ..."may point..."
  • I wonder if the lede might benefit from a few words of explanation of some of the Norse terms. "...the deceased warriors become einherjar." And what are they? I realize it's linked but a few words of explanation would suffice to clarify. Same with Ragnarok and skalds.
  • Poetic Edda is mentioned in the second attestation cell but is unlinked and not explained.
  • ""The one charging forth with the spear" has been proposed." needs a source and is also a bit weaselly.
  • "possibly Gesta Danorum". Either it is in the work or it isn't, or if there's ambiguity based on spelling or something it needs to be explained and sourced.
  • Any more images that could be scattered about?

Mostly nit-picky stuff I realize. Otherwise looks solid. Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over this article! I've made some corrections based off of your recommendations. A few things:
  1. In this case, 'attestation' means "to bear witness; give testimony." In other words, sources say they're valkyries, therefore they are attested in those sources. Reading valkyrie, another article that I've written, may help clarify some things up here. This list is a spin off of that article.
  2. The einherjar are, well, deceased warriors. The description there is actually pretty detailed: they are warriors who have died that are taken to Valhalla by valkyries where they will assist Odin at Ragnarök. Right now it basically says it all. Ragnarök is pretty difficult to describe as anything but Ragnarök, and I think the most accurate thing to do here is just to say "the events of Ragnarök." It's not an apocalypse, nor is it doomsday. It's a rebirth yet a continuation, and it encompasses several major events—it is unclear exactly where one should define where it begins and where it ends during those events and many inevitable questions it raises are unaddressed in the source material. With this in mind, leaving it as "the events of Ragnarök" with a link to Ragnarök seems to be the most accurate way of handling this.
  3. As for Róta, you may want to see Róta#Gesta_Danorum as for why she may or may not be attested there. Since I've changed the list requirements, this is no longer and issue and I've removed the mention.
  4. We could probably get some more images in there; I am just not sure about how to go about this exactly. I'll take a look at some other lists and see if I can figure it out. If you want to fiddle with the code a bit, you are welcome to.
Further suggestions are welcome! :bloodofox: (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Following comments by Holt (talk · contribs):

  • Nafnaþulur is an important source for valkyrie names. The specifications "long", "longer" and "both" should be explained, either here in this article, or in the Nafnaþulur one.
  • This sentence:

In addition, some valkyrie names have been theorized as connected to other the names of earlier attested goddesses (such as the valkyrie name Herja and the goddess Hariasa, the latter attested from a stone from 187 CE), potentially pointing to the ability of the valkyries to place fetters (such as Herfjötur), or as being descriptive of the influence the valkyries have over wyrd or ørlog—a Germanic concept of fate (such as the valkyries Skuld and Svipul). incredibly long, and hard to keep up with. Should be split into two, and the last part "such as the valkyries Skuld and Svipul" could be more seamlessly merged into another sentence.

  • "Old Norse sources provide several lists that contain numerous valkyrie names." –Which?
Thanks for the feedback! I believe I've taken care of these concerns now. You are welcome to give any further suggestions. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Great, it looks better now. –Holt TC 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Luster (film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because ultimately I'd like to get articles for each of director Everett Lewis's films to good article status or better, although I'm not sure if the information is out there for some of them. I've scoured the Internet pretty bare to come up with what I have for this film so I wanted someone to review it against the GA criteria before I nominate it.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article gets more interesting toward the end because the lower sections have more variety and more complicated ideas. The cast list is a bad way to start, and the plot is dull, though that's not your fault. The most interesting section is "Critical response", and it made me want to know more about artistic intent and casting choices. The two-word quote "infuse queerness" isn't directly sourced, but perhaps the source has more information about the writer-director's hopes for the film. It would be interesting to know if he thought those hopes were realized. To make the article good, I'd suggest developing these interesting sections and placing less emphasis on the dull ones.


  • "infuse queerness" - This looks like a direct quote that needs an in-line citation to the source.
  • "a number of non-heterosexual actors and used music by a number of queer punk bands" - A vague term, "a number of" is used twice here. Delete both instances. Replace with the exact numbers if known.


  • It looks odd to start the article with a list. Perhaps Plot should precede Cast.
  • Use bolding only for the title in the first sentence. Don't use double bolding; that is, don't bold the wikilinks, which are already bold.


  • One-sentence paragraphs are generally deprecated. The solutions are either to merge or expand.
  • "Stoked" - Slang?
  • "head back to the store, just in time to head out to" - Repetition of "head". Suggestion: "just in time to go to"
  • "who, sadly, leaves friend Alyssa behind" - It's unclear why this is sad.
  • "Jackson runs into Billy" - Slang. How about "meets"?
  • "changes the sex of the subjects" - Gender?
  • "Alyssa takes her photos of Jed to a gallery." - This is another one-sentence paragraph, and two more occur later in this section.
  • "before the tape even ends" - Delete "even".

"the results -- while somewhat uneven -- really do pull" - Use en dashes instead of double hyphens.

Production and artistic intent

  • with a number of LGBT actors - Delete "a number of". Make specific if possible.

DVD release - Like extremely short paragraphs, sections this short are deprecated. You might be able to merge it with the section above.


  • The dates in the references should be consistently formatted. For example, citation 2 includes one date in yyyy-mm-dd and one in d-m-y format. You can use either one you prefer, but they should be consistent.

General questions

  • Did the film make money? How much did it cost to produce? Did it have a run in movie theaters, or was it only released on DVD?
  • Can you include any further information about casting? Other than LGBT credentials, what else was considered? Were any of the actors heterosexual?
  • I don't know if any critics or cast members or others involved discussed this in an available source, but if an actor is pretending, what difference does it make who the actor or actress is in real life? Could a non-LGBT group do a production like this just as well? Did the director say anything in public about questions like this?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I know it's odd to have the cast list first, but I did that per a note on the talk page with someone saying that all of the names in the plot section made for a confusing read. So I moved the cast list up and explained who the various people were in hopes of sorting out the confusion. As I mentioned, I've pretty much tapped everything I can find regarding the film so if it's not in the article it's probably not available. Assuming that stylistic issues are addressed, do you think there's enough here to meet the good article criteria? Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I was ducking that question because I'm not sure. It depends on the interpretation of "broad in coverage" and "illustrated where possible". Some articles are probably too slight to become GA. I'm not saying this is necessarily one of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if another editor said it was. Finetooth (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries, if the information isn't there it isn't there. Nothing anyone can do about that. Thanks for your comments. Otto4711 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Spice and Wolf episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
And another Peer Review request from me... I recently happened upon this page and it definitely looks ready for a FLC, though I'd like to run it through here first. The main spot for my concern, as with many other Anime episode lists, would be the episode summaries themselves. Thanks, NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Ive largely expanded the article. The article was never before assessed, so I want to know how to improve it. Ill appreciate any comments!

Thanks, Lourie Pieterse (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I stopped reviewing about two-thirds of the way through because of the many serious violations of WP:NPOV. Much of the article reads like advertising copy written by either the manufacturer or a true enthusiast with a strong pro-Gumpert bias. To make this into a valid encyclopedia article, you need to focus on supportable facts and to avoid inserting opinions and rah-rah stuff. Please read the NPOV page and revise to include only what can be supported by reliable sources. I'd be happy to take another look at the article after you re-work it with neutrality in mind.


  • Lowercase Gumpert throughout. The title is correctly lowercased.
  • "GUMPERT apollo" - The should be written "Gumpert Apollo".
  • "GUMPERT Sportwagenmanufaktur's success is thanks to Gumpert's ability to combine ground breaking ideas with 21st century technologies effectively and successfully." Sorry. This reads like advertising copy. It violates WP:NPOV.


  • "This car combined the highest form of aerodynamics with matchless driving capabilities." - POV
  • "To enroot a real car from a model is a long way to go. You also need a great deal of experience and even more expertise to be successful in the end. That's why Gumpert took over the development a few years ago." - POV
  • "This full-scale model of the apollo established immense excitement, both from the public and potential clientele." - POV
  • The Manual of Style (MoS) deprecates fancy quotation marks. In addition, the two quotations in this section are shorter than four lines, the minimum that the MoS recommends setting off separately in blockquotes. Quotes this short should appear embedded in the main text inside regular quotation marks. Immediately after the punctuation ending a direct quote, you need to add a citation to the source of the quote.


  • The MoS generally deprecates lists like the one in this section and suggests turning the lists into straight prose, where feasible. Bolding should be used only for Gumpert Sportwagenmanufaktur GmbH in the lead and not elsewhere in the text.


  • "The apollo is the perfect combination between a road car and a sports car." POV
  • "This complete package is available at a cost-performance correlation that is incomparable to this exclusive vehicle class." Ouch. POV

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

  • I had looked at the article just because I did not know what a "Gumpert" was and agree 100% on the POV issues.
  • I also noted that the article is overlinked, for example Roland Gumpert should be linked at most twice (once in the lead and the first time his name appears in the main text) but he is linked 5 or 6 times. See WP:OVERLINK
  • See also is generally for links to articles that are not already linked in the article. Under no circumstances should there be red links under See also (since you can't go to an article that does not exist)
  • {{cquote}} is used for quoatations, but according to WP:MOSQUOTE you should use {{blockquote}} instead. Even there the quote is supposed to be at least four lines long but the quotes so set off here are not that long, at least on my monitor.

I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm trying preparing the list for WP:FL, and see if it is anywhere near the criteria (and if so, make it conform more to it). Any and all constructive suggestions are welcome. —kurykh 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting and obviously has had a lot of work put into it, but I think it needs more work before it meets WP:WIAFL. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I am pretty sure list articles no longer have to start with "This is a list..." (although they used to). A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow, see WP:FL. While there do not seem to be any FLs of transit routes, there are several of stations, such as List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations
  • Per the MOS, the article should have at least one image - perhaps a cable car, a bus, and a Muni Metro light rail train?
  • The biggest problem I see with the article is a near complete lack of references - the article needs inline citations as well as external refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • There is one thing under references, but it needs more information. 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
  • Any reason why the list is not sortable?
  • Since the format of the tables is the same (same columns) in almost all cases, the tables should be set to be the column same widths for a more uniform appearance.
  • Any chance of a map of SF so those unfamiliar with the city have some idea of the major locations refered to?
  • Avoid one sentence paragraphs (like the first one in the lead) by merging them with others or perhaps expanding them.
  • Last sentence in lead has a plural subject and a singular verb (IIRC), try printing this out and reading it out loud slowly to see if there are other placves that need to be polished a bit.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Burdick[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's pretty close to GA status and I always like to get another pair of eyes on an article before nominating it.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianbouton comments:

  • General point: when refering to the episode title, rather than the character, italics should be used, as in Steve Burdick
  • Scheduling controversy
    • It would be helpful to have a date for when the decision to pull the episode was announced
    • A year should be given for the date December 2
    • Tenses are wrong: since we're talking about 1990, "which has been designated" should be "which was designated"
    • some clumsy wording in the last sentence of the section. Suggest rewording: "Early in December NBC changed Lifestories from a weekly to a monthly format, and on December 5 confirmed..." etc
  • Reception
    • Section needs an opening sentence along the lines: "Steve Burdick was broadcast on its rescheduled date of December 18" - or something similar.
    • Tenses are again inconsistent in this section. At the beginning you have "...was well received", and ths Seattle Times "described the episode". Later on you have "Moffat's performance is singled out" and "as is Richard Gollance's script". There are other lapses in the section. Tense usage must be consistent, and in this case I think the past tense should be used uniformly.
    • I found this: "...citing the episode of one of the most memorable of one of the season's most daring new series". Can you sort this out into something more coherent?

I hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that titles of individual television episodes are set off in quotes rather than italicized, while television series are in italics. Thus, "Steve Burdick" is an episode of Lifestories rather than Steve Burdick is an episode of Lifestories. Re: most memorable etc., the source calls the series "one of the 1990-91 season's most daring programs" and says the episode "may well turn out to be the most memorable" episode. Do you have any suggestions for how to incorporate that into the article in a way you think is more coherent? Re: "has been" vs "was", December dontinues to be World AIDS Month and saying "was" implies that the designation was a temporary or one-time thing. Otto4711 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that the article is of sufficiently high quality to submit as a featured article candidate. Any corrections or constructive criticism would be much appreciated, particularly with respect to word choice and phrasing.

Thanks, Neelix (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Wonderful article! You shouldn't have any problems, you may require some minor citations here and there, but that is no big problem.

Here is some advice:

  • Eliminate all "redlinks" ex. Baïnouks (History: "First inhabitants").
  • In "Recent history" merge the last sentence into the paragraph or a paragraph. There shouldn't be any lone sentences. This also goes for any other lone sentence.
  • Make sure that every inline reference "source" has a recent "Retrieved date" (With the exception of cited books)

Looks good. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Although this is an interesting article and clearly has had a lot of work put into it, I do not think this is ready for FAC yet. Here are some brief suggestions for improvement.

  • 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way- please see WP:LEAD
  • Units should be given in both metric and English units, since Carabane uses metric primarily, these units should be given first. {{convert}} is a very useful template for doing this.
  • References need to have more data given about the sources used, 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
  • Per WP:MOS#Images avoid sandwiching text between images
  • Per WP:PCR provide context to the reader. Two examples - many of the captions are so short as to be cryptic, such as the map with just "Gambian crossing points: Banjul and Farafenni" (since the map does not show Carabane, I am still puzzled by it) and the addition of the word "ferry" before MV Le Joola in the lead would make that much clearer.
  • Watch language that is POV, such as "This paradisiacal site, with its pleasant climate ..." and "With its undeniable natural and cultural assets, the island could gain such success in tourism as has been seen in Gorée, ..." just in the lead. See WP:PEACOCK
  • A model arricle is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many Geography FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places that should be good examples

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hillsboro, Oregon[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as it passed GA more than a year ago and has gone through additional improvements and refinements to prep for FA. Looking to see if there is anything more people think would be needed for a successful run at FA.

Thanks, Aboutmovies (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Peripitus

The lead misses summarizing what I see as the important parts of the article. It jumps from the founding to 3 1/2 paragraphs on the city as it is today. There is little on the history, geography , climate and some other things and perhaps too much detail from later in the article that should be summarized. It would also be good to add a couple of words on who David Hill was and why the city was named after him.

In the history section it notes the arrival of European Americans. Please check that they were called American at this point (18th Century) or simply European—given this reads as being before 1776. While I can see, in demographics, population growth, there appears little on the physical growth of the city. In Geography the first paragraph on street numbering is confusing. It both says that the system differs from nearby areas but also implies that mostly it does not....needs work on the clarity. The Health Care section would be better with a bit of history...what happened prior to 1918 ? The population figures in demographics are in both the table and scattered in the text, making the text less readable. I would prefer the opening paragraph like this:

  • Hillsboro's population grew from 402 in 1880 to 2016 by 1910, making it the county's most populated city according to census data. By 1970 it had increased to over fifteen thousand, though neighboring Beaverton had overtaken as the county's most populous center. By 1990 there were over 37,000 residents; commuters raised this to 110,000 during daytime.

The crime section needs some history - it gives a 2006 snapshot with no historical reference or information on whether it is changing markedly.

I see that sometimes numbers are written (sixty-eight percent) and in the same paragraph as numbers (7 percent). Not only would this read better one format but the repetitiveness of the word "percent" makes reading a bit cumbersome. I haven't checked but the referencing looks well done. All up a good read - Peripitus (Talk) 07:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Kensplanet

  • The community was founded in 1842 and was named Hillsborough in 1850
    What is this community and how is this related to the city.
  • I don't think Median household income and technology companies are so important to feature in the Lead. Better remove it.
  • Lead is incomplete: Where is History, Geography, Climate....
  • More comments on the next visit. Could you give some brief comments about the History of Mumbai article, located at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Mumbai/archive2. KensplanetTC 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Finetooth Thank you both for your helpful suggestions. A group of editors will use them to improve the article over the coming weeks. I will take a look at History of Mumbai and comment as time permits. Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I originally put it forward for Featured List (without realising about PR). I addressed the majority of the issues in the FL review but want to get the opinion of other editors before resubmitting it. I believe it almost meets the required standard. All issues such as redirects and dablinks I think have been fixed.

Thanks, 03md (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Prior to"-->Before.
    • Done
  • "group with eleven number-one" Numbers over 10 should be written in numerals.
  • Done
  • "The longest spell at the top was achieved by Rihanna and Jay-Z's song "Umbrella", which spent 10 weeks at number one in 2007. The song spent the longest at the top of the charts since Wet Wet Wet's 1994 hit "Love Is All Around" topped the charts for 15 weeks."-->Rihanna and Jay-Z's song "Umbrella", spent 10 weeks at number one in 2007, the longest spell at the top of the charts since Wet Wet Wet's 1994 hit "Love Is All Around" topped the charts for 15 weeks.
    • Changed
  • "The internet allowed"-->The Internet allowed
  • Done
  • "This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004[4] saw a decrease in record sales and the number of copies needed to achieve a Number-One reduced." "saw"-->led to. Why is "Number-One" capitalized?
    • Changed - my mistake!
  • "Physical single sales fell during the middle of the decade but the introduction of downloads meant there was a revival in 2008."-->Physical single sales fell during the middle of the decade and subsequently revived after the introduction of downloads in 2008.
    • Done
  • "Reality television shows produced artists who had success at the top of the UK charts.-->Reality television shows produced several successful artists.
  • Done
  • "Reality television winners had success at Christmas as well:"-->Reality television winners did especially well during Christmas:
  • Done
  • "every Christmas number one from 2005 to 2008, came from an X Factor winner." No comma needed.
    • Removed comma
  • "Shayne Ward hit number one" I think "reached" is a better word.
  • Changed
  • "song The Fear is " Song titles should be in quotation marks.
    • Added since I last changed the paste - added quotation marks
  • "as of 1-7 February 2009."-->as of the week of 1–7 February 2009.
    • Done
  • "The year 2000 saw 42 different songs hit the top spot, a UK charts record.-->In 2000, 42 songs hit the top spot, a UK charts record.
  • " only 18 songs reached
    • Done
  • "scored three or more number one hits" "scored" is too informal; "number one"-->number one.
    • Changed
  • "A number of artists achieved number one singles" The repetition of "number" is annoying, hyphenate "number one".
  • Done

That should be most of the problems. If there is anything else, I will pick things up at the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all your comments - all addressed and I will now resubmit the article to FLC. 03md (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Jennifer Brunner[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article failed at WP:GAC for reasons that were not clear because the cited problems do not seem to exist. I took the article to WP:GAR. Many people there mentioned several other areas of improvement for the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Ive made large changes and contributions. I would like to know how I can improve the article.

Thanks, Lourie Pieterse (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

The article looks to be in a fairly early stage of development, and quite a lot of work is necessary to bring it up to a good standard. Here are some areas that you should concentrate on:-

  • PUTCO is a corporation – it's an "it", not a "they". Thus, "It operates", not "They operate"; It "employs", "transports", etc. You need to go through the article and check that you have this consistently correct throughout.
  • Non-encyclopedic terms should be avoided. In the lead alone we have "dramatic" and "visionary men...". These are opinions; the encyclopedia is neutral. Again, check through the whole article for other examples of POV language.
  • Some of the sentence construction is weak. For example: "PUTCO are now 42.6% black owned. 11% of which is by black women". This should read: "PUTCO now has 42.6% black ownership including 11% by women". You need to get someone with copyediting experience to read through and pick up other grammatical and stylistic faults.
  • The History section needs to be re-written as a broad historical narrative, rather than presented in chopped-up 10-year segments. Some of these consist of little more than a single fact or sentence. The section needs to use a consistent historical past tense, so forms like "is founded by..." are wrong; it should be "was founded by".
  • Colloquial expressions should be avoided. Examples: "take over the driving seat" (occurs twice), "torched". There are probably others - these terms, while OK in normal reportage, are not encyclopedic.
  • I notice some spelling mistakes/typos, e.g. "therefor", and "A Year later" (capitalization). Check carefully for others.
  • Sources: numerous problems here:
    • Sources must be neutral and reliable. I don't think that The Marxist Internet Archive can be said to be either of these.
    • The reliability of some other sources also looks questionable.
    • In many instances your on-line references lack publisher details. This is essential in every case.
  • Blockquotes: this format should not be used for short quotations
  • See Also has a redlink in it! What is one supposed to see?

Don't be downhearted by the seeming negative tone of these comments. There is plenty of good and useful information here, it just needs to be organized in a better way. I hope my remarks will help you to do this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it twice failed as a featured list candidate in July 2007; it has been substantially modified since then and I'm thinking of resubmitting it, and I'd like some feedback as to whether it now meets the featured list criteria.

Thanks, Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

This is a formidable piece of work which has clearly involved a great deal of effort in its compilation. Unfortunately I don't think that its presentation does justice to its content.

The reader is faced with an introductory block of print, no images or other enticements. The introduction is quite ponderously written, almost legalistic, and the reader soon comes across this disclaimer: "Nor is the fact that a story or episode has a date attributed to it in the list intended to imply that it is indeed set on that date". This rather undermines the value and purpose of the project, because you are effectively saying that the information can't be relied on.

Some of the phraseology used is convoluted, difficult to understand. Examples: "disparate attributable dates"; "delves into time travel"; appearing to predominately take place". I had particular difficulty unravelling this sentence: "Over the long period of production, different writers have suggested different dates on which the shows are set, resulting in some noted controversy over their placement in any timeline, testament to the significance of the series' continuity and chronology within its fandom." This sentence is then followed by another disclaimer: "Any date attributed...should be regarded as an indication of the boundaries of the controversy, not as a statement of its correct resolution."

As a general point, it might be that, within this project, you are simply trying to give too much information. Certainly my head was spinning as I tried to work through the tables and get a sense of their meaning. This may be because I am not a Dr. Who fan and have never seen the spin-offs you refer to. However, the aim must be to produce a list/article that is generally accessible, not one that only makes sense to the aficionados.

Here are some suggestions as to how the introductory text might be improved:

  • Subdivide the introduction. In the first part, state clearly what Dr Who is/was, giving its televised date ranges. Do the same for each of the spinoffs.
  • In the second part, explain the information that you are presenting in the tables, but do it in a positive way, rather than in a manner which seems to be saying: "I'm giving you a lot of information, but don't take too much notice, it might not be right".
  • Lose the disclaimers; if a date is disputed, say so in a simple note or footnote to that date, rather than by a general statement about controversies.
  • Find more accessible, reader-friendly language.

As to the tables, all 20 of them, I can't say I found these easy to work through. Information (for example in the second table, the entries for The Aztecs and The Girl in the Fireplace) were very difficult to interpret. If the colour coding was explained anywhere, I missed it.

May I say, finally, that I do admire the care and thoroughness with which these lists have been put together, and would very much like to see them presented in a way that does them justice. I hope that my suggestions, above, will enable you to do this and bring the project successfully to FL.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to carry out this review. It is much appreciated. And it is surprising how flaws that one was blind to when editing are so readily apparent once they’re pointed out!
I think most of the flaws derive from two main concerns. The first was to minimise the length of an already lengthy article (though as a list, the length recommendations are not as strictly imposed), which has perhaps stressed conciseness over clarity, and probably also explains the lack of images. The second is to try and ward off allegations of WP:POV and WP:NOR.
Apart from the occasions where there is contradictory dating (and the list does not come down on one side or another), there are people who question assumptions such as when a character gives the date, that they’re correct; that they’re using the Gregorian calendar (especially in episodes set in the far future or where the character is an alien, etc); that historical events happened on the same dates in the fictional universe as the real one, etc; and that logical deductions deriving dates from one or more events are really ‘obvious’ (and therefore not OR).
To deal with this, the stance the article takes is not to say that a story is indeed set on a particular date (or dates), but rather to say that one or more dates can be attributed to a story. That is, when the Doctor says its 1981, that it’s possible it’s set in 1981 AD; that when a story is set around the Great Fire of London, that it’s possible it’s set in 1666, etc. And attributed is used because if no date can be derived, then all dates are possible.
However, the assumption people seem to have that such a list as this is indeed saying that stories are set on the date given is so strong that the point has had to be hammered home by repetition and the use of legalistic language to avoid ambiguity in order to pre-empt criticism. But, it may be that this is better and more clearly dealt with by ignoring the attributable/possible distinction and simply going with ‘Possible dates’ and explaining all this in the opening? What seems to have happened is that people have dealt with this by modifying what was already there, and really the opening needs to be redrafted from scratch.
As for the colour-coding, the idea was that people should be quite able to work out what colours went with which Doctor or show – but that may be not quite the point! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to get this read for an FA review soon. The question is: Is it ready as it stands? It seems somewhat short and I'm not sure where to expand. Despite living a long life, it was a pretty boring one so I'm not sure how much more in-depth the bio needs to be. Perhaps under Writing style? Criticism? Legacy? Improvements to the prose are also welcome. Thanks in advance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is nicely written, appears to be well-sourced, neutral, stable, and sufficiently illustrated. After reading the article's talk page, I think I should add that I'm not a Longfellow expert, and I don't know for certain that the article is comprehensive. I have a few tiny suggestions about the prose.


  • "Longfellow himself died in 1882" could be shortened to "Longfellow died in 1882".

European tours

  • The precise sum of $2,604.24 might be a bit more readable rounded to $2,604. The level of precision to the nearest penny seems odd anyway because it was an estimate.
  • "Elizabeth" should be set off by commas in " ...his favorite sister Elizabeth had died... ".

Courtship of Frances

  • I'd unlink George Stillman Hillard here because he's linked just a few sentences earlier toward the end of "European tours".
  • I add "as" to "However, Longfellow himself wrote..." so that it reads "However, as Longfellow himself wrote... ".

Death of Frances

  • In "no candle or wax but the fire started", I'd add a "that", so that it reads "no candle or wax but that the fire started... ".

Death of Frances

  • To avoid repeating "his" and "bad enough", I'd suggest re-casting the sentence that starts "His own injuries to his face were bad enough that he stopped shaving,... " and instead saying something like "His facial injuries caused him to stop shaving,...".

Later life and death

  • This sentence is puzzling: "Scholars generally regard the work as autobiographical, reflecting the translator as an aging artist facing his impending death." Perhaps something like this would work: "Scholars generally regard the work as autobiographical in the sense that both men were aging artists facing impending death."


  • The Manual of Style prefers "use" to "utilize". Thus: "using anapestic and trochaic forms".
  • I'd suggest adding the word "high" before the word "quality" in "called for the development of quality American literature".
  • Perhaps "several countries, including European, Asian, and Arabian countries" could be re-cast to avoid repeating "countries".

If you find this truly brief set of suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth, thanks - as always - for giving a thorough review. My apologies for not responding sooner as I've been in (and still am in) Edgar Poe bicentennial mode. Great suggestions all around! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Vasil Levski[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming for FA status. The article is a GA and the reviewer was pretty impressed with its quality. I'm pretty condifent in the referencing and comprehensiveness, but I'd really like someone with a native-speaker competence of English to review the grammar and style; I've had FACs fail solely based on that criterion in the past and I'm not a native speaker. If there's anything else worth mentioning, of course, don't hesitate to write :) Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thanks, TodorBozhinov 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I enjoyed reading this article, which seems comprehensive, well-illustrated, stable, and factually accurate. The images look fine, and the licenses are all in order, as far as I can tell. I see a problem with the positioning of three of the images. MOS:IMAGES says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."

Here are a few suggestions for improving the prose:


  • "Levski's gaze looked" - "Levski looked" would be better. Also, in this paragraph, I'd suggest a terminal period instead of a semicolon after "equality" and a terminal period after "bear his name".

Historical background

  • "prompting it being dubbed" - "prompting it to be dubbed" would be better
  • "and the implementation of the reforms planned by the sultans" - This could be tightened to "and reforms planned by the sultans".

Early life, education and monkhood

  • "at the time part of Rumelia" - Could be tightened to "part of Rumelia". The time is clear already.
  • "the priestly and craftsmen's Kunchevi family" - How about "the Kunchevi family, many members of which were priests or craftsmen. The family line traced back to one 17th century man named Dragoy." (If this is a first name, perhaps it would be good to include the last name too for clarity.)
  • "another craftsmen's family" - I think it would sound a little more natural to say "another family of craftsmen".
  • "; while visiting the school, he also studied homespun tailoring as a local craftsman's servant." - You could delete "while visiting the school" and the meaning would be the same.
  • "priest training course; on 7 December 1858" I think a terminal period would work slightly better here than a semicolon.
  • "suzerains" - Link to suzerainty.
  • "At the time, relations between the Serbs and their Ottoman suzerains were tense; after some fighting in Belgrade, the conflicts were resolved diplomatically and the First Bulgarian Legion was disbanded, under Ottoman pressure, on 12 September 1862." I'd put a terminal period after "tense" and delete "some".

Hitov's detachment and Second Bulgarian Legion

  • "which would invade Bulgaria seeking" - Suggestion: "to invade Bulgaria and seek"
  • "and had to be operated" - Suggestion: "that required surgery"
  • "had to be operated; forced to bed - Terminal period instead of semicolon
  • "his stomach wound" - Suggestion: "his stomach problems" since "wound" sounds like a battle injury

Bulgarian tours and work in Romania

  • "began his land tour; the tour" - Terminal period, etc.
  • "lasting between 1 May and 26 August 1869" - Suggestion: "lasting from"
  • "Ivan Kasabov; the proclamations" - Terminal period rather than semicolon
  • "as being in the name of" - Suggestion: "as the representative of"

Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation

  • "the venturous" - Adventurous?

