Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2011

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

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


Ready (Trey Songz album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that I can take this to FAC, and want to clear up all outstanding errors that are possibly here already.

Thanks, Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 16:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be making some comments shortly after I've had chance to review the article in depth. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 06:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks very good. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.


  • Generally, it's not necessary to link terms more than once in the lead and once in the main text. Further links often seem redundant. For example, "Troy Traylor" is linked once in the lead, twice in "Production and development", once in "Track listing" and once in "Personnel". I would remove the second one in "Production and development" for sure and maybe the ones in the lower sections. There are other similar redundant links, of R. Kelly, for example.

Heads and subheads

  • I'd probably make the two subheads under "Reception" more telegraphic to avoid repeating "response"; i.e., "Commercial" and "Critical".

Production and development

  • "the purpose of the album was to crossover... " - This should be "cross over" since it's the verb form.
  • Nothing inside direct quotes should be linked. The Troy Traylor quotation in this section includes links. WP:MOSQUOTE includes the relevant guideline.


  • "Black Roses" is "set to quasi-electronica production, buoyed by a soulful vocal arrangement." - This quotation needs attribution, something like, "according to John Doe" or "Jane Doe said".


  • "To promote the album, a major online campaign was launched, his blog site,," - Missing word, "on" maybe, as in "on his blog site"?


  • "sans the other featured guest" - Maybe "without" rather than "sans" because the former is more familiar to most readers?

Critical response

  • I think I'd break the giant first paragraph in half at some arbitrary point just to give the reader a rest.
  • "The album received positive reviews from most music critics, receiving an aggregate score of 67 out of 100, based on six reviews from website Metacritic, which indicates "generally favorable reviews." - Slightly smoother might be: "Most music critics praised the album, which received an aggregate score of 67 out of 100. The score, indicating "generally favorable reviews" was based on six reviews from website Metacritic."
  • "Ken Capobianco of The Boston Globe said that Songz had developed as a vocalist stating, "more elastic and uses his falsetto judiciously". - This is not a complete sentence. Missing words? Maybe "stating that his voice was"?
  • "Even though the review pointed out that "he occasionally falls back on booty-call clichés," that "his song craft shines on the edgy "Black Roses" and regretful "Love Lost." - This is not a coherent sentence either.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. Since I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments, if my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how "Most music critics praised the album...." is smoother. The reviews for the album were not exactly filled with praise, so it's less accurate. Most reviews were positive. "Praise" is a little to strong and there wasnt nothing wrong with how it was before. Dan56 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Adabow comments

  • "Songz said that "[it] was a very radio-geared record..." – 'it' doesn't need brackets
  • Speaking of the following singles, Songz thought that "I Invented Sex" would be a "career-defining record, and I knew 'Say Aah' would be a monster club record." – reword somehow, maybe 'Speaking of the following singles, Songz thought that "I Invented Sex" would be a "career-defining record, and [he] knew 'Say Aah' would be a monster club record."
  • "Songz wanted to keep the amount of features very limited" → Songz wanted to keep the number of featured artists very limited
  • Could you include where the album was recorded
  • "Sean Fennessey of The Village Voice said, that Ready, featured Songz's..." - remove commas
  • PopMatters is web-only; no italics
  • Songz made an appearance with his mother and younger-half brother, Forrest, – makes it sound like Forrest is his mother and brother
  • ""LOL Smiley Face", featuring rappers Gucci Mane and Soulja Boy Tell 'Em was released..." - comma after 'Tell 'Em'
  • Chart positions should be preceded by 'number'
  • "Additionally it was his first song to impact pop radio, appearing on the Pop Songs chart, and his first to chart internationally, charting on the Canadian Hot 100." - is the Ultratip charting worth mentioning here?
  • See if you can find a sales figure from
  • "Rolling Stone gave the album 3½ out of 5 stars" → Rolling Stone gave the album three-and-a-half out of five stars
  • The Rolling Stone review is not in the citation.
  • Who and what did he lose the Grammy to?
  • Check refs for italics and publishers

Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I rewrote this article from scratch and I can't seem to find much more to add. All I really need to do is add a picture of Myrrha in Hell by Gustave Doré and then I would consider the article finished (but I'm waiting for my account to be auto-confirmed so I can upload the picture). What I would like to ask you for is checking for eventual grammatic errors, places I need to put a reference or if one of my references is not defined clear enough. Anything else would also be appreciated - throw everything you can at me :)

Thanks in advance, Mottenen (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Whatever the reasoning, I don't think that a redlink in a hatnote is tenable.
  • Ceres links to a disambiguation page
  • Citation formats need a lot of attention. You need to give details of Bibliotheca Sacra, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Hyginus, Dante etc. We need full publisher details of the editions of these works you are using. Also, online citations need to be properly formatted, with the site's publisher shown in each case.
  • The organisation of the article looks odd. Surely the "Origin" section should be at the beginning, rather than the end?
  • Some spelling errors; "Appearences", "Pronounciation" (in citations)
  • Prose: From my readthrough it is evident that the prose needs considerable attention. Here are a few pointers from the lead and first section, but I suggest that a full copyedit id undertaken:-
    • The opening sentence is overcomplicated by a lengthy parenthetical insertion which makes for very awkward reading, likely to put people off before they get into the subject. Do we need the ancient Greek spellings of Myrrha and Smyrna? We don't need to cite the pronunciations to dictionaries. A simpler opening might be:
"In Greek mythology Myrrha (pronounced //ˈmɪərə//), also known as Smyrna (pronounced //ˈsmɜrnə//),[1] is the mother of Adonis."
    • "tricked him into", not "tricked him to"
    • "sexual intercourse" doe not need a link; everyone knows what it means. Likewise "incest"
    • "While being a plant..." is very clumsy. Perhaps "While in plant form..."
    • The lead needs some expansion, to fulfil the requirements of WP:LEAD that it be a concis summary of the whole article.
    • The words "As of today" are redundant.
    • "...while others like Apollodorus tell that in other accounts of the myth the story takes place in Assyria". This needs rewriting: "while Apollodorus and others place the myth in Assyria".

I hope these suggestions can help you start the process of improving the article, but I believe that further help with the prose is essential. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a fair review.

  • The link in the hatnote is from the article that I almost completely deleted.
  • Thanks for noticing that the Ceres link was not directing to the goddess
  • I thought I'd given the information on Bibliotheca Sacra already in the bibliography or should it be cited in another way? My problem is that I have been using my own translations of the ancient Greek works most of the time and Wikipedia says not to cite non-english sources (I'm Danish). Should I put them on or should I try finding free editions online like I have done with Antoninus?
  • I agree that the structure might look odd, but "Origin" was a last minute addition because I found a book on my local library that I could use (unfortunately I think I'm out of new sources now). It will be corrected.
  • Most articles on Greek myths contain the spelling in Greek (e.g. Zeus and Adonis)
  • I agree with the rest

Thanks again and at least I'm happy you did not find anything not referenced (except that the references might not have been formatted correctly). Mottenen (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

References:User:TCO has asked me to take a look at the references. I'm in the process of running the ones under "bibliography" through this tool. The "page(s)" field will be left blank so you can fill them in yourself (I have no idea which pages your using). I'll also anchor them, if you don't know what that is I'll explain it soon.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Delius[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Frederick Delius is a highly original English composer, born in Yorkshire, who led an interesting and unusual life. He has never achieved wide popularity or been given the recognition accorded to his contemporary Edward Elgar, though he has always had a dedicated following. This article is a joint effort from myself and User:Tim riley. We are aware of several issues relating to the images, and they may change considerably in the course of this review. Otherwise we would welcome any comments or advice on how to improve the text. We see this as a potential featured article, so it should be reviewed against the featured article criteria. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a brilliant contribution and there is little in the way of constructive criticism I can offer. There is a tiny, tiny misquote from Fenby (1981), which, in the source reads, "I overheard Delius say, 'Jelka, that boy is no good! He is too slow. He cannot even take down a simple melody!" And would it interest the readers to learn that he was re-buried at midnight? There is a plate in Fenby (between pp.106–107) showing the front page of Sunday Dispatch, from 26 May 1935 to support this. Graham Colm (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, Graham. I have corrected the misquote you refer to, and have added a couple of lines on the Limpsfield burial. You earlier corrected a wrong page ref, so thanks for that, too. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Some comments I've read through the article and it looks pretty good. The comments below are a mixture of possible copy-edits, nit-picking, questions, suggestions and corrections. I am no expert on Delius, incidentally, so some errors may have passed me by. Here we go:
    • Lead and Early years: "Bradford in the north of England", then "Bradford in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the north of England". Hm, repetitive and too much information, especially as we know he was English. The Bradford link will tell the curious where it is. I'd be inclined to say Bradford, Yorkshire first and then just Bradford. Or vice versa.
      Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Early years: comma required between Elise Pauline and née
      Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Florida: "Jacksonville had a rich, though to a European unorthodox musical life." Prefer "rich though, to a European, unorthodox"
      Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Leipzig and Paris: comma needed after Patrick Hadley
      Already done, I find – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The Magic Fountain links to a 1961 film
        Unlinked. Most grateful! Must do the same in the List of Works article – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • What is Margot la Rouge doing in this section? It was written in 1901-2, and 1902 was when Ravel published the vocal score.
        Clarified – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "a purely orchestral version of Appalachia" What? We aren't told what Appalachia is and what the alternative to a purely orchestral version might be. There are other instances later of compositions that aren't explained. I don't think we should expect people to have to look at the List of Works every time.
      Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • First successes: "Grez-sur-Loing, a village 40 miles (64 km) outside Paris on the edge of Fontainebleau" - does this mean on the edge of the Forest of Fontainebleau? The town itself isn't all that large but the commune is apparently very large.
      Checked map - Forest it is; changed link – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • "The first performance of Paris" - see above, Appalacchia
        Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Mitternachtslied - same again, and why mention A Mass of Life (without explanation) here? Better to refer back when AMAoL is mentioned in the next section.
        Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Growing reputation: Appalachia unexplained again;
      Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • War and post-war - "his music for James Elroy Flecker's Hassan" should be "incidental music" and "play, Hassan"
      Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Music - reception - "more than 60 songs": I counted 55 in the List of compositions
      Fenby says "more than 60" and I think he's right. 55 is the number listed as "songs for single voice". In the section above, "Vocal works with piano accompaniment, or unaccompanied" we have 6 German songs and 2 "Songs of a summer night on the river", making the total over 60. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Struggle towards maturity: "Cardus argues that melody, while not a primary factor , is there abundantly, "floating and weaving itself into the the texture of shifting harmony" – a characteristic, Cardus believes shared only by Debussy": extra space after "factor"; final bit would read better as "a characteristic that Cardus believes is (was?) shared only by Debussy"
      I have amended as you suggest; I think "is" is correct, since the music of Delius and Debussy still exists. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Full flowering: "Payne exempts the incidental music to Hassan (1920–23) from condemnation, believing that the piece contains some of Delius's best work" - I wouldn't describe incidental music as "a piece". It's a series of pieces, or a composition, or (maybe best and certainly shortest) "it".
      Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Note 12: "he admired Elgar's late Falstaff" - the late Falstaff is Verdi's (he was ~80); Elgar's Falstaff premiered in 1913 when the composer was 56ish (he died at ~77) and somewhat before the cello concerto and some other stuff.
      • On Tim's behalf I have removed the "late". If he disagrees he'll speak up. Brianboulton (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I think that it's worth mentioning that Opera North performed A Village Romeo and Juliet in 1984 (50th anniversary of Delius's death), having already done it in 1980 - apparently David Lloyd-Jones is a great fan. I can supply a reference if needed. There could be a bit more on the operas in general (I have Opera Grove and Viking/Penguin), if required.
        • Since this article is a life of Delius, we don't really want to get into details of modern productions of his works. If the 1984 Opera North production was specifiaccly a 50th anniverary tribute, it's worth a mention. Can you provide source details? Brianboulton (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I'll have to dig my programme out of a cardboard-box-full - shouldn't take long ...
            • Found it. Programme for Opera North's production of A Village Romeo and Juliet, premiered on 29 May, 1984 at the Grand Theatre, Leeds. "A new production by Opera North to mark the 50th anniversary of the composer's death. Presented in association with the Delius Trust, who made possible Opera North's original production and have also made a donation towards this restaging." --GuillaumeTell 19:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: I've added a sentence and a ref about the 50th anniversary to the first para (which deals with the Trust) in the Memorials and Legacy section. Feel free to move and/or reword it, or ask me for further details as you think fit. --GuillaumeTell 16:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Afraid all the above is a bit scrappy, but hopefully intelligible. That's all, folks! Good luck! --GuillaumeTell 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
        Thanks for the comments. I have dealt with those in the "Music" half of the article and will leave Tim to handle the others. Brianboulton (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a few things. Excellent article. Early 20th century music or literature has never been my field, so I learn much from you.