Capture and execution

  • 'In that tense situation and explicitly against Levski's will and orders" - I don't think you need "explicitly" or "will and". The meaning is the same without them.
  • "Obshti plotted and carried out the robbery of" - Suggestion: "Obshti robbed"
  • "were soon arrested by the authorities" - Suggestion: "were soon arrested". "By the authorities" will be understood without saying.
  • "full confession and uncovered Levski's leading role" - Suggestion: "revealed" instead of "uncovered"
  • "Levski was convoyed to Tarnovo for interrogation and recognition" - Suggestion: "taken" instead of "convoyed". Also, I'd delete "and recognition" as unnecessary.
  • "In Sofia, Levski was brought to trial; while he acknowledged" - Terminal period instead of semicolon

Revolutionary theory and ideas

  • "Levski also explicitly determined the future form of government in an envisioned liberated Bulgaria" - "Levski helped determine the future form of government in liberated Bulgaria" might be better.
  • "and the contemporary Western society:" - The sentence starting with "Levski" and including this clause is too long, stuck together with an em dash and a colon. I'd suggest a terminal period after "Western society". The next sentence could start with "He said,".
  • The last paragraph seems a bit too long. It has too many quotes, and the prose shades into veneration rather than staying strictly neutral. I think I'd omit "Levski dedicated his life to the popular will: "I have devoted myself to my fatherland, to serve it to death and to work according to the people's will" since it repeats the ideas of the sentence that precedes it.


  • The Manual of Style says to avoid fancy quotes such as the ones setting off the poem. I use the blockquote option, but it might not produce the kind of layout you'd prefer. WP:MOSQUOTE has the guidelines.
  • "Austro–Hungarian-made Gasser revolver from 1869" - Suggestion: "Gasser revolver, made in Austria-Hungary in 1869"

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very thorough and really helpful :) Best, TodorBozhinov 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

William McGregor[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This has been a GA for quite some time, but at the second PR it was determined that the content was a bit "thin" for FA. User:Oldelpaso's now added several huge chunks of extra content from a book he bought this week, so I now think the content is up to FA level. Nonetheless, I'd like to see if there's any little tweaks or tidy-ups that might need doing first. Cheers in advance!!!!!!!

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Automated Review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

Review by Noj_R

I'm not very familiar with association football, but I'll do my best to provide FA quality critiquing. Throughout the review I have given examples of improving prose. Please accept these as suggestions; I'm still learning to write as well.


  • "became involved with Aston Villa F.C." - Soccer fans may know what Aston Villa is, but I had to look it up. Try mentioning it was a club or explaining a bit further for readers not familiar with the subject material.
  • "helped to establish the club" - Strengthen the prose by removing words that don't improve the sentence.
  • "In 1888, frustrated at the chaotic state of his club's fixture list" - This sentence could use some clarification, why was his fixture list in chaos, and why did starting the football league resolve it?
  • "This in turn was instrumental"
  • "in the transition of football" -> "in transitioning football"
    • Not a valid expression in UK English
  • "and posthumously honoured" - "and was posthumously honoured"

Early Life

  • "Differing sources give his age" - McGregor is one of the most important men in football and nobody knows when he became interested in football? Perhaps this sentence would be better omitted.
  • "He served an apprenticeship as a draper with a firm based in Perth" - try refining sentences like this. -> "He served an apprenticeship at a draper firm in Perth" Or something similar.
  • "opened his own business" - What kind of business?
  • "Although he had not seen any further football played since the match he had observed in Scotland" - Again, efforts should be made to refine sentences like these.

Association with Aston Villa

  • "a club which had been formed three years earlier"
  • "At the time the club played at Aston Park," - this sentence is a bit unruly, try to refine it.
  • "what apparently attracted" - apparently? Dont make assumptions about your subjects intentions.
  • "suggest that their style"
  • "McGregor allowed the club to use his shop as a store to prevent a repeat." - More prose problems -> "McGregor allowed the club use of his shop to prevent further seizures."
  • "in 1880, following which" -> "in 1880, shortly after"
  • "and went on to become the club's chairman in 1897" -> "eventually becoming club chairman in 1897."
  • "During his time at the club he was noted" - We already know he was at the club, and who noted?
  • "was responsible for the club's adoption of the lion rampant depicted on the Royal Standard of Scotland, which has appeared on its crest ever since" -> "was responsible for adopting the lion rampant, depicted on the Royal Standard of Scotland, as the Club's crest."

Founder of the Football League

  • "saw the first victory by a working-class team" -> "saw the first victory of a working-class team"
    • Not a valid expression in UK English
  • "advocate of professionalism" - the word "professionalism" is used many times; try mixing it up -> "advocate of this movement"
  • "threatened to cause a split in the FA"
  • "the only delegate from the Midlands to do so, and was one of the few delegates to admit that his club had been paying players."
    • He was not the only delegate from the Midlands (rather he was the only one to advocate professionalism), so the version you have suggested is incorrect. I have therefore left it as is
  • "Many clubs found it increasingly hard" - This sentence is difficult to read, try splitting it.
  • "own club, Aston Villa, as well as to those of Blackburn Rovers,"
  • "set-up used since the 1870s in American baseball" - Help the sentence flow by not introducing random dates.
  • "McGregor himself always cited the County Cricket Championship as his inspiration"\
  • "chose 23 March as the date of his proposed meeting as it was the day before" -> "chose 23 March because it was the day before"
  • "became apparent that clubs" - again "apparent", use confident language -> "became clear the clubs"
  • "proposal, since none attended" - Remove the comma, it makes the sentence stumble in this case.
  • "was therefore held"
  • "was therefore held in Manchester on 17 April, at which the details of the new competition were finalised." -> "was held in Manchester on April 17, and details concerning the new competition were finalised."
  • "was rejected as too similar to that of the Rugby Football Union"
  • "opposition on the grounds that he felt it might invoke"
  • "to leave the possibility of future applications from Scottish clubs." -> "presenting the opportunity for Scottish clubs to join."
As things turned out, Scottish clubs never did get the opportunity to join due to the creation of the Scottish Football League two years later. The intention was there though, hence the wording. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "A second McGregor proposal, that only one club from each town should be included, was carried" - ungainly, please reword.
  • "the first ever season"
  • "re-elected unopposed in 1891" - of course he was unopposed, he won the election!
    • "Unopposed" means that no other candidates ran against him.
  • "having earlier spoken of his pleasure that "of the 132 matches in which the League..." - I'm confused. McGregor was re-elected after previously stating (and I paraphrase), "I'm glad nobody got hurt." The logic of this sentence implies McGregor was re-elected because he was glad nobody was injured playing football.
  • "League to two divisions" - Too too. Try avoiding this.
  • "but he was now suffering ill health which caused him to miss meetings, and relinquished his post later that year" - This could be worded much better.
  • "The role was that of a figurehead" - how was it like a figurehead.
  • " but he was also used a mediator if League affairs became fraught." -> "and could use mediation to absolve league disagreements."
  • "caused him to miss meetings" then "attended few committee meetings" - This was already explained.
  • "criticism had" -> "criticism achieved"
  • "the "McGregor lace-to-toe football boot"" - Is this a special boot? Why is his name attached to it?

Outside football -> should probably be retitled "Personal life" or "Life outside football"

  • "McGregor was married to Jessie" - Who was Jessie?
    • His wife, fairly obviously. Nothing else is known about her.
  • wikilink "teetotaller".

Death and legacy

  • "he immediate effect of its creation" - needs citation, otherwise its OR. Or is reference 23 covering it?
    • Yes, the ref covers it. I have moved it to make this clearer, and doubled it up with a second ref which says mych the same thing
  • "football, however, and was adamant" - "However" acts like a show stopper here.
  • "and a legend of both his club, Aston Villa, and of football in general." - awkward wording.


This is a good article, but prose issues are going to leave it hanging come FA time. Audit the article, and if you feel you cannot improve it any further, get outside help spotting outstanding issues. Also, try bolstering his early life section with dates. A few more images wouldn't hurt either. I commend you on your work so far and am confident it will garner an FA star. I look forward to reading this article again in the future, cheers - Noj r (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No specific dates are recorded for events in his early life other than what is already included. And no further images of McGregor appear to exist. Remember we are talking about the 19th century here, photography was not very common. I could go and take a picture of the church where he's buried, as it's only ten minutes drive from my house, but that seems a bit like adding decorative images for the sake of it. There's no requirement for an FA to include more than two images, but if it's a deal-breaker then so be it......
      • Many thanks for taking the time to review the article, I have addressed most of your points and responded to the others above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. I gave the article another quick look, and I believe its looking better. This guy seems harder to write about then I had initially thought. Great work. -- Noj r (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Baba Amte[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Baba Amte, was an well known, important personality in western India and his article has been siting "start class" article for a long time. Would like to get it to atleast A class article in near future.

Thanks, Kedar (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

There are four main problems with this article:-

  • Comprehensiveness: Baba Amte lived a long, important and interesting life, yet the information you have is extremely sketchy, with nothing like the detail required for a proper biographical article. For example there is nothing about his childhood or young manhood. After his foundation of Anandwan, which was apparently while Ghandi was still alive, we jump to 1990, with only the most general information as to what filled his life in between. There must be a great deal more detail.
  • Sources: This, I think, is the primary problem – you are relying on an assortment of internet sources. Have you read any books which give an account of his whole life, rather than the odd bits of information you get from the web? Have you taken steps to determine whether these internet sources are reliable? A wikipedia article needs to be based on the best available sources, not simply the most conveniently accessible. I believe a great deal more research is necessary to bring this article anywhere above start-class.
  • Prose and structure: The prose is uneven – quite good in parts but rather poor in others. The article's structure is pretty well non-existent. There is a great shortage of dates, so it's difficult at times to follow the chronology. Also, within sections facts are often given indiscriminately, sometimes with no regard to relevance. The extensive stuff about the lives and works of Baba's sons is an example of irrelevant material.
  • References: the article is light on in-line citations. For example, no sources are given for the large numbers of awards and honours received by Baba. There are other facts within the text that require citations to sources. The on-line references you have listed are not properly formatted.

To give you a better idea of the problems with the article, here are some specific examples:-

  • You should not refer to him as "respected" in your opening line. You can call him that later, when you have established from reliabe sources that he was, indeed, respected.
  • He was born into rather than "in" a wealthy family.
  • "He was called as baba..." - you don't need "as". I suggest this whole sentence is reworded anyway, along these lines: "His parents nicknamed him "baba", an affectionate term in Marathi; it can also be conferred on older persons as a title of respect".
  • Whoa! we have just met him as a new-born baby, and suddenly he has trained as a lawyer. What happened in between?
  • Dates are necessary: "It was then that he got involved..." Whay tear was this?
  • "got involved" is poor. Again, I suggest you reword as follows: "In [year] he joined the Indian freedom struggle, acting as a defence lawyer for imprisoned leaders of the 1942 Quit India movement".
  • "Mahatma Gandhi, with whom he spent some time..." When did they meet? How long is "some time" - was it days, weeks, monthe etc?
  • There is no such word in English as "upliftment". Perhaps you mean "betterment"
  • "got married to" should be written simply as "married"
  • Eliminate all the material in the Early life sectionAfter the bracketed ""elder sister" in Marathi). all the stuff about the sons is irrelevant and should be struck out of the article.
  • The section on the ashram ("Anandwan and the fight against leprosy") has hardly an structure. We need to know, at the beginning of the section, when and where it was established, and where thew money to found it came from. We need to now when Baba took the orientation course, how long it lasted, etc. We need an actual foundation year for the ashram. You need also to get rid of por prose such as "He used to set up about 11 weekly clinics..." sounds casual and vague), and "Taking his work to the next level" (informal, non-encyclopedic)
  • The section on Ghandism is also muddled. You shoud start by saying "Baba Amte believed in Gandhi and followed his ideals". Then you don't need to say, also, "All his life, Baba Amte was a follower of the Gandhian philosophy", because we've just said more or less the same thing. Also "all his life"? Or after his stay at the Sevagram? Which was when?
  • "...had not been keeping well" should be "had been in poor health"
  • "As per his last wish" should be "in accordance with his last wish"
  • Citation needed for the details relating to his award of the Gandhi Peace Prize (and elsewhere).

These are all examples of things that need doing. I am giving examples, not compilng an exhaustive list. The article cannot be raised to B or A or GA etc., until much more work is done. Sorry if this puts a rather gloom prospect, but it's a big challenge, and could be most rewarding if it were caried through. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

James T. Kirk[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has come a very long way from the in-universe, mustachioed evil-counterpart to that within the Star Trek Wiki universe. I think it's essentially GA now, but I would like to get some input on how to find those weak spots that those of us working the article may not be able to see. Thanks, Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Considering the depth of Star Trek lore, the article seems a little sparse for this primary character from the fictional universe. Have a good number of ST sources been evaluated by further context of this character? Also, the "2009 film" subsection feels pretty short and tacked on to the "Depiction" section, almost as if this film was somehow more relevant for its own subsection than any film or the television series. Maybe revise the subsections to be more level in tone? Like "Rebooting the character" or something? —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, this may be a good external link for this fictional character; links to all the different portrayals. Not useful as a reliable source, but could be acceptable as an external link. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article seems neutral, stable, and appears to be factually accurate. Stronger images would be nice, but I'm sure they must be hard to find. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.


  • The lead should summarize the main points of the article, and it should not introduce material that's undeveloped in the article. The existing lead mentions comics and games. Comics don't seem to appear at all in the main text, and although games are mentioned, the idea is not developed. What comics? What games?

Development and portrayals

  • The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotes and advises against blockquotes for fewer than four lines of quoted text. It would probably be best to embed the Shatner quote in regular quotation marks in the main text.
  • Where does the "Tiberius" part of Kirk's name come from?
  • "When Star Trek was canceled in 1969, Shatner assumed it would be the end of his association with the show – however, Shatner went on to portray Kirk in the animated Star Trek, the first seven Star Trek movies, and several games." - Suggestion: semicolon instead of dash.
  • "Despite the rewrite, Generations co-writer Ronald D. Moore said Kirk's death, intended to "resonate throughout the Star Trek franchise", was "flawed" and failed to "pay off the themes [of death and mortality] in the way we wanted". - Here and in many other places in the article, several short quotes are patched into a sentence and separately referenced. The reading would go more smoothly if you used a combination of indirect discourse, paraphrasing, and quotations. Suggestion: "Despite the rewrite, Generations co-writer Ronald D. Moore said that Kirk's death, intended to 'resonate throughout the Star Trek franchise', failed to work in the way the writers had wanted." I'd suggest going through the whole article to try to reduce the number of quotation marks, which have an effect similar to underlining, exclamation points, italics, or bolding. The effect is disruptive when overused.
  • "A "misunderstanding" arose" - No need for the quotation marks
  • ""misinterpreted language about "tr[ying] to get him into the movie" - Suggestion: "misinterpreted language about trying to get "him" into the movie... ".


  • "where he exists until USS Enterprise-D captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) convinces him" - This has too many modifiers in front of Jean-Luc Picard. Suggestion: "where he exists until Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart), captain of the USS Enterprise-D, convinces him to leave"
  • Suggestion: Break the long final paragraph into two paragraphs to give the readers' eyes a rest. The break point is somewhat arbitrary, but maybe the second paragraph could begin with "Although Kirk is demoted to captain in... ".

2009 film

  • This section is short and might fit better at the bottom of the "Depiction" section.
  • "will reveal the origins of Kirk's and Spock's friendship" - Suggestion: "will reveal the origins of the friendship between Kirk and Spock"


  • "in anticipation of Kirk's birth" - "Birthday" rather than "birth"?
  • The last paragraph is a one-sentence orphan, usually frowned upon. Since it might not be expandable, you might consider merging it with the Riverside paragraph.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yellow (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been promoted to GA and GT, and me and ThinkBlue are going to try FA. But before that, we would like to get some feedback from you guys.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Make the lead a bit longer, if you can.
  • I know it's free, but I don't think we need a picture of a phone book.
  • See if you can get a review of the single from one of the British magazines. For example, NME reviews singles all the time, and it's possible they may have picked the song as its Single of the Week.
  • Good models to follow for a song article of this size are "Losing My Religion" and "In Bloom". Note in particular how the music video sections are arranged.
  • You need to include citations in the chart position table as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with your second comment. The Yellow Pages aren't that well known outside the US and a picture of its yellowness would illustrate the commentary.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yellow Pages are extremely well-known outside the US – in the UK, and pretty well throughout the English-speaking world. The volumes in the image are from Aukland, New Zealand. I'd say the image is pretty well unnecessary; everyone likely to read this article will know what Yellow Pages directories look like. I wouldn't myself make an issue of it, but should the article go to FAC, someone there might think it purely decorative, so think about it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Sort of half decorative and half educational. Some do not know about what that Yellow page looks like. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Give all that's said in the prose is "He looked around the studio and found the telephone directory Yellow Pages, which happened to be situated nearest to him, hence the title", a picture is unnecessary, because the prose doesn't even make a point about the appearance of the book. Tha fact that it's named Yellow Pages is sufficient. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Evergreen (album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently expanded it and I'm looking to take it to WP:GAN.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Despite McCulloch's departure and the death of drummer Pete de Freitas, guitarist Will Sergeant and bass player Les Pattinson recruited three new members" — while reading this, I was shocked to read that pretty much the whole band had died, until the very end clarified it. Maybe this could be rephrased. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean! I've reworded it to: Despite McCulloch's departure and the death of drummer Pete de Freitas, it was decided by guitarist Will Sergeant and bass player Les Pattinson to recruit three new members... --JD554 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Efe
  • "Vocalist Ian McCulloch and guitarist Will Sergeant had previously worked together as Electrafixion before being rejoined by bassist Les Pattinson under the name Echo & the Bunnymen in early 1997." I think this should be taken off the lead? --Efe (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It's important to show there had been collaboration between band members when the group was disbanded. --JD554 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The album received good reviews from the music press and was also received well by the band's fans, reaching number eight on the UK Albums Chart." Kind of random. Of course most of the fans will receive it well. --Efe (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. --JD554 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I am wondering if you could add a commentary about the album's music and possible its lyrical themes. --Efe (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What information I've been able to get has been included in the 'Recording and packaging' section. --JD554 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord Denning[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to (eventually) send it to FAR. I'm sure there are large chunks missing and some MoS errors; it is the first time I've really done an article of such length. I'm grateful for any pointers people can give me.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: It may take me a while to work through the whole article, and I may not be able to do it all (there's a great shortage of reviewers at PR at the moment). I'll do my best. Here are some comments on the lead and first few sections.

The areas of concern in the prose identified so far can be summed up:

  • Sentence structures, often confusing and/or misleading
  • Adequacy of punctuation
  • Missing in-line citations
  • Linking
  • Proper use of quote marks
  • Occasional excessive detail
  • Lead
    • The second sentence is very awkwardly constructed. Also "joining the Bar" will not convey to everyone that he was starting a legal career. I suggest that this whole sentence be rewritten, thus: "He gained degrees in mathematics and law at Oxford University, although his studies were disrupted by his service in World War I. He then began his legal career, distinguishing himself as a barrister and becoming a King's Counsel in 1938." (note link on barrister)
    • "He joined the judiciary..." This means he became a judge, so why not say so plainly?
    • "Denning was held in high regard by much of the judiciary, the Bar and the public..." Is this cited somewhere? Also the stuff about his bold judgements: is that cited?
  • Early life and studies
    • "He was named after Alfred the Great by his sister Marjorie, and was baptised on 23 April 1899 at All Hallows Church, Whitchurch, by J.H.Hodgson." Citation required. Also I think "by J.H. Hodgson" is excessive detail.
    • The phrase "along with his older brother Gordon" is misplaced. The sentence should read: "Denning was initially educated, along with his older brother Gordon, at the..."
    • You should use proper (") quotes around "The Great Authors", etc
    • "Lecturers" do not exist in English schools. The term appropriate to 1914 is "schoolmaster".
    • Link required on matriculation
    • After arriving he made friends with Sir Herbert Warren, the President of the College". Surely, "made friends with" is the wrong phrase here - 17-year-old freshmen don't "make friends" with their college President. Perhaps "made a favourable impression on" would be more appropriate.
    • The term "Mathematical Moderations" needs explanation. "Moderations" could be linked.
  • War Work
    • Link (by way of pipe) "systolic murmer"
    • Sentence beginning "He successfully appealed..." has two "ands" in it, and needs reconstructing.
    • Comma required after "serve in the armed forces"
    • The sentence "Shortly after completing one a German aeroplane dropped a bomb on it" needs reconstruction and punctuation
    • Last sentence needs a citation
  • Return to Oxford
    • The university term Mathematical Greats needs explaining
    • Proper quote marks required for the direct quotations in this section ("read up on the night before" etc)
    • Jurisprudence needs a link
    • Another reconstruction and punctuation job: "Thanks to Warren, Denning was offered the Eldon Law Scholarship, worth £100 a year, to finance his studies".

I will try to continue this review later, but it may be a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

With points like the last one could you give examples of a way to 'reconstruct it'? If I knew how to do that properly it wouldn't be in that state. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The last "reconstruction and punctuation job"; is your sentence the format you would advise? Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It's how I'd write it, yes. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is almost ready to be nominated for Featured Article consideration, but I'd like a fresh pair of eyes to review it.

Thanks, — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A very nice job indeed and one that I enjoyed reading all the way through. I wouldn't think you'd have a lot of trouble with this one at FAC. I have only a few suggestions for improvement.


  • "while giving a speech in New York". - No need to link New York here since it's linked in the second paragraph.

Early years

  • "Three of Earl Little's brothers died violently at the hands of white men, including one who had been lynched." - I know you don't mean one of the white men was lynched. Suggestion for clarity: "Three of Earl Little's brothers, one of whom was lynched, died violently at the hands of white men."
  • "Louise had her youngest son, Robert Little, several years after her husband's death by an unnamed partner." - Suggestion for clarity: "Several years after her husband's death, Louise had her youngest son, Robert Little, by an unnamed partner."

Young adult years

  • "After some time in Harlem," - Suggestion: "Living in Harlem,"
  • "military physicians classified him to be" - Maybe "as" instead of "to be"
  • "to "steal us some guns, and kill us crackers". - It would scan better as "steal us some guns, and kill us some crackers". Does the quoted passage have "some" before "crackers" maybe?

Nation of Islam

  • "(See Beliefs of the Nation of Islam below.)" - It's unusual to have this kind of internal reference in an encyclopedia article. I'd suggest removing it.

Meeting Castro and other world leaders

  • The Manual of Style generally frowns on one- and two-sentence paragraphs. The two possible solutions are expansion or merger. The two paragraphs in this section could easily be merged.


  • I'd recommend combining the second paragraph in this section with the one below it.

France and the United Kingdom

  • Here I'd combine the first paragraph with the second.

Responses to assassination

  • The photo that bumps into the subhead should be moved up a bit or to the right side of the page.

Allegations of conspiracy

  • The orphan paragraph at the end should be merged with paragraph above it. It will lose some of its dramatic effect, I realize, but encyclopedia articles tend to avoid drama.

Malcolm X House Site

  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the heads and subheads. Better here would be "House site".

Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Educational Center

  • Sections this short are generally deprecated. I'd suggest merging it with Malcolm X House Site" and re-naming the new section "House site, memorial center" or something else relatively short, maybe just "Memorials". Even the streets might fit here as well.


  • I'm not sure why this section is here. The Notes and References seem to cover everything.

Images These seem fine to me, as do the licenses, including the one fair-use license.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I'll make the changes you suggest. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Works" section includes all the books of Malcolm X's speeches, some of which aren't used as sources. Do you think it's overkill? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, not overkill. I zoomed through those lower bits and didn't see that "Works" referred entirely to Malcolm X's work. Maybe "Work" or "Published work" would make its intent unmistakable. Finetooth (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Doncram I'm not saying you have to include this, but doesn't there exist a prominent quote by Martin Luther King, Jr., about Malcolm X, basically along the lines that there may be a role for the way Malcolm X was going, although that was not MLK Jr's way? Currently the article does mention Malcolm X being skeptical about the March on washington. Perhaps this quote, if you can dig it up, provides a useful perspective from MLK about MX. Very nice article. I visited here, by the way, partly to see how expert Finetooth does a peer review. I am more of an amateur at peer reviewing. Thanks! doncram (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be the quote you're referring to:
He is very articulate, but I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views-at least insofar as I understand where he now stands. I don't want to sound self-righteous, or absolutist, or that I think I have the only truth, the only way. Maybe he does have some of the answers. I know that I have often wished that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem. And, in his litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive, creative alternative, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. Fiery, demagogic oratory in the black ghettos, urging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done, can reap nothing but grief. [4]
I'm not sure it really fits neatly into the article, but I added it to Wikiquote. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I guess that is the quote I recalled. Interesting to read. It's a well-put, big perspective comment about MX, and perhaps it would be worth adding to the article somehow, although i can understand it might not fit in naturally to the article as written now. Perhaps just within a footnote? Or not. Anyhow, thanks very much for finding the quote and putting it into Wikiquote. doncram (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I added it as a footnote to Malcolm X's criticism of the March on Washington. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Gaw-leee, Sarge! First a Japanese singer whom almost all Western media dubs as Japan's answer to Madonna, then a Pokémon game whose target demographic is less than half my age, then this... Wow, I'm really moving up the appeals-to-the-lowest-common-denominator ladder, huh? Ah well, I suppose WP has enough FAs on highbrow media and hurricanes and U.S. highways no one's ever heard of. :P

Anyways, I'm aiming for FA, so any pushes in the right direction (especially concerning prose, as that does not seem to be my forte) would be much appreciated. Ink Runner (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I have made some small copyedits and have introduced some punctuation changes. I enjoyed the article, though Gomer Pyle never got shown over here; we relied on Sergeant Bilko repeats to inform us about the US military. A few points for your attention:-

  • Lead
    • There is a concealed note in the edit window drawing attention to the title screen "Gomer Pyle USMC", not "Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C." The article title should be consistent with the title screen format.
    • "sweet-but-naive" is a rather specific description, and should be given a source.
    • "Because it never discussed the Vietnam War...and indeed focussed on the relationship between Gomer and Sergeant Carter, the show retained high ratings throughout its run." First, the "indeed" is unnecessary. Even so, the sentence seems unduly assertive; there must have been other factors relevant to the show's popularity—its comedic qualities, likeability of performers, etc. I'd like to see the sentence redrafted in slightly less absolute terms.
      • Hm? There's no "indeed" anywhere in the article...?
    • It would be useful if CBS's "target demographic" could be briefly indicated here.
  • History
    • "a one-shot character"; term needs explaining. A character appearing in a single story or episode? Please clarify
      • Replaced "intended to be a one-shot character" character with "intended to appear in one episode". Ink Runner (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The refrence string [6][7][8][9][10] seems a lot for two fairly short sentences. Are all necessary; can any be resited?
    • A full stop is required after "Nielsen ratings" (new sentence follows)
      • Ah, how did I miss that? >_> Ink Runner (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There is an awkward sentence with multiple parenthetical and bracket insertions, as well as a quotation, and some clunky repeats: "Frank Sutton (who played Sergeant Carter) also attributed the popularity of the show to the fact that it 'concentrated on two characters [Gomer and Sergeant Carter] who [stay] in character' and to the writing (noting that the plots came from the two characters' attributes)." This is very clumsy; a suggested rewrite: "Frank Sutton, who played Carter, also ascribed the show's popularity to its concentration on its two main characters, the plots being built around their respective attributes."
      • Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The next parenthetical insert should likewise be integrated with its main sentence, thus: "The program remained in the Top Ten of the ratings throughout its run—in the top three for all but its third season when CBS moved it..." etc
      • Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The parenthetical (such as Gomer Pyle and The Andy Griffiths Show) can be deleted - unnecessary to spell them out, we know they are the programs in question
    • Final sentence: "Though told that he should not "leave" Gomer..." Told by whom? And, I'm afraid that the meaning of the rest of the sentence is far from clear to me.
      • Ah, too many Americanisms probably. Re-worded.
  • Production
    • "to which the supervising Armed Serviceman objected to". The second "to" needs deleting. Could the "Armed Serviceman" become an "Armed Services representative"?
    • "Boot Camp" needs a link (via disambiguation)
    • "appeared on Gomer Pyle"; for consistency within the article, "in Gomer Pyle"
    • There's an awkward change of tense, to the present, in the last sentence, which also is basically saying the same things three times - all the episodes in each series form self-contained, complete stories.
  • Premise
    • Last sentence: need to clarify that "the show" Wittebols is talking about is Gomer Pyle; as worded, it sounds as though it could be MASH
      • Fixed.
  • Characters
    • Check WP:BOLDFACE re use of bolded characters
    • "unquestioning love and trust of the world" is in quotes. Who said it?
    • Watch for tenses consistency, especially in the Loo-Ann Poovie paragraph.
      • Re-written
  • Media
    • The first sentence repeats information given in the first paragraph of the History section.

I hope these comments will help you to develop the article further. Brianboulton (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently received a B quality rating, since which I have added a good amount of information and references. It was informally reviewed by a member of WikiProject Schools in December. I would like to see what it would take to bring this up for a legitimate GA review. Full disclosure: I am the only major editor of this article.

Thanks, ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a lot of work has gone into this article, I think it needs a lot of work to get up to GA standards. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • 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 rural fringe is only in the lead, for example.
  • As it is, the lead is too short. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Avoid external links in the article - convert them to inline citations / refs.
  • Many refs do not really back up what they are used for - the 12 former schools are insufficiently referenced just by giving the latitude and longitude for the former buildings.
  • A lot of the refs are from the school district itself - any chance for more independent third party sources? See WP:RS
  • Article needs more references, my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref
  • There are a lot of bullet point lists, most of which should be converted to prose paragraphs to improve flow of the article.
  • The alma mater is a copyright violation and should be removed from the article - see WP:COPYVIO
  • The level of detail is too much in places, I doubt the committees of the BOE are encyclopedic / notable. Also the symbols used there are unexplained.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are two featured articles on high schools Plano Senior High School and Stuyvesant High School, which may be useful models.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuum (album)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on getting John Mayer up to featured topic status and I'm starting with getting the strongest articles to Good Article status. I'm knee-deep in John Mayer and need outside input.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talkcontribs 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: interesting article and a good start, but needs a fair amount of work to get to GA status. Here are some suggestions for improvement (and thanks, now John Mayer songs are stuck in my brain ;-) ).

  • Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of references. The whole cover art section has no refs, for example (and parts of it read like original research, so refs are needed). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For example the Charts and certifications has four chart positions without refs.
  • 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
  • Next biggest problem is language, which needs to be polished in several places. As one example The album features mainly new songs, though "Gravity" and "Vultures" are available in live versions from John Mayer Trio's Try!, and "Bold as Love", which is a Jimi Hendrix cover: the first Hendrix cover that Mayer has ever recorded as a studio release (although Mayer has recorded other Hendrix songs over time in live settings such as "The Wind Cries Mary" and "Wait Until Tomorrow"). is a run-on sentence and should be split into two or perhaps three smaller sentences.
  • There are also places that need to provide context to the reader - for example in the quoted run-on sentence, it would help to better identify / date the live album Try! (2005, so before the release of this).
  • The quote that opens the Background and production section is not a pull quote, but does use the pull quote {{cquote}} template. The MOS in WP:MOSQUOTE says that {{blockquote}} should be used in such cases, but only when the quote is four or more lines long - on my monitor the quote is less than one line long.
  • The MOS also now discourages the wikilinking of dates.
  • Several places need to be expanded - for example the Background and production section really says nothing about the production (just the name and album covers and art). Where was it recorded? When? The infobox tells us in brief, the article should expand on these points.
  • Article is underlinked in places - for example the co-producer Steve Jordan (musician) is not linked in the lead.
  • Read the article out loud carefully (print it out). That should help with the rough spots and to catch things like In November 2007, a special edition of Continuum is set to be released. (this is still in here in Jan. 2009?)
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many album FAS that would be good models. One example is Kid A

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Given that this reportedly the first single video game to surpass $1billion in sales, I figure that it should be on its way towards featured. Source and refercing-wise, I think this is fairly complete, but any help (particularly copyediting suggestions) would be great. --MASEM 04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MASEM 04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock/archive3.

Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has managed to make it to GA status, so I'd like to see if there's anything significant that needs to be fixed for it to have a shot at making FA.

Thanks, Musashi1600 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The biggest need for this article is a comb-through by a copy-editor and someone familiar with the manual of style. Some examples:

  • Redundancy and wordiness:
    • "The project itself would construct an elevated"
    • "and was able to restart"-->and restarted
    • "Governor Lingle has also proposed using the tax for the state's benefit" What else would the state use it for?
    • "Mayor Hannemann has strongly criticized the proposal,[27] as have Managing Director-designate Kirk Caldwell and the city Department of Transportation Services director Wayne Yoshioka."-->Critics of the proposal include Mayor Hannemann, Managing Director-designate Kirk Caldwell and the city Department of Transportation Services director Wayne Yoshioka.
    • "The city is currently accepting public comments on the DEIS until February 6, 2009."
  • Awkward sentence structure:
    • "The charter amendment regarding it passed" The noun + -ing sentence structure is ungrammatical and awkward.
    • "Rolling stock to be used on the line would be similar to light rail systems" False comparison, you are comparing rolling stock to light rail systems, try: "Rolling stock to be used on the line would be similar to that of light rail systems"
    • "The project itself would construct an elevated rapid transit line from the edge of Kapolei, near the site of the planned University of Hawaii-West Oahu campus, through communities along southern Oahu to downtown Honolulu via Salt Lake, terminating at Ala Moana Center." Rather long.
  • MOS
    • MOS:BOLD, why are all those terms bolded in the background?
    • MOS:DASH, train routes should have en dashes. Items separated by dashes that have internal spaces should have spaced en dashes. Example: "2012: West Loch-Pearl Highlands"-->2012: West Loch – Pearl Highlands (notice the code in the edit window).
    • WP:PUNC, punctuation should be outside quotation marks unless it is part of the quote. Example: "referendum on rail transit."
    • Delink the dates in the references.

Hope these comments helped. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the above problems. If there's anything else, I haven't caught it. Musashi1600 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, just keep in mind that those were examples. The whole article needs scrutiny. See WP:PRV for potential copy-editors, and I recommend that you read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. 3[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article recently passed GA and I would like to shoot for FA. I've found my greatest weakness at FACs is writing "brilliant prose", and would appreciate comments related to that. But any other comments about the images, organization, accessibility, etc. are welcome and would also be appreciated.

Thanks, (Guyinblack25 talk 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Super Mario Bros. 3/archive1.

These Are the Voyages...[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get comments of any kind on this article, the final episode of Star Trek: Enterprise. I haven't done many television episodes so something may be missing, I dunno, just whatever issues you have, tell me :) Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments Generally interesting article but needs some work, mostly on polishing language and providing context to the reader, to make it even better and FA worthy. Suggestions follow (with the caveat that I do not write television articles and so may be ignorant of style there):

  • Watch tense - this is an episode that aired in 2005, so it seems as if it should be described using past tense. I understand plot is described in the presnt tense, but in the first paragraph of the lead the episode is described using present tense in the first sentence (is) then past in the second sentence (was ... aired) - it seems like the first two sentences should be the same tense.
  • Given the complicated chronology of the episode, I think there needs to be more care paid to explaining the background and internal chronology. My understanding from reading the article is that this is a series about the first starship Enterprise set in the 22nd century, while The Next Generation is about a much later Enterprise in the 24th century (and the Kirk / Spock / McCoy Enterpise is between these in the 23rd century). Furthermore, this episode takes place 6 years later than the rest of the Enterprise series - while the article makes clear that the episode is framed by incidents within the TNG episode, it needs to make the rest clearer earlier in the article - probably in the plot section.
  • The second paragraph of the lead seems more like it belongs in the body of the article - I could not find this repeated in the article With no new Star Trek episodes in the fall of 2005, the 2005–2006 season was the first year without a first-run Star Trek in 18 years. - the lead should not be the only place for something.
  • Also the "valentine" in this paragraph is a direct quote and so per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD shopuld have a ref.
  • Awkward sentence Critics and cast alike were disappointed that the Next Generation frame robbed the characters and their fans [of] closure, and that the death of Trip Tucker was forced and unnecessary. Missing "of" and the last phrase is odd - sounds like the cast and fans were disappointed that the death of Trip was forced and unnecessary. Perhaps ... closure, and felt that the death of Trip.. would be better?
  • The first sentence of plot is also a bot awkward - would it help to mention the New Generation is 24th century? Also might it help to split the sentence into two?
  • The second paragraph of plot needs to make it clearer that this is back in the 22nd century / first Enterprise.
  • Watch overlinking - Archer is linked twice in the plot section, for example
  • When I read an article I often look at the photos first, before reading the article itself. I think the captions could better identify the people in them - for example adding "Producer" to Brannon Braga called "These Are the Voyages..." a "valentine" to Star Trek fans. Or this is ungrammatical and needs more context: Jolene Blalock highly criticized the series finale. could perhaps be something like Jolene Blalock, who played T'Pol, was highly critical of the series finale.
  • Or Actor Connor Trinneer said during a convention appearance that the character ... does not make clear this is the actor who protrayed Trip Tucker.
  • I pointed out several rough spots - there are others that would benefit from a copyedit or at least printing this out and reading it out loud slowly.

I think all that is needed for a FA is here, just needs the language polished, better context in places, and a bit better organization in spots. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from Natural Cut: Is it Enterprise or "the" Enterprise? Natural Cut (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have another comment now. The link I typed in while leaving a comment on your talk page was broken, so I redirected it to These Are the Voyages... but noticed the page lists the title as having "the" capitalized, the way I had typed it in. It should be standard across the article. Natural Cut (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't seen this. It's referenced as the Enterprise and Enterprise interchangeably, depending on who talks about it; according to Protonk it's just a variable usage. As to the name, I will check what the official title is on and rename if necessary. Thanks --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries at all, I left the talk page note in case you'd forgotten about the peer review page was all. Anyway as long as we choose one way to refer to (the) Enterprise it should be fine in that case. I had intended to go through and copyedit the article tonight, but I got distracted with Uhura and ended up doing an overhaul on her article... Wikipedia is such a timesink. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


I regret to say that I found nothing in the script's output that was useful. Either what was written were already known to me, or was completely inapplicable to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
First, I know this needs a picture & an infobox, & probably could stand a lot more detail; however, I doubt those will be forthcoming unless there is a famine, epidemic or an armed clash there. (And I find a verifiable source for its longitude & latitude -- something I'm still working on.) What I'm specifically looking for is input on the figures I've taken from the 1994 national census: my goal is to provide the most useful or defining statistics from this document for every town it covers, & this article includes far more than for the average Rambot-created entry. So if I can get it right for Almu at the beginning, I may not need to redo it as I begin to create articles for (or in some cases, add material to) the other 750-odd towns in this country. Thanks -- llywrch (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Characters of Smallville[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get more outside views on how to improve the article before eventually taking it to FAC (This includes copy editing opinions on how to tighten up some of the prose, help finding additional sources other than the companion books, anything that will improve the article). To take care of any immediately questions/concerns that might pop up I would just like to say that the section on "Kara", "Jimmy Olsen", and "Grant Gabriel" are not completely developed because I do not have the season 7 companion book yet that covers the real world perspective of their characters (it's in the mail, so I might get it before anyone reviews the article). To address why some characters are given sections and why others are in the "list" section, that is because without real world information there is no need for the additional context provided by the in-universe information (i.e. no need to bog the page down with information that is present in each of the season articles when you don't have real world information to go with it). If there are concerns about the size, the readable prose is approximately 58kb, and per WP:SIZE I think the scope justifies the additional length as most of these sections, though they seem large are only about 5kb of readable prose themselves which is rather small to separate on their own.

Thanks,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it cleaned up as much as possible prior to a featured article nomination. I believe the article is currently comprehensive and well-sourced, but I'm sure there are at least a few minor things that should be fixed first, and a few more pairs of eyes might help in catching this.

Thanks, FanCollector (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Epsilon Eridani[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I feel like it is very good, I'm not a major contributor of it, but I think it is very comprehensive and thought with a little more work it could stand a decent chance for becoming a featured article. It could probably benefit from the attention of an expert in astronomy, and the structure of the article could use a vetting.

Thanks, Pstanton 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall I admit to doing some work on this article, but I remain somewhat unsatisfied with the content.

  • The luminosity and rotation estimates in the infobox need reliable cites.
  • I'm not convinced that SolStation is a reliable source for information on the proximity of other stars, as is discussed in the lead.
  • The "Observation" section has three paragraphs that begin "In [year]". This seems a little vanilla and those sentences could benefit from a little creative re-ordering. Also the two SETI paragraphs are completely out of context, with no explanation as to why the search is being performed. I'd prefer to have a separate section on possible habitability and SETI searches, much as is done on the Tau Ceti article.
  • The "Planetary system" section needs a little work.
    • The two asteroid belts are mentioned in the lead but not in the article body. These should be covered in some detail.
    • The last sentence, second paragraph repeats "values for its" too many times.
    • The reason for an assumed 30° inclination is unexplained. Does it have to do with an estimate of the star's inclination, for example.
    • It does not state how rapidly an asteroid belt would be cleared out if the eccentricity of 'b' is as high as is estimated. This is a young star, so this may not be inconsistent if the process takes, say, a billion years.
    • 'Epsilon eridani c' receives only cursory coverage, as compared to 'b'. It should be related to the perturbations of the dust disk.
    • How do we know that no bodies of 3 or more Jupiter masses exist in this system?
  • The references need to be formatted better, especially where the base link is showing.

Good luck improving this article. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Runningonbrains Mainly a grammar check (which looks fairly good), but I have a few other suggestions.

  • The last paragraph of the "Observation" section is a bit unclear: was the original "companion" another star or a planet (because the phrase "planetary companion" appears in the next sentence)?
    • On a related note, I would suggest only putting a sentence about the possible planetary system here, and leave the rest to the "Planets" section.
  • "Planetary system" suggestions:
    • There's a lot of white space around the table at the beginning, can that be shifted to allow text or an image on one side?
    • Should the table note that Epsilon Eridani b is still unconfirmed?
    • It seems to me the text says both planets are unconfirmed. Maybe the "Planets" section should be renamed "Possible planets"?
    • "observations led to the announcement in 2000 of a gas giant planet" should probably say "possible gas giant planet"
    • The link explaining what i is should be moved up to its first instance of appearance.
    • The second image should probably appear closer to the paragraph on Epsilon Eridani c. I would suggest right-aligning both images and putting them at the beginning of the "Planets" section, one above the other.
    • Consider putting the paragraph about the 1964 study as the second paragraph of the section...right now it jumps around a lot chronologically.
    • In the final paragraph, "revealed observations indicating" seems clunky. How about "On October 27, 2008, a study based on observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope was released, indicating..."?

Again, these are all just suggestions, feel free to disregard anything you feel detracts from the article. I may make some more minor suggestions later, but the article looks very nice. Good luck!-RunningOnBrains 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ruslik:

  1. as the night skies over cities are illuminated by light pollution I suggest because of light pollution in the cities.
  2. This parallax is equivalent to a distance of about 10.5 light years I think distance in pc should also be present.
  3. I think that the last two paragraphs in the 'Observation' section should be exchanged, because the first of them (currently) discusses events that took place after the events discussed in the last paragraph.
  4. but only 28% of its luminosity. This is obviously luminosity in the visible light. I think information about the bolometric luminosity should be provided as well.
  5. The chromosphere of Epsilon Eridani is more magnetically active than the Sun's. It is the star that is more magnetically active. As a result it demonstrates increased chromospheric activity and coronal activity.
  6. Approximately 9% of the deep photosphere is found to have a magnetic field with a strength about 0.14 teslas. Is this by squire area or by some other measure? And what is 'deep photosphere'? Photosphere is actually very thin ~ 500 km.
  7. that the equator of the star rotates I suggest the equatorial region of the star rotates. The equator is an imaginary line, it can not rotate.
  8. with the measured periods ranging from 10.8 to 12.3 days Please, specify where the rotational period is longer and where it is shorter (latitudes).
  9. Relative to the Sun, the outer atmosphere of Epsilon Eridani appears both larger and hotter. The outer atmosphere is called corona. This word is strangely not used in the article at all.
  10. This is caused by a 30-fold higher mass loss rate from the star's stellar wind. This statement is wrong. It is actually the hotter more extended corona that results in the stronger stellar wind, not vise versa.
  11. How the strength of the stellar wind was measured and parameters of the astrosphere estimated? If these are HST observations (I am not aware of any other) they should be mentioned.
  12. The wind is generating an astrosphere It is worth mentioning that the astrosphere is the same as heliosphere in the case of Sun.
  13. Have Epsilon Eridani been observed in the X-ray part of the spectrum? If it is, this fact is worth mentioning especially in relation to the coronal activity.
  14. Can the table in 'Planetary system' section be made float?
  15. Observations with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope showed a extended flux of radiation with sub-millimetre wavelengths at a radius of 35 arcseconds around the star The wavelength of observations should be mentioned (850 μm).
  16. A lower level of emission is also seen at 30 AU. I would say within or inside
  17. The asymmetrical structure of the dust belt may be explained as the gravitational perturbation by a planet. Can you clarify what asymmetrical structure means? How it is asymmetrical? Or may be clumpy.
  18. The dust disk contains approximately 1000 times more dust The assumed size of dust grains that led to this estimate should be mentioned.
  19. This is similar to the estimated 10 Earth masses in the Kuiper Belt It is the first time I see such a large estimate! The estimates of the mass in Kuiper belt generally vary between 0.1 and 0.01 Earth masses.
  20. Within 35 AU of the star the dust is depleted, Please, be consistent. At the beginning of the section the radius was 30 AU. This paragraph needs a citation.
  21. The article should contain better summary of Spitzer results.

I did not review grammar and MOS issues, which are also present. And I hope my comments will be helpful. Ruslik (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Glacier Peak[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've brought it to GA status already. Not many more sources exist for it and I'd like to try and tighten the prose before I make it any more comprehensive, if that's possible (which I'm sure it can be, at least a little).

Thanks, Ceran//forge 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about a spectacular volcano. The illustrations are good, and their licenses look fine to me. I have reservations about the prose, and I've tried to address that specifically with most of my comments below. The prose quality varies widely from section to section, and I can't tell whether that is related to the source material, your particular interests, or something else. In addition commenting on the prose, I've suggested some possibilities for expansion and a slight re-organization of the sections.


  • "Lushootseed" - I'd wikilink this one to Lushootseed.
  • done.
  • "five major stratovolcanoes (composite)" - Suggestion: (composite volcanoes). I had to click on stratovolcanoes to see what "composite" referred to.
  • done.
  • "However, although it is not near civilization; after the most recent ice age, it has produced some of largest and most explosive eruptions in the state." - This sentence implies a logical connection between its distance from cities and its eruption frequency, but none exists. Suggestion: delete "However, although it is not near civilization" and start the sentence with "Since the most recent ice age... ".
  • done.
  • "During the current era, the mountain has erupted several times during each of its six episodes in the past 300 years." - Delete redundant "During the current era".
  • done.
  • "The volcano is considered a Pleistocene and Holocene age volcano." - "Age" is redundant. Also, wouldn't it make more sense to say something like, "The volcano formed during the Pleistocene, about XXX million years ago"? We already know it continued through the Holocene.
  • done.
  • "Being one of the major Washington volcanoes, the volcano has been—as others in its state have—long recognized by Native Americans in the area." - Repetition of "volcano", other redundancy. Suggestion: In their story-telling and history, Native Americans have long recognized Glacier Peak and other major Washington volcanoes.
  • done.
  • "Of course" - If a thing is "of course", it need not be pointed out with "of course". The middle of the sentence in which this phrase appears says it all. Suggestion: "When European-American explorers reached the region, they learned about the volcanoes partly from native legends."
  • done.
  • "is rather short, and only appears to be a tip from a distance" - "Rather" is a weasel. Suggestion: "is short, and only its tip is visible from Seattle" (or wherever you mean)
  • done.
  • "Nevertheless, Glacier Peak is one of the most active" - I think you're putting "nevertheless" in here to improve the prose flow, but it implies a logical connection between volcanic activity and the distance from Seattle. I think a slightly rough flow would be preferable, and I'd just delete "nevertheless".
  • done.
  • "Glacier Peak is one of the most active of Washington's volcanoes—when continental ice sheets retreated from the region, Glacier Peak began to erupt regularly, for a volcano. Now, it has erupted repeatedly during at least six periods; and twice these eruptions have been among the greatest in Washington, respectively." - Suggestion: Put a terminal period where the em dash is. Start the next sentence with capital "W". Remove the vague "Now". The third sentence could read, "It has erupted repeatedly during at least six periods, and two of these have been among the greatest in Washington".
  • done.


  • "a spirit of some type" - Delete "some type", which is a weasel. An alternative approach to simple deletion would be to add specific data. Weasel terms often suggest possibilities for expansion in which the unknown is turned into the known. I might say the same about "many Native Americans". How many? Which tribes? Which volcano stories? What did the stories say?
  • "including their literature" - Is "literature" the right word? Did any of the natives create a body of written prose or poetry?
  • "the local people hosted Glacier Peak" - "Hosted" is not the right word. "Described" would be better.
  • Literature would also be considered storytelling, and that is what I intended here. I'll replace that with story-telling, otherwise, I'm kind of short on sources.

Geographical setting

  • "at a rate of 4 cm (1.6 in) per year" - MOSNUM suggests spelling out the primary unit. If you turn off the |abbr parameter, the problem will be fixed.
  • "between 42-55 million years old" - Suggestion: "between 55 and 42 million years old" since geological ranges often appear as older-younger, and the hyphen doesn't scan as well as words.
  • done.
  • "Within the range, two sections are named: the High Cascades and the Western Cascades. However, the vents in Washington are of all different ages so this region is not included in either of the sections." - If no connection exists between the sections and the volcanoes, it might be better to either explain this further or not mention it. I'd be curious to know why the two sections are so named and why the volcano ages automatically exclude them from being classified by section. The meaning of "so" is not apparent. This is another possibility for expansion.
  • done.

Eruptive history

  • The prose is suddenly much better in this section.
  • "These eruptions varied in outcome; some produced lahars, some pyroclastic flows, and others lava domes." - I'd wikilink lahars, pyroclastic flows, and lava domes on first use rather than later in the article.
  • Done. If you un-italicized lahar, please keep it that way as it is an Indonesian term. (Italicize foriegn terms=MOS)


  • I'd think about moving this up into the "Geographical setting" section and changing the section name to "Geology". It seems to me that the plate tectonics text and illustration belong in "Geology". I'd also consider moving this combined section above "History" since the actual chronology is geology first, history second.
  • Done.


  • This section needs expansion. What about mountain climbing, for instance? Is this a good place for cross-country skiing? Camping? Wildlife observation?
  • "passes near by Glacier Peak" - Either "near" or "by" but not both
  • I'll get back to this section, found a couple more possible sources.


  • Walter Siegmund's photos are terrific, and the others are fine too. The licenses look fine to me. Image:Glacier Peak.jpg needs to be moved away from the heading. The Manual of Style says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."

If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
WikiProject Pokemon hasn't a single FA yet, so I think I had better do something about that. I'm mostly looking for a critique of the prose/copyedit, preferably from someone who is unfamiliar with the games so he/she could point out jargon/unclear terms/etc. in addition to suggestions for the prose. Of course, any comments would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Ink Runner (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Water fluoridation[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article describes a sometimes-controversial area, and has been extensively rewritten recently and received Good Article status (a review is available). Some work has been done since GA, and a peer review should help. The goal is featured article status. I am particularly interested in clarity and weight issues, as I'm now too close to the subject.

Thanks, Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I usually don't have to work hard to find problems in articles that I review. This article is a welcome exception. The prose is wonderful, and I find that I have little to say except "well done". I should add that I am not a scientist and that I might not notice a problem that a medical professional might see. The images work well, and their licenses look fine. Here are three nitpicks, the best I could come up with:


  • "Other methods of fluoride therapy include fluoridation of salt, milk, and toothpaste; water fluoridation, when feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial advantages over toothpaste, especially for subgroups at high risk." - Suggestion: terminal period rather than semicolon


  • "Fluoride toothpaste, dental sealants, and other techniques are also effective in preventing tooth decay; water fluoridation, when it is culturally acceptable and technically feasible, has substantial advantages over toothpaste, especially for subgroups at high risk. - Suggestion: terminal period rather than semicolon


  • "do not attend a dentist regularly" - Suggestion: "visit" rather than "attend"

If you find this review even mildly helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I made all the changes you suggested. I also reviewed another article, in Wikipedia:Peer review/Union busting/archive1 #Review by Eubulides. Wow, it's a lot of hard work to review articles! Eubulides (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment (I'll add more if I get a chance). I appreciate there is a US weighting to the extent that fluoridation is practised and is researched, but it does read like an American article on fluoridation, which may put off readers from the UK, Australia, Canada, etc., who may also live in a fluoridated area. Be careful when generalising US research: your healthcare and social issues are not universal. For example, PMID 17485621 is used to claim "Minority children have higher rates of untreated cavities, and poor children have less dental care, especially dental sealants." and "About two-thirds of low-income parents never give unfiltered tap water to their children: one-third always give bottled water, and one-third use filters, most of which preserve fluoride." That study looked at 216 parents/children who attended a health clinic in urban Utah, 80% "minority = Latino" and the majority poor. The reason for the low use of tap water was a cultural issue with the perceived safety of drinking water. In the UK, filtered and bottled water is a lifestyle choice of the affluent, and is a non-issue among the poor. My guess is there are no specific minority aspects to dental care in the UK, other than that minority groups are over-represented among the poor. Access to childhood dental care is not (generally) a wealth issue in the UK, though poor dental hygiene is. BTW, that study didn't seem to prove much and could be significantly biased by the small and very regional sample used -- I'm not convinced the use of bottled or filtered water, and its affects on fluoride intake among children, can be commented on if sourced to just that study. Colin°Talk 21:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and careful reading. I changed the article to be more careful about whether statements apply only to the U.S., and to rely on Hobson et al. 2007 (PMID 17485621) less heavily. I found a stronger study on the greater use of bottled water by Latinos in the U.S., namely Williams et al. 2001 (PMID 11791167). I also found better studies about the use of toothpaste by the underprivileged, both in the U.S. and worldwide. Eubulides (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was wondering what more would be required to bring this article to FA level.

Thanks, Serendipodous 18:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
  • I think you should mention in a hidden comment that the article uses British English. added'
  • Does the 'convention' mentioned in the lead have a name? not that I'm aware of

Section, Observational history:

  • Italian-born-->Italian (no, he lived in France)
  • Stably-->Securely, or any other synonyms that flows better rm
  • Perhaps equilibrium should be replaced with mass/body? (optional replacement) rm line
  • Where were the Trojans first observed? Hedelberg. added.

Section, Nomenclature:

  • (also optional) However the idea to name the newly discovered Lagrange satellites of Jupiter... - Lagrange bodies? rm line
  • Palisa was also the first to calculate the accurate orbits of these asteroids. - accurately calculate swapped

Section, Population:

  • The number of asteroids with diameter larger than - with a diameter edited
  • The number asteroids larger than 1 km in the same swarm is about 6. - insert of, after number edited
  • As far as I'm concerned, collisionally is not a word it is
  • Could the characteristics section be expanded any further? I know references are little but any expansion would definitely help that section. I might attempt some searching. that would certainly help. I'm out of Google scholar refs.
  • Section, Formation and evolution:
  • could you link planetary migration, if that's possible? done.
I would say that's a pretty lengthy list, but I'm happy about the outcome of your collaboration. ;) Ceran//forge 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall: I tried to make some more revisionss, but some of my changes have vanished for unknown reasons. I'll just put my concerns below.

  • Overall it has some good content, but I think some parts need copy editing and more direct writing. For example, "The difference could be indicative of a" seems more passive than "The difference could indicate a".
Fixed. Serendipodous 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a number of terms that may be common in scientific circles, but I think should be wikilinked for lay readers. For example: "order of magnitude", "arc-minutes", "Maxwellian function" and "Spectroscopically".
Fixed. Serendipodous 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a quibble about this wording: "lies in one or other of the two Lagrangian points of stability". To me a point is dimensionless, so the asteroids can not be inside. (For example, Murray and Dermott (1999) Solar System Dynamics, p. 107, says that they "move in tadpole orbits about the triangular equilibrium points in the Sun-Jupiter system".) There's a similar issue later in the text ("Those in the L4 point are named after Greek...")
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Their name comes from the convention that names the objects..." is wordy and a little awkward. How about "By convention, they are named..."?
Fixed, I think. Serendipodous 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "...orbiting the Sun 60° ahead or 60° behind a planet will be trapped near these points,..." seems too loose in its wording. It should clearly state that they need to be in the same orbit as the planet.
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is "(12126) 1999 RM11" the same object that Barnard observed? It is unclear.
Clarified Serendipodous 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "This number increased to only 14 in 1961" switches tense from the prior sentence.
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The content of the paragraph that begins, "As of 2009..." seems out of order and needs a little work. Based on the second sentence, the first lists the known asteroids rather than the total. However, this is not explicitly stated. What does the fact that there are unknown asteroids have to do with the count of numbered asteroids?
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "If the L5 swarm contains..." contains two uses of "comparable". I'd change one to "similar" as that stands out.
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "...this disparity is probably due to observational bias." Could the reason for observational bias be explained here? I'm unclear why it would occur in this instance.
Fixed. Serendipodous 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "In fact, orbits with low inclination are less stable than strongly inclined orbits." I think this needs clarification. Please explain what "less stable" means in this situation and why larger inclination is more stable. I'll guess it has to do with perturbations by Saturn or Mars, but that's speculation.
    I removed this sentence, because it is wrong. It is only true for Neptunian Trojans. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The amplitude of the libration varies from 0.63 to 88° with average around 33°." I'm unclear about what this is saying. Is it a radial arc along the Jovial orbit? Is the average that of the absolute magnitude from the lagrange point? Please clarify.
    Clarified. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the first Characteristics paragraph, why switch between percent and value?
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "consistent with the below Kuiper Belt object theory of Trojan formation." This seems somewhat meaningless until the Formation section has been read.
    I rephrased this sentence. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck.—RJH (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing this but there should be an explanation to why L1-3 are not occupied, or if they are, compare them a bit with L4-5. Nergaal (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using an actual image of the largest member. These ones seem ok [5] [6] if no other is found. Nergaal (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hektor is the largest, not Patroclus. Serendipodous 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Natural Cut: I actually stopped copyediting because I'm not familiar with some scientific terms and was afraid I might be wrong when I linked the word binaries to binary star. But I also had a question pertaining to the use of Jovian Trojan versus Jupiter Trojan. Should the instances of the former be replaced with the latter per the article title? Again, science isn't my forte, so I didn't want to mess with it. Jovian Trojan actually sounds better to my ear, not that that means anything. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed "binary" to "binary asteroid". As for whether the article should be called Jovian Trojan or Jupiter Trojan, that's a good question. I agree that it does sound better, but I don't know whether enough people are aware that "Jovian" is the adjectival form of "Jupiter" to justify changing it. In any case, I agree; it should be either one or the other. Serendipodous 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if I hadn't been distracted at work and had read further down the article, I'd have seen it did refer to binary asteroid. Another suggestion is in the first paragraph of the nomenclature section: The first sentence should perhaps state Palisa as the originator of the naming tradition, unless he and Wolf came to separate conclusions or some other relation. It currently says that Wolf named the first one and then says "however" when it mentions Palisa's suggestion without making the connection clear.