  • Early years
My eternal complaint. Isn't "British citizen" better "British subject" when applied to a 19th century person?
I believe that is technically correct, and have changed accordingly. – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
"Protected from the excessive summer heat" I've been to Jacksonville in July, and I'd agree with you but still it is probably POV. Perhaps remove the "the"?
Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
"In Autumn 1885 he left". What does the MOS say about capitalization, and is it possible to avoid the seasonal reference to appease the Australians?
Changed to "late" – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
At some point did he quit his job way down upon the St. John's River?
Never formally, it seems, but his brother was despatched to take over. I have added that once he left the Grove he only ever worked as a musician – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Leipzig and Paris
It might be worth mentioning if Dad paid for the conservertoire, because that makes the details about Dad giving his consent and being persuaded a lot more relevant.
Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You mention Appalachia at the end of the third paragraph. Somewhat later in the article you both mention and explain what it is.
Redrawn – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Growing reputation
"on the same Nietzsche poem". Perhaps a pipe to it?
Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • War and post-war
Is Heseltine referring to Britain or France?
Nice point! Clarified – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Grez. You refer to him leaving there while the area is threatened by the advancing German armies. I get the impression of months. Yet when I read the chronology through later, it seems to have been the entire war. Perhaps massage the phrasing to reconcile?
Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Last years
There is probably an article about the 1930 test series to pipe to.
There is and I have (despite the result of the series) – Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Music. I should add this side of the article is one of your strengths, in all your musical bios.
  • Influences
"During the 1870". Normally, I'd just correct this, but am unsure if you are going for the decade or year.
Typo, corrected. Brianboulton (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"giving several acclaimed concerts in Bradford." For some reason, this phrase bothers me. Each of the concerts was acclaimed?
"Acclaimed" in this sense merely means "praised", so I reckon the word can be applied to each concert, but I'll change it to "well-received". Brianboulton (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As per above, as my involvement in the biography part of the article was small, I'll let Tim field the points arising from that part. Brianboulton (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent stuff here from both Guillaume Tell and Wehwalt. I note that most of the queries apply to the biog section! A moral there, perhaps. Shall review and deal over the next couple of days. Meanwhile, thanks to both reviewers. Tim riley (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Later: now all attended to – and all very much ad rem. Hearty thanks to both. Tim riley (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Great work, as always, gentlemen. I did some proofreading, but please feel free to change anything you disagree with. As to the hidden quotes about using Delius against vandals in the metro, it could be used to illustrate the topics discussed in the last paragraph of the Reception section, namely that 1) Delius's music is soothing (rather than modernist?); and 2) some people don't like it. Or it could go into a footnote after the assertion that people either like or don't like Delius. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. As to the metro addition, I think it is about as notable as the name of Delius's brother-in-law's next-door-neighbour's pet spaniel. I think it should simply be removed. What do others think? Tim riley (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's trivia, and I've removed it. The spaniel was called Patch, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Expanding on my remark, above, this article is a biographical study of Delius and a summary analysis of his music. The anecdote in question is unrelated to Delius, and is of no significamce in relation to a study of his music. It's like saying, in the Mahler article, that his Seventh Symphony was used in an oil advert, or in the Mozart biography, that his "Jupiter" symphony was used as a Wombles song (both true - my daughter was convinced for a long time that Mozart wrote Wombles music). Trivia should not be added to scholarly music articles. The place for this story is an article about the Newcastle Metro. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the images as they currently stand:

  • I'm not very happy with "municipal hall", a rather unBritish expression, for Bradford City Hall (built as Bradford Town Hall, name changed in the 1960s)
    • Yes "Town Hall" is much better (I'll do the link, too) Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Woodcut illustration (1919) of the young lovers Sali and Vrenchen from A Village Romeo and Juliet" apparently relates to Keller's story, not the opera, in which the characters in Delius's English libretto are Sali and Vreli.
    • I've extended the caption to clarify the Keller link. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • adding (not about the images) that I've just noticed that the composer is Frederick Albert Theodore Delius in the lead, but Fritz Theodore Albert Delius in "Early years". I know about Fritz/Frederick, but did he move the middle names around as well? (F.A.T Delius? Hmm.)
    • Quite. There is some confusion, arising from Beecham's use of the sequence "Fritz Albert Theodor" (sic). Other authorities (Grove Music Online, ODNB, Fenby 1971 and The Musical Times all give "Fritz Theodore Albert" which can be taken as correct. Beecham was a bit sloppy as to details; we could draw attention to his error in a footnote, but it seems barely worth while. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • --GuillaumeTell 17:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for these spots. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Once again, Tim riley and Brianboulton have produced an excellent article. Thank you, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Since I have no major criticism, and it seems pretty comprehensive as far as I can tell, I edited as I went rather raising issues here: I made minor changes and asked inline for one tiny fact to be clarified. I seem to remember Timothy West playing Beecham on TV - did I imagine it? - no, it was in 1990 I see - which contained interactions with Delius (such as at an orchestral rehearsal, something like "is that a C or a C sharp?" - pause - "Frederick, I wish you'd take the trouble to learn your music") - these exchanges were presumably drawn partly from Cardus's book on Beecham. I wonder if that might be a useful additional source? I'll try and dig out my copy and have a look. --RobertGtalk 13:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • PS, I'm sorry, Tim, you thought the clarification I asked for above was "pointless". --RobertGtalk 12:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Good heavens! I thought that was the work of a bot! I'm so sorry to have expressed myself so rudely. Profound apologies! Tim riley (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Robert G is correct and have changed "comprising" to "including". See Comprise. However, if the audience was just those three people, please change it back. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: peer review now closed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Toy Story[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has passed GA for over a year now and I intend to take this up to FA status at least.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


  • "Although the film was a huge box office success, the film is currently Pixar's lowest grossing film while the film's second sequel Toy Story 3 is their highest grossing film earning over $1 billion worldwide". Need a comma after both mentions of film.
  • "View-Master released a three-reel set in 3D in 1995 prior to release of 3D films." Needs a comma in here.


  • "Woody, a pull-string cowboy doll is the leader of a group of toys that belong to a boy named Andy and come to life whenever humans are not around." Needs a comma after doll and Andy.
  • "Andy's next door neighbor (until his family moved) Sid Phillips has been kicked out of summer camp earlier and Woody explains to Buzz that Sid is a person who tortures and destroys toys just for fun." ...And after Phillips.


  • I would try and find a citation for the $20 million advertising budget.

Theme Park Attractions

  • The Disneyland Park link for the Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters attraction is a redirect to a disambig page. Link to the correct park.


  • 23, 26, 28, 32, 37, 44 are all dead links and need to be removed, replaced, or found in an archive.

I know its not much but i hope this helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently restructured the article per another editor's comments, and would like input from someone unfamiliar with the region and subject on where it falls short on meeting the FA criteria.

Thanks, Gyrobo (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-done, broad in coverage, and well-illustrated. I enjoyed reading it. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

  • I'd move the {{Coord}} template from above the geobox to the "External links" section. I can't find the guideline just now, but the template works fine if placed in EL, and it may give screen readers trouble if placed at the top of the page. Or, I think you could add the coordinates to the geobox. This leads to another couple of questions. What is the source for the coordinates? What point on the trail do they identify? Would it be useful to add the coordinates for the two end points of the trail?
  • I've never seen more than one set of coordinates in the page's title, and I've never seen such coordinates sourced. I just picked what I thought was the midpoint of the trail.
  • I like this geobox. I hadn't noticed a trail geobox before (though I've used geoboxes for streams, mountains, ghost towns, and a few other things). I will use yours as a model for at least one trail article I'm working on.
  • Another editor recently came up with a solution to add embedded map data to the hiking infobox. You may be interested in it.
  • I'd shorten the "Recreation and activities" head to "Recreation" and the "Course of the trail" head to "Course". WP:MOSHEAD has the guidelines.
  • Done.


  • "as well as Route 44/55, NY 299, and NY 213" - It's usually better to replace front slashes with specific words. Also, foreigners might not know what things like NY 299 refer to without clicking on the links. Suggestion: "as well as U.S. Route 44 (concurrent with State Route 55), and state routes 299 and 213".
  • Done.
  • Should the lead and a bit of text in the "Route" section mention that the trail runs north–south slightly west of Poughkeepsie? Most readers will be unfamiliar with the geography of the region and it would be good to quickly orient them.

New Paltz and Gardiner

  • The order of the dates in the second paragraph are a bit confusing because the 2007 purchase comes between the 1991 purchase and the 1993 formal opening. Only in the next paragraph do we learn that part of the trail was in an informal state until 2007. Could the material be re-arranged to maintain a more straightforward chronological flow?
  • Done.
  • "In 2009 and 2010, the Tea Party movement held protests along the Gardiner section of the trail." - What was it protesting? It's not clear why the trail would be a good location for a protest. I'm guessing that they were objecting to paying for the trail, but even if that's true, foreign readers would not guess that without being told.
  • The sources don't say anything more than that a protest happened there, but from my understanding it was just an ordinary protest (one of many scheduled for that day, per the sources), not directed at the trail.
  • "The Wallkill Valley Railroad had been planning such a connection since the bridge opened in 1889" - Slightly smoother might be "The Wallkill Valley Railroad had planned such a connection after the bridge opened in 1889".
  • Done.
  • "the parking area of the Sojourner Truth park" - Maybe "park named after Sojourner Truth" so that a link to Sojourner Truth would be more feasible? Oh, I see that it's linked in a later section. Better to link it here on first use.
  • Done.


  • "contains the 940-foot (290 m) Rosendale trestle.[4][1] - Wikipedia articles generally arrange serial refs in ascending order; i.e., [1][4].
  • Done.

Route of the trail

  • "Over the next 1⁄2 miles (0.80 km)" - Singular, mile, rather than miles?
  • Unfortunately, that's how {{convert}} handles fractional values for the mile unit. I also found it annoying, because I frequently use fractional values between zero and one.

Recreation and activities

  • "after the 1825 discovery of Rosendale cement" - Since cement is a manufactured product, "discovered" isn't the right word. The limestone is probably what was discovered.
  • Done.
  • "One person has tried bungee jumping off the bridge without a restraining cord." - I'm not sure what this means. Could the restraining cord be briefly explained? Is it a safety device?
  • From what I can tell, it's the actual cord. The book only mentioned this briefly.
  • In this case, I think it's appropriate to keep the acronym. This is the only use of the term in the article, and I've never heard anyone use BOCES' full name in common usage.

Flora and fauna

  • Linking to the Latin names is good, but listing them all in the text might be overkill.
  • I didn't want the paragraph to just be links. The Latin names break up the links.


  • The image description page for File:Gardiner NY Rail Trail.jpg is pretty skimpy. It would be good to add the "what", "when", and "where" information to the summary. The "when", June 2007, can be plucked from the camera data at the bottom of the page. It would be good to say where on the trail this is and what the little structure is, if you have that information or can figure it out.
  • Done.
  • The "Route of the trail" section is a bit too crowded with images. MOS:IMAGES advises against creating text sandwiches between images on the opposite sides of the page. Unless you can add text to make the section bigger, there's probably no way to fit five images into the section without making at least one text sandwich.
  • I'm not using a widescreen monitor, so I'm not seeing the effect.
  • The "New Paltz and Gardiner" section is also too crowded. I think you can only fit two images into a section this size without making a text sandwich.
  • Again, it really depends on monitor resolution.
  • I'd suggest merging "Flora" and "Fauna" under a single head, "Flora and fauna", to make room for the tree image, which now overlaps the two short sections and displaces an edit button.
  • Done, but now it displaces more of the References section.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Rossen[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to go for a GA review. That means that I'm only interested in the subset of MOS described at WP:WIAGA. I've expanded the content and improved and checked the citations. I'd most like comments on the structure and prose.

Thanks, Philcha (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and not far from GA. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.


  • "dedicated to social causes of the sort that we as poor Jews from New York were interested in." - Even though this appears in the lead, it needs an in-line citation immediately after its end punctuation even if sourced later in the article.
    • Done, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Rossen was twice called before the House Un-American Activities Committee" - Would it be good to add its abbreviation, HUAC, here as well. Then the longish head, "Examinations by House Un-American Activities Committee", could be shortened to "Examinations by HUAC".
    • I'm not sure there's an elegant way found this. Will readers remember the abbreviation for 2 sections, the 2nd quite long. Perhaps not include "HUAC" in the lead, shorten the heading to "Examinations by HUAC" and add a {{See}} linking to "Examinations by House Un-American Activities Committee"? --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the "See" template, which I had never looked into before. I think that would work, but I'd also use House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in the lead. I think quite a few readers are used to saying "HUAC" as a word, much in the same way they say "NASA" and actually forget what the abbreviations mean. It's up to you, though. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Added "(HUAC)" in the lead. Change section header to "Examinations by HUAC" and added {{See|House Un-American Activities Committee}} below it. --Philcha (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


  • "raised on the lower East side" - Write as Lower East Side and link?
    • Thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In 1936 Rossen married." - Who did he marry? Since he married again in 1954, what happened to the first marriage? Did his first wife die, or did the couple divorce?
OK. When no reliable information is available, there's nothing you can do. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Early life and career

  • "In the late 1930s New York's radical theaters were collapsing." - This sentence seems misplaced logically, simply tacked on to the end of the paragraph. Maybe the first sentence of the paragraph could be expanded to say "flourished in New York in the early and mid-1930s". The paragraph could simply end with "signed Rossen to a personal screenwriting contract".
    • As you suggested, wrote "flourished in New York in the early and mid-1930s" removed " In the late 1930s New York's radical theaters were collapsing". Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Work in Hollywood

  • "an intellectual bosun" - Link "bosun" to Boatswain?
    • Thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Return to filmmaking

  • "the lead resolves her conflicts by devote herself to dance;" - This part of the sentence does not make sense as written. The overall sentence is perhaps a bit too complex, and the verb tenses are inconsistent. Maybe a full stop after "realised" and then: "The lead resolves her conflicts through her devotion to dance; Katherine Dunham's choreography highlights this process, and innovative cinematography intensifies the dance scenes"? Also, I think you need to make clear who "her" refers to in "her conflicts". Maybe "The main character" instead of "The lead" would resolve this. Or you could describe the main character in some way.
    • The film is important only because it restarted Rossen's career. I've made "He had to produce the film in Italy, and it was premiered in Italy in 1954 and the USA in 1955" the 2nd sentence to make this clearer. --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The past tense is for the date when Fischer-Hornung wrote the analysis. The present is the indefinite use for summary of the film, which applies to whenever any one plays the film. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you. The sentence now seems fine to me. Finetooth (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I copyedited to "the female lead resolves her own conflicts by devoting herself to dance". --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Later life

  • "He was survived by his wife Sue, son Stephen and daughters Carol and Ellen" - When was Ellen born?
    • No source on that, sorry. All I found was a marriage notice in 1992 that said Ellen was Rossen's daughter. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Multiple pages should be indicated by "pp." rather than "p.", page ranges take an en dash rather than a hyphen. I ran a script that fixed most instances, but it missed some. See citation 39, for example.
    • Fixed all pp. x-y --Philcha (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The GA criteria uses a defined subset of MOS which does not include WP:DASH, and I will not use WP:DASH as it's about the biggest time-waster in WP. --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have never heard this argument before. WP:DASH is part of MOS, which is what I try to rely on in the same way I rely on a dictionary to tell me how things should be spelled. To some extent, many "rules" of writing are conventions that are subject to debate. I don't involve myself much in the debates. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


  • "In the time Variety praised the cast" - Should that be "At the time"?
    • Thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


  • The "Reference" section is arranged alphabetically, but a few things are out of order. For example, the second entry, "Thomas, Bob", belongs elsewhere. Oh, I see it also appears again in the correct position, so this first entry is a duplicate that should be deleted. I see a similar double entry for "Crowther, Bosley" in the second column, and "LoBianco, Lorraine" and "Brennan, Sandra" are out of order. There may be others; I did not check every item.
    • Removed duplicates of cites to Bob Thomas and to Crowther ("The Brave Bulls (1951)"). --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Cites made with <ref>...</ref> but without List-defined references appear in the order in which they appear in the article, e.g. in Annelid - in other words, randomly. Citations by LDR and, via a different mechanism, {{sfn}}, {{harv}} etc. can be ordered as the editor likes. With {{sfn}} and {{harv}} etc., the editor has to create an "alias" for the citation, while LDR uses the name as in <ref name="...">...</ref> But I've found it different to devise rules ordering these names / aliases:
Internal consistency is what to aim for. I don't know all of the citation families well enough to know all of the complications. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Books and academic articles are usually cited as author name(s) and year.
      • Web pages quite often lack author name(s) and / or year. For example the Rossen article cites many pages from Turner Classic Movies and / or IMDb and / or allmovie - and all these publishers often produce article about the same film. So I usually create a citation name like e.g "Brave Bulls - TCM".
      • So for inconsistency I guess that for reviews of specific films I should write e.g "Brave Bulls - Crowther"
      • But there are some pages where I can't devise a rule for the name, e.g. 101 List includes "The Hustler" at position 96 in this lists of "101 Geatest Screenplays". --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For books such as Dick, Bernard F.'s Interstellar Spaces, I'd add the place of publication. If you don't have this in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
    • Done. But Google Books never (IIRC) provides location. Are editors supposed to do 2 types of search for each book? Google provides ISBN (until it's an old book), which will lead readers who are interested. --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think of Google Books as a quick way to do a search at home, but when I find something interesting, I try to track down the hard copy via a library or bookstore. The printed version is more stable and more complete, as a rule. Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


  • The source link for the Rossen image in the infobox is circular. It should link to the source page rather than to itself. Otherwise, fact checkers cannot check the source.
    • Eh? The lead pic in the article links to the pic's page, which links to the source. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
To make it easier for fact-checkers, link to the source page rather than to an image without a context. The page that I've linked to here includes information about the copyright and who holds it. That's part of what fact-checkers need to know in order to verify the license. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Good ideas except that they are all fair-use rather than free. Strictly speaking, none of them is necessary for an understanding of the material. They probably do not meet WP:NFCC, although the lead image probably does. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Reluctantly I agree. --Philcha (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


  • I'd add "Screenwriter, director, producer" to the "Short description" line.
    • Where's the "Short description" line? --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's part of the "persondata" at the bottom of the article. It's invisible to readers, but you can see it and edit it in edit mode. It's a category of metadata that is useful in ways explained at WP:PERSONDATA.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

United States[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very high volume article that is close to FA, please be as thorough as possible.

Thanks, Iankap99 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Kumioko First I want to say thanks for submitting this. I agree its very important both to the project and because its extremely high hit amount. Although it is currently an A class article, IMO it needs quite a bit of work and probably isn't A class quality but its all fixable and this is a good start. Here are some of my observations so far and I will read through in more detail in the next couple days. I hope you don't mind but as I read through I am going to fix some obvious small things.