Actually, according to the source, Wolf didn't name Achilles, so I removed that line. Serendipodous 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers and mass section, second paragraph - "nothing is known about smaller Trojans" - just "little is known" or "nothing is known about their mass" or something along those lines. We clearly know they exist and are small. ;-)

OK. Edited. :-) Serendipodous 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Formation and evolution, it kind of irks me to read "104" for a measure of years, maybe just a layman's perspective showing through though. I am also personally curious after reading the section, if one theory is more widely accepted. It hints at problems with the first theory but goes on to explain the second theory and leaves me at the point where (if I read this elsewhere) I normally go look things up on Wikipedia!

Hm. I need to ask Ruslik about that. Serendipodous 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall it was a genuinely interesting read for me and I wish you luck. Natural Cut (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Premiere (The O.C.)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've managed to get this article to GA in October 2008, and have just fixed any deadlinks it had. I am listing this for peer review to see what work is needed to get this article to FA status. Not having any real experience at FA, any suggestions and common pitfalls to avoid would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Premiere (The O.C.)/archive2.

Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans, Louisiana)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to continue in the process of improving this article to the long-term goal of featured status. I have tried to base it on the three core content policies, although it's not entirely perfect: mainly verifiability in the notable alumni section, I believe the rest of the article is well-cited. It is also modeled in many ways after Stuyvesant High School, Baltimore City College, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. I have just recently tried to balance out the academic reputation of the school with significant coverage of its main criticism in Accusations of bias in admissions.

Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans, Louisiana)/archive1.

Drizzt Do'Urden[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to FAC and I want to be as close as possible to passing when I get there.

Thanks, Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I addressed those items. If there are any human reviewers able to give a more thorough review, it would be much appreciated as we are hoping to take this to FAC. :) BOZ (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions, mainly about relatively small prose issues:


  • "A number of the novels" - Give the specific number, if possible.
  • "featured in some" - Delete "some".

Concept and creation

  • "Salvatore uses Drizzt to represent issues of racial prejudice... " - Suggestion: "present" or "introduce" rather than "represent".
  • "Drizzt is concerned that if he and his love Cattie-Brie (a human) have children, their offspring would face hostility from both races" - "will" rather than "would"
  • "managing editor of TSR's book department" - Spell out with abbreviation in parentheses on first use, like this: Tactical Studies Rules (TSR).
  • "under pressure to create a sidekick" - Wikilink sidekick.
  • "Although many readers have assumed that Drizzt is based on one of the many Dungeons & Dragons role-playing campaigns that the author has played, this is not the case." - Needs a verifiable source. How is it known what "many readers have assumed"?
  • "role-playing campaigns that the author has played" - Repetition of "play". Maybe something like "from the author's on-line role-playing experience" would be better.
  • I think the paragraph starting "Salvatore created Drizzt on a whim" includes unnecessary detail and would be better if more direct. I'd suggest revising the middle of the paragraph along these lines: "...and one day Kirchoff called him to say that they could not use one of characters. Pressed by Kirchoff to act quickly, Salvatore said he had created a Dark Elf. Kirchoff was skeptical, but Salvatore convinced her that using Drizzt Do'Urden would solve the problem."

Publication history

  • The image needs to be moved down so that it does not overlap or bump against the heading.
  • "Drizzt's story starts in the novel Homeland, the start of The Dark Elf Trilogy... " Repetition of "start". Suggestion: "... the first book of The Dark Elf Trilogy... ".
  • "The 1996 short story The Fires of Narbondel,... " - The story title should be set off in quotation marks rather than italicized.
  • "describes unrelated events where Zaknafein is the main character" - Suggestion: "describes unrelated events involving Zaknafein as the main character".
  • "artifact Crenshinibon (the eponymous Crystal Shard) - How is this eponymous? If you keep the word, I'd suggest linking to eponym.
  • "Wulfgar, never truly dead, returns to life from the Abyss as the demon who had held his soul is destroyed." - "was" rather than "is"


  • Wall Street Journal and other newspaper and magazine names should appear in italics.
  • "cliched" - Clichéd. You can always use copy-and-paste to transfer odd characters like é from elsewhere on the Internet.

Other media

  • "each book in a 3-issue mini-series" - three-issue
  • "IGN writer" - Spell out on first use: "writer for Imagine Games Network (IGN)".

If you find these comments useful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll make the fixes tomorrow, and probably review another article as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I got a lot of the simpler ones for you. :) BOZ (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Germany national football manager[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a fairly new article, quite comprehensive and well-referenced. It's currently rated C and I'd like to get it rated higher. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I based the name on the similar England national football team manager (a FAC). I suppose the distinction is that it's more of a national office than a job, like being a club manager. Also, the list itself is only a small part of the article. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The list at List of Manchester United F.C. managers is also only a small part of that article. From reading this article, it seems to me that this article is more about the people who have filled the role than about the role itself, meaning that making the managers the subject of the title makes perfect sense. Furthermore, it seems to me that there are very few specific responsibilities related to the position of Germany manager, unlike President of the United States, so just as there is a List of Presidents of the United States, this should be a List of Germany national football team managers. – PeeJay 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can see the merits of both names, but, as I say, I was basing this on the England article. As you've RM'd that, I suppose we'll decide this on the outcome of that discussion. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say keep it the way it is as it seems this article is more about the role.BUC (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly in favour of the current name. This is an article supported by a relatively short table, not a list in its own right. If anything, List of Manchester United F.C. managers has too much prose for a list. --Jameboy (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article seems well-sourced and stable, and the tables look good. To achieve a higher rating, the main thing to work on is the prose. Although readable, it's redundant in places and awkward in others. Most of my suggestions below address prose issues. The suggestions are selected examples only; if you can find a good copyeditor to work with you, I'm sure you can improve the article.


  • "The Germany national football team manager (German: Bundestrainer, literally 'Federal Coach') is a role that has existed since 1928, first occupied by Otto Nerz. The German team has been playing official matches since 1908, but for the first eighteen years there was no manager: the team was chosen by a selection committee." - The words "role" and "occupied" sound strange. The phrase "has been playing" suggests a vague time from which the writer is looking back. The colon is an awkward way to patch the sentence together. Here's a possible way to re-cast: German national football team manager (German: Bundestrainer, literally 'Federal Coach') is a position created in 1928 and first held by Otto Nerz. The German team began playing matches in 1908, but for 18 years it had no manager. Instead, a selection committee chose the team."
    • Done - with the following caveat...
  • The word "Germany" in the article title and first sentence seems odd. Isn't he the German Federal Coach rather than the Germany Federal Coach. I see that a whole series of related articles use "Germany" rather than "German", but why? Swedish football is not Sweden football, and Finnish football league system is not Finland football league system.
    • Not done - I'm sticking with 'Germany' rather than 'German', in common with other articles. The reason we do this is because there's no requirement for the manager to be German (even though they all have been), so it's the manager of the Germany team, rather than the German team manager. Also, there have been German national team managers in other roles - East Germany, Saarland, other nations altoghether, plus youth teams etc. This is about one specific role and one specific team. I've moved the article so that its title is more consistent with this.
  • Something is wrong with the math in the above sentences. 1908 + 18 = 1926, not 1928.
    • Done - this was bad data rather than bad maths, honest...
  • "assistant to their predecessor - each of the three managers" - The spaced hyphen is the wrong kind of punctuation here and elsewhere in the article. A terminal period would be better.
    • Done - replaced with a semi-colon
  • "(Imperial Coach)[2]." - The citation should be inserted after the end punctuation.
    • Done


  • The information on the image description page for Image:Joachim Löw.JPG is insufficient to verify the license. The links to the cited source and author are dead, and the uploader's name is unlinked.
    • I've removed this image, but all the other images of Löw are from the same source, and I think having an image of him is really important to the article. So I'm not sure what to do.

Early years

  • "achieved successful results" - Suggestion: "achieved success"
    • I've changed it to "respectable results", to avoid repetition. I think 'success' is overstating it.
  • "and was sacked after the team was eliminated by outsiders Norway, being replaced by his assistant, Sepp Herberger" - I'd aim for more concise expression. Suggestion: "and was replaced by his assistant, Sepp Herberger, after the team lost to Norway."
    • I've kept 'outsiders' as it's important in the context of someone losing their job. A more expected defeat wouldn't necessarily have the same effect. Also, 'eliminated' is key, as you can lose a tournament match without being eliminated.

""Herberger lead" - led

    • Done


    • The win is credited with playing a large part in the nation's recovery after World War II." - Does this mean economic recovery? Psychological recovery?
    • Both. I've changed it to specify that.

Glory years

  • "eliminated by neighbours Austria in Round 2" - Suggestion: "eliminated by Austria in Round 2"
  • Not done. The fact that Austria are neighbours is important in terms of local sporting rivalry, and the general big brother/little brother relationship between the two nations.
  • "Derwall's tenure began successfully, winning a second European Championship in 1980, and reaching the Final of the 1982 World Cup, but he was sacked after a dismal performance in the 1984 European Championship, which saw West Germany eliminated in the first round. - This sentence is too complex. Suggestion: Derwall's tenure began successfully. The team won a second European championship in 1980 and reached the final of the World Cup in 1982. However, he was sacked after West Germany lost in the first round of the 1984 European championship.
  • Done - but with the same caveat about about elimination/loss.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've adressed your comments above. Thanks. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't give up on the photo, Image:Joachim Löw.JPG. I think it's probably OK and that only the licensing page needs fixing. I poked around this morning and found a User:FlorianK, who is probably the Florian K mentioned on the image description page as the author. I'd suggest posting a note to FlorianK to ask about this. If my hunch is correct, the problem can be fixed by replacing the dead link to Florian K with a live one to FlorianK. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've left him a note. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Nashville Sounds no-hitters[edit]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
    • As this is a list, not an article, most of the suggestions do not apply. The lead may be longer than suggested, but it serves as the only prose section, adequately covering the subject. The over-linking was probably triggered by the stadium name repeating in the table. The article has one image; free images of other pitchers are unable to be found. No infobox exists for such an article. The article is only short because it is a list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to achieve Featured Topic status for the Nashville Sounds topic some day. As this list is too short to become a featured list (it was nominated and failed), it needs to be peer reviewed. I believe it is well-written and could become a featured list, but is only held back by its size.

Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

There's not a lot to review here. The shortness of the list seems to be the main stumbling block to its becoming featured. Other than waiting for the Sounds to achieve a few more no-hitter games, the most practical way to getting it featured, or at any rate to GA, would be to re-write it as an article, with prose descriptions of the games replacing the list.

On the intro as it stands at the moment:-

  • "...just one night after Randy Johnson and Pat Pacillo of the Indianapolis Indians combined for no-hit loss against Nashville". This reads like baseball shorthand for something, and I'm not sure what. Does it mean that, the previous night, Sounds themselves had suffered a no-hit loss at the hands of the Indianapolis Indians? If so, could this not be said simply? There's no need to name the pitchers who inflicted the defeat, they are not relevant to this article.
    • I did some rewording that should clarify the situation. (The night before, the Indians pitched a no-hitter, but lost to the Sounds.) Though the pitchers aren't necessarily relevent to Sounds no-hitters, they are relevent to the fact that it was the first and only time in league history that two teams pitched no-hitters on back-to-back nights. I don't think leaving them in hurts anything. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • More baseball-ese in "That game was won when Nashville's Lenny Harris drew a walk, stole two consecutive bases, and scored on a groundout". Completely mystifying to those of us who don't know baseball, and a pity, because the "no-hit" concept was explained very clearly at the start of the introduction. (I also wonder if this sentence is relevant to this article?)
    • There has been some re-wording here too. Baseball lingo in the sentence is linked; "walked" is linked earlier in the paragraph. It's relevence is that it explains how the Indians lost the game when they didn't allow a single hit. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Next sentence: "...that teams played in back-to-back no hit games" As far as I can make it out, only one team (Sounds) played in back-to-back no-hit games, so "teams" is wrong.
    • Hopfully the previous fixs make it clear that the back-to-back games involved two teams (Sounds & Indians). -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "toss" is more baseball-ese. Does it mean the same as "pitch"?
    • Yes... changing to "pitch". -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The last sentence is (virtually) a word-for-word repeat of an earlier sentence. This is unimaginative. I would end the paragraph with something like: "Parra threw 107 pitches, striking out 11 hitters and providing the third nine-innings complete game in PCL's history".
    • Changed almost verbatim. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Final point: what is (7) doing in the table?

    • It indicates that only 7 innings were played instead of the normal 9. This is now explained in the table key. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope these points help you to decide the article/list's future. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaldari comments

  • "One occurred while members of the Double-A..." The wording here is a bit tricky. Maybe "One occurred while the team was a member of the Double-A..."
  • It would be nice to see more independent sources in the refs. I'll see if I can dig some up.
    • I added Tennessean article citations for the two perfect games. I'll leave it up to you if you want to leave the non-independent refs as well. Personally, I like having both. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Other than that, I can't see anything else that needs improvement. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

    • I changed the sentence per your suggestion. Thanks for adding the independent refs. I'll just leave the other refs intact for now. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pilot (Friends)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Bog-standard article on a television pilot. I'm listing this article because I believe it's close to FA-standard now (bearing similarities to Pilot (House) and Pilot (Smallville)). I'm mostly looking for comments on language in order to satisfy the usually brutal 1.a requirements at FAC. Thanks, Bradley0110 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are some comments on the lead and first two sections. I will try to cover the rest later.

  • Lead
    • The opening sentence is not compelling, with a large parenthetical insert. I suggest you rephrase: "The pilot episode of the American situation comedy Friends premiered on NBC (National Broadcasting Company) on September 22, 1994. Also known as The One Where Monica Gets a Roommate and The one Where It All Began, the episode was writeen by..." etc
    • Suggest "The pilot introduces six friends who live and work in New York City;"
    • Then, after the semicolon; "Monica (Courtney Cox), who sleeps with....etc; her brother Ross (David Schwimmer), who is depressed...etc; Rachel (Jennifer Aniston), an old school-friend of Monica's who runs out of her own wedding and moves in with Monica."
      • I didn't realize this was here, and undid this change. Without the "who", would the sentence be grammatically incorrect? If not, I would rather leave them out. 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Suggest "sleeping with a man on their first date" (not "the first date")
    • "to this" is a redundant phrase
    • If possible, avoid repetition of "audience". You caould say: "those at the live taping..." etc
    • The sentence ending "a few days later did" is awkward phrasing. Try: "a focus group who viewed it a few days later thought otherwise".
    • "...was told to make further edits..." Told by whom?
    • "The episode was viewed by an average of 22 million viewers..." This should be "The pilot was viewed". Also, what does "an average of..." mean, in relation to the viewing figures for a single episode?
    • By way of a passing comment: there was concern that the characters were undeveloped. In a first episode introducing six characters, would you expect them to be developed? Seems an odd criticism.
  • Plot
    • The present tense should be maintained throughout.
    • Thus, "Rachel explains that she has left her fiance, and has no-one else in the city to turn to."
    • "Later, everyone is back in Monica's apartment". "Back" is wrong, since they weren't all there before. Try: "Later, everyone gathers in Monica's apartment..."
    • Similarly, "...return to Ross's apartment" should be "go to Ross's apartment"
    • "Rachel arrives and tells the group that because she failed 12 interviews she bough boots with a credit card paid for by her father" This sentence reads wierdly and needs attention. Suggest: "Rachel arrives and tells the group that she has failed 12 job interviews. She has bought herself a pair of [expensive?] boots, using a credit card paid for by her father".
  • Conception
    • "...they aimed to pitched..." Should be "pitched"?
    • "...though even before then" - "even" is redundant
    • The text beginning "The casting director shortlisted 1,000..." seems to belong to the "Casting" section rather than to "Conception". This sentence is actually quite messy. I believe "replied" should be "applied"; "who were called into to read for her" seems to have something missing. The whole sentence needs rewriting, perhaps as: "One thousand actors applied for each role; the casting director reduced these to 75 per role, and called these in to read for her".

Perhaps you will consider these points. I will await some response before tackling the remainder. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments so far. I've changed most of what you suggested in the lead, except for "the first date" to "their first date"—due to the sentence construction, "their" would imply that it is the audience's first date, so I've compromised and changed it to "a"! Re: "an average of 22 million viewers"--that would be a brain fart on my part. Of the "undeveloped", I assume that the critics didn't no what the purpose of some of the characters was.
    • I think I wrote the "average of.." part. From start to finish, the episode was not watched by 22 million; rather, it was probably watch by 23 at the start, and 21 by the end, or vice versa. Throughout the whole episode's run, it was watched by an average of 22. I see you removed it, and that's not a problem; most others would have probably found issue with it too. 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made a couple of changes to the plot section but as the whole section is complete rubbish (in nearly two years of editing TV/film articles, I've only once written a decent plot summary) I'm going to ask someone else to totally rewrite it.
  • Re: replied/applied. The source uses "replied", as some of the casting agents would have said "This role isn't right for my actor", and would have just thrown the character breakdown in the bin. It's kind of like an RSVP. Thanks for your comments so far, further ones are welcomed. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A few more comments

  • On the Casting section
    • Prose at the beginning is a bit jerky, with short sentences. Suggest a combination involving "...three or four for each part; these read for..."
    • Comma required after Monty
    • What does "greenlit" mean?
    • "...Would have had to have been recast" is unnecessarily wordy. "...would need recasting" will do.
    • "...would be the easiest to cast [for]." Word in brackets is redundant
    • The italicized words should be added into the text, for clarity: "...and requested an audition in Friends when he identifies with the Chandler character.
    • " was about a month" --> "...there was about a month"
    • At the end of the section information is given about guest stars. This information has nothing to do with the casting, and I suggest might be better placed elsewhere.

That's all for now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the minor changes you suggested (comma, link to greenlight, would need recasting, etc). I haven't italicised "Chandler", et al, as that would breach the manual of style on italics. As for the guest stars having nothing to do with casting, I disagree: Those actors had to go through the same casting process as everyone else. Sorry for the amount of time it's taken to make these changes. If you have any more suggestions, they'll be replied to faster! Bradley0110 (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to check the content and the quality of the prose.

Regards, Efe (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Whataworld06: This looks good, but I have a couple quick/easy suggestions:

  • "digital" links to Digital download, but then re-directs to Digital distribution. Should this be linked to the latter just to avoid confusion?
  • Linked to digital distribution. --Efe (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For the first reference listed at the bottom, I would recommend linking Billboard and Nielsen Business Media, Inc (you can link it to Nielsen Company). This may not be required, but it seems to be fairly common practice and I find it helpful sometimes, as a reader.
  • Linked only the first. --Efe (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Umbrella", which occupied seven weeks of summer's 13 weeks, has been credited as 2007's Song of the Summer" by who?
  • Attributed. --Efe (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Just because they make the list look nice, a couple additional artist pictures along the side wouldn't hurt. Looks good to me! -Whataworld06 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Added one. I want to add Soulja Boy's image because he's got one of the longest-running singles in this year. However, the only free image of his is not suitable for this list. Thoughts? --Efe (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: A bit delayed, here are my thoughts on the last of the three similar Hot 100 peer review requests and some suggestions for improvement.

  • If you mean the picture of Soulja Boy on the beach, I think it would be OK to add to the article. There is also one of him performing in his article, but I agree it is not a great picture to use (not very clear, not clear even which figure is him).
  • Added. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume some of the similar comments I made before will apply here. I also did a light copyedit as it was easier than copying the stuff here ;-) . Please revert if I have made arrors along the way. I still had some questions though:
  • No errors introduced. The copy edit was fine. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Watch for Overlinking - Soulja Boy Tell Em is linked twice in one paragraph, did not carefully check all the others.
  • Delinked. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • SHould the lead mention that Irreplacable was on the chart a total of 10 weeks (7 this year, 3 in 2006)? It would make this sentence However, "Irreplaceable", which started its pole position in the previous year, is credited to by Billboard magazine as 2006's longest-running single.[3][4] clearer.
  • Copy edited. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs 2, 3, and 4 are identical and should be combined with the <ref name = "blah"> Ref</ref> trick (assume you know this, please ask if not).
  • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Otherwise looks fine - good luck with FLC.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Idlewild and Soak Zone[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I brought this article up to GA following a first peer review back in October/November. User:Finetooth suggested I bring it here for a second opinion before I nominate for WP:FAC. Thanks to whoever picks this up. Grsz11 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments I think this will need some work before FAC. The prose is often puzzling.
    • "including from Amusement Today as the second-best children's park in the world." missing adjective. One? Several? Date of award(s) would be nice too to establish context.
    • "considered one of the best in the country." Weasel wording. "Best" is never really quantifiable. "Considered" begs the question, by whom? Be more specific: "a [popular/high-profile/insert relevant adjective here] Scottish athletic and cultural festival"
    • "Later overseen by the Macdonald family, the park" Introductory clause only confuses. What's this "later" mean? In relation to what? Substitute with a more specific temporal phrase. Readers will probably not recognize who this "Macdonald family" is. Describe succinctly with a short adjective or phrase.
    • "No progress was made by the Latrobe and Ligonier Rail Road Company," Connection is not clear. The charter was granted to them? If so, say so in the first sentence. Also, why is the passive being used?
    • "Following the 1871 renewal..." Be more specific. When?
    • "finally acquired" Why finally? Had they been seeking to acquire it for a while? Explain.
    • "purchased the railroad" Ambiguous. Best to state Ligonier Valley Railroad explicitly.
    • "In an effort to increase profits..." Profits for the railroad? T. Mellon Sons and Bank?
    • "depot was considered" Why considered?
    • Why "for a weekend in the country"? Was it only open during the weekends?
    • "While the initial lease with Darlington confined the park to between the railroad and the north bank of the Loyalhanna Creek, construction of a bridge across the river allowed expansion to the south in the mid-1880s" Don't understand this. How would construction of a bridge allow expansion?
    • For the Ligonier Valley Railroad: 1878–1952 section, do we have any statistics for the number of visitors?
    • I stopped reading at the end of the Ligonier Valley Railroad section, but the above seems to suggest that a comprehensive audit of the prose for comprehension would be helpful.
    • If the two works in Works Cited are books, their titles should be italicized and not in quotation marks. BuddingJournalist 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This page is at GAC at the moment, but I would like to have it at FAC by the end of the month. Any comments are more than welcome. Thanks. -- Scorpion0422 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment about eligibility for Peer Review Being a current GAC, I don't think this should also be considered at Peer Review. I don't know if there is a formal prohibition, but I think GACs and FACs ought to finish and be given some period of time after for reviewers' comments there to be absorbed fully, before an article should be eligible to be submitted to PR. Sorry, my comment is about process, not about your article. doncram (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no formal prohibition. People do it all the time. My personal view is that you shoudn't, not just because it's a bit greedy to consume two lots of review resources simultaneously, but because (a) you may get contradictory advice from the two review processes, and (b) as a result of recommendations arising from either review process the article could change significantly, making review comments out of date. The nominator may like to consider withdrawing it from PR and re-presenting it when it has passed GAC. That would make life simpler for everyone. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright, withdrawn. -- Scorpion0422 19:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks, this is appreciated, especially with the current PR backlog. Good luck with the GAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Adele[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping this list will eventually reach FL status. I created a similar list for Rufus Wainwright and took it up to FL status, and I hope to do the same for this Adele list. Any feedback would be appreciated before making this article a featured list candidate.

Thanks so much! -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some fairly nitpick-y suggestions for improvement.

  • Avoid words like currently in The Mercury Prize, formerly the Mercury Music Prize and currently known as the Nationwide Mercury Prize for sponsorship reasons, ... as this can get out of date quickly. Instead try something like The Mercury Prize, formerly the Mercury Music Prize and known as the Nationwide Mercury Prize for sponsorship reasons since 200X, ... (not sure what the year was)
  • I am not sure the level of detail here is needed in an article on Adele Andy Ruffell (former BMX Superstar and DanceStar Awards founder who left after the show peaked in 2001) would just Andy Ruffell (former BMX Superstar and DanceStar Awards founder) work?
  • Refs generally come after punctuation, so fix things like The MTV Video Music Awards were established in the end of the summer of 1984 by MTV[10] to celebrate the top music videos of the year.
  • Try this instead mtvU, a division of MTV Networks owned by Viacom, broadcasts a 24-hour television channel available on more than 750 college and university campuses across the United States. I don't think the second sentence is needed here and the external link to the Woodie Awards should be converted to a ref.
  • In general I think less is better describing the awards - a bit of explanation is fine, but the focus should be on Adele and her awards / nominations.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you so much for your time, assistance, and suggestions. Much appreciated! --Whataworld06 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Marketing performance measurement and management[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to aim for A class status. The article has already passed the GA class. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, Zithan (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

WP:JARGON says: "...most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typcal academic paper".

The problem with this article is that is generally written in exclusive language, and reads more like a business seminar paper, or the notes for a lecture to marketing people, than it does like a general encyclopedia article. It does not have the level of explanation suggested above, and is consequently hard to understand except for those who are well versed in the subject. An early example of what I refer to as exclusive language occurs in the lead:-

"It involves the creation a metrics framework to monitor marketing performance, and then develop and utilize marketing dashboards to manage marketing performance."

Metrics framework? Marketing dashboards? Without a knowledge of what these are, the sentence is meaningless. I have gone through the first main section (Data and analytics), and listed the problems that I find with it. These problems may be taken as typical for the article as a whole.

  • The graphic, without explanation or description, is incomprehensible to non-marketing people
  • Don't the first two sentences of this section say the same thing?
  • "A consonance among..." A more common word such as "accord" or "harmony" migh be better than "consonance". Also, "among" is wrong when there are only two entities, in this case the marketing department and senior management. "Between" is correct.
  • The phrase "that have to be collected" is unnecessary.
  • Samples of business-speak needing explanantion: business-critical; actionable business insights; marketing eturn on investment (which later becomes "return on marketing investment".
  • Example of an impenetrable sentence: "One of the most common uses of analytics that marketing performance management focuses on optimising marketing spend by using market mix models". It doesn't even seem grammatical.
  • Sentence beginning "Consumer packaged goods industry..." needs to start with a definite article.
  • "extensively uses this method" would read better as "uses this method extensively"
  • "although" means "despite which...", and I'm not sure it is the right word in "although it is now being adopted..."
  • "and so on..." is informal and definitely non-encyclopedic
  • "The concepts and tools of a marketing mixed modelling..."? "of marketing mixed modelling" OK, or possibly "of a marketing mixed model", but not as you have it.

Similar sorts of criticisms could be made of later sections. I think the general task is to work through the prose and try and simplify it, with fewer "professional" words and more explanation. As it stands it might do fine in a professional journal, but it needs a different sort of presentation here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Brian for reviewing it. I will work on simplifying the prose. Regards, Zithan (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Doncram Along the same lines:

  • Lead currently states a goal to be to optimize the return of investment (ROI) of marketing. There's a well-developed understanding in the field of finance (and understood elsewhere in the larger field of business) that it is not ROI which you want to maximize, you want to maximize Net Present Value (perhaps also taking into account real option values). Anyhow, if two mutually exclusive investments return 20% and 25% in ROI, but the first provides 1 million dollars of NPV, while the second provides just $100, you borrow money to invest in the lower ROI one and become a millionaire. So, I don't think maximizing (optimizing?) the ROI of marketing would be the currently proper term in an academic marketing journal article either, and i further think it is not the right term to use here.
  • Also in the lead: "Three elements play a critical role in managing marketing performance—data, analytics, and metrics". That is a quote from the article, not a quote from someone else saying it. I think it is arbitrary and non-encyclopedic to say that there are exactly 3 elements that are critical. I am sure that there are many ways to partition up all aspects of the subject into more than 3 "critical" parts, and bet you could come up with 3 critical parts of each of the 3 parts you have listed. It would perhaps be encyclopedic to say something like: Aberdeen consultants report that focusing management attention on just three elements of managment marketing performance seems to be more helpful than other approaches which they have tried in improving clients' performance. (Assuming you had a source supporting that.)
  • "One of the core methodologies to measure the effectiveness of marketing is the collection of appropriate data." Methodologies seems to be wrong word. Sentence parses to "one of the methodologies is collection". Or perhaps you mean to describe one particular methodology of data collection?