  1. The lede is a bit too long and should be trimmed
  2. The lede should not contain any inline citations. Inline citations should be in the article body that the lede summerizes
  3. There are a few places that appear to be missing inline citations
  4. I think we should update the numbers mentioned for the population statistics to reflect the new 2010 census
  5. A few of the references appear to be dead links. See here
  6. IMO we have a few too many pictures. I think if we try and limit to 1 or 2 pictures in each section, that represent that section, that would be best. There are currently 5 different maps of the US being used in different ways and I think is too many of the same thing.
  7. The template in the demographics section needs to be updated with the new 2010 census results and contains a dead link
  8. IMO the Culture section should come after the history section and before the Government and political sections
  9. I think we should combine the information found in the government/election subsection regarding politics and elections and move it to the Political divisions section.
  10. I ran it through AWB and didn't find anything.
  11. I ran it through the peer reviewer and nothing came up
  12. There are no Disambiguous links
  13. The article size is 169 KB so its extremely big. Eliminating some uneeded images will help but we might need to do some trimming of content as well.
  14. The template include size has been exceeded so some templates are not being displayed.
  15. I think we should move some of the see also's to the see also section and or incorporate the "Main article" links that appear in many of the sections into links within the sections somehow. There are so many its very distracting from the content of the article IMO.
  16. I also think the article is a see of blue links with many things being links 3 or more times, sometimes in the same sections. --Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and made some changes but there are a lot left to be made before this article is FA quality IMO.
6) I took out some of the images and moved some others around to display a little better and not have so many on the right. We may need to drop a couple more still but its a bit batter now.
15)I trimmed out some of the hat notes. There is no need to add hatnotes if the link already appears in the section. Plus eliminating some of the hatnotes will help fix the template error and reduce the page render size.
16) I took out some of the common links for things like apple pie and baseball that nearly anyone in the world would know but they were restored. I know that it is disappointing to not link to everything but there are several reasons why we don't need to link to every conceivable article.
  1. The article page size is huge and we need to trim it down. Quite a bit actually.
  2. There are so many templates on the article that it is not rendering correctly and exceeds the maximum number of templates allowd on an article.
  3. The sea of blue links to articles that have a limited relationship to the topic are distracting and take away from the links that are meaningful.
Also here are some additional things that I think need to be addressed.
  1. Some of the sentences are choppy and need to be cleaned up
  2. We need to do a thourough copyedit and fix all the prose, grammer and punctuation issues.
  3. IMO some of the information is a bit out of sequence and should be restructured to be a little more clear to the reader. For example IMO Culture should come after History and before the government section.
  4. I recommend we add the Measurement sysems to the Science and technology section
  5. I recommend combining the Parties, ideology, and politics subsection of Govnerment and elections with Political divisions section and then rename the Govnerment and elections section to just Govnerment.
  6. I recommend adding the Language, Education and religion sections under Culture.
  7. IMO the History section is too long and too comprehensive for a general article about the US. I recommend we trim out some of the content of the us History section from this article and add it to the History of the United States article.
  8. I recommend separating the Foreign relations and military into 2 different sections. These really don't belong together IMO.--Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lofty Large[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up to good article status, but never having gone through the process before I'd like some feedback on whether it's in (or near) good enough shape for nomination. If not, I could do with some pointers on what needs doing. Any and all comments appreciated.

Thanks, Arthur Holland (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and a good start but will need considerable work to achieve GA. Here are suggestions for further improvement.

  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. The existing lead is skimpy and does not adequately summarize the "Korean War" or "Special Air Service" sections or some of the shorter sections. In addition, it includes important information (his height) that does not appear in the main text. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead something about each of the main text sections and not to include important things that do not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.
  • Abbreviations like SAS and NCO should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use; after that, the abbreviations by themselves are OK because they have been explained. For example, "he joined the Special Air Service... " should be altered to "he joined the Special Air Service (SAS)... ".
  • Not every paragraph in the article is supported by a source or sources. For example, the first paragraph of "Korean War" lacks a source. Furthermore, an inline citation in the middle of a paragraph cannot be assumed to support claims that come later in the paragraph. For example, what is the source for the dysentery and beri-beri claim in the Korean War section? My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except, usually, in the lead) as well as every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every set of statistics.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find two dead links in the citations and one link in the main text that goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.
  • Generally numbers bigger than nine are written as digits unless they start a sentence. For example, "at the age of fifteen" in the "Army career" section should be "at the age of 15". Ditto for similar numbers in the article.
  • Generally, nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked, per WP:MOSQUOTE. For example, "drill" should not be linked in the first sentence of the "Special Air Service" section.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE also advises against fancy quotes such as the ones used for the long quotation in this section. Block quotes are preferred for quotations of four lines or more. WP:MOSQUOTE explains how they work.
  • I see a bit of overlinking. Generally, linking something once in the lead and once again in the main text is enough. For example, I don't think you need to link "Andy McNab" in the "Legacy" section and again in "Later years". Also, I would not link common words like "jungle" or "motorbike" that most English speakers are familiar with.
  • The book listings in "Bibliography" should include place of publication. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citations 1 and 3 lack the date of most recent access. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found.
  • The "Bibliography" and "Reference" sections repeat some of the information twice. Better would be to merge these if possible. I wonder why you have not cited the 1988 book in the main text.
  • The book listings in the "Reference" section appear to be clickable, but nothing happens when I click on them. I think it would be fine if they were not clickable; the article is short, and nobody will get lost in the "Reference" section.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Vision - Department of ECE - Anna university[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, This is a techno management fest of Anna university, Chennai, India ... It has been going on annually since 1997... This year's edition is on march 16th... So Please review this page soon... Thank u for ur time...

Thanks, sivakannan Sivajikannan (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This is in mo way ready for peer review. It is scarcely an article at all. Peer review is intended for well-developed articles; you need to familiarise yourself with some of the "How to..." material that Wikipedia provides, such as Wikipedia:Article development. I am deleting this from the peer review process. Brianboulton (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Manson[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA, but I don't feel it is ready yet. I mainly need a grammar and verification review. I hope I get a lot of comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, CrowzRSA 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, well-written, broad in coverage, and perhaps comprehensive. The major difficulty, I think, is its heavy reliance on the Bugliosi book. I have no idea whether the prose of the article too closely mirrors that of Bugliosi in any particular spot, but please make sure that it doesn't. I made quite a few minor proofing changes (removing spaces from around em dashes and that sort of thing) as I went. Here are other suggestions for improvement.

  • The link checker at the top of this review page finds seven dead links in the citations.
  • I'd be inclined to crop the prisoner identification numbers from the Manson photo or, for that matter, any lead photo in a biography. I would just use the mug shot. You might replace the prison numbers with a caption saying something like "Mug shot, 1971". (The existing caption says 1969, but the license page says 1971; I'm not sure which is correct.)
  • File:Charles-mansonbookingphoto.jpg lists an image source on its description page but not a working link. Can you make the link clickable to make it easy for fact checkers to verify the image license?

First imprisonment

  • "subsequently given five years probation" - Maybe "five years' probation"?

Second imprisonment

  • "Manson received five years parole" - Maybe " a five-year parole"?

Manson Family

  • "According to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them." - Slightly smoother might be: "According to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to inviting other women to live with them."

Involvement with Wilson, Melcher, et al.

  • Should the head be more telegraphic; e.g. "Involvement with celebrities"?
  • "The events that would culminate in the murders were set in motion in late spring 1968... " - I believe this is the first time that murder has been mentioned in the main text. Since the lead is to be a summary of the main text, the main text should not have to depend on the lead for important details. I'd add something like "that would culminate in the murders of X, Y, and Z were set in motion... ".
  • "of artist/lifestylist/philosopher" - Rather than using front slashes, it's usually more clear to use specific words. I think this means something like "artist and philosopher". I don't know what is meant by "lifestylist". Isn't everyone a lifestylist of some sort?

Spahn Ranch

  • To keep this section from looking and feeling choppy, I'd suggest merging the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end with the paragraph above it. I'd also merge the first and second paragraphs by combining two sentences like this: "The entire Family then relocated to the ranch,[2]:250–253, which had been a television and movie set for Western productions. However, by the late 1960s, the buildings had deteriorated and the ranch was earning money primarily by selling horseback rides." Also, the claims about the movie set, the deterioration, and the horseback rides need a source or sources.

Tate Murders

  • "Watson replied, "I’m the devil, and I’m here to do the devil’s business." - Nothing should be linked from inside a direct quotation. In any case, I don't think you need to link "devil" since its meaning is so commonly known.
  • "... were convinced Atkins had stabbed Tate, he falsely testified that he did not stab her." + Shouldn't that be "she did not stab her" instead of "he did not stab her"?

LaBianca murders

  • I notice a bit of overlinking here and there. For example, there's no need to link Leno LaBianca, Leslie Van Houten, or Rosemary LaBianca more than once in this section.
  • "drew Watson there to discover Mrs. LaBianca" - Wikipedia articles don't use "Mrs.", "Mr.", "Ms." or "Miss". "Rosemary LaBianca" would be better. Ditto for another "Mrs." later in this section.


  • "See "Remaining in view", below." - I'd delete this because it's an imperative, an instruction to the reader, and I don't think it's necessary. Also, if a reader clicks the link, he or she may never bother to read the rest of the "Trial" section.
  • "credit cards so that the people, the establishment, would think it was some sort of an organized group" - "Establishment" should not be linked to from within the direct quotation, per WP:MOSQUOTE.

Remaining in view

  • "Grogan would become, in 1985, the first—and, as of 2009[update], the only—to be paroled." - This seems out-of-date since Fromme has also been paroled.

Recent developments

  • Since "recent" is vague and has a meaning that will change as time passes, it's usually better to use something specific. Perhaps "Developments since 1997" would do.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE deprecates fancy quotes and advises using blockquotes only for quotations of four lines or more. I'd suggest turning the short fancy quote into a normal quotation within the text.

Parole hearings

  • I think I'd paraphrase the quotation and merge the paragraphs to shorten this section a bit and make it less choppy.


  • Book entries should include place of publication as well as publisher. See citations 2 and 11, for example. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat. Ditto for book listings in the "Further reading" section.
  • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Citation 82 is out-of-sync.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. See citation 97, for example. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.

Further reading

  • If these works are important, why not cite them in the main text?