Hope these few further remarks help. doncram (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne International Comedy Festival[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been doing a lot of work expanding, rewriting and referencing and am looking for more suggestions on how to improve it. I would eventually like to see it brought up to GA-standard.

Thanks so much! Shoemoney2night (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

My first thought after reading the article through was that it seemed very short for an article about the largest international comedy festival in the world. It is indeed light on detail; the so-called History section has very little history beyond a short account of the festival's origins. The section compares the size of the original festival with the present day's, but gives no indication as to how this growth occurred. The second part of the section is brief comments about the festival's character.

So, as a first step towards expanding the article, I would dispense with the History section title and replace it with three: Origins, Growth, and Character. I would expand each of these from the present rather thin material, so that we have a full account of the festival's origins, a full account of its growth from fairly modest beginnings to "the largest comedy festival in the world", followed by an expanded "character" section. This might provide the basis for a reasonably comprehensive article.

I have a number of fairly minor points picked up during my reading:-

  • You tend to overuse the word "typically", There are synonyms such as usually, normally, etc, so you can vary. The "typically" in the opening of the second lead paragraph, however, can simply be removed.
  • "John Pinder" needs commas on each side. This sentence meanders a bit; I suggest a full stop after 1980s, then "It was inspired..." etc
  • A comma is needed after "Last Laugh"
  • Slight rewording might avoid the repetition of "overseas"
  • "By his return" doesn't sound right. "After his return" sounds better.
  • "convinced it would work" is a common phrase that doesn't need to be in quotes, even if Pinder wrote or said it.
  • I think the Festival "was launched..." rather than just "launched"
  • "principal", not "principle"
  • You say its first year featured 56 separate shows, but we need a reminder that this happened in 1987.
  • The reference to $9.7 million – that would be Australian dollars? See WP:$ about formatting and possible conversion
  • Awards section: check your boldface use with WP:boldface. Also, the section would look better in prose that in bullet-point format.

I hope these remarks will help you decide how to develop the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review, you've given me a lot of ideas on how to start developing the article. Cheers! - Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Chinese Grand Prix[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Continuing with my 2008 race report articles, I present this fairly pedestrian race. After a recent (long) FAC for 2008 Japanese Grand Prix I have slightly adjusted my writing style for the "race" section, and I would like some feedback on that. Also, whether I've given the right amount of weight to Massa's pass on Räikkönen. Basic grammar points and all the usual stuff are also very welcome. Thanks in advance for the comments, Apterygial 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AlexJ's PR


  • (i) "With ten points on offer for the winner of the Grand Prix, it was possible that Hamilton would win the Championship in Shanghai." - Extremely picky technicality - the championship would be clinched, not won. A winner is only crowned at the end of the season.
  • Makes sense. Changed. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (ii) "He was later given a penalty, which dropped him far enough down the field that he was unable to recover to a pointscoring position." - Better as "..given a penalty, which dropped him down the field from where he was unable to recover to a PSP"?
  • Yep. Simpler. Changed. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Practice and qualifying

  • (iii) "Bourdais spun off at turn two late in the session, beached the car in the gravel, and abandoned." - "and abandoned it." or actually, it would still make sense as "Bourdais spun off at turn two late in the session and beached his car in the gravel"
  • I guess it's obvious he would have abandoned the car if he beached it. Changed. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


  • (iv) "Bourdais dropped back to 18th; Trulli pitted at the next opportunity and retired after the second lap.[23]" Spell out that Trulli's pitstop/retirement was damage related? Might not be's up to you.
  • Changed to "Trulli pitted at the next opportunity as a result of the damage and retired after the second lap." Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (v) "No-one was moving as fast as Hamilton, though, as he set new fastest laps on laps three, six and eight, to extend his lead over Räikkönen to more than four seconds." - Hmmm... this jumps out at me as sounding more news report than encyclopedia article. But then I know one of the Japan FAC comments compared the prose to and mentioned how Saward's work was a better read, so I can understand why you've opted to jazz it up a little. I'll sit on the fence for this one, and see how others read it.
  • I was waiting for this. I have changed it to a less jazzy "However, Hamilton was the quickest on track,". By the way, do we know for sure it is Saward who writes those pieces? They don't have any author information, and while I think it's pretty obvious it would be good to know for sure. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (vi) "This trend continued until lap 10 when Räikkönen fought back with new fastest lap of 1:36.664." - WRT fastest laps, I'd say only the final fastest lap time of a race should be given. Times given to thousanth-second accuracy potentially scare off readers if their usage is too widespread. In addition, the point that KR set that particular laptime is totally irrelevant in this context, and hence it's inclusion is distracting. Even the fact he set the fastest lap is pretty irrelevant. The key detail that needs to be got across is that he was faster than LH.
  • Sure. Changed to "This trend continued until lap 10 when Räikkönen fought back and closed the gap." Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (vii) "Things went from bad to worse for Kovalainen when he suffered a puncture on lap 35." - I let you get away with (v), but this one's got to be go :p
  • Damn. My plan to systematically introduce emotionally driven POV into Wikipedia foiled at the earliest opportunity. Removed offensive section of sentence. Kovy didn't have a good day, though. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (viii) "The McLaren limped around the track back to the pit lane on the disintegrating tyre, rejoining in 17th." - "rejoining in 17th after a replacement (was fitted)"
  • No biggie. Changed. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (ix) "The gap between the Ferraris began to close, by lap 48 it stood at just one second.[23] Massa eased past Räikkönen on the back straight on lap 49, to take second place on the track.[24]" - Is L48 detail needed? could be compressed to "The gap between the Ferraris began to close, and Massa eased past Räikkönen on the back straight on lap 49, to take second place on the track."
  • Even less emphasis! Seems OK, so changed. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (x) "Meanwhile, Kovalainen parked his car in the McLaren garage and retired," - "and retired from the race,".
  • Oh no, didn't you hear? Heikki was so depressed about China that he retired from racing after the Grand Prix. The Brazil GP was contested by his identical twin, Mikhail. Changed anyway, for clarity's sake. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


  • Nothing! I can't see what else there is to say about the FM/KR thing - the FIA did nothing, and no-one (teams/media) had any problem with that.

As ever fire away with any response questions. AlexJ (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No need, I didn't have a problem with any of your points, they all seem to be quite valid. Thanks for the help here, and for always being the first to give your review. Apterygial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar Revolution[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for PR as I recently withdrew it from a shortlived FAC nomination after it was pointed out that it would be worthwhile listing it here first. In particular I am looking for improvements to the article prose and perhaps a review of the images (with an eye on fair use) in addition to any other areas where it is deficient. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I've been having a lot of trouble accessing wikipedia pages today, so I've not finished the review yet - the rest will come tomorrow, hopefully. As I've worked through I have done some minor copyedits. Here's the review so far.

  • Lead
    • "...frustrated by the lack of representation in Parliament" - I think this should be "frustrated by under-representation" rather than lack
    • I think the revolution "began", rather than "occurred" early in the morning of 12 June
    • "...which led to a poor reception from the Western Powers". This is rather vague phrasing. I suggest: "...which caused consternation among the Western Powers"
    • "several plans were drawn up for military intervention..." By whom?
    • "Instead" is not appropriate here. "Meanwhile" would suit better.
    • "The event ended 200 years of Arab domination". You need to clarify which event, the revolution or the merger?
Many thanks for starting the review, I have made several changes to the lead section which should hopefully address the issues you have brought up, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Origins
    • "Since 1911 at had been ruled as a constitutional monarchy under Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah". This needs rephrasing - I don't think Jamshid bin Abdullah had been ruling for 53 years.
    • You say Zanzibar was "controlled" by the British government. Could you clarify somewhere what the formal relationship was with the British government before the revolution?
    • "fired" is not encyclopedic. Try "dismissed".
I think I have sorted out this section as well - Dumelow (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Revolution: no particular comment at the moment
  • Aftermath
    • Opening sentence: "To temporarily govern post-revolution Zanzibar..." etc - this whole sentence sounds very awkward. I suggest a reorganisation: "The ASP and the Umma party established a Revolutionary Council to act as an interim government"
    • Fourth para first sentence, slight rearrangement: "However, Okello formed a paramilitary unit from his own supporters, known as the Freedom Military Force (FMF), which..." etc
    • Another awkward sentence: "The People's Liberation Army (PLA) was formed by the government in April..." etc. I thik this would be better as "In April the government formed the ... (PLA) and completed the disarmament of Okello's remaining troops".
    • "...had negotiated to enter into a union with..." is a bit wordy. "had negotiated a union with..." would do just as well.
Thanks, this part has now been sorted - Dumelow (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thast's as far as it goes for the moment. More tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


  • Foreign reaction
    • The American ambassador authorised an evacuation..." Clarify this is an evacuation of American nationals
    • "...due to the fact that" is wordy. Try "because"
    • The sentence beginning "There was evidence that Zanzibar was aligning itself..." etc needs rewording for clarity. I suggest: "The fact that the new Zanzibar government was the first from Africa to recognise the German Democratic Republic and North Korea was taken by the Western Powers as evidence that Zanzibar was aligning itself closely with the communist bloc."
    • "In Crosthwait's opinion this contributed..." Specify what contributed - I imagine it's the late recognition of Zanzibar by the West, but this must be clarified.
  • British military response
    • Second para, second line mentions "Tanzania". Wasn't it still Tanganyika at this point?
    • "the ASDP moderates" might be better phrased as "the more moderate ASP"
  • General point. I have done a fair bit of minor copyediting, mainly the insertion of necessary punctuation. This was a particularly weak point in the prose. It no doubt needs further attention as I haven't checked thoroughly.

I hope that you find this review useful. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Once again, thanks for doing the review. I have now addressed all of the points you brought up in the article and will take a look through it with regards to the punctuation. I should point out that User:EyeSerene has recently done a fairly intensive CE of the article so much of the recent improvement is down to his efforts. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Still underway (other commitments means it's a bit stop/start) :P EyeSerenetalk 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

  1. It's an important event in U.S. history, both in respect to government and law.
  2. It would be nice if people understood this event better, as the conventional account most people learn in high school is grossly oversimplified and inaccurate.
  3. We sort of quickly pushed through the first peer review in hopes of getting the article up to FA by the event's anniversary (Feb. 5), only to get ruthlessly gunned down on a few minor things (mainly prose). :)

So, give a hand and pitch in some advice about how we can round out the article so it's better prepared for Round Two with the FA review group.

Thanks, Foofighter20x (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved from prior PR[edit]

1. The para about the Justice department after 1933 was a bit confused so I have reordered it in a way that I hope makes it a bit clearer along thematic/chronological lines. I think it would be good if we could find an additional source to complement McKenna for this section. Any ideas? Did White address the J.D. issue? Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

McKenna's text speacks of the opinion of Senator Joseph O'Mahoney, stating DoJ didn't do its homework, but she doesn't cite anything. In her footnote on Hughes's opinion, she cites William Swindler, Court and Constitution in the Twentieth Century: The new Legality, 1932-1968, Vol. 2, pp. 72-73. White's focus was primarily on shattering the conservative/liberal dichotomy of the conventional narrative, and thus focused on lines of jurisprudential thought. He didn't mention the Justice Department at all. Don't have too many other ideas on where to look. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, McKenna is in part Schlesinger rehash, so I'll add in AMS directly and see if I can find other stuff to round it out. Eusebeus (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Found a related cite... Who killed Lochner?. Check it out when you can. It's sort of a review analysis of White's book, and may have a few good items in it. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Some of this is redundant to the above, but I think it useful to centralise our discussion of the bias/perspectives of the principal sources. I'll throw my comments in and I hope others will do the same. As a general point, I would suggest that where possible no section be single-sourced, given the various biases that exist in the literature (as noted by FF above). Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • McKenna

I checked the literature and her book is suspiciously light on reviews (I found 2 - google scholar gives up the goods -, compared to a dozen + for Leuchtenburg, who is admittedly a Big Deal in the field). At any event, that doesn't mean the book is not valuable as a source, especially since both reviews (AHR 2003 & JAH 2003) are favourable. However, I think the following criticism of McKenna is entirely valid and we should be mindful of it in using her as a source:

"In her book on the Court-packing plan, McKenna argues that most analyses of the Supreme Court's devastation of the New Deal and Roosevelt's subsequent battle with the Court have misplaced blame and praise. But if past studies erred in excoriating the Court and exonerating the president, this book errs in the opposite direction. For instance, often the author uses personal papers, biographies and autobiographies to reveal decision and tactics, and she is quick to dismiss Roosevelt's and his allies' justifications as disingenuous while accepting the stated motivations of the president's opponents.

... despite its problems, this is an important study that makes a definitive contribution. But it should be read in conjunction with one of the many studies that takes a more favorable view of Roosevelt as a means of achieving some balance."

-RICHARD L. PACELLE, JR., AHR 103:2003, 866-7

So I see an issue with using McKenna as an exclusive source for material in the article as we will end up following her bias. I have already amended the Reaction section to include the National Committee (an elision noted by Best, JAH, 2003). This is not to diminish McKenna, but simply to agree with Pacelle's point.

Thus, a phrase like The public, having seen through Roosevelt's subterfuge, refused to rally behind the President sourced from McKenna will prove hardly credible in its current form once this goes up to FAC (=reflects her POV). Either we refer back to her sources to provide much more direct evidence for such a claim, or else I think we need to moderate this kind of language and get wider input from other material. Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think McKenna could attack the administration's stance due to the prolific amounts of documents, journals, news articles, and statements made by all the people on the administration's side: altogether, you can see through the pretenses... On the other hand, claiming she's defended the justices is sort of unfounded as there's not a whole lot of stuff on them other than their case decisions and what little they wrote or said about the incident. You've got boatloads of people versus nine men. Judges, let alone Supreme Court justices, keep pretty mum, so you have to keep the criticism in perspective. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but what I am saying is more procedural really. At FAC we are likely to get objections if we follow too closely only one author's line, especially where other major figures in the field disagree (as noted in the AHR review). So to get through FA, I think we need either to moderate or else contextualise these kind of claims. However, there's still a lot of work to do before we have to worry about this. Eusebeus (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Another point you might not get without reading McKenna in full:
  1. McKenna had Schlesinger review her book before publication (at least, she says as much in the intro to the book).
  2. She relied on additional documents that weren't previously avaiable to scholars, namely Homer Cummings secret diary, which would explain why her narrative differs in certain areas from established scholarship.
-- 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Leuchtenburg

More extensively and favourably reviewed than McKenna, this book is of course a compendium of previously published essays. Reviews at:

I generally don't see an issue with using Leuchtenburg as either a factual or interpretative source (but again, as above, balanced out). Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • White

3. Can you explain this sentence for me? Roosevelt was wary of the Supreme Court early in his first term, and his administration was slow to bring constitutional challenges of New Deal legislation before the court. I thought the Supreme Court controlled its own docket, so a bit more explanation here would be fruitful. How did the administration manage the delay? Eusebeus (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Roosevelt was saavy enough to presage his coming conflict with the court. However, many people doubted the constitutionality of his programs. As such, he attempted to squeeze out some time before they would face a USSC hearin on their consitutionality by not appealing adverse decisions. Typically the USSC will hear a case if the Solicitor General brings it forth, but if or when the SG brings it forth is still subject to administration control, as the SG is the chief lawyer for the administration (which used to be the AG's job, until he sort of became the chief law enforcement officer). Foofighter20x (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ill try to amplify to make that point a bit clearer. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

4. It is often noted that Black Monday's NRA decision was the most important strike against the New Deal and what really got Roosevelt's blood up; I wonder if it should be mentioned in the lede. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply followed the Leuchtenburg and McKenna narratives, which told the story chronologically. The order of the cases in the article is same in which the court announced them that day... Foofighter20x (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Monarchies in the Americas[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently got this article to GA status. I asked an FA regular to take a quick peek to see if he'd recommend taking this to peer review before attempting to get it to FA status and he answered affirmatively. I'd be very grateful for input of any kind. Thanks! :) Cameron* 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot's comments

Eustress' comments
Here are some suggestions and things to fix:

  • One link is dead and several others have connection issues (see Checklinks).
  • Per WP:CAP, captions only end with a period if the text is a complete sentence (e.g., fix Cuauhtémoc, Mohawk Kings, etc.) Done.--Cameron* 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Some publishers are wiki/external-linked in the citations while others are not—need to be consistent
  • All words in some citation titles are capitalized while others are not—need to be consistent
  • Do you really need six citations to support "Suggestions of change have been raised in the Commonwealth realms in regards to the order of succession..."?
  • Inline citation should follow punctuation mark in "The monarch is represented in the territory by the Rigsombudsmand..."
  • You might consider outsourcing the table in section Current monarchies to List_of_monarchs_in_the_Americas#Current_monarchies—it's a bit overwhelming in this article. Done.--Cameron* 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall, a nice-looking, well-sourced article. Best wishes --Eustress (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it should be a 'Good Article'. It needs expanding but possible problem of editors thinking 'too long' I disagree. This needs more opinions. John Paul II was Pope for 27 years. Please compare to George Bush (??) or other world leaders. John Paul had profound impact worldwide and this needs to be taken into account. We cannot sell him short. I think more comment and sensible discussion is deserved and required. All suggestions will be considered carefully.

Thankyou, MaciejKudra (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Kensplanet

  • Very very lenghty article. 62 KB of readable Prose. You'll have to shorten it. Forget a FA with 62 KB of Prose.
  • Countries like United Kingdom, Poland etc..need not be linked. Delink them in the Pastoral trips and Islam and all other sections.
  • Priesthood: In the Image with caption, Karol Wojtyła as a priest in Niegowić. Karol Wojtyła need not be bolded.
  • I think the Apologies can be shortened. All the Apologies like The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church, etc.. should be moved to a seperate article Apologies by Pope John Paul II. KensplanetTC 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

  • Yes, I just did dr PDAs tool too, you really have to relegate more material to subordinate articles. I will look more to advise on what to trim and where it may go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There are alot of stubby sections; I would reduce to a sentence or so President George W. Bush presents Medal of Freedom to Pope John Paul II and place in previous section on poland/communism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Savidan

  • I'll probably be back with more thorough comments later, but the most obvious thing is that it appears that none of the books in the references are really cited in the notes, which are almost exclusively from internet news articles. I think the article would really benefit from citing some of the key biographies throughout. Especially for summary-style stuff, published books are preferable. Savidan 03:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from EtonLibrarian

  • This article is aspiring to be a Good Article. To start with it is far far too long (57K little chance!)
  • Another criticism is tone of article, serious POV issues and hagiography. It is also suffering from undue weight and "synthesis of sourced".
  • Prose sometimes wanders, but rarely flows.
  • Length and tone are probably greatest issues with the fact that it is triffle "rigid".
  • Needs major improvement
  • Too many photos EtonLibrarian (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Pastor Theo

  • There are many sections in the article where citations are lacking. There are also three redlinks -- one for a book written by John Paul II and two for individuals -- that could be filled in.
  • You may wish to consider adding more about the Catholic sex abuse scandal, which is mentioned in passing. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ioannes Pragensis

  • Lead: "While many have criticised him for..., others have praised him for his stances in these areas." sounds a bit weasel-like to me ("many/others": how many? which others?). The praise also should be attributed (use a citation).
  • "most-travelled world leaders" - watch for overlinking, there is no need to link common words like "world". Moreover watch for needless repeated links to the same word (like communism in the section Priesthood).
  • Biography: "Karol grew close to his brother Edmund" - should be mentioned how older/younger was Edmund compared to Karol.
  • "In sharp contrast to the harshness normally expected from the occupiers," "Wojtyła and another seminarian volunteered for the odious task of chopping up and carting away piles of frozen excrement from the lavatories." etc. - sometimes perhaps too essay-like or too detailed.
  • "Deitsche Welle" (in the notes) - probably should be "Deutsche Welle"
  • "He earned a second doctorate, evaluating the feasibility of a Catholic ethic" - doctorate of what? philosophy?
  • "two pseudonyms - Andrzej Jawień" or "Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)" - typography: it should use "–", the long hyphen
  • "During this period,...:" The paragraph sounds like if the book "Love and Responsibility" were a literary work published under pseudonym. Describe Wojtyla's literary work better and distinguish it better from the theological work.
  • chapter Bishop and cardinal: Is something known about Wojtyla's pastoral and political activities in Poland?
  • A Pope from Poland: At least in my old-fashioned IE 6, the graphical layout is horrible - white spaces, images, too many italics, to many citations...
  • The title of the chapter should be changed - e.g. Election as pope; now it sounds a bit unencyclopedic
  • Source the Siri/Benelli split in the conclave
  • “I have a sweet tooth for song and music. This is my Polish sin.” - why is this citation here? Looks very unencyclopedic and out-of-place
  • The Election chapter should be shortened. There can be created a new article about the second 1978 conclave with all the details.
  • In the Papacy part, there should be a chapter about his work during his reign - his travels, encyclicas, diplomacy, church policy... - now it looks from the titles of sub-chapters like he was elected, assassinated, ill and died.
  • Assassination attempts: "was shot and critically wounded" - the word "critically" is perhaps a bit too strong here; what about "seriously"?
  • "by Mehmet Ali Ağca, an expert and trained Turkish gunman" - expert in what?
  • "the bullets missed" - how many bullets hit the Pope?
  • the assassination chapter is too long

The Last Castle[edit]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
    • I complied with the peer review and added consistency with dates, measurement, references and numbers. I also moved the IMDB link out of the infobox and down to the external links as the film guideline requires it. Awaiting more review.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a great movie that deserves a good wikipage. I have worked on it a lot to bring it to it's now state and need some pointers on how to improve it and what quality it currently is in. I just wanna know what's missing for B-class.

Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Limetolime's review[edit]

This is a wonderful article. Gives a lot of information about the film; substantial references help, too. Links are OK, ready for GA nomination. All that could be done is adding more info to the "Production" section. Limetolime Talk to me look what I did! 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ling.Nut[edit]

  • This article is a fixer-upper.
  • As has always been my prob recently, I just don't have time to do much. I'll do what I can... but I see many, many grammatical and MOS problems here. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest that the principal editors of this article find a good grammar book and read all of the sections dealing with the placement and use of commas. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 08:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

I will give this article a more detailed review, but it may take a day or two due to other commitments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry I can only give this limited time, but I have tried to deal with some of the article's problems, and have identified a few more for you consider. I agree with Ling Nut that considerable attention needs to be given to improving grammar, also punctuation. I don't think the article is that far off a B rating, however, and a little dedicated work will get it there.

  • Lead: I have copyedited the lead. I also think that Gandolfini shaould be described as a co-star rather than as "a supporting actor". His role in the film is as critical as Redford's.
  • Plot: There are numerous faults in this section.
    • It should be written in present tense throughout. At present you have "after the wall was destroyed" Done
    • A word like "rank" does not need linking. If you want to link "warden" and "Colonel", this should be done in the lead, at first mentions. Done
    • The organisation of the section seems very haphazard. Information is sometimes given in peculiar order: for example, the sentence beginning "Irwin has been sent to prison..." belongs immediately after the opening statement about the court-martial, and should read: "Irwin has been sentenced because he ignored..." etc. There are other instances of seeming random-placed sentences. Also, there should be a paragraph break at "Slowly, the prisoners begin acting..." Done
    • There is a lot of informal wording – can't, doesn't, etc, also "but backs down some...". You need to stick to encyclopedic language.
    • There are numerous awkwardly worded sentences. One example, near the beginning: The prison's warden, Colonel Winter, who had greatly admired Irwin in the past, invites him to his office in a show of admiration". The "admired/admiration" proximity is very clumsy. The sentence could be simplified to "The warden, Colonel Winter, once an admirer of Winter, invites him to his office." Note that this is one example from numerous sentences that need attention.
    • The end of the story is confusingly explained. Winter s "led away" – by whom, and why? Could he not claim that he was dealing with a riot from prisoners who were evidently armed? It doesn't ring true.
  • Cast: No need to lnk again the names already linked, and boldface should not be used. Also, tou don't need these summaries of the main roles, since this information has been given previously.
  • Production: I've copyedited the first paragraph. I don't have time for more, but more prose work is indeed necessary, here and throughout the article.
  • Release and reception: There are concealed comments in the edit box about the reliability of the some of the data you give, relating to the film's reception.

I hope these comments give you some ideas for improving the article. Sorry I can't do more. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Unsung Hero Award[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it does not meet the unwritten 10-item limit for FLC. However it needs a peer review to be eligible for inclusion in a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic I am working on. Thanks in advance for any comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: There's not a lot to review here, but I have a few suggestions for improvement. I think more details about the winners would be good. They sound like an interesting lot, whereas the opening paragraph about the rules is probably necessary but not so interesting. If you decide to expand the article by including more about the people, perhaps some of that could go into the lead. Here are my other suggestions.

  • "take part within their workplace facilities" - Suggestion: "take part within their places of work"  Done
  • "and the three national regions—namely BBC Scotland, BBC Wales, and BBC Northern Ireland" - Suggestion: replace "–namely" with a comma.  Done
  • "A judging panel then decides on the Unsung Hero winner" - Suggestion: "A judging panel then chooses the Unsung Hero winner... ".  Done
  • "First presented in 2003, the inaugural winner... " - Was the inaugural winner first presented in 2003? If not, perhaps "The inaugural winner in 2003 was 63-year-old Knobby Woodcock... ".  Done
  • "Of the six recipients to date, three were awarded" - Suggestion: "were chosen"  Done
  • The big table looks fine except that you probably don't have to link BBC South and football multiple times in the same chart.
    • WP:LINK says that "Table entries are an exception to [only linking in the first instance]; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The small tables probably don't need the single text line explaining them. For example, "By sport" already explains all, and you don't need to add "This table lists the total number of awards won by the sport the recipient contributed towards."

I hope this brief review proves helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • A nominee must actively help others participate in sport at any level on a voluntary basis. - add "a" before sport  Done
  • Why are the age of the inaugural/recent recipients mentioned if its not mentioned in the list itself? It seems out of place.
    • Context. "70-year-old Ben Geyser, for his work with boxing over the previous 40 years", the years of work seem irrelevent without his age. Whats your solution to this, reword this phrase to neglect any mention of age? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh okay, its fine then.--TRUCO 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A more thorough history prose should be given. Yes its mentioned that 2003 was the inaugural awarding, but it should be mentioned in the first paragraph when it was created and who came up with the idea (if that can be found)
    • Don't think this information exists, but i'll have a closer look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have had a look, but have found nothing on either of these. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • If it can't be found, then its okay, but it just makes the article feel empty a bit.--TRUCO 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Table rationale: for over 40 years work with Bardwell FC, a community football team that she originally founded in 1964. - is the 40 years work an English variant? If not, it should be "of" work  Done
  • I really don't see a reason for making the region and sport tables sortable since its a table of small capacity (less than 5 items and in descending order already)
    • I've put it in ever since Dabomb87 added it to the Coach FL here. I'm not bothered either way, but I can't see any harm in having it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • As RR said, no harm in it. Also, helps with the article-to-article consistency for the Featured topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh okay, for FT purposes then.--TRUCO 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Other than that, it looks fine.--TRUCO 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Not much to fix, since the other two reviewers were thorough:

  • "national regions, namely BBC Scotland, BBC Wales"-->national regions: BBC Scotland, BBC Wales...  Done
  • "from the fifteen regional" Numbers over ten should be written in numerals.
  • "for his unstinting work with grassroots football in Wales." Should be in quotes.  Done
  • to football, with the other recipients contributing towards boxing, swimming, and the Special Olympics."-->to football; the other recipients contributed towards boxing, swimming, and the Special Olympics.  Done
  • "region, with BBC London, BBC West Midlands and BBC Wales contributing the other three winners. "-->region, and the other three winners came from BBC London, BBC West Midlands and BBC Wales.  Done
  • for "his unstinting work with grassroots football in Wales." Logical punctuation, the quotation mark should be inside the period.  Done
  • I trust that the Rationales that aren't quoted are not copyvios. Nope

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Article looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxford United F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because i have made several improvements to it since the failed FAC and would like to know if people think there are other things which could be added before i take it to FAC again.

Thanks in advance, Eddie6705 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Another Believer: This looks good, but I have a couple quick/easy suggestions:

  • In other lists, you have "digital sales" as a factor. Did this not apply in 2002?
  • Billboard started counting digital sales in 2004. --Efe (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A reference indicating how data is compiled would help.
  • I'll try to find, but are they that helpful? --Efe (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Rapper Eminem achieved his first chart-topping single with "Lose Yourself" since he began his career in 1990"... I think this might be better: "Rapper Eminem achieved his first chart-topping single since he began his career in 1990 with "Lose Yourself".
  • Reworded to: "The ascent of "Lose Yourself" to number one gave rapper Eminem achieved his first chart-topping single since he began releasing albums in 1999." --Efe (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • later - change to "latter"
  • Rectified. --Efe (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Linked. --Efe (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For the first reference listed at the bottom, I would recommend linking Billboard and Nielsen Business Media, Inc (you can link it to Nielsen Company). This may not be required, but it seems to be fairly common practice and I find it helpful sometimes, as a reader.
  • Done. --Efe (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A couple additional artists pictures along the side would look nice, just to rid some of the white space. Looks good to me! -Another Believer (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Will add one. --Efe (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good! -Another Believer (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of deadliest tornadoes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to WP:Featured list status. I could use suggestions on the list's format, as well as a way to get inline citations in addition to notes on the page.

Thanks in advance for any help.-RunningOnBrains 18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have figured out how to use notes/inline citations, so really I just need comments on format/structure/grammar/anything else that could improve the list.-RunningOnBrains 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711 comments

  • List heavily relies on a single source almost to the exclusion of all others. Is there no way to diversify the sourcing through contemporary newspaper accounts or other sourcing?
    • I'd say I heavily rely on two sources: The "Bangladesh tornado" webpage, and Grazulis' book. Grazulis is pretty much THE authority on historical tornadoes, and the Bangladesh webpage is by two seemingly qualified meteorologists. I thought that having a consistent source would be better if it provides enough information, but I might be wrong.
  • Why is the criterion for a "deadly" tornado 75 or more deaths and how does this criterion meet WP:NPOV concerns?
    • This is an artifact left over from the conception of the article: I merely copied Template:25 deadliest US tornadoes to begin the page, which happened to be all US tornadoes with 75 or more deaths. I will cut off the last few to make it tornadoes with 100 or more deaths, since thats a lot less arbitrary.-RunningOnBrains 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Again though, why is any particular number the threshold for "deadliest" and what's the basis for it? You may need to rename the list to something like "List of tornadoes that caused 100 or more deaths" to avoid NPOV issues.
  • Why does the lede mention both the 75 figure and the 100 figure? It leads to ambiguity of inclusion criteria to mention both figures.
  • Merge the single-sentence final paragraph to the paragraph before it.
  • The table looks odd centered, like it's scrunched up unnaturally. I would reformat it to run full-length uncentered and also increase the point size for the font.
  • Spell out country names every time.
  • Page numbers needed for references to Grazulis. Publishers needed for current references 1, 3, 5, 6. Spell out what TORRO stands for.
  • The notes about death and injury totals possibly being higher and that particular storms may have been clusters are based on what for each usage? Even with a reliable source for each usage, does knowing that there may have been more deaths or injuries really impart any additional encyclopedic information? I would suggest putting together a two- or three-sentence paragraph in the lede explaining that getting exact death and injury counts is difficult and explain why (if there is reliable sourcing that discusses it), noting that any particular injury count may be an undercount, and leave it at that. This has the added benefit of getting rid of a lot of clutterful symbols sprinkled throughout the table. I would suggest rather than a bare "may have been higher" note that you explain why the count as listed for any given storm may be low in the "Description" column and source it.
    • That does sound better. What I'll probably do is put a section before the list about death toll uncertainties, then put specific instances in the "description" column.-RunningOnBrains 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't like the "??" for missing information. "Unknown" is better.
  • Is there anything that can be said (and sourced) for the currently empty description fields? Estimated property damage, anything? If not that's cool.
  • All of the end notes need to be sourced. I'm wondering if some of them can't be incorporated into the description fields or other areas of the table? 15 end notes seems like a lot for a table this size.
  • My preference is that books be listed in a separate section called something like "Sources" or "Bibliography" but I don't believe that's required.
  • Another personal preference is that all months are spelled out and that dates are not linked, but AFAIK there is no current consensus on the latter. For the former, however, because you do have one approximated date ("December 1851") I think cosmetically the table would look better with unformatted and spelled-out dates.
  • Entry 11 for Natchez does not sort in correct date order, either oldest-to-newest or newest-to-oldest.
  • Deaths column is wildly inaccurate when sorted. Some entries in the injuries column also sort incorrectly. My guess is it has something to do with the special symbols, as those are the entries that seem to be out of order (another good reason for getting rid of them). The † figure looks to be the problematic one.
  • I don't see any reason why either the ranking or the Name/Location field should be sortable.
    • As far as I know, there is no way to specify the sortable format by column. Is there a way?-RunningOnBrains 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Any good "See also" links that could be included here? List of other deadliest weather phenomena perhaps?
  • Any free or fair-use images that can be added?

Hope these comments are helpful. If so, please consider doing a peer review of one or more articles from the peer review backlog. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, one other quick thing, what makes [7] a reliable source? Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden (NES)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to start preparing the article for good article standing. I have received little reviewing at the previous peer review so I am listing it here. An overall comb of the article would be great with a focus on how to improve the Plot section, as I think it is a little afoul of WP:PLOT.

Thanks, MuZemike 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that seems to need need some work to reach GA standards. I agree the plot section is weak. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • In the lead I would spell out literally (currently just "lit.")
  • Since "NES" is in the title, it needs to be defined in the article, so add it after the first appearance in the lead "Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)"
  • Avoid repetition in the lead - the first paragraph names the sequels and mentions the ports to other systems, so this sentence in the third paragraph The game's success spawned two sequels and several ports to other video game systems. is not needed. It might be the sentence from the first paragraph could be moved here instead.
  • Per WP:OVERLINK this is somewhat overlinked - Tecmo is linked twice in just the lead, and common places like America do not need to be linked. My rule is to link once each in the lead, body of the article and infobox. No more.
  • The language could use a copyedit to clean it up - the word "also" is overused especially. Other examples (not an exhaustive list) follow:
    • Unclear who "he" refers to in Before Ryu can find him, however, he is kidnapped by a young policewoman, who hands Ryu one of the demon statues.
    • Overly wordy (from the plot): Ryu makes his way into the Brazilian temple, where he finds Jaquio. However, Ryu finds that Jaquio is now holding the young policewoman captive. could be just Ryu makes his way into the Brazilian temple, where he finds Jaquio holding the young policewoman captive.
    • Ungrammatical (kiss themselves sounds as if each is kissing themself rather than them kissing each other) and other problems: "Finally, Ryu and the young lady kiss themselves and then she reveals that her name is Irene Lew." WHy the italics? Why give her last name (mentioned nowhere else in the article)? Why not just something like "Ryu finally kisses the policewoman who reveals she is Irene."
  • Make sure references really back up what is said - I checked one thing at random The book's cover, which was a replication of the North American box art, was infamous for the kunai held in Ryu's front hand being airbrushed out, leaving him prodding an empty fist.[44] The ref says it is a katana that was removed, not a kunai. It uses the word egregious (not infamous). Finally "prodding an empty fist" makes no sense to me - perhaps "leaving him with an empty fist" would be better?
  • A lot of the refs are from the game or instruction manual - any chance for sourcing the material to reliable third party independent sources?
  • I am not sure what counts as reliable sources for video games, but make sure the refs qualify.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Review by Noj_R


  • I believe separating the release dates with semicolons is better than commas.
  • For the sake of consistency, can the day the game was released in the USA be found and added?
  • Instead of "It has been ported...", I think "The title has been ported..." sounds a little better.
  • Instead of awkward sentences sentences like "The story centers on a ninja named Ryu Hayabusa, whose father was recently killed in a duel. Ryu then sets out for America to investigate his father's death and to seek revenge." Try condensing them: "The story follows a ninja, named Ryu Hayabusa, as he journeys to America and seeks revenge for the death of his father."
  • "Ninja Gaiden was developed by Tecmo—known for" - This was stated in the first sentence, try removing the redundancy.
  • "This game" is too particular, use "The game" instead.


  • "Platforming" is probably gaming jargon, try explaining what it is.
  • There are three sentences explaining the player's health bar, try condensing.
  • The gameplay section as a whole needs a copy-edit.


  • "The story takes place presumably in modern time." - Nobody (including publications) ever allude to the story's setting?
  • "The crux" - I believe explaining the story step-by-step is better than beginning with a plot overview.
  • The plot section as a whole seems rather large. Can it be condensed?
  • The plot section could also use a copy-edit. Sentences like "After Ryu's father, Ken, is killed in a duel with another ninja, Ryu finds a letter written by Ken, telling him that if he should fall, then he must go to America and find the archaeologist Walter Smith." could be better written: "Ninja Gaiden begins with the death of Ken, Ryu's father, by an unknown assailant. Ryu finds a letter written by his father, telling him to find an archeologist named Walter Smith in America."


  • This section should probably be re-titled "Development".
  • The story section could use some copy-editing: "who would go on to also develop and direct the" -> "who would also develop and direct the" etc.
  • A citation is needed for the last sentence of the first paragraph.
  • The article states that the game was ported to the PC Engine in Japan only, but then it states that the game featured an english translation. This should be cleared up.
  • The last few sentences of the second paragraph talk about the critical reception of of one of the ports. This info should go in the reception section.
  • "low–priced installments for small groups of levels" - The language is a bit confusing, installments for groups of levels?
  • "The complete game was planned for mobile release in four installments." - Has this changed in recent times, and is this sentence still referring to the Japanese version?


  • A citation should be added for the first sentence.
  • "despite the fact that Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden have different dynamics, and that several actions possible in Ninja Gaiden would be impossible in Castlevania." This is POV. Reword.
  • "late in the game; one reviewer has" - These would be better suited in separate sentences.
  • The reception section could be bolstered with more information from reviewers. Since the game was released on the Wii, there should be plenty of reviews floating around like this one from IGN or Allgame.

Other Appearances

  • This section could use a little copy-editing, but is mostly alright.

Conclusion: This is a pretty good article. My sister and I love the theme song for this game, haha. -- Noj r (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So Amazin'[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to take it to FAC soon. I have checked the article against the featured article criteria, and I think the only issue is the infamous 1a. Any prose comments will be very helpful, as well as anything else I may have missed. All of the references should be reliable, except for the (very unreliable) JustJared ref. I have been unable to find a better ref for this quote, and I am not too sure how to use Template:Cite journal in this instance (I don't know the title of the article in the magazine).

Thanks, 04:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I have some concern with the article's length. I have looked at several albums which are FAs, and most are much more detailed that this one. Today's featured article, Year Zero (album), for instance, is considerably larger. Most others album FAs are the same, and I was hoping if users could also comment whether or not they would support this at FAC, based only on article size/comprehensiveness. Whatever sources are on the net I believe I have looked through, and I don't think there is much else I could add to the article, in case you were wondering. Thanks again, 11:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Efe (talk · contribs)
  • "on the majority of the production of the album" Its not actually grammatically amiss but I suggest you rephrase this. --Efe (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Def Jam Recordings' members L.A. Reid and Jay-Z" They are the honchos of Def Jam. I think members are not appropriate? --Efe (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Both have been tweaked, although I'm not too sure how to best deal with the second comment. 11:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No better idea for this one, too, as of now. --Efe (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is too detailed: "Internationally, the album peaked at 55 on the Swiss Albums Chart, number 67 on the UK Albums Chart, and 139 on the France Albums Chart. ". --Efe (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Critics felt that while Milian claimed that she was displaying the various sides of her personality, the album could "only [scratch] the surface of who she really is". The quote seems like it was written by critics unanimously. --Efe (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Although the decision was said to be mutual, disappointing album sales were believed to be the main factor." That word is not objective. Tends to be POVic. I suggest you replace it with low, if its low, or find any other word that is objective and not arguable. --Efe (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The album debuted and peaked at number 11 on the U.S. Billboard 200, selling a total of 163,000 copies." Although you said "a total of", its ambiguous because it still could refer to the album's first week total sales. --Efe (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kumi Koda[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I want to become a FAC article but I'm stuck. I do not know what to add or change. Please look at the article and tell me what you think should be added onto it. Thanks, (Moon) and (Sunrise) 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This reads well and seems comprehensive. The early biographical details seem thin, but if no more material is available, what you have may be fine. This is a nice job overall. I have a few comments or questions.

  • The lead photo is good, and the license looks fine to me. If you can add at least one more image, that would be good too.
    • I'll look for some.
  • The last paragraph of the lead is a one-sentence orphan, and it's vague. It also doesn't seem important enough to put in the lead. Perhaps better would be to summarize "Lyrics and composition".
    • Removed
  • I'm not sure what "Best: First Things was certified 2x million... " means in the "Growing popularity" section.
    • Removed
  • RIAJ should be spelled out on first use, thus: Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ).
    • Done
  • "was certified million by the RIAJ" - Meaning?
    • That's to show the growth of her popularity.
  • "a public apology on Fuji TV.[61][59][62][63]" - When you have a string of ref numbers, it's good to arrange them in ascending order.
    • Put them in order.
  • "Koda's forty-third single, yet untitled," - "Yet" is ambiguous. Better would be "untitled as of xxxx" where xxxx is the date that the information was released.
    • Changed
  • In the "Footnotes", it says, "She sold ¥12,702,200,000 in profits." Would "made" be better than "sold"? In any case, the yen here and later in this note should also be given in dollar equivalents.
    • Done
  • I noticed about a dozen small errors, typos, or misspellings as I read, and I fixed them.
    • Thank you for reviewing. Moon and Sunrise 08:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

List of New York Yankees team records[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to send it to FLC in the near-future. This is modeled off a couple of similar FLs, and I want to get some pointers before nominating it. Prose comments in particular would be helpful.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from NatureBoyMD (talk · contribs)
  • The way you indicate general references for particular sections seems a little rough. Some of them aren't complete sentences, yet they have periods at the end. See if you think it might be better to replace all of those general ref sentences with sentences that sort-of introuce the section's content. Example: "These are records of players with the best performance in particular statistical categories during their career with the Yankees.[7]" (a la List of Nashville Sounds team records
    • I re-did all of them in the fashion of the Sounds list, and it does look better that way.
  • Some times you call the stat "walks" and sometime it's "bases on balls". You'll probably want to use "walks" everywhere.
    • Switched it to walks where necessary.
  • The ref for Spud Chandler's career pitching record is in error state.
    • This was fixed by Chrishomingtang before I got a chance to fix the other issues.
  • There are articles for Innings pitched, Games started, and possibly others, that might be better links than Innings#baseball and Starting_lineup#Baseball.
    • A couple of stats already had those links, and I've now replaced the rest with the more specific links.
  • The two 1928 entries at team single-game pitching records sort in the wrong order.
    • Fixed formatting to make them sort correctly.

The prose seems fine to me. Other than these notes, the list looks great. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Everything above is done. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks great... Excepet you made the changes and then, evidently, reverted your own changes back to the way it was before. I took the liberty of undoing your last edit to the list so that the changes above are reflected. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I hit the edit button twice, which may have caused the problem. Thanks for catching that. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Oh My Goddess! episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just finished writing up the last episode summary on this page. This is a slightly odd request... It's a blend between an episode list and transcluded list. I'm looking to move this back up to FL (as it is a delisted FL), so all comments are appreciated.

At this time, my major concerns lie in the layout of the page as I am unsure if I have made the page correctly. It does not follow the same format as the transcluded lists, which is a source of concern for me. Additionally, I positive that this needs a thorough copyedit. Finally, if there is any information that needs to be added (I've got the oddest feeling that I'm missing something crucial from the lead), please inform me.

Thanks, NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Oh My Goddess! episodes/archive1.

System of a Down discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the lead section certainly is not good, and need to be improved. I need "others eyes" to take a look. Layout suggestions are welcome too.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

This article seems to stick quite closely to the style and format of the abundant featured list discographies. As you suspected there were numerous problems in the lead, but these were mainly of a minor kind, such as comma violations, grammatical slips, redundant or repeated words, etc. I have fixed all these; you had better check it out to make sure I haven't inadvertently altered any meanings.

A few general points:

  • According to the lead, the group's debut (eponymous) album topped the Heatseekers chart. In the Studio albums chart its peak U.S. chart position is shown as 124. Can this be right?
    • I chose the number 1 on the Heatseekers chart, because is better than 124.
      • I think, then, you need to explain what the Heatseekers chart actually is. Excuse my ignorance, but an album that only reaches 124 in the US charts gets certified platinum? What's going on here? Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I re-wrote this whole part, take a look. Cannibaloki 06:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why the "Sugar" song gets no mention in the lead (all the other singles do)?
    • Added.
  • In the tables, I am curious to know why these particular 10 countries are represented rather than others. For example there is no United Kingdom, although the UK is mentioned in the lead and in the certification column. Likewise Brazil is mentioned in the certifications.
    • First see MOS:DISCOG; Brazil has no chart, and the UK chart positions are very low and irrelevant in this case.
      • I don't know what you're referring me to MOS:DISCOG for. Why are UK chart positions irrelevant? Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • In the case of multiple-charts, "comprehensive" does not necessarily mean an exhaustive list of countries and charts the artist has charted on. A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart.
  • Would it be a good idea to say, in the lead, when the band ceased to function, which from the dates I assume it has?
    • Sorry, I forgot.

That's about all, really. I hope this has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(later) The impression I have is that the charts will only really be understood by people in the know. People not in the know may struggle to make sense of it. But perhaps its just me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think only you. Anyway, I re-added the charts due a large empty space on the page. Cannibaloki 06:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Philadelphia Phillies season[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for its second peer review because it's just gone through the GA process. I didn't think about FA when I started this run with the article, but now I'm tempted to do it. To that end, I would like the opinions of other editors as to what is needed in this article to reach the FA standard. Your input is appreciated. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dewelar
Nice job overall. A couple questions: 1) where's the roster box? and 2) is this now the accepted standard for team-season page stat tables? Because if it is I have to go back and change about 1,500 pages that I've changed in the past six months :) . I was also under the impression that game logs were no longer to be included in these articles, but that may be my misinterpretation of the recent discussion. -Dewelar (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I was unaware of an "accepted standard" for stats tables; it's essentially based off of what I know of the FL criteria, since that's where most of my table-building expertise comes from. I know nothing about a roster box, though I have seen them; who, exactly, should be included in said box? As to the third point, whether game logs are to be included in the future (I believe them to be necessary, but that's beside the point), this article was completed before that discussion was brought before the Project. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, as I have mentioned before, that there is no "accepted standard" for the stat tables. Nobody's really wanted to touch the standardization of team-season pages -- most likely of the enormity of the task -- but I took it upon myself to ensure that each one has a standard layout (i.e., all the sections in the same order, and everything that belongs in those sections actually in those sections), and at least has a roster box and stat tables, even if those are empty.
In reviewing the 2,500 or so team-season articles, I noted that most were using one particular layout for them, which someone mentioned as having been created by Soxrock. I modified it a bit, and submitted it to the group for discussion. Sadly, little discussion was forthcoming, and so going by the "silence = consent" doctrine, I have been slowly but surely adding (or converting) all team-season articles to this template. I now have all pre-1900 teams completed, along with about half of post-1900 teams.
As for the roster box, pretty much every team-season has one, although the vast majority of them have little or no data. However, Spanneraol has ensured that all Dodger team-season pages have one, along with a large chunk of the pre-1900 teams.
I won't rehash the discussion of game logs here, but I think the consensus was that they're more trouble to create than they're worth, and that an external link to one located elsewhere was sufficient. They're certainly available in enough places (Retrosheet, Baseball Reference, Baseball Almanac, etc). Even though I personally consider them little more than clutter, I won't object to the inclusion of one, but if one is included I would encourage the editor to ensure that it is in collapsed form (which you have done).
If you want a look at a page with both pieces in fully filled-out form, you can take a look at 1977 Oakland Athletics season. Obviously, these lack some of the data and some of the formatting of yours, but you can get an idea for what I've been doing. One caveat though - the roster box has flag icons, which recent discussion also determined do not belong on such pages. You should probably use the MLBplayer template rather than the Player one. -Dewelar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me; I will check out some other articles to be sure that the proper sections are included. Since there are no other individual team season articles that are currently at FA or GA, I would like to make this one into an example to be followed, if possible. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: Roster box has been added directly above the regular season statistics. All players who made an appearance for the Phillies during the 2008 season are included. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. I made one minor formatting change to bring the Outfielder and Manager headers up to the top of the box to line up with the other two columns.
A few more things to bring it into standardized form:
  • Roster should be a sub-section of the Regular Season section, below the Game Log.
  • The Postseason and Awards section should be the last two main sections of the page, in that order. Since this is an article based on a period of time, these items, which came at the end of that time period, should reflect that in their placement.
  • As to the above two suggestions, the article is structured the way it is to make it a continuous read, followed by tables and lists. This is why I collapsed all of the game logs and box scores. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And yet, looking at it again, I didn't even do this; I'm so used to looking at the article that I totally skip the middle section. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, roster moved. Statistics were left at the end because they follow the structure of the lead, wherein postseason results (which are of tantamount importance) come before statistics.
That's reasonable. I will note here that I have seen some articles that also have tables for postseason statistics, which is what, I believe, necessitates that the regular season stats be placed beneath the regular season section, and the postseason ones below the postseason section, so as to avoid confusion. Otherwise I can see the logic for either order being valid. -Dewelar (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Breaking the Curse probably shouldn't be a top-level header on its own. I'd make it the final sub-header of the Postseason section. This one is more of a suggestion, I suppose.
  • That's a possibility, I suppose as well; I placed it that way because it has its own main article, but that article doesn't hold much water at this point considering the postseason series. I will move it. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-Dewelar (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Princeton[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got it to GA status and I am thinking after some improvements that I may be able to get it to A Class.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Query by Michael Devore: The ISBN listed for Fischer's book Washington's Crossing comes back to John Ferling's Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence instead. The page references do seem to match Fischer's book content, and Ferling's book cites Fischer's book several times in its "Notes" section. Is this an ISBN error? -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the info from Fischer off google books, so I am guess that is where the mistake came in. It is probably different on google books than it is in the actual book. I'm positive I put the correct pages down from google books, though. Very frustrating.-Kieran4 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected the Fischer book's ISBN Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment. The second sentence is "The site is administered as a state park operated and maintained by the New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry." I work mostly on NRHP-listed and other historic site articles, and have in general decided that it is best to create a separate article about a battlefield or other site where event happened, separate from the article about the battle or other event. In the article about the event, a link to the separate article about the site should be given, usually towards the end. But I think this sentence is both too immediately prominent in this article about the event, and not very helpful yet, because it doesn't link to a specific article about the park / site which is surely notable enough for a stub to be created as are almost all state parks. What is the name of the park? Is it NRHP-listed by any chance? Set it up as a red-link in the article, at least. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From List of New Jersey state parks, I see that the historic site is Princeton Battlefield State Park. Actually, there does not seem to be a standard treatment for these situations where there is a preserved historic site and an event that happened there, both notable. As one example, Sand Creek massacre links to its corresponding historic site in a section titled "Sand Creek today". For another, Battle of Gettysburg links to its battlefield within a section titled "Casualties", which seems odd. In both, though, the mention of the current site is buried late in the article about the event, appropriately in my view. I wonder if there is an appropriate place to bring up this very narrow MOS-type issue, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is a good place, i may post something there. Anyhow, in your development of this article about the Battle of Princeton, it would be great if you could also add a bit more information to the Princeton Battlefield State Park article. That article states the park is a 100-acre park but is not clear on whether those 100 acres contain the entire battle area, for example. Perhaps you will be knowledgeable about that and other matters which are appropriate for the main article about the current site, but are more detailed than you want to mention in this article about the battle. I do hope you get a good peer review here, this one expanded comment of mine shouldn't count as having provided a peer review for you. Good luck with the article. doncram (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments - generally well done article, but needs some work to get to A class. Here are some suggestions for improvement of the article.

  • Avoid overlinking - George Washington is linked twice in just the lead. Generally it is OK to link once in the lead, once in the main text, and once in the infobox. Always link the first occurrence, so link Continental Army in the lead too. See WP:OVERLINK
  • Provide context to the reader. I read just the lead and was quickly lost as officers are identified by name and rank only and not by their army / side. One example General Hugh Mercer clashed with two Regiments under the command of Charles Mawhood. I did not know which side either of these men were on - since the preceding sentence says Washington led the Continetal troops to attack the British, I thought Mercer might be the British commander. See WP:PCR
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a concise overview of the whole article. Nothing should be in the lead only, but the state park is. I would also link the state park to the article on the battlefied park, not the more generic state park. My rule of thumb is to include each header in the lead some way (a sentence or just a phrase).
  • Article could use a copyedit for general clean up - for example is it "Stony Brook" or "Stoney Brook"? Be consistent.
  • Make sure everyhting in the infobox is in the article itself too - I could not find the American casualties, for example.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bette Davis filmography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the main article on Bette Davis has received a "Featured Article" rating and I believe that her filmography page should an equally significant.

The majority of the list (i.e. the actual listing of her films) is not my creation, but the awards section is. I have also separated her film appearances from her television work and also added some radio credits. In structuring the article I used the Christopher Walken filmography as a model. The introductory section may need some cleaning up, so can anyone help on that?

I don't want the list to come off as one that seems to have been made in a "fan-worship" mode. In truth, I'm not a big fan of Bette Davis, but she is generally acknowledged as a "super star" and an icon of the entertainment industry, thus warranting a filmography worthy of featured status.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

In general the tables look very informative – more so than those on some FL filmographies. I have problems with one of the tables, as detailed below. There are also some things requiring attention in the introduction.

  • Introduction
    • "in 1931" not "by 1931"
      • Corrected
    • "as a contract player" not "as contract player"
      • Corrected
    • No hyphen in freelance
      • Corrected
    • Some statements in the intro need to be specifically cited, in particlular "critically acclaimed", and "noted for her forthright maner and clipped vocal style"
      • These statements were removed.
  • "TV appearances as herself" table
    • The table needs to be more specifically titled, either as "TV appearances as herself" or as "TV personal appearances"
    • The information in the "notes" column looks to have been included haphazardly. Sometimes it's the date of the appearance, sometimes an episode number without a date, sometimes just "Bette Davis", and there are numerous blanks. You need to decide on a policy for what should be included in this column, and then apply it consistently.
      • This section has been merged in with the other TV appearances.

In general, however, this is looking good, and there shouldn't be too many problems about getting it to FL. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711 comments

  • Does the lead adequately summarize the article per criterion 2?
  • In my opinion it does, but you are welcome to expand and correct it.
  • Where are the reliable sources that document these appearances? Why are the awards, which are not appearances, included in a filmography? Should they be perhaps be split into separate articles, a la List of Judy Garland performances and (the featured) List of Judy Garland awards and honors? Why are radio appearances included in a filmography? What are the reliable sources for the awards and radio appearances? If radio is included, why not stage? Higham's biography has a list of stage work.
  • The sources are listed in the reference section at the bottom of the page. Awards are presented in the filmography because there are simular listings in the Christopher Walken and Vittorio Storaro filmographies, both of which are Featured lists. The Walken filmography also contains non-film listing such as television, stage, and video game appearances. For the Davis filmography these could be removed while the awards are shift over into their own article. Higham has a reputation for sleaziness and a heavy distortion of facts — I wouldn't rely on him for anything (his book is also absent from the reference list of the main article on Davis).
  • Regardless of potential issues with a particular source, stage appearances should still be included if other non-film appearances are. Regarding referencing the various appearances, simply listing off the books and what-have-you is insufficient. There should be in-line citations. You can certainly do a blanket reference (e.g. <ref>Stine, pp. 126–137</ref> or whatever). IMDB is not a reliable source for featured material and as far as I know neither is IBDB. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What are the criteria being used to determine whether a fellow cast member is a "main" cast member and are they in line with WP:NPOV?
  • These sections have been changed from "Other main cast members" to simply "Other cast members".
  • Each of the filmography sub-tables should probably be sortable by year and title.
  • Why? It's quite uncommon in most filmographies. A straight chronological listing seems the best method.
  • Years needed for Walk of Fame stars.
  • I'm trying to find these.
  • Many awards missing. Stine's I'd Love to Kiss You has a list.
  • Madam Sin (1972) missing from TV appearances. Should be relocated from theatrical releases as it was made-for-TV.
  • Corrected.
  • Cosmetic fixes:
  • "Appearances" in the Lux sub-header should be lower-case, if radio appearances are retained.
  • Corrected.
  • "Awards" in sub-headers "Competitive Awards" and "Honorary Awards" should be lower-case.
  • "Golden Globe Award" in honorary table should be pluralized.
  • Corrected.
  • In the "Academy Awards" sub-table, "Oscar" should be replaced with "Academy Award" as the formal name, in line with the other award tables.
  • Corrected.
  • I don't know if it's just my browser, but several of the awards names cause double-height table cells, in my browser it's currently the BAFTAs, the Golden Scrolls and the Cannes award.
  • They appear fine with my browser.
  • Awards tables appear not to be quite uniform in length, so by standardizing the lengths and increasing them you should be able to solve the bulging cell issue.
  • Corrected.
  • Monte-Carlo should probably not be hyphenated and it's out of alphabetical order.
  • Both corrected.
  • Are there additional free or fair-use images that could be included? Perhaps one of her Oscar wins can be the main picture.
  • There are plenty of fair-use images in Wikimedia Commons. This one seemed a good choice.
  • Is there an appropriate infobox that should be used rather than a bare picture?
  • I don't think an infobox is absolutely needed. Jimknut (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So, some major things, mostly minor things, probably easily fixed. Otto4711 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've been the only long-term editor here for the past few months. Per a previous suggestion, I have made changes to much of the article and would like further feedback. I have additional sources that may be used to beef up smaller sub-sections (e.g. those in Wildfire#Characteristics), but would like to know if I'm moving in the right direction. Overall, I think all of the sections are rather detailed, but not sure if I've added too much or too little.