External links

  • Newspaper and magazine names should appear in italics.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll get to these soon. CrowzRSA 19:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Straight edge[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like a peer review of this because It is getting close to becoming GA status but I am unsure that it will pass. I listed this under social sciences because it is a sub culture. I hope thats right. Cheers, Guerillero | My Talk 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting short article, on an area of cultural history that I admit I had not previously encountered. My overall reaction after reading it was that it seemed a little short on detail and could probably be expanded. Here are a few specific points:-

  • In the first sentence, the comma after "hardcore punk" makes the sense ambiguous. It should be removed.
  • There is evidence in the lead of overlinking. Everyday terms (alcohol, tobacco, promiscuous sex, caffeine) should not be linked. There may be unnecessary linking elsewhere in the article.
I tried to work on this
  • At present the lead is little more than an explanation of the term "straight edge". It needs to be expanded to become a summary of the whole article.
 Done added some more with refs
  • "Associated with punk rock, the early years of the straight edge subculture are now called the old school era." "now called" by whom - is there a source for this assertion? Also, shouldn't "old school era" be in quotes?
I removed the terminology because no sources call it the old school era
  • "old school"; lower case in text, upper case "Old School" in section heading.
I removed the terminology because no sources call it the old school era
  • Statements such as "circumstances soon changed" don't convey any information without any indication of the circumstances or the nature of the change.
  • "a well-known presence in the scene"; "the scene" is too imprecise, needs closer definition
  • Again, "some of the more controversial aspects" needs more detail
  • "In a 2003 study on straight edge, one out of the twenty participants interviewed advocated some form of violence". I am not sure where the focus of this sentence is. Are we supposed to read the sense as "only" one out of twenty, or "as many as" one out of twenty? In the context of this paragraph, which seems to be saying that straight edhe grew more tolerant after 2000, I imagine it is the former, but the paragraph needs clarification.
  • Check out ref 21; the link is misbehaving. It shows as a dead link on the toolbox checker, upper right.

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please use my talkpage if there are any issues you wish to raise with me, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "old school era" wording entirely because the sources I have access to don't use that term. (Wood (2006), Azerrad (2001), Kuhn (2010), Blush (2001), and Cogan (2008))As a personal side note: wow that looks pretentious. Kuhn calls it "the early days of Washington DC hardcore punk" but the section is about more then that...--Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Girlschool discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think to have compiled a fairly complete list of all recordings by the band Girlschool. I need advice on formatting the article and on eventual mistakes for a future FA List candidature.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lewis. Here are my comments:-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Why no caption?
    • added caption
  • Avoid bolding: The discography of Girlschool,
    • fixed
  • "studio albums" should be "studio albums"
    • fixed
  • So as compilation and EP and single
    • fixed
  • Their greatest success came with the split EP St. Valentine's Day Massacre, recorded with Motörhead, which reached number five on the UK Single Chart. delink EP
    • fixed
  • Girlschool's songs appear also on many heavy metal compilations published all over the world, often associated with other notable bands of the NWOBHM, like Motörhead, Tygers of Pan Tang, Saxon, Angel Witch, Tank, etc. delink compilations, remove "etc."
    • fixed
  • <ref>{{cite web | url = | title = Discography Girlschool | accessdate = 8 December 2010 | publisher =}}</ref>'' publisher is "Hung Medien"
    • veryfied and fixed
  • <ref name="Billboard Albums">{{cite web|url={{Allmusic|class=artist|id=girlschool-p4369/charts-awards/billboard-albums|pure_url=yes}}|title=Girlschool > Charts & Awards > Billboard Albums|work=[[Allmusic]]|publisher=Macrovision|accessdate=10 December 2010}}</ref> publisher is "Rovi Corporation"
    • veryfied and fixed
  • The abbreviation of "Compact Cassette" is "CC"
  • Extended Plays are albums and belongs to the "Albums" section.
    • As above, FA discography articles list EPs on separate sections.
  • Why is "—" denotes singles that did not chart, have not charted yet, or were not released. small written, and the other not?
    • fixed
Selected other releases
  • I think this should be deleted
    • I'm not sure how or where to list the split albums done by Girlschool, what do you suggest? Lewismaster (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Explain what do you mean with "selected other releases"; it sounds to me like "non-official releases" or "unreleased albums and songs" or "bootlegs" or "session recordings". An explanation would be fine.
        • I'll try to expand the section and make it an "Other appearances" one.
Music videos
  • deserves a table with "director" column with references
    • I would love do do so, but at the moment I could not retrieve any info about the directors. Should i keep the section or delete it? Lewismaster (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Keep, if directors are found. Have you tried MTV or VH1?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
        • There's nothing on MTV or VH1. Girlschool never published their videos on VHS or DVD and it's hard to find references about them. I found only one director at the moment. Lewismaster (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article to GA class. Please offer suggestions. Thanks. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From Philcha

I'll have go. Please don't respond until I say so - I may have 2nd thoughts about some of my comments as I review more of the article. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Before going further, I think we should discuss whether the title "Goosebumps" can refer to the first series, itself called "Goosebumps", or to the whole collection of books, TV series, video games, etc. --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


  • If I'm not confused, the title "Goosebumps" can refer to the first series, itself called "Goosebumps", or to the whole collection of books ("Goosebumps", "Goosebumps Series 2000", "Give Yourself Goosebumps", etc. - see List of Goosebumps books), the TV series and video. If I've got this right, I think this article should be split into one for the first series and one for the whole collection. The one about the first series would be the easier to improve and maintain as the whole collection may be extended, e.g. Goosebumps HorrorLand has not concluded and there may be more stories in that or later series.
  • Comment: This Goosebumps article refers to the whole collection of books (or the full series). As for your suggestion, I think it's a good idea; although I think it'd be better if I just split the first section up into two categories, one for the original series and one for the spin-offs. For example:

--Structure, genre and format--

-Original Goosebumps series-

-Spin-off series-

How does that sound? Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I think you'd be better off if you make Goosebumps cover only the first series, and make a separate about the "series of series" - Goosebumps, Goosebumps Series 2000, Give Yourself Goosebumps, etc. Otherwise it's hard to see what should go here and there's a risk of duplication between the various WP articles, which would probably cause inconsistencies. I think it would cause unnecessary work to get the current structure to GA and then split it.
    • What goes where:
    • The "series of series" can cover the sales of all the books both in USA and worldwide, including the inevitable comparisons with the Harry Potter series.
    • Goosebumps and Goosebumps Series 2000 had 1 story per book, while each of the Give Yourself Goosebumps and Goosebumps Triple Header books consisted of several shorter stories, and the Goosebumps HorrorLand books usually had 2 stories per book.
    • Any spin-offs based on more than 1 series.
    • On the other reviews, spin-offs, and production and marketing based about on Goosebumps should mainly be covered in Goosebumps. --Philcha (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)



  • The lead image is of Stine's autobiography and would be more appropriate to R. L. Stine. Could you find a image from one of the "Goosebumps" books - ideally the first one, Welcome to Dead House. --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done. I also moved the image from Stine's autobiography to another section in the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The photo of Stine is fine. --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Links and DABs


  • I'll do that last, as the lead should have nothing that is not in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has expanded a lot during the past one week. I propose to nominate the article for Good Article assessment. But before doing so, in order to go through the assessment process smoothly, I would like to know any weakness' that exist in the article so that it can be corrected before being nominated for Good Article assessment. Please suggest improvements to the article so that it can become a Good Article now and a Featured Article in the future.

Thanks, R.Sivanesh 11:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments by Smallbones The article is fairly complete and has much needed detail. There are a very few technical issues, some of which might be explained by the use of Indian English rather than American or British English - which is certainly allowed. Capitalization is an issue - make sure that "chartered" is not capitalized when not used as part of the proper noun "Chartered Accountant." A few improper nouns are also improperly capitalized. Some of the word choices seem too informal, e.g. "lots of," but in general the word choice seems a bit too formal or stiff. Images should be checked to make sure they are properly categorized at Commons (minor point) and for the fair use images, that the FUR matches the image and its use (the size in one case is off).
For non-Indian readers, it would be interesting to know the relation of Sri Aurobindo to the Institute. He comes up briefly twice, but their is no explanation of why a "guru" has any relation to the group. Indians probably know this, but to an outsider it just raises a question mark. This brings up, to me, a very important question that may be very much more difficult to deal with than the technical issues. What is the relation of the Institute to the outside non-accountant world? The article is very much pointed toward the Indian accountant and its sources are very much in-group - from accountants for accountants. I'd hope the general reader could get more out of the article - how does the Institute relate to general Indian society? to world-wide accounting groups? What kind of career (within or outside accounting) might an aspiring CA look forward to? Please try to look more at this big picture. Just as an audit might be technically correct and at the same time misleading, this article looks technically correct, but doesn't tell the outside reader much.
I would look for more general news sources and more international accounting sources and include the issues that they think are most important. I'd probably cut some of the purely Indian accounting details, and try to make the text read a bit better. Hope this helps.
  • Reply from SivaneshR: First of all I would like to thank you for accepting ,my request for peer review. So in order to make the article more interesting and informative, you have suggested some additions. Let me summarize it so that It would be clear as to what the article needs:
    • Some more details about the relation with Sri Aurobindo.
    • Role of ICAI in the Indian/ International society
    • Career prospects of prospective CAs

This takes care of the information part. My question now is if someone is able to add these details, will the article become eligible to be assessed as a good article and in the prospective future a featured article? If not what else is it lagging? R.Sivanesh 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't do the reviews on GA Candidates - somebody else will be looking at it there and it is possible that he will have different aspects that he'll look at. The best I can do is state what my concerns are, and perhaps guess what the GAC reviewer will look at. Very likely, he'll take the technical aspects quite seriously - so go over the capitalization, etc. My concerns are with the scope of the article - it was perhaps too narrow. The things listed above are more like examples of what could be included in a broader framework, than actual requirements that a GAC reviewer will want. In other words, you are being too literal. I just want you to make the article a bit broader, look around to see what non-accountants and international accountants think of the Institute. Smallbones (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 767[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I am curious what the differences between it and FA-status Boeing 777 are. It looks really neatly-presented, expertly-written, stable, and frankly, worthy of being a Featured article.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to FAC.