Regarding the Wildfire#Statistics section, can I just remove it or perhaps incorporate the information somehow in the prose? I can use the pic in Wildfire#Detection and don't see much notability in the use of random stats over the years.

All in all, I just need someone to tear the article apart with some much-needed constructive criticism throughout. Really, don't hold back.

Thanks, MrBell (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dana boomer

Hi! It looks like you've done quite a bit of work that this article sorely needed - it's great to see a large topic like this getting the attention it deserves. I know you said to rip it apart, so here is my list of comments:

  • First, I've never seen the superscripted "rp" template that's in use, that ends up giving notations like "[67]:1560 [68]:14". I'm assuming this is some sort of a repeated reference formatting? If so, I find it odd that there is an apparently random combination of the "rp" template and conventional named references in use in the article. Honestly, like I said, I've never seen this template used in an article before...
Done. I've converted it to a notes format with a separate references section as seen in Great Fire of London.
  • Text shouldn't be sandwiched between images, like it is in the Detection section.
  • Ref #15 (California wildfire winds die down) deadlinks.
New link added.
  • What makes Refs #5, 34 and 37 (How Stuff Works) reliable? It looks like the wildfire author is a freelance writer with a journalism degree, and the fire author has an English degree. Even articles on How Stuff Works written by people with Ph.D.'s in the subject are challenged at GAN and FAC.
  • Make sure that all web refs have publishers. For example, #19 doesn't.
  • The citation needed tag needs to be resolved, and make sure that everything is referenced. There are several paragraphs and tag ends of paragraphs that aren't referenced. Make sure that references at the end of paragraphs or other chunks of text cover everything that preceeds them.
In progress.
  • Reference templates need to be standardized. The template that starts with "citation" does not play well with the templates that start with "cite xxx" (i.e., cite web, cite book, cite journal, etc). Therefore, they need to be made so that the templates either all start with "citation" or with "cite xxx".
  • The globalize tag at the top of the page needs to be dealt with. I see a particular bent towards describing just the US in the Prevention and Suppression sections.
In progress.
  • Sections should not contain just a link to another article, as the Notable wildfires section does. This section should either be expanded to include a prose rendition of some of the biggest, baddest wildfires (around the world, throughout time), or the section should be deleted completely and the link moved to the See also section.
Section deleted completely and added to See also section. I couldn't figure out how to justly include only a few and leaving out others.

Overall, I think that the descriptions go into just the right amount of detail. However, there are a few sections (specified above) that need a more global feel. I hope these suggestions help. I'll have this peer review watchlisted for a while, so if you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes and commented under the respective bullet points just for reference. I'll continue to update the list as they are completed. MrBell (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently added a lot of information, and feel that the quality of the article may have increased. I want total honesty on everything from organization down to grammar.

Thanks, speednat (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: , here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead 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 (but the etymology is only in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Watch overlinking per WP:OVERLINK - Gondwana is linked twice in just the lead. A good rule is to link once in the lead, once in the article body (first instance in each case) and once in the infobox.
  • Biggest problem is lack of refs. Article needs more references, for example the Living forms section has no refs. 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
  • Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break the flow. They should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR and avoid WP:JARGON. For example, see sentences like They have no separation of pterylae and apteria, and finally, they have a palaeognathous palate.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Iran[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is a GA and would like to know what is missing to bring it to FA status.

Thanks, SSZ (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a good article for sure. The biggest thing that separates it from a FA is the quality of the references. There are a lot of them, but they are all online and are of relatively low quality in many cases. The most important thing would be to seek out the most reliable references on the topic which are likely to include some dead tree sources. Book sources won't help you with the latest updates, but you have online sources for that. That should also help by giving you a chance to look over what other sources on the topic consider important and what they prioritize. For example in the Services section, the Social protection subsection seems out of place. Since it's a government program it's not really considered a contribution to the economy, and besides, why consider just the social protection and not the rest of the government's affect on the economy? Most sources don't do that except in the case of nationalized industries that do produce GDP. Another specific comment, per WP:LEAD the lead section should be a summary of the most important information in the rest of the article and for an article this size should probably be at least three paragraphs, not more than 4. - Taxman Talk 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article. My comments below focus on sections from the lead to the "Agriculture" subsection. I am too pressed for time to continue line-by-line to the end, but I hope you can extrapolate from my comments ideas that you can also apply to the lower sections.


  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the rest of the article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main ideas in each of the article sections and not to include information that is undeveloped elsewhere in the article. Please see WP:LEAD for more details.
  • "Yet this increased revenue has not eased economic hardships, which include double-digit unemployment and inflation - inflation climbed to 26% as of December 2008." The Manual of Style says, "A hyphen is used only to mark conjunction, not disjunction (for which en dashes are used)... ". I wouldn't recommend the frequent use of en dashes to substitute for terminal periods or commas. You'd be better off making two sentences out of this hyphenated sentence by using a terminal period after "inflation".
  • "Iran's educated population, economic inefficiency and insufficient investment - both foreign and domestic - have prompted an increasing number of Iranians to seek employment overseas, resulting in significant 'brain drain'. - Here I'd suggest recasting as "Iran's educated population, economic inefficiency, and insufficient foreign and domestic investment have prompted... ".

Heads and subheads

  • Generally, only the first letter of the first word of the section heads and subheads start with a capital letter unless other words in the head are official names (proper nouns). Thus "Centralization and Privatization" should be "Centralization and privatization", and some of the other heads need the same kind of fixing.


  • "In a country that has traditionally been both rural and agrarian, agricultural production has fallen consistently since the 1960s (by the late 1990s Iran was a major food importer), and economic hardship in the countryside has driven vast numbers of people to migrate to the largest cities." - Rather than putting a complete sentence in parentheses inside another complete sentence, I'd recast. Suggestion: "In a traditionally rural and agrarian country, agricultural production has fallen consistently since the 1960s. By the late 1990s, Iran was a major food importer, and economic hardship in the countryside had driven vast numbers of people to migrate to the largest cities."
  • "The rates of both literacy and life expectancy in Iran" - Remove "both".
  • "Iran remains highly dependent on its one major industry, the extraction of petroleum and natural gas for export, and the government faces increasing difficulty in providing opportunities for a younger, better-educated workforce, which has led to a growing sense of frustration among lower- and middle-class Iranians." - A bit too complex. Suggestion: Put a terminal period after "workforce" and start the next sentence with "This has led to a growing... ".

Five-Year Economic Development Plan (2005-10)

  • "points the direction in which the trade sector" - Remove "in".
  • "has been to improve social justice and the overall situation" - The term "overall situation" is vague, and the sentence includes several redundancies. Suggestion: "has been to improve social justice by regulating the domestic market and maintaining a supply of basic commodities.
  • "The latter would need improving the" - Suggestion: "The latter would require improvements to... "
  • "the huge financial burden on subsidy payments" _ "of" rather than "on"
  • "6,000 MW" - Spell out abbreviated terms on first use like this: "6,000 megawatts (MW)". Then MW is fine on second and subsequent uses. Ditto for similar abbreviations such as PPP, IMF, and GDP that occur later in the article.
  • "of which $1.3 trillion" - The Manual of Style suggests holding terms like this together with an nbsp code placed between the digits and the unit. This keeps them from being separated in an awkward way by line-wrap on computer monitors. I see quite a few similar constructions involving tons, dollars, and rials in the article. Please see WP:NBSP for details.
  • "will be invested in industry sector" - Suggestion: "in the industrial sector"
  • "end of the current Iranian year (began March 20, 2008)" - Words like "current" are vague. - Suggestion: "end of the Iranian year that began on March 20, 2008"
  • Since this is an Iran-centric article, should March 20, 2008, be expressed as 20 March 2008? Ditto for all the other full dates in the article.

Centralization vs. privatization

  • "The sale of state-owned factories and companies proceeded slowly, however (mostly because of the opposition by a nationalist majority in Majlis - the Iranian parliament), and most industries remained state-owned in the early 21st century (70% of the economy as of 2006). - Too complex. Suggestion: "The sale of state-owned factories and companies proceeded slowly, however, mostly because of opposition by a nationalist majority in Majlis, the Iranian parliament. Most industries, comprising 70 percent of the economy in 2006, remained state-owned."
  • The state sector is" - The Manual of Style advises against using bolding in the main text. It also prefers straight prose, where feasible, rather than lists. Tables are fine for things that really do not work as prose, but the list in this section would be better as prose.


  • "along the rivers in the Zagros and Alborz mts." - Spell out "mountains".
  • What to link and what not to link is always a judgment call. I see quite a few examples of what I would call overlinking. Common terms like "road", "banking", "industry", "trade", "services", "tea", "fruits" and many others that most readers will already understand should normally not be linked. Links can be distracting rather than helpful. Please see WP:OVERLINK for details.


  • The Manual of Style advises against collapsing boxes for the Reference section.
  • Where possible, the references should include author, title, publisher, publication date, url, and access date.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, very impressive review. - Taxman Talk 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Will heed your advice. Thanks to Finetooth and Taxman for your contribution and time. SSZ (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch comments: As both Taxman & Finetooth note, this is a well-written article; I'll probably use it as a model when I find the time to work on Economy of Ethiopia. So I have only some minor comments:

  • First, & probably most important, is there a reason why you didn't quote the Iranian government's own reported figures in the article? Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, I would assume a country's governmental reports are a reliable source. (Yes, they will vary at times from what the IMF & the CIA report -- but both of them start with the government's own reported data, & tweak it based on their own experience & biasses.)
  • In the section "Agriculture", the last sentence of the third paragraph reads: "In the rivers entering the Caspian Sea are salmon, carp, trout, pike and sturgeon." The use of "are" feels awkward -- How about something along the lines of "The rivers that drain into the Caspian Sea are fished for salmon, etc."
  • You have unwanted carriage returns in the footnotes with URLs, which breaks the external links. (I fixed a couple.)
  • Speaking of footnotes, is there a reason you put them in a scroll box? Or is this a new MoS dictum that I am blissfully unaware of? -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
An important Postscript -- After I wrote the above, I realized that there was a significant omission in this article -- nothing about organized labor in Iran. (Not surprised: Category:Trade unions of Iran has only one article.) Although this can be addressed with an overview section 2-3 paragraphs in length, I don't think this article should properly be considered FA status without it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Improv Toronto[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article and I want to make sure that it's done correctly and swell

Thanks, Eddie Edwin cheung88 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Peer review is meant for "high-quality articles that have undergone extensive work", and this article doesn't qualify. Nevertheless, I'll make a few suggestions that might help you get started. The Improv group sounds like fun.

  • Bolding in the main text should be used only for the article title that appears in the first sentence of the lead. The heads and subheads are automatically bolded, so you don't need to worry about them.
  • Plain dates like 2008 are no longer wikilinked.
  • A properly licensed photo in the upper right-hand corner would be good.
  • Instead of linking directly to external sites from within the main text, use in-line citations. The "cite family" of templates is good, and I see that you're familiar with them.
  • I see missing words, misspellings and other minor mistakes here and there. Careful copyediting is good.
  • The Manual of Style (MoS) generally deprecates paragraphs of only one or two sentences. Two solutions are possible: expand or merge.
  • After you have finished expanding the article, re-write the lead to make it a summary or abstract of the main text sections rather than an introduction. A good rule of thumb for the lead is to at least mention the content of each section. Furthermore, the lead should not mention ideas that are undeveloped in the text sections. Please see WP:LEAD for more details.
  • Please see WP:MOS for more about all of the ideas I've mentioned in this review.

Good luck with the project. I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently failed an FAC because the prose was not up to standard. I hope that at Peer Review, I can find someone who can make a detailed analysis of the page for prose issues.

Thank you, NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle/archive2.


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article because I think it is quite good! It currently has a B rating, but I feel that it is a Good Article and could make it to FA sometime. So I'm trying to get more editor's opinions on the article and how it could be further improved. Of course by all means feel free to improve it personally!

I think if any parts have problems it is the sections, "Current Models" and "Other Models" as they are quite long, "Other models" seems redundant to "Current Models". A better title might be "Past Models"?

Also I feel that the article doesn't quite clearly address how complex chemical compounds, and therefore life, could have evolved specifically in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I feel may be a weak point of the article. It is a commonly used argument by Creationists, and oddly, the word "Thermodynamic" only occurs once in the entire article, in different context. I've also started a section on the article talk page about this. I feel it is a major concern since the the Second Law states that all systems move in direction of greater entropy, but the entire topic of the article is how complex chemical systems evolved out of a primordial soup of inert chemicals.

Thanks, Pstanton (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RJHall comments – It seems like a decent article so far, but I think it may need some more work before it reaches featured article quality. Here are a few notes that I hope are of some use:

  • I think the lead needs a re-write. It needs to comply with WP:LEAD and the writing could be tightened up. It does not mention the contents of many of the sections, such as "History of the concept in science".
  • Overall I think the sectioning needs work. In particular, about half way down there are too many short sections. See: Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections.
  • "Until the early 19th century people generally believed in ... abiogenesis." This seems like an over-generalization. The provided citation only appears to lists classical or Christian philosophers. Is it true of the rest of the world?
  • "The subsequent discovery of microorganisms seemed to strengthen the spontaneous generation camp." Cite this opinion please. Also cites are needed for the last two paragraphs in the same section.
  • In "Haldane and Oparin: The Primordial Soup Theory", a paragraph break or two would be welcome.
  • The text should explain what a "concentration of ... about -5.5" means. Is this a logarithm?
  • Based on the wording in the first paragraph of "Current models", the list seems like it is on really shaky ground. Is the list cherry-picked and cobbled together, or is it the opinion of some distinguished individuals or group? This entire section is decidedly in need of verification. Also, why doesn't the "Proteins first" model receive equal coverage with "Nucleic acids first"?
  • The text in the "Origin of organic molecules" section can be consolidated into prose.
  • "...conditions found in the early earth had changed..." Is this earth as in dirt, or Earth the planet? The article is inconsistent in its use of Earth or earth.
  • "A new article in Discover Magazine points..." is time dependent. It would be better not to mention the article at all (leaving it as a cite), and instead just discuss the research.
  • Overall there is a need for more citations. See especially those paragraphs and sections with none whatsoever.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Sifton[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has just passed GA, and I'd like to bring it to FAC down the road. I'd appreciate reviews focusing on bringing the article in compliance with the featured article criteria, though of course all suggestions for improving the article are appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article, and it seems comprehensive, stable, factually accurate, neutral, and generally well-written. I have some concerns about the prose density in places, but I don't think that the revisions I'm suggesting are very difficult or time-consuming. I also have a concern about the image licensing, as explained at the bottom of this list of suggestions. Overall, this article is quite good.


  • "and as a Minister" - Lowercase "minister".
  • "Conscription crisis of 1917" - Lowercase "conscription"?
    • It's capitalized in the linked article; I'm not at all convinced that it should be, though. Let me think on it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Early life

  • "He was the older brother of Sir Clifford Sifton." - The title seems odd here since Clifford would not have been Sir Clifford as a boy.
  • "He attended various public schools" - Delete "various".
  • "culminating with a boys school" - boys' school?
  • "environment that was both religious and political" - Delete "both".
  • "worked for a time in the office of the city solicitor" - Delete "for a time".

Early political career

  • "his sought after position" - "sought-after position"
  • "Arthur declined the position on the basis" - Delete "the position" since that's made clear in the preceding sentence.

Career as a jurist

  • "Ratio decidendi" - Lowercase
  • "His rulings were generally practically-based" - Suggestion: "generally practical"
  • "a three member commission" - "three-member commission"
  • "and mine operators (his colleagues were mining executive Lewis Stockett and miners' union executive William Haysom). - Suggestion: "and mine operators. His colleagues were mining executive Lewis Stockett and miners' union executive William Haysom.
  • "monthly pay (the mine operators objected to this last point on the basis that many miners did not report to work the day after payday, and it was thus desirable to keep paydays to a minimum)." - The parentheses are distracting if you use them often, and these don't seem necessary. Suggestion: terminal period after "monthly pay" and no parentheses around a sentence starting with "The mine operators... ".
  • "The commission's recommendations included that children under sixteen should not be permitted to work in mines, the posting of inspectors' reports, mandatory bath houses at mine sites, and improved ventilation inspection." The construction isn't parallel. Something like this might work: "The commission recommended that children under sixteen should not be allowed to work in mines, that inspectors should post their reports, that mine sites should have bath houses, and that ventilation inspection should be improved."
  • "The commission was silent on wages (except to say that these should not be fixed by legislation), the operation of company stores (a sore point among the miners), and the incorporation of mine unions (which was recommended by mines but opposed by the unions)." Suggestion: recast to avoid the parenthetical remarks.

Ascension and cabinet-building

  • "to accept Sifton as Premier[15] (even up until the last minute," - Suggestion: terminal period after

"Premier" and no parentheses around next sentence

  • "MLAs loyal to" - This should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.
  • "To the consternation of the opposition Conservatives, Bulyea prorogued the legislation before this new government's strength could be tested by a vote of confidence; still, its acceptance by the Liberal caucus can be measured by the fact that only one member, Ezra Riley, resigned in protest (Riley objected to the exclusion from cabinet of insurgency leader W. H. Cushing; after his resignation he ran as an independent Liberal in the ensuing by-election, but was defeated by Sifton supporter Archibald J. McArthur)." - Much too complex. Suggestion: re-cast in shorter sentences with no parentheses or semicolons. Terminal periods are often better than semicolons for clarity.
  • The em dashes, semicolons, and parentheses all operate in the same way in this article. They make fairly simple sentences into complex sentences. I'll stop pointing these out below this point in the article, but I'd suggest going through from top to bottom to reduce this kind of artificial complexity. Mostly it's a matter of altering the punctuation to achieve smooth flow and high clarity.

Railway policy

  • "Alberta and Great Waterways Railway" - The name needs its abbreviation here so that A&GW makes sense by itself later in the article.
  • "of to what use the government would put the money" - Suggestion: "of how the government would use the money"
  • "of very similar makeup at endorsed" - "had endorsed"
  • "Despite calls from Clarke for the federal government" - Suggestion: I'd break this paragraph in two at whatever point seems appropriate on grounds that a nice side-effect of paragraph breaks is that it gives the reader a little ledge on which to rest before continuing. This is an especially useful rule of thumb in articles that are dense with detail, as this one is.

Natural resources

  • "had been made provinces in 1905, the federal government had retained control " - Suggestion: "became provinces in 1905, the federal government retained control"
  • The image of Sifton in this section should be moved to the left side of the page so that he looks into the page rather than out.
  • "who broke with Laurier on reciprocity" - "Broke" could be misunderstood as "parted" when what is meant is "sided with Laurier" or "agreed with Laurier".
  • "Borden stalled for some time" - Delete "some time".

Agricultural policy

  • "with the rise of the United Farmers of Alberta as a political force" - "United Farmers of Alberta (UFA)"
  • "a resolution was proposed in support of the college being instead located in southern Alberta" - Suggestion: "a resolution proposed putting the college in southern Alberta"
  • "ridings of provincial cabinet ministers" - "Ridings" should be linked or explained.
  • "Another of the UFA's policies called for the implementation of a single tax" - Delete "the implementation of".
  • "Alberta Farmers' Co-operative Elevator Company, Limited" - needs abbreviation too on first use

Democratic and moral reform

  • "women actually wanted suffrage" - Suggestion: Link suffrage.

Image licenses

  • I have doubts about the licenses. Something in the public domain in Canada might not be in the public domain in the U.S. Before going to FAC, it would be good to make sure that each of these images is in the public domain in the U.S. because their official place of publication is in Florida. I think that the images that were first published before January 1, 1923, are safe, and could be tagged with PD-US and well as PD-Canada. However, in the case of a photo like the one in the infobox, which includes no link to the provincial archives, no author, and no publication date, fact checkers will not be able to say for certain whether it's a copyvio in the U.S. or not. My hunch is that it is not a copyvio and that if you can add a date and if that date is before January 1, 1923, and if you can provide a link for fact-checkers to use to look at the original source, and if you add a PD-US tag, this image would probably pass inspection. Otherwise, it might not. I hasten to add that I am not a copyright expert, and I don't find sorting these things out to be particularly easy.
    • As I understand it, anything that was in the public domain in the source country as of 1996 is in the public domain in the U.S. That would include Canadian pictures produced prior to 1946, which all of these obviously were. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for mentioning that. It helped me find an almost exact match for what you are saying at WP:PD#Country specific rules. Yippee!. I think I need something like Turbo Tax to help me wade through the variants. Turbo Copyright. Copyright Bot. Anyway, I'm glad you knew the answer. Finetooth (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ponsford[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for general assistance in tidying the prose, fixing any punctuation anomalies and eventually creaing an article of FA standard. Specifically, I am looking for assistance in making the cricket jargon comprehensible to non-cricket fans and in making sure the baseball section actually makes sense (I enjoy watching baseball, but the subtleties of the sport still elude me). Thanks in advance for any assistance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

alongside Brian Lara, is the only man to twice score more than 400 runs in an innings. - should it say 'only men' ? The sentence doesn't sound right.

Working on this one (and struggling to find an elegant phrasing) -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

His bat, much heavier than the norm and nicknamed "Big Bertha", allowed him to cut and drive powerfully. - just wanted to be sure that this is what the reference says. Normally a heavier bat would hamper the cut.

Checked this and it is me stretching a little. Reworded. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

a 388 run partnership. Bradman would go on to make 304.[74] The partnership was the highest ever for Australia in Test cricket - need not stop with Australia - it was the world record for any wicket.

True, and reworded -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian team to tour England in 1926. He was the youngest player in the squad, with nine of the fifteen players over the age of thirty six. - They had one player named Sam Everett who was even younger. Tintin 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Claim watered down and explanatory note added. Also see Sam Everett. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there was extensive commentary on FAC4 that this needed a lot of reorganization.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Union busting[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…The article is generally very uneven. There have been persistent complaints about POV, though there has been strong disagreement on whether or not the language is POV or not. There have been many changes recently to attempt to make the article more NPOV, but these have seemed to make the article more scattered. There are only a few editors contributing, so disagreements can be intractable. Any views as to general quality and NPOV are welcome.

Thanks, LedRush (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To quantify, some of those complaints concerning NPOV have included suspected cases of sock puppetry.--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Review by Eubulides[edit]

  • Obviously, with all the tags, there is a lot of controversy about this article. If this continues to be a problem, I suggest mediation; see Wikipedia:Mediation.
  • The article is poorly organized. I don't see a pattern to the table of contents. See Bank run for a better organization.
  • The lead assumes that the reader knows about things like the NLRA, card check, salting, RC and RD petitions, NLRB election procedures, etc., etc. The vast majority of readers won't have a clue as to what any of that is. If these are worth mentioning in the lead, they must also be be explained in the lead.
Fixed.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead starts off wrong. It uses the phraseology "Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and trade unions to describe activities..." There is no need to put the phrase "used by labor organizations and trade unions" here. Simply describe the activity.
Fixed.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The claim in the lead that workers bust unions is very strange, as is the section Workers as union busters. No reliable sources are cited, and the idea that workers are union busters is not supported by any reliable sources that I could find. The section in question should be removed, along with the corresponding claim in the lead.
Done.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Updated and revised as "Workers assisting in union busting".--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • History talks only about the United States; it should do an international outlook. It spends way too much time on why unions exist, and too little time on union busting. Also, I suggest moving this section to the end; most people want to know current events more than they want to know history.
  • Standardize on the spelling "strikebreaker".
I've changed to "strikebreaker" as it got many more google hits than "strike breaker"LedRush (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't use boldface in the body to highlight terms, as per the manual of style.
I've been in the process of doing this for a while...though currently derailed by petty pickering. I will continue.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't use CAPS either (e.g., "BEFORE").
I've been in the process of doing this for a while...though currently derailed by petty pickering. I will continue.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Section headers should not contain the phrases "union busting" or "union busters", as per the Manual of Style.
  • The article is indeed too long.
  • There are way too many sections and subsections. The table of contents shouldn't be more than 20 lines long. Preferably no more than 10 lines long. This includes subsections.
  • Several sections on who does the busting should be combined into a single section on roles. These include Union busters, Law firms as union busters, Industrial psychologists as union busters..
  • Private stands out as a poorly-written section: it's too long, the title makes no sense, and the paragraphs look like they were written by alternating sides of a debate team, which is a terrible way to write an encyclopedia. If I see another "Conversely," I'll scream.
  • Topics that don't seem to be covered well (not that I had the stomach to wade through reading every single line of this article):
  • Discrimination against union organizers
  • Denial of access to employees
  • Interference with certification
  • Labor law violations
  • Weakness of NLRB protections and penalties (e.g., lack of penalties on consultants)
  • First-contract tactics (e.g., no binding arbitration is available)
  • There are way too few images. Here are some more free images that you can use:
  • All full book citations should have ISBN numbers, or, if those are not available, OCLC numbers. For example, Levitt 1993 should use ISBN 0-517-58330-5.
  • Sources that look quite useful but are not cited in the article:
  • Michelle O'Sullivan; Patrick Gunnigle (2008). "'Bearing all the hallmarks of oppression': union avoidance in Europe's largest low-cost airline". Labor Studies Journal. doi:10.1177/0160449X08319661. 
  • John Logan (2004). "The fine art of union busting". New Labor Forum. 13 (2): 76–91. doi:10.1080/10957960490434333. 
  • Tony Dundon (2002). "Employer opposition and union avoidance in the UK". Industrial Relations Journal. 33 (3): 234–45. doi:10.1111/1468-2338.00232. 
  • William N. Cooke (2001). "Union avoidance and foreign direct investment in the USA". Employee Relations. 23 (6): 558–80. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006268. 
  • Richard W. Hurd; Joseph B. Uehlein (1994). "Patterned responses to organizing: case studies of the union-busting convention". In Sheldon Friedman (ed.). Restoring the Promise of American Labor Law. Cornell University Press. pp. 61–75. ISBN 0875463266. 
  • This is not a complete review. I didn't have time to read the entire article carefully. In particular, I didn't have time to investigate for WP:NPOV problems. Sorry, but it's quite a slog.

Eubulides (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

Just some general comments:

  • One item that is missing from this article is the use of violence to break unions -- & not just strikes. While many readers will think of such events like the Mine Workers battles of Appalachia (where both sides fought pitched battles), or the American West Coast Longshoremen strike (where the company cops were opposed by flying columns of strikers), it is a well-known fact that union activists in many non-Western countries face the risk of assassination or legal murder. I don't have any examples at hand, but I could track some down if you need the help.
  • One non-Western example of strikebreaking was how the Japan Railways Group put Japanese railroad union out of business -- although that union admittedly had a bad reputation & few friends. (I'm amazed that Wikipedia has only a passing reference to the matter; sufficient material exists for a detailed article without risk of original research).
  • Another non-Western example is the Ethiopian government's deft legal maneuver to take control of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association. This would be an example of another tactic not mentioned in the article: create a tame, company-run union to compete -- & put out of business -- a targeted union.
  • A last word of advice: be very careful to check & recheck every one of the sources you use in this article. (And when in doubt, be as literal in your summaries as possible.) As you know, this is a very contentious subject, & some individuals are not above outright lying to make their POV the prevailing message here. (An example would be those bizarre television ads that the Center for Union Facts ran last year.) If you are certain of your facts, it will be all the easier to deal with these types, & make your case to objective Admins when these folks get out of hand. -- llywrch (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what I still need to do to get it to FA standard.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well, seems comprehensive, and is adequately illustrated, stable, neutral, and well-supported. A few of the sentences have too many clauses strung together and would be more clear if divided. I've listed four of these below with suggestions for possible re-casting.

Composition and recording

  • "She initially planned only to work as a producer, and to this end approached Caribbean girls in clubs, enquiring if they would provide vocals for the songs, but without success." - Suggestion: "She initially planned to work only as a producer. To this end, she approached Caribbean girls in clubs and enquired, without success, if they would provide vocals for the songs."

Music and lyrics

  • "In a 2004 interview with the magazine Nirali, prior to the album's release, M.I.A. stated that audiences found it hard to dance to political songs, making her keen to produce music which sounded like pop music, addressing important issues while making it 'sound like nothing'." - Suggestion: "Prior to the album's release, in a 2004 interview with the magazine Nirali, M.I.A. stated that audiences found it hard to dance to political songs. This made her keen to produce music that sounded like pop music and addressed important issues while making it 'sound like nothing'."

Promotion and accolades

  • "The first track from the album to be made available was "Galang", which was initially released in late 2003, prior to M.I.A. signing with XL Recordings, by independent label Showbiz Records, which pressed and distributed 500 promotional copies." - Suggestion: "The first track from the album to be made available was "Galang". It was initially released in late 2003 by independent label Showbiz Records, which pressed and distributed 500 promotional copies. This was before M.I.A. signed with XL Recordings."

Critical reception

  • "Paste stated that the album, although strong, was not as 'mindblowing' as many critics were making out, and Q characterised the album as 'style mag-cool pop-rap' and stated that it lacked the substance suggested by M.I.A.'s decision to name it after her father." - Suggestion: Full stop after "making out". Start the next sentence with "Q characterised".


  • These look fine, and the licenses look OK to me. The third one, Image:MIASonar1.jpg would be better on the left so that M.I.A. looks into the page instead of away.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All done, many thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it to Featured Article standard prior to nominating it as a featured article candidate. I can't imagine it's too far off at the moment, but I may well be too involved with the article to see potential problems with it.

Thanks, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Eddie6705[edit]

  • Just a quick comment, i noticed that the references are not properly set out. They all need to use the set templates for web references and book references, this is essential for FA standard. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for the templates. For example, the first reference should be laid out like this:
    • <ref>{{cite web| title =Comparative Population Profile: Carnoustie Locality| publisher| date = 2001-04-29| url =| accessdate =2008-09-01 }}</ref>
Thanks for the pointer. I'm going through the references now to update them to the correct format. It will take a few days.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I will have a thorough look through either tonight or tomorrow and will list any extra pointers. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I caught and reformatted all the references. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More Comments:

  • "Carnoustie (pronounced /kærnuːsti/) is a town and former police burgh in the council area of Angus, Scotland. It is situated at the mouth of the Barry Burn on the east coast of Scotland." - Repetition of Scotland isn't really needed. You could say it was 'on the east coast bordering the North Sea'.
  • "It is best known for its associations with golf." - Although i agree with the statement, this needs a citation.
  • "Other, less likely suggestions include that it derives from 'Cairn of the Host'[7]" - Need a comma before the citation.
  • "Other, less likely suggestions include that it derives from 'Cairn of the Host'[7] or 'Cairn of the Heroes'[8] in memory of those who supposedly perished at the Battle of Barry, or that 'Carnoustie' is a combination of the Gaelic prefix 'Càrn' and the Old Norse term 'noust', meaning 'boat beaching place', presumably in reference to the rocky natural harbour at Westhaven.[9] - Needs a least one full stop in there.
  • School's Today section needs some referencing

Eddie6705 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made some edits in response to the suggestions, hopefully that's addressed the main points. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Muntz Street[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to submit it for GA and wonder if there's enough content, and what might need doing to it before it's worth submitting. And if anyone has any sensible suggestions for what to call the subsections of the History section, they'd be welcome :-)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jameboy

I think there's enough content for a Good Article and you've done really well considering the relatively short timeframe and how long ago it was. I think I might struggle to get a Stoney Lane article up to a similar standard, but maybe one day. For the subsections, how about "Location and facilities", "Football matches" and "Move to St Andrew's". I'm sure others will be able to think of better ones though. I'll see if I can spot any other possible improvements. --Jameboy (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, unless others really can think of better ones. "Football matches" is slightly misleading, as I've included representative (County FA) footy under Other uses, but "Small Heath (Alliance)/Birmingham's matches" might be just a touch clumsy... Shame they had to change their name twice in the relevant period. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Club matches"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

An excellent shortish article, a worthy addition to the football genre. It should have little difficulty passing GA. It has a nostalgic, almost melancholy quality, with its reminders of lost sporting endeavours.

I have just a few points and/or suggestions:-

  • Would the infobox image be PD in the United States, without a confirmation of its original publication date?
    • A reproduction of a part-page of one of the Birmingham newspapers appears here, Jawad, Hyder (2006). Keep Right On: The Official Centenary of St. Andrew's. Liverpool: Trinity Mirror Sport Media. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-1-9052-6616-6. , which includes a large version of the image; words on the part-page mention "this season—1905-6". So it was originally published no later than 1906, which would make it PD-US. Would that explanation be enough of a rationale, or would I need to cite the specific newspaper and date? (it's on my list of things to find, as the book reproduction also shows a few words of an adjoining article which looks interesting)
      • The precise original publication information might be necessary if you were to take this article to FAC. Personally I would like to see it at FAC, but that's a decision for you. My advice would be to get an opnion from one of the FAC image people, e.g. User:Jappalang, before delving too deeply into the depths. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Having a look at the referred partial print of the newspaper mentioned above, I am convinced this qualifies for a transfer to Commons. Even though the photographer is unknown, it has been published in a newspaper in 1905–1906, which qualifies it for commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown and commons:Template:PD-1923 (both required there). The information above should be used for the "source" field. There are a few things that could be improved.
  1. The image could be scanned from the book; it is a larger and clearer view.
  2. The name of the newspaper should be obtained; look around in the book, chances are it might be credited somewhere.
  3. Date of the newspaper printing (per point 2, it might be somewhere around).
Thus the source field would be "Photograph was published in <name of newspaper>, a Birmingham newspaper, on <date>. The newspaper page has been re-published in Jawad, Hyder (2006). Keep Right On: The Official Centenary of St. Andrew's. Liverpool: Trinity Mirror Sport Media. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-1-9052-6616-6. "
If the details are lacking just start with "Photograph was published in a Birmingham newspaper during 1905–1906. ..." Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the use of your expertise :) It's probably not obvious from the photo you've seen, but the book's pages are tightly bound so that a strip of newspaper page disappears down the join between the pages; unfortunately this includes part of the gable bearing the clock, so would be fairly noticeable if the pages were scanned. Though it's still worth trying. In the book, photo credits only mention "the Birmingham Post & Mail archive", which narrows it down to those two newspapers plus any others of the same stable, and no specific date is mentioned. The archive is publicly available on microfilm, so there's a decent chance I could find the original when I'm next able to visit Birmingham. Struway2 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The History section begins: "The Small Heath Alliance..." If the club's name was "Small Heath Alliance", the "The" is unnecessary. This sentence could be expanded, to begin: "Small Heath Alliance Football Club, founded in 18xx, ..." and also by adding the words "early in the 20th century" to the end of the sentence.
    • The Small Heath Alliance is how the contemporary press referred to them, and I've clearly adopted the style :-) Reworded the last bit to some thirty years later as there's already an "early years of the 20th century" at the end of the section.
  • Near the end of the article we are told that the name "Muntz Street" was only adopted later, at an unspecified date, and that during its active duration the ground was known as "Coventry Road". I think the gist of this information should be mentioned in the History section.
    • thinking about how to work it in
  • It would also be worth mentioning the club's change of name to "Birmingham Football Club" in March 1905.
    • Will do: might have a relevant quote somewhere, something about wanting a ground befitting the club bearing the city's name, if I haven't made it up...

That's all. Well done Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the kind words and suggestions, Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Take on Me[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GA status, I think that it meets the criteria (at least the a-ha part), but Im not so sure about the cover versions. I also wanted to check the grammar and the prose, since english is not my first language. Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


I have just a few comments about the introduction—commonly referred to as the "lead"—and the a-ha part of the article.

  • The third sentence of the lead says that the song "combines synthpop with electronic sounds." Isn't this redundant? I would think that the defining characteristic of synthpop is the explicit use of electronically-generated sounds.
  • What does "took three times to become a hit in the United Kingdom" mean? Does it mean that, as the UK chart stats indicate, it was number two for three weeks in a row in 1985? Does it mean that the song was released as a single by three different bands (as indicated by the Reel Big Fish and a1 sections)? Does it mean that a-ha released the song in the UK three times (as indicated by the chart performance section)? Or does it mean that the song charted in the UK three times?
  • There seems to be some material that is repeated in both the "Recording and production" section and the "Chart performance" section.

I've also made a few edits: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12].

Huntthetroll (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I corrected the things in the lead, and removed some parts that were repeated. Please let me know if you have other suggestions or comments. Do you think is ready for GA? I wonder if the cover versions need to be more detailed? Again thanks for the review. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Grandma's Gifts Inc.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

  • I'm requesting peer review for this article.
    • Most of the sections are taken from the Grandma's Gifts official website and were written in first person. I did my best to change them all to third person and remove any opinions or feelings but I have to admit that it was difficult and I'm sure I missed some some things.
    • My coding skills are all self taught so I'd appreciate it if someone could check my code to make sure that it makes sense.

Please be kind lol. This is my second wiki article so I'm still learning. I'm very interested in your constructive criticism though.

Thanks for your time. OlYeller21 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Much of the article, as you say, has been taken word-for-word from the Grandma's Gifts web site. Unfortunately, this is probably a copyright violation unless you are the author of the material posted at the Grandma's Gifts site. Please see WP:COPYVIO.

Even if it does not violate copyright, the article includes unnecessary detail. It would be better to summarize the essence of the sections. If you do that, the article will likely be much shorter, but the "External links" section will provide a path for readers who want to read more. I would suggest thinking of yourself as a reporter who knows nothing about Grandma's Gifts but has been told by the chief editor to write an article about it that will explain it to the public. Since newspapers have limited space, that means you will have to write succinctly and include nothing that is not essential to a basic understanding. In practice, this will mean cutting the existing article by more than 90 percent. I hasten to add that cutting by 90 or 95 percent is not the same as giving up and throwing the whole thing away, but it does require a radically different approach.

As you revise, bear in mind that material in Wikipedia articles needs to be attributed to reliable sources. Please see WP:V for details. Generally, each paragraph needs a source, and any sets of statistics or claims that are unusual or that might be challenged should also be sourced. The sourcing should come in the form of in-line citations rather then embedded links; thus, Grandma's Gifts should not be linked in the opening line of the lead. The "cite family" of templates is helpful in organizing the in-line citations. Please see WP:Cite for a general explanation of citations and WP:CIT for the templates. You can copy-and-paste the templates into your article or sandbox in edit mode and fill in the blanks. I should mention also that personal blogs and web sites are not considered reliable sources. Please see WP:RS for details.

I don't what to overwhelm you, so I will stop. Please consider making this a short, succinct article the main claims of which are attributed to reliable sources. This will make better reading for everyone, and those readers who want more will have no trouble finding it. I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sultan Iskandar of Johor[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. Ive significantly expanded the article for the entire month, throughout January and added whatever necessary citations to contentious points wherever I deem necessary and relevant. Certainly welcome to gramatical edits, but not removing verified facts as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and any edits of these source pls write in the talk page and suggest reasons for its need. If possible, drop me a note in my talk page notifying of any major factual changes.

Certainly, no sources come from blogs in the article--even if there might be, they are co-supported by a book source, or newspaper article or research paper. May have bias in the person himself, but the Sultan himself was reputed for his past notorious deeds--although some good points are added wherever possible and relavant. Ultuimately, hope to aim for featured article status.

Interested users are also welcome to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia.

Thanks, Mr Tan (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on an article I've been working on. Hopefully I can take it to FAC after this.

Thanks, Shubinator (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

James May[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this article, maybe get it to a B-class and then maybe a GA sometime in the future, and I just want to see what needs fixing.

Thanks, Queenie Talk 14:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711 comments

This won't be a full review but I will try to highlight some of the major issues.

  • The biggest problem currently is the lead. It introduces a lot of information that is not elsewhere in the article, which can't be the case in a Good article. There is also a lot in the article that isn't touched upon in the lead. Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to serve as a concise introduction to the topic to prepare readers for the in-depth information to follow.
  • I'm not a big fan of the personal life/professional life split in cases where there is substantial information available about both. My preference is that the two be integrated, but that is not a requirement for GA.
  • If the personal/private are retained as separate sections then the Autocar dismissal should be moved to the professional career section. That pull quote is enormous and may put undue weight on the incident.
  • Personal life section is very choppy. Try to merge some of the one-sentence paragraphs together or expand them. His smoking a pipe seems very trivial.
  • Guest spots are also trivial.

Hope these comments are helpful. Otto4711 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, getting around to them. Queenie Talk 21:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gran2's comments

Ah, May, my favourite Top Gear presenter.

  • The lead needs to be a bit longer, but it'll probably pass GAC as it is.
  • In the infobox, the "Known for" entries should be in italics.
  • The structure is a bit confusing: Perhaps rename "Personal life" -> "Early and personal life"? I don't know. Perhaps also group the others and make them subsections under a single "Career" heading.
  • Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes should be in italics.
  • The "Guild of Motoring Writers Journalist of the Year Award" box should be below the External links.
  • The references should be properly formatted with author, date etc. using the cite web or cite news formats.
  • A lot of the "Journalism career" section appears to be unsourced.

Looks pretty good on the whole, good start. You might do well to look at some other GA biographies for inspiration. Gran2 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Joan Crawford[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the material certainly exists to bump it to GA class, assuming that my recent work on it is not already sufficient (I doubt that it is but then I'm hardly objective). This is a featured article in two other languages and there's no reason why it shouldn't be in English too (although while I'm willing to put in an assist to get it there I will not take the lead on an FAC for it). So, immediate goal, get it to GA. Secondary goal, lay the groundwork for FA. I realize it's a bit convoluted but if whoever reviews this would be willing to break down your review to GA-necessary and FA-necessary components that would be amazingly helpful.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Review from Graham Colm Talk

This is a very well-written article and generally engaging. I see no problems with the prose but there are problems with the lack of citations. There are many statements throughout the article which are unsourced. I know this can be a drag, but a lot more work is needed on this. And, just how many of the pictures of Joan are really necessary? They are all over the place and are not that interesting because they are portraits and not of the characters she played. There is a little redundancy in places, ("to that name"), and some trivial linking such as God and last words. Single sentence paragraphs are not a problem in my book, but others might object. It would be for the best to try to join them up. I see Filmography is empty apart from a link to the main article. This is probably okay for GA but not for FA. Lastly, there are far too many external links.

I didn't find it at all convoluted. For GA it needs a few more references, but for FA a lot more. For FA it needs more criticism of her roles and her acting in general including préces of contemporary film reviews perhaps. GA shouldn't be difficult—the article is tantalisingly close and I hope my comments are helpful. I have seen many FACs that have been less prepared than this, but few of them succeeded without extensive work on the article during the candidature, and this is becoming increasingly unpopular with reviewers. So in a nutshell, more refs, less pictures, less links, damn close to GA, not yet FA, but a damn good read. Thanks and well done. Graham Colm Talk 17:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Popotan characters[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need someone to do a copy edit and general check before submitting this for a FLC since my last FLC failed mostly due to copyediting. Thanks, じんない 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

List of tallest buildings in Nashville[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am focusing on Nashville building articles and want to get them up to standards.

Thanks, Anonymous615 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

  • Can you say what criteria you applied for inclusion in the list? If you decided to limit it to 16, what was the reason? Or, if you decided on a minimum height of 80 metres, again why?
  • The panoramic shot is magnificent, but why not make it useful as well as ornamental, by identifying the major buildings in a caption? There must be seven or eight buildings from your list in this photograph, and it would be good to know which they are.
  • By comparison with most of the featured tallest building lists I've looked at, your lead is very sparse. You also have fewer and less informative notes on individual buildings within your main list. Perhaps a little more research would enable you to expand both the lead and the notes.
  • Other than these points, the format is that which is obviously approved at FL. There are, however, a number of minor prose and punctuation fixes to be made:
    • A full stop or a semicolon, not a comma, is necessary after "1905"
    • No comma is necessary after "As of 2008...", in both second and third paragraphs
    • I suggest that a full stop, rather than a semicolon, would be appropriate after "...which began construction in 2008"
    • In the third paragraph, "would become" should be "will become" (or, better still, "will be")
    • The prose would improve if you can find a way of avoiding having the word "construction" five times in one short paragraph.

I hope you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancy rat[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… We all have been working hard to bring it up to Wikipedia's GA standards. I feel that the article is informative, providing information that has been verified to reliable sources and presented from a neutral point of view. I believe that the article makes good use of pictures and internal linking. Finally, as a total novice in the subject, I came away after reading this article with more than just a cursory overview of the topic, but rather more detailed expert knowledge of Fancy rats.

I am looking for outside opinions to see if they concur with my assessment here that this article is ready to be promoted to Good Article status. Thanks, -- Levine2112 discuss 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article and seems close to GA, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Reading Wikipedia:Good article criteria, the main problems seem to be some WP:MOS issues and a few broadness of coverage issues. I usually review articles with FA in mind, so some of my comments may be pickier than GA requires. I will start with MOS issues
  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD. It should be three paragraphs long for the length of the article, and one sentence paragraphs are discouraged by the MOS anyway. I would combine the current fourth paragraph (one sentence about rats in culture) with the third paragraph.
    • Reorganized lead in general... while I'm not completely happy with it right now anyway, it should meet the requirements for GA. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead is also supposed to be a summary of the whole article and as such should not contain any material not also in the article. The origin and meaning of the name seems to be only in the lead though.
    • As per MOS:BEGIN the origin and meaning are there to define the term as completely as possible - isn't it a little overkill to then have a seperate section repeating these two sentences? There isn't much else to say beyond what's already in the lead, and i wouldn't think that a definition needs to be reiterated. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it is OK for GA (I tend to review with my FA glasses on), but I also think the name origin could easily be in the History section. The Oxford English Dictionary usually will give the first recorded usage of a word, so that could be in there too (when were they first called "fancy rats"?). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs in the lead are generally reserved for direct quoatations or extraoridnary claims (again the refs should be in the body of the article where the claim is repeated).
    • I agree, they were added at the request of another editor more familiar with editing contentious articles. It's probably necessary to keep refs about health risks and plague as these are common misconceptions and people unfamiliar with the subject would find this to be an "extraordinary" claim. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • OK< if they are likely to be contentious statements, having refs is good. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs follow punctuation, so fix things like Fancy rats are not a carrier of plague[5], ...
  • Punctuation follows quotation marks unless an entire sentence is being quoted, so fix Thus, one who keeps pet rats is said to be involved in "rat fancy."
  • There are a few places where italics are used for emphasis that seem to contradict WP:ITALIC
    • I removed one use, but the others are for purposes of contrast, which seems acceptable - could you specify which uses you find inappropriate? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It is your call, but I thought italicizing "wild" in "its exposure to wild rat populations" like overkill. "sell" later on was OK I thought (don't expect ratcatchers to sell the rats they catch. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To improve the flow of the article I try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, as well as bullet point lists.
    • I generally agree, but I'm also a stickler when it comes to the idea that the sentences in a paragraph should relate to eachother (which is why i had to reorganize the lead to squeeze the entertainment sentence somewhere). I've fixed most of these instances, but left some because either the information really shouldn't be appended to the surrounding paragraphs, or to increase readability (the Health section is full of terms and diseases that readers may be unfamiliar with). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The single bulleted list in the Markings section is there because that turned out to be the easiest way to present the information for readability and accessibility. One long list of prose, similar to how the coat-types are handled, is actually too cumbersome, not really improving "flow" at all, while a table was the worst, given the other surrounding formatting (i.e. images). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Seems better, again your call (and the GA reviewer's). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs should be in numerical order so fix things like and the stresses naturally associated with living in an unnatural habitat can all adversely affect a rat's health making them prone to specific conditions.[33][31][34]
  • I thought the History section could be expanded a bit to meet the broadness of coverage criterion - there is no reason given for the closing of the first club in 1931 or the refounding of the new British group in 1976. Nothing at all on other clubs being founded (dates).
    • Info added, there really isn't much out there other than the NFRS surfaced because there enough interest again. As far as other clubs go, given that this a relatively newer hobby it only seems necessary to point out the originators as over time many will come and go - eventually longstanding notable clubs will stand out, but there aren't any others that really need to be addressed in the history section. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Try to remember to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example a year range for the Victorian originators would help, or saying the NFRS is British would too.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

      • In Entertainment says major film releases and television series throughout the world. but all the examples are American films or TV shows. House's rat needs a ref. Both versions of Willard have years, Ben does not (and now the Michael Jackson theme song is running through my head). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks again, Ruhrfisch. I made some updates to address your concerns. Not sure about the "throughout the world" one, though, because the source being used states just that. That said, if I can dig up some sources on non-U.S. shows or films, I will include them. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
          • If the source backs it, it is OK, just thought it funny on rereading it that all the examples were US made (Ratatouille is set in France). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Upon revisiting the source, I am unable to find the "throughout the world" support. As such I removed that text from our article. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
              • yeah i think that phrasing was a remnant from before the ref was added :) I would love to expand the section with protrayals from other countries, but the only one i know of is the Fawlty Towers episode which needed to be removed. It's not a pressing issue though right now... btw, Levine, i have some concerns about the image you added. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Forest Park (Portland)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this urban park article for peer review because I'd like to prepare it for FAC. It's not especially long, but I think it's comprehensive. I'd like to know if anything is missing or if anything I've included doesn't make sense or needs repair.

Thanks for any advice. Finetooth (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Llywrch

I like to think that I know Forest Park well; I've walked in it off & on over the decades. And you have a nice selection of photos to illustrate the subject. But while your article covers most of the subject, there are a few points I either wanted covered -- or wanted to know more about:

  • Towards the beginning the article states that it is "4,317 acres (17 km2)" in size, down from its 2008 size of "5,100 acres (21 km2)". What happened to cause its loss of 800 acres in the last 12 months?
    • Thanks for pointing out a confusing sentence. The park didn't shrink. The Trust for Public Land used an out-of-date size to make the size comparison. I'll try to think of a more clear way to say this. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Another point about its land: ISTR that most of the 4200 acres Forest Park acquired in 1948 was due to tax foreclosures: many landowners got behind on their taxes during the Depression, & instead of selling the clear-cut land to developers, it was made into a park.
    • Thanks. Good point. This section could use more detail. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Was Forest Park part of the Olmstead plan for parks in Portland? Or was their recommendation a separate project? (The article is a little unclear to someone who knows a bit of local history.)
    • Another good question. I will investigate further.
  • Are Macleay & Holman Parks actually part of Forest Park, or are they distinct & separate parks? (This is a bit of trivia which I have sometimes wondered about.)
    • They are part of it. It's odd that they have retained distinct names. I will try to find out why. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You may want to mention that Germantown road (along with Cornell) have in recent years become important thoroughfares heavily used by commuters. (I know this from personal experience. And how unpleasant a car wreck on Germantown raod can be.) This has affected the Park's bucolic nature.
    • Thanks. I mention in the Wildlife section that "Roads in the area severely hamper the movement of large animals." I will see if I can find anything more to add about the traffic. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You may also want to mention that Forest/Washington Park has provided shelter for squatters & transients over the years, some with very elaborate camps. (If you need to find examples, I know the Oregonian & the defunct Oregon Journal has run stories on individuals living in the Park over the years -- one case was only a couple of years ago. A librarian ought to help you find these stories.) It's not quite the "wilderness in the middle of the city" many people think it is.

Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a very good suggestion, and I thank you for the leads to the news articles. I think I may be able to find them through the on-line service available to library card holders. You are right about transients, camps, and urban intrusions. I thank you for all of your observations and suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check the comprehensiveness of the lead as well as to check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Whataworld: This looks good, but I have a couple quick/easy suggestions:

  • "digital" links to Digital download, but then re-directs to Digital distribution. Should this be linked to the latter just to avoid confusion?
Fixed link. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For the first reference listed at the bottom, I would recommend linking Billboard and Nielsen Business Media, Inc (you can link it to Nielsen Company). This may not be required, but it seems to be fairly common practice and I find it helpful sometimes, as a reader. Other than that, looks good to me! -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree this looks pretty good, here are some suggestions for improvement (mostly on being consistent on how things are done within the article). I have just reviewed another similar list and will do the third next, so some of this will be repeated.

  • Tense is odd throughout - I agree that describing the chart should be done in the present tense (as it is a current chart too), but it seems odd to describe things about the 2005 chart (three years ago) in the present tense. I would use past tense for anything that happened in 2005, except for things that continue to this day (what the Hot 100 chart is, methods to collect the data). As it is there is a mix of tenses.
  • Example of present tense: "Pop singer Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" is the longest-running single of 2005." Perhaps you are wondering why I used such tense. Its because the single remains the longest-running single of that year. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Avopid needless repetition: During the year, five acts each achieved a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest, namely: Mario, Gwen Stefani, ... is immediately followed by Stefani earned her first number-one single in the United States this year, although she had been with [the] band No Doubt since 1986. Perhaps something like "This was Stefani's first solo effort; she had been on the charts since 1986 with the band No Doubt." (not sure if this is true, just trying to say something different)
  • I think it should start with Stefani because the preceding sentence is not just all about her. Its general so I cannot be specific in the succeeding line. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • How about Only two artists, Underwood and Brown, scored a number-one debut single this year. ?
  • Yeah. A better and succinct phrasing. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would combine the one sentence third paragraph with the second paragraph - put it with the other stuff on We Belong Together.
  • I think I still have more to add in that final paragraph. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs are not formatted consistently - for example is it "Billboard (Nielsen Business Media, Inc)." OR "Billboard Nielsen Business Media, Inc." I think it should be "Billboard (Nielsen Business Media, Inc.)." with a period (full stop) at the end of Inc. and after the parentheis (bracket).
  • I would link pole position as not everyone will know this term.
  • Revised line. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any way any reliable third-party INDEPENDENT sources could be used or added to this article? As it is every single ref is from Billboard. I see articles in newspapers on so and so is number on on the charts - could something like that be added?
  • All info can only be supported by Billboard. Perhaps there are other sources out there but not as comprehensive as this one. Maybe I'll add more trivia that Billboard does not publish. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I found it would be useful for the reader to know about the place. i found, the article is very informative.

Please review, and provid eyour valueable comments

Thanks, Makks2010 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments
GDibyendu's comments
  • Move the gallery to an image file and keep a link to that in see also section.
  • See also section should not link to articles which are already linked in this page text. See WP:MOS for see also section.
  • Change the tables to text.
  • Look how FA level city articles are organized. Example: Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore etc. Some sections should be summary of another supporting article, particularly the sections which are long. Also, see the page on cities workgroup under Wikipedia:WikiProject India, which provides a guideline on how such an article should be organized.
  • More comments later.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Move all the district related info to district page. City article should contain info on the city only. Once this is done, I have a feeling that district article is going to have more content than city article.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm (hoping) to bring it up at FAC and I want to clear as much out of the way as possible before that. It recently qualified as a Good Article after much tweaking, and I'd like to see what is necessary to take it to the next level.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems over all very well done and nearly ready for FAC. I have one major concern and a bunch of nitpicks - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The major concern is that 94 of the 100 numbered refs are from the same book. I realize there is probably only one standard biography of him (if there are more, then they should be quoted too), but it seems to me that this might be seen as an issue (WP:POV probably) at FAC. The Nuremberg trials are very well documented, so there must be good supplementary sources there. I also did a search on his name at Amazon and came up with several other books that mentioned him. My guess is you would not have to add a lot of new sources, but several more used judiciously (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) would help. It may be the other 6 sources listed could be cited in other places too.
    The supplementary resources rarely mention Birkett, but I'll try and link em in. There are three main books about Birkett: This one, one about "famous cases" which contains almost no biographical information and a biography written by his clerk. The last one has been described in every review/comment I've seen of it as overly long and excessively fawning: I think that is more likely to create POV issues than just using the current text. I'll try and work things in from google books or something. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    My guess is even a fawning biograpy still has the basic details right (so you can use it for things like dates of birth, entry to university and the bar, etc.). The famous cases book sounds like it would be good to back up , um, er, famous cases he was involved in. I still think if his influence on the Nuremberg Trials was as great as is claimed, it should be mentioned in several of the histories of those trials. I don't have a problem with chiefly using one biography, but it seems quite problematic to almost entirely use just one when there are others available. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    "Available" is the thing; this book alone was hell to find. I found one more decent-looking bio; i'll try and order it for all of 1.66. Ironholds (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    Do you have access to Interlibrary loan? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, but the books I found are relatively old/rare/natty and the institute in question wasn't happy in them being sent off-site. Regardless I've ordered a used version of the book, and I'll get it on (I think) the 23rd. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Now for the nitpicks... I would link several terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to many non-British readers, such as draper and barrister (most Americans will not know what one is, or at least how a solicitor is different). Maiden speech later is also worth a link, may be others I missed.
  • Would it make sense in the lead to say that KC is later QC, i.e. they are the same (in and was made a King's Counsel in 1924.)?
    So for example "King's Counsel (now referred to as Queen's Counsel) or something? Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    Presumably he became a QC when Elizabeth II became monarch, so perhaps something like this and was made a King's Counsel in 1924 (this changed to Queen's Counsel in 1952 when Elizabeth II became monarch). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Images are very nice, but a few run afoul of WP:MOS#Image. Since it faces left, File:Marshall-hall.jpg should be right justified to face the text. For accessibility reasons, File:Nuremberg judges.jpg should not be left justified under a level three header (see WP:ACCESS).
    Okie-dokes: I'll try and find an extra image somewhere to avoid having to remove the Nuremberg one, and I'll get my photoshop bitch to switch the image around.
    Ugh - I hate flipped images. Why can't they just be right justified? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    Right justified? Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    If it uses the "left" parameter it is left justified (like Ramsay MacDonald's image is now), if it has no parameter or specifies "right" it is right justified (like the Marshall-hall image is now). I thought you were going to make a mirror image of it (facing the other way, or "flipped") - sorry for the confusion. By the way, now there are two images under level three headers - a no-no per WP:ACCESS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    Gah, I'm not an image person :S. Any chance you could take a couple of minutes to fix it? I'm now quite confused :(. Ironholds (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader, for example add "as Baron" to ... son Michael Birkett on 22 October 1929, who succeeded his father [as Baron] on his death.[43]
  • Other than that I can't see any major issues - well done and very interesting.

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Why is William in brackets?
    He was always known as Norman. Any suggestions as to how I should change it, then? Ironholds (