  • I think it is great that there is such a good model FA article to follow - a model article is useful as a source of ideas and for examples to follow.
  • Green tickYThe biggest issue I see with this article at FAC would be a lack of references in some places. For example, most of the Incidents and accidents section is lacking citations. There are also places where a whole paragraph is missing refs (see the KC-767 section). There are also places where there is a paragraph with a ref followed by one or more sentences with no refs. These generally need refs too - for example in the Further developments section By August 2008, Boeing had received two orders that year for the 767-300ER,[30] but Boeing has been offering versions of the 767 to tide customers affected by the 787 launch delays, specifically to Japanese carriers All Nippon Airways and Japan Air Lines, who are said to be in serious talks for new build passenger airframes. Boeing has also kept the line open in hopes of winning the US Air Force's KC-X tanker competition (KC-767 tanker program, which uses the 767 airframe). and Boeing sees the advanced 767-200F and 767-300F as complementing the 777F, and allowing Boeing to compete more effectively against the A330-200F, which is larger than the proposed 767-200F and 767-300F, but smaller than the 777F.
  • Green tickY My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Green tickYMany of the refs that are present are lacking complete information. 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
  • Green tickYThe EL checker finds several dead or problem links used as refs that will need to be fixed before FAC.
  • Comprehensiveness is a FAC criterion. The 777 article has 32 kB of readable proze (using the page size tool), while this one has only 22 kB of readable prose. It may just be that this is more concise, but you may want to compare the two closely and see if anything is missing here.
  • Green tickY WP:MOSIMAGES says not to sandwich text between right and left images, but this does just that in three places: the Further developments, Design, and 767-200 sections,
  • Green tickY There are also more images in this smaller 767 article, compared to the larger 777 article, and it seems to me that some of them really are not needed (one way to avoid the sandwiches is to remove images altogether).
  • Green tickY I also note that the 777 article does a better job with variety of images. Looking at the first 10 images in each article, half (5/10) in the 777 article are of details inside and out, while the other half are of whole jets. In this article, only 2 of the first 10 images are of anything beside whole jets. After a while all of the airplane in a blue sky images start to look somewhat alike, at least to my non-expert eye. If you are looking for criteria to keep images (or get rid of some) I would say ones that you can write an interesting caption for, or that are unique in the article, should be kept. So the first text snadwich features this great caption "A Continental 767-400ER on approach. The 767-400ER was the first Boeing jet resulting from two fuselage stretches." or this pretty dull caption "El Al 767-200ER". I know which one I would keep.
  • data-sort-value="No" style="background: #FFD2D2; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no2" | No Since it is January 2011, it seems like some places should be updated if possible. In the lead is a more recent figure available There were 863 Boeing 767s in service with over 40 airlines as of July 2010.[8] or in KC-767 did the planned December 2010 deliveries happen or not?
  • The information is not updated on a monthly basis.
  • The data on how many aircraft are in service with each airlines is published by the major aviation media outlets Aviation Week and Flight International. They only publish their lists once a year. -fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickYThere are a few short sections that seem like they break the flow of the article and could perhaps be combined with others or expanded. The E-767 section is only three short sentences, for example.
  • Green tickYLanguage is decent, but it would help to have someone copyedit it before trying this at FAC.
  • Green tickYPlease make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Utah state symbols[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am a crappy writer. The article will be submitted as a Featured Article candidate. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Any article with the word "List" in the title would seem to me to be a candidate for Featured List (and WP:FAC will quick close lists nominated there), so I think your goal should be WP:FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FLC in mind.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are already five FLs on state symbols: List of Indiana state symbols (promoted January 2008), List of Kentucky state symbols (promoted August 2007), List of Maryland state symbols (promoted July 2007), List of Oregon state symbols (promoted December 2009), and List of Washington state symbols (promoted February 2010). I would use the last two as models as they were promoted most recently, thought I like the sorting of the first three by broad category.
  • I would also mention the whole bee / beehive / industry / Deseret thing in the lead, since 6 or 7 of the symbols have a connection to this.
  • For a general beehive image, why not use one of the the state highway shields, like File:Utah SR 1.svg?
  • The prose isn't crappy, but it could use a copyedit. In the lead Utah's first symbol, the Great Seal of the State of Utah, was adopted April 3, 1896, at the first regular session of the Legislature created when Utah became a state in 1896.[2] is a bit awkward and could be something like In 1896 Utah became a state, and on April 3 the Utah legislature, in its first regular session, adopted its first symbol, the Great Seal of the State of Utah. (avoids passive voice, avoids repeating the year, and is a bit tighter)
  • I would add "As of 2011" at the start of The newest symbol of Utah is English, declared the official state language in 2008.
  • I don't have time to copyedit this, but you can ask at WP:GOCE or at the bottom of WP:PRV
  • Why is "Dance" not in bold face type like the others?
  • Need some sort of description for the English entry
  • I would use a crop of the flag or seal for Industry's image
  • I would link the whole phrase "The Great Seal of the State of Utah" to Seal of Utah and not just the word "seal"
  • Why was Dubhe chosen as the state star? What was the rationale?
  • The unofficial symbols section needs some sort of introductory text to make it clear why these were chosen and not other unofficial symbols.
  • On my monitor the tables are not the same width and it would look better if they were - might need a {{clear}} at the end of the lead as the map image is compressing the top table
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming for a GA or even a FA with this article. I have expanded it massively, and along the road lost my ability to properly evaluate it. It is quite a read, so I'll be happy if you'll be able to review a section or two. Not being an English speaker natively, I'd also be thankful for any copyediting.

I will be combing through the article tomorrow evening with the automated tips tool.

Thanks, Pitke (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, a major question is whether the history section should be summarised and made into a separate article. Pitke (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good. With a few relatively minor changes, I think it would pass GA, and it is not far from ready for FAC. The writing is excellent, and the article appears to be comprehensive to an outsider (me) with no special knowledge of the content. It is well-illustrated and appears generally verifiable. I did a bit of minor proofing as I went, and below are some suggestions about layout and Manual of Style issues. I read quickly from the "History" section onwards and no doubt missed some other small things, but I noticed no big problems. The article is long but does not seem repetitive; I would not make it any longer, but I don't see anything to necessarily put on the chopping block. If you decide to make the history section into a separate article, that would be fine, I think, and it might make the existing article a bit more appealing to the average reader.

  • There's now a three-user consensus that the history section should not be made separate (due to various reasons). However, the history section has been cut down for several hundred words since I posted this request for Peer Review. Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:MOS#IMAGES suggests keeping images within the section they illustrate rather than overlapping two sections. Quite a few images in this article overlap two sections or subsections. Some like File:Teppo works up a sweat in early Spring.jpg displace section heads or edit buttons. Most of these problems can be fixed by re-locating the images up or down or to the opposite side of the page. In some cases, it may be necessary to combine two short subsections to make room for an image.
  • Currently editing on a mini lappy, or a cellphone. Will ask fellow editors to tweak this. Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea to position directional images so that they face into the page rather than out. For example, File:Finnhorse jumping.jpg would be better if positioned on the left since it faces right.
  • IMO the placing is perfect, but the direction unfortunate. Thinking of mirroring the file. Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "distinct breed begins at the turn of the 13th century" - Combinations like "13th century" should be held together by no-break codes to keep the elements from being separated by line-break on computer screens. WP:NBSP has details. This issue might not arise at WP:GAN but almost certainly will if you eventually take this to FAC. Another combination that needs a no-break code is "X percent", where X stands for any number.
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists into straight prose where feasible. The list in the "Breed characteristics" section would be fine as straight prose, I think.
  • IMO again, it's better as a list. Will bring to discussion on the talk page. Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • When entering a series of citations such as [56][9] in the "Riding horse type" section, arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [9][56].
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment don't take a terminal period. An example would be "Finnish horses and a horse-drawn tram in Turku, 1890." Just remove the terminal period from this one and others like it.
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the title in the heads and subheads. For this reason, I'd change "Pony-sized Finnhorse" to "Pony-sized" and "The Finnhorse today" to something like "21st century"
  •  Done, except for "Early history" which has no elegant equivalent. Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Too many short sections and subsections gives an article a choppy look. I would consider combining some of the short subsections in the "Uses" section.
  • Pressed for time, I did not check all of the image licenses. My spot check of a few found no problems.

Trotter type

  • "As of 2010, the official Finnish record for mares, and the world record for coldblood mares, is 1:20.2aly, ," - It's not clear what "1:20.2aly" means or what kind of mistake (typo?) caused it. Ditto for "1:19.4aly".
  • Would linking the times to a Harness racing in Finland article with explanations be enough or do they need to be explained in the text? Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Finnhorse today

  • "Today, most Finnhorses are bred to be trotters, but the breed is also popular at riding schools and for recreational riding." - I'd merge this one-sentence orphan paragraph with the one below it, and I'd replace the word "today" with "In the 21st century". Ditto for a similar use of "today" in the "Uses" section.
 Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


  • I'd eliminate the nested parentheses in "(in (Finnish))" and simply use "(in Finnish)" rather than the template that creates the double nesting.
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The date formatting in the notes and references should be consistent. For example, citations 32 and 33 use different formats. Make them all the same.
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


  • The items are almost but not quite alphabetical by last name. Saastamoinen should be moved down.
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd simply use "(in Finnish)" rather than the template that creates the double nesting.
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The book data should include place of publication. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
  • Done Pitke (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • For books without ISBNs, you can usually add OCLC numbers, also available via WorldCat.
  • Arppe and Roiha not found. Pitke (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  •  Done Pitke (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pitke, I think there are some good comments here, holler if you need me or Dana to help -- Dana is suburb on the formatting stuff. I also agree that the race times are total greek (or Finnish) to an English speaker... After a year on this article, and you explaining it to me a couple times, I'm still not sure what 1:20.2aly means. We usually use the format minutes:seconds.faction of second to describe times and then note the distance. As in: "one mile in 1:34" or "1:34 for the mile." Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Some requests at the Finnhorse talk page. Pitke (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedo International Limited[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I spent the past three weeks researching, writing, and formatting the article. I'd like the opinions of more experienced wikipedians.

Thanks, Brendanmccabe (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't count me as a real reviewer, I am commenting only on one little area and only from a fast read. One comment is at several places dates (just the year would be fine) would provide important context, there are no dates. Where I noticed this was in the "controversy" section, and also where controversy was mentioned early in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, North8000. However, I'm not sure I follow you. As the author, the controversies seem to be clearly in context to me. Perhaps from a reader's perspective this is unclear. Could you pull a quote or two from the article so I can see what you mean? Thanks, Brendanmccabe (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to...please excuse the brief note form:

Suggest giving date (just the year needed) on:

  • When the company was renamed to Speedo knitting mills
  • (in Speedo knitting mills section) circa when it was banned from some beaches
  • (in Controversial technology section) when Clare Dennis was nearly disqualified (even though it is a repetition, people will not remember the name from earlier in the article)
  • (in Controversial technology section) circa when it banned from some Australian beaches)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Point by point:
*When the company was renamed to Speedo knitting mills
Added "The following year" - I hope this is sufficient as I don't want the article to read like a raw timeline.
*(in Speedo knitting mills section) circa when it was banned from some beaches
If you are looking for a specific occurrence of this ban, that is beyond my researching ability; otherwise, it seems clear to me that since the second paragraph is discussing the suit introduced in the previous paragraph, that the time is clear enough. Am I wrong?
*(in Controversial technology section) when Clare Dennis was nearly disqualified (even though it is a repetition, people will not remember the name from earlier in the article)
I'm hesitant to change this paragraph. I think that if I date the Clare Dennis incident again, I'd have to date the other controversies in the same sentence. Don't you think that would bog down the intro? Again, trying to avoid timeline.
*(in Controversial technology section) circa when it banned from some Australian beaches)
See previous comment.
Thanks again for your feedback --Brendanmccabe (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, when one reads about the suits running into trouble for being too revealing, IMHO that is a special case when at least a rough date provides important / relevant context for the information being presented. Even something that puts it into a 5 year band (e.g. "mid-1930's") would be plenty. And in the case where I was suggesting repeating the date is because most readers will not make the connection to the previous listing of the date. But I could be all wrong, and would not be even 1% upset if you decided to leave it as is.North8000 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to take it to FA in the future. Please help me.

Thanks. JiveshTalk2Me 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


  • "Sweet Dreams", one of the first songs composed for I Am... Sasha Fierce, was originally called "Beautiful Nightmare". --> "Sweet Dreams" (originally, "Beautiful Nightmare") was one of the first songs composed for the album I Am... Sasha Fierce.  Done JiveshTalk2Me 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It was written and produced by Knowles, along with Jim Jonsin, Wayne Wilkins and Rico Love. --> It was written and produced by Knowles, Jim Jonsin, Wayne Wilkins, and Rico Love.  Done JiveshTalk2Me 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The song leaked in March 2008, the day after it was recorded and eight months prior to the album's release. It was the first time that a single of Knowles had been leaked before its inclusion on then upcoming album. --> The song was leaked the day after it was recorded in March 2008, and eight months before the album's release, making it the first Knowles' single to be leaked before its inclusion on an upcoming album. (leaked should be linked or explained)  Done JiveshTalk2Me 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Knowles responded the leak on her official website --> Knowles responded to the leak on her official website
  • Knowles recorded the song in hour --> Knowles recorded the song in an hour  Done JiveshTalk2Me 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Rico love revealed to --> Love told  Done JiveshTalk2Me 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Knowles, who like the background vocals of Rico Love in the hook of "Sweet Dreams" decided to keep them. --> Knowles liked Love's background vocals in the hook and retained them. (background vocals and hook should be linked or explained)  Done JiveshTalk2Me 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

These are just from the first paragraph of "Background". The rest of the article should be thoroughly combed for other errors. I don't like the quote box to the left. It should be incorporated into the main text. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Thank you for having started the PR. I will start applying the changes soon. JiveshTalk2Me 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it for a GA nomination and just want to know what improvements can be made so it could pass as GA.

Thanks, Twentiethil1986 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

From Philcha

I'll add comments after I've read through the article.

Hi, TwentiethApril1986. I think we need to discuss how the package of "Torchwood" articles is structured before going into details. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

GA criteria



  • I think it would be best to create a separate article about each series, e.g. Torchwood series 1, Torchwood series 2, Children of Earth (with Torchwood series 3 redirecting to it) and Torchwood: Miracle Day (with Torchwood series 4 redirecting to it). The advantages include:
  • Some characters (e.g. Martha Jones and John Hart in series 2), many of the writing and production, many of the reviewer comments, e.g. are only relevant in series or specific episodes, and need not be included in the top-level article.
  • It may be easier to get articles on series 1 to 3 to GA as these series are already finished. The current Torchwood article has plenty of content and citations you can reusable. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


  • No citations in section "Opening sequence", section "Overview", para "Unlike its parent programme Torchwood centres on a team ... Gwen's former police partner and occasional comic relief" in section "Main cast", etc. In GA review the nominator is expected to have check that all paras (at the end of para) and any significant parts of paras have citations - otherwise these can be removed instantly, see WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


  • So citations
  • No themes except LBGT ones. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


  • I'll do the lead last, as that's the easiest way to check that it summarises the main text and contains nothing that is not in the (modified) main text. --Philcha (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't like "transitioned" as a verb in "has transitioned its broadcast channel every year". --Philcha (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ZETA (fusion reactor)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
ZETA is perhaps one of the most (in)famous machines in the history of fusion power. I think I've got the relevant information and avoided most of the sins of omission, except in the operational history sections (which just aren't well covered, sadly). I am worried about prose, however.

Thanks, Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating account. In terms of prose, I found it easy to read, though I am only slightly familiar with many of the technical terms. It would be good to have a content expert look over this too; I can comment on Manual of Style issues but can say nothing useful about the physics. Here are my suggestions for further improvement.

Heads and subheads

  • WP:MOSHEAD advises against repeating the main words of the title in the heads and subheads and suggests making each head and subhead unique within a page. Also, Wikepedia's telegraphic heads generally leave out "the", "a", and "an". Thus, under the "History" head, I would suggest removing "The" from "The pinch concept" and changing "Early pinch results" to "Early results". Also, the ZETA head should be changed to something else if possible.


  • In order to meet the WP:V guidelines, the whole article should be supported by reliable sources. Although most of this article appears to be adequately sourced, some paragraphs are without support. In addition, an in-line citation in the middle of a paragraph provides no support for claims made later in the paragraph. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim. For example, the claims in these sentences need support: "By 1951 there were numerous pinch devices in operation; Cousins and Ware had built several follow-on machines, Tuck built his Perhapsatron, and another team at Los Alamos built a linear machine known as Columbus. It was later learned that Fuchs had passed on the UK work to the Soviets, and they had started a pinch program as well."


  • "which sees continued development to this day." - Words like "now", "current", "today" and phrases like "to this day" are problematic in Wikipedia articles because what is current in 2011 may not be current in, say, 2014. In this case, I think I would just delete "to this day".
  • "US researchers questioned ZETA's results, which was initially dismissed by UK observers as jingoism, but over time similar US experiments demonstrated the same neutron bursts at temperatures that were clearly not high enough for fusion." - This is a bit awkward because it seems to suggest that the results were "jingoism". Suggestion: "When US researchers questioned ZETA's results, their comments were initially dismissed by UK observers as jingoism, but over time similar US experiments demonstrated the same neutron bursts at temperatures that were clearly not high enough for fusion."

Conceptual development

  • "The simplest device to understand is a tube placed inside the open core of a solenoid. The solenoid created a magnetic field running down the center of the tube. An electric charge passed through the gas will turn it into a low temperature plasma, and the plasma will follow the magnetic lines, confining itself to the center of the tube." - This needs a citation to a reliable source. Without a source, the explanation appears to be coming from Wikipedia in violation of WP:NOR guidelines.

Early pinch results

  • "*"In 1950 Fuchs admitted to turning UK and US atomic secrets over to the USSR." - Link USSR to Soviet Union on first use? Readers under 20 might not recognize the abbreviation.
  • "The Imperial team under Ware was set up at the Associated Electrical Industries (AEI) labs at Aldermaston while the Oxford team under Thonemann were moved to Harwell." - Should "The Imperial team under Ware were" instead of "was" for consistency?
  • "Perhaps the earliest photograph of the kink instability in action – the 3 by 25 pyrex tube at Aldermaston" - Add the units to the caption; that is, 3 by 25 centimetres? Also, explain what is being measured; e.g., radius of the torus, diameter of the tube? Even looking at the license page for the image does not make this entirely clear to me.


  • Would it be useful to convert metric units to Imperial, at least in places like this: "had an internal bore of 1 meter diameter and a major radius of 3 meters"? This could become "had an internal bore of 1.0 metre (3.3 ft) in diameter and a major radius of 3.0 metres (9.8 ft), over three times the size of previous devices".
  • "currents up to 200,000 Amps" - Spell out, abbreviate, and link on first use, i.e., 200,000 amperes (amps).


  • "This position had been brought forward by Tuck himself, who stated that stabilized pinch looked so promising that releasing data before we knew one way or the other was premature." - Who is the "we" in this sentence?
  • Spell out UKAEA and abbreviate United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on first use? Or am I just not seeing the first instance?


  • "Papers from the rest of the world ignored the US efforts, Radio Moscow went so far to publicly congratulate them while failing to mention the US results at all." - It's not clear who "them" refers to in this sentence.


  • I would merge the one-sentence orphan that begins this section with the paragraph below it.
  • "ZETA was always known as an example of British folly.[34][14][35]" - Series of citations are usually arranged in ascending order; i.e., [14][34[35].

Success through failure

  • "becoming the most studied device today" - Maybe "most studied device in the early 21st century" to avoid the ambiguity of "today"?


  • Citations 11, 17, 19, 24, 28, 35, 38, 39, 40, and 44 are incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. It's always possible to add the date of most recent access, for example.
  • Wikipedia house style takes preference over source house style when it comes to ALL CAPs in titles. For example, "BRITAIN CONFIRMS MAJOR ATOM GAIN" in citation 20 should be rendered as "Britain Confirms Major Atom Gain". Ditto for the other similar titles in citations.


  • The author names should be last name first; e.g., Thomson, George.
  • The entries should be arranged alphabetically by author's last name.
  • The entries for books should include the place of publication. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. Since I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments, if my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

North8000 comments

First, to understand my biases/strengths/weaknesses, I'm engineering/scientific, eat up and teach engineering/scientific, know a tiny bit about fusion, and near-nothing about the subject of the article.

Second, on behalf of all Wikipedia readers, thank you for the immense amount of work and information you have put into this article!

Third, with that perspective having been established, I hope that my directness is of some value. My one vague comment/complaint that it it's style is sort of like "I'll let you listen to my conversation on this" instead of having empathy with the reader and focus on informing the reader. Of course, I know that is not your intent or attitude, I'm just talking about wording and nature/structure of statements. To give a few examples, the section titles seem to be witty/conversational but undescriptive, and the article seems to be lacking in direct definitions, and direct explanatory and overview type statements. For example, I read 1,000+ words on the pinch concept, and nowhere in there did I see direct statement/overview/definition of what the pinch concept is. Again, hopefully my 2 cents helps a little, and please feel free to ignore my 2 cents :-)

Again, on behalf of all Wikipedia readers, thank you for the immense amount of work and information you have put into this article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Pipe Dream (musical)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA, and I'd like feedback. The plot section is not yet expanded as I am waiting for a copy of the published script to come in the mail, everything else is fair comment.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Continuing my education in the lesser-known works of Rodgers and Hammerstein. I'll leave the plot section aside until you say it's complete.

General points
  • Dablink on Annie Get Your Gun
  • One of your external links is dead
  • Couple of presntational points:-
    • There's an ugly white space in the Music and recordings section, caused by locating the Rodgers photo there. Does he need to br there? On the other hand, the section looks as though it could be expanded. There's little about the music as such, and only a brief mention of one recording.
There is only one recording of Pipe Dream. And that's all I've been able to find on Rodgers' style here. I will look for mere before I hit FAC
    • The end of the text is untidy, with a one-line paragraph followed by a short blockquote. It looks much neater if you integrate the quote into the paragraph.
  • Lead
    • On of my regular opera reviewers insists that the year of the work should appear in the first sentence. I think this is good advice, and could be applied here.
I don't have a problem with that.
    • "Pipe Dream premiered in 1955..." Give date, theatre and location.
    • Several references to "the play", which is not a particularly good description of the work. In paragraph 3, you could say Hammerstein revised the script, or the story.
  • Inception
    • "Hammerstein and Rodgers" - why the inversion? (Sullivan and Gilbert, Clark and Lewis, Mary and William etc)
Just mixing it up.
    • Try to resolve "...the show. The show..."

I have to go out now, but I'll be back later. Brianboulton 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Although inception history is generally fascinating I wonder whether, in para 3, you are overdoing the detail when you summarise the Cannery Row plot? Some condensation preferable, I think.
Most of these events happen in Pipe Dream, so I am establishing that Sweet Thursday (not Cannery Row) has a similar plot.
  • "Originally, the three..." What three is this?
  • "...having the female lead be a prostitute": Clumsy, passive. Suggest "having a prostitute as the female lead".
  • Returning to the issue of overdetailing, is there a need (in the last para) for so much information on projects which R & H did not take up?
Writing and casting
  • "The soprano had written two mystery novels and had been a part owner of the St. Louis Browns baseball team." Info for the Traubel article, maybe, but not really relevant here.

"Re Andrews: "...only to find that she had just signed a two-year contract." Clarify with whom, otherwise the sentence seems incomplete.

  • Do you "engage" theatres?
  • The "them" in the final sentence - not wholly clear.
Rehearsals and tryouts
  • No particular comments
Musical numbers
  • Someone is bound to point out that you need ndashes, not hyphens
  • "had long not allowed..." Surely, "disallowed"?

Another short break. Will be back to finish Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for what you've done, and at a very busy time for you. Looking forward to the remainder. Hope to get it to FAC perhaps around the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, just noticed. I did the plot last night. Book came.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
With the exception of finding more info on Rodgers's music, I think I'm up to date on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Productions (continued)
  • I still think "Rodgers and Hammerstein had long not permitted group sales..." is inelegant phrasing. Why not: "R and H had only recently permitted..."?
  • Possibly something needed between "The poor reviews of Pipe Dream made a national tour or London production impractical" and "Productions of Pipe Dream are extremely rare..." Otherwise the jump to present times is too sudden. Perhaps: "Since the close of the Broadway run, productions have become extremely rare..." (no need to repeat the show's name)
Music and recoedings
  • Comments above
Reception and aftermath
  • Consider placing this section before "Music" - as we do in opera articles. It seems more logical
  • "demizens"? I know it's in a quote, but I don't think the word exists. Misprint for "denizens"? If it stays I think it should have a [sic]
No, that is my typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The words "who wrote a book about the works of Rodgers and Hammerstein" are redundant, since the book is listed in the bibliography.
  • Previous point about the short blockquote - still looks untidy to me, but it's a matter of choice.
  • The time, as well as the place, should be indicated, I am told
  • "In the wee hours" is colloquial and imprecise
  • Maybe you work "in" rather than "at" a laboratory

In American English, they are equivalent "I work at the post office" rather than "I work in the post office" would be preferred. I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • "Hazel has not fallen far from that tree": I've no idea what this is referring to.

He's dumb as an ox, just like Mama. I've clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Close repetiton (line 2) of "comes in"
  • Try to avoid "...Doc. Doc..."
  • "to have Suzy be at the Bear Flag". The "be" is redundant.
  • Same sentence: "Fauna takes Suzy into the Bear Flag." Unnecessary repetition of cafe name. End "Fauna takes Suzy in."
  • "Suzy is fully aware of what kind of a place it is." The plot summary should be independent from the rest of the article. The summary has not to this point indicated the nature of the Bear Flag cafe, so "what kind of a place it is" requires explication.
  • "she wants to get Suzy out of the house" - it needs to be explicit that "the house" refers to the cafe.
  • "The date is the source of great interest by the people of Cannery Row" I think you mean "to", not "by". And you need to clarify that the "date" they are interested in is that between Doc & Suzy, not the day/month/year.
  • "Doc wears an unaccustomed necktie, while Suzy's polish wears thin at times." Apparent non-sequitur connected by a "while". Perhaps: "During their meal, Doc wears an unaccustomed necktie; Suzy's attempts at polished behaviour wear thin at times".
  • "The next morning, the girls of the Bear Flag are recovering from the members of the private party." Hmm, I think you should delete "the members of".
... please, you're British!" I have rephrased it slightly, I think it was too blatant in its humor, but I think I've toned it down. They are literally complaining about the members (as in people) who were there the previous evening, and the pun is too delicious to entirely lose!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Fauna, at first in the costume of a witch, is transformed into a Fairy Godmother." That sounds paranormal; should it be "Fauna, at first in the costume of a witch, transforms herself into a Fairy Godmother"?

That is all I have. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I will work through your changes and nom this tonight or tomorrow. I may have had too much fun writing this and it may show a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo (opera)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article has been recently expanded, with the aim of getting it to featured standard in time for it to be TFA on 24 February, the 300th anniversary of its premiere. Unfortunately, this project has been somewhat derailed by two other requests for that date's TFA, on behalf of articles already featured. But I live in hope, at least until Raul schedules the date. Time is short, and I really need to have this at FAC by 10 February, so I am hoping for some fairly rapid reviews. However, the quality is all-important, and I won't nominate it to FAC until I am sure that it meets the FA criteria. Your help would be very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
  • Lead
    • "New York Met" – a bit slangy for a posh article possibly?
      • Amended as you suggest...but a New York voice may propose otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Background
    • "(per Dean and Knapp)" – I always prefer good English to bad Latin, and would write "according to" instead of "per" here.
      • That's uncorrected from my notes. Told you I was working quickly - changed it now Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Compositional history
    • "assisted by the co-option into" – odd noun, I think
    • "from Handel's dramatic cantata…." – the sentence would flow better, perhaps, if you moved "Handel's" back to read "other numbers from Handel's earlier works…"
    • "a striking illustration of the seeming vandalism with which Handel could treat his works in revival" – I suppose you can't really add that this just shows how prissy Dean and his galère are – but it does.
  • Early performances
    • "A further 12 performances were immediately scheduled; at the end of this run, popular demand was such that two more were added. Notwithstanding this reception, the strains of financing this grand production" – the word "this" comes up a lot here and might perhaps be beneficially pruned.
    • The Spectator – links to wrong manifestation of the publication of that name – the one you have linked to began in 1828. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a WP article on Addison and Steele's rag.
    • The mysterious Dublin production seems hardly worth mentioning, I'd say.
      • Several sources mention it in passing, without providing details. The noble D & K have done some homework and looked into it. I'd say the mention is worth keeping. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Music
    • "They were remembered and written down by William Babell, and published later as separate pieces". Citation?
      • It's covered by the Lang citation, [42]. I don't want to have successive citations to the same pages. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "orchestration; – 4 trumpets" – strange punctuation here
  • Recordings
    • "made in 1977 by CBS" – I'd be a bit careful with "CBS" for a record. That was the British name for the label, but Americans called it "Columbia" (long divorced from English Columbia).
      • It was definitely issued under the CBS label. Gramophone gives the details: CBS Masterworks 40-79308. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all that I could find. Balance, tone, refs and pictures all seem to me just what they ought to be. Front page stuff all the way. Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Tim. Most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions from Gerda Arendt
  • Lead
    • As in Gianni Schicchi: a year a bit sooner, before libretto
    • Halle - link to the festival rather than to the city, mention birthplace
      • I've mentioned the birthplace. Here I think the link should be to the town (the town, not the festival, was his birthplace). The link to he festival comes when the revival is mentioned in the main text. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Background
    • "later" - "late" in two sentences in a row
    • Corelli's beautiful first name, if the others have theirs
      • I will put it in, more for euphony than necessity. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • After the Rodrigo sentence, I had to remember who "he" is, not December
      • "He" is OK here; no other person as been mention since Handel in te previous sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If the theater of the Venice premiere is known, a link would help
      • I've added the theatre. I don't think there is a WP article for it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Having studied in Hannover, Hanover seems strange to me, but that's probably my personal problem
      • It's just the English spelling - sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Roles
    • Just learned, that not even Mozart's Figaro had mezzo-soprano as a voice type, so I wonder about 1711
      • You're right. The information was wrong anyway, they're both sopranos. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Early performances
    • Mention year again, 1711, there's a lot of reading in between, and people might click here and not read consecutively
    • Pastiche is linked here, but not the first time
  • Music
    • "The dominant role ... is Almida"? surprise --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Misprinted. I have also clarified that this is Hick's opinion of the Armida role. I very much value your comments, which pick up things that can so easily be missed. Thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments from GuillaumeTell

I've only got as far as the end of the synopsis. I've made a few corrections. Four points:

  • Per Gerda Arendt's suggestion above: the Venice theatre where Agrippina premiered can be found in List of operas by Handel if you want to include it
  • Role table: columns need re-spacing, e.g. too much space for voice-types & not enough for notes
  • Synopsis: For clarity, WP opera articles generally display the place, time and Act/Scene settings on separate lines, with settings italicised, see, for example Matilde_di_Shabran#Synopsis.
  • "Lascia ch'io pianga" has (I think) a bit, or a lot, more history than mentioned here. Isn't it in Agrippina? And I remember an instrumental version in Almira when the BBC broadcast it last year.

More tomorrow, probably. --GuillaumeTell 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added the theatre for Agrippina and adjusted the column widths in the Roles table. I will introduce the synopsis in the recommended fashion. "Lascia ch'io pianga" was not in Agrippina; the use of the tune (as distinct from the aria) in Almira is mentioned in the Music section. Thanks for these points, keep them coming if you can. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Lascia ch'io pianga has its own article where further content can be added. I think the aria need not be addressed further in the Rinaldo article.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

I made a few changes directly, free feel to revert. I've only done half the article as yet but here's what is left:

  • Background
"long after the composer's departure" So the reader knows you are not being poetic and referring to his death, suggest a rephrase.
"From these". My high school English teachers frowned upon using "this" and similar words all by themselves as subjects of sentences. I have long since realized how limited their advice was, still, I bring it up.
well-bred audiences familiar with italian opera. Perhaps also through travel, is that mentioned?
"his reputation on the basis of Agrippina was considerable." If this was not true for England, yet, I would suggest inserting "elsewhere".
  • Compositional history
"In the years up to 1717," I would include something like "following the premiere" as you have been dealing with pre-premiere issues.
I would also mention assuming these revisions through 1731 were done by Handel, to say so.
  • Early performances
I would imagine that the subsequent performances of Rinaldo were under another impresario besides Hill?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And here's the conclusion:

"available admixture creates interesting opportunities in the preparation of modern performing version." Shouldn't this become plural at some point or else gain an "a"?
"The popular success of Rinaldo was assisted " Which production?
  • Music
"Sadie remarks that these options, sanctioned by Handel, can justifiably be exercised by modern producers of the work." I guess my question is, does this really say anything? After all, the continued and deplorable absence of alto castratos from the opera house would readily excuse a modern producer (by the way, I assume you mean one wanting to be authentic?)
"It is likely that no Italian opera heard in London to that point had been supported by such grand orchestral forces." Phrased this way, it does not have much of a bang to it (yes, that is a fireworks joke). Can I suggest building the sentence around the word "unprecedented"?
"According to Hicks the dominant character," I would suggest mentioning early on in this sentence that you mean musically.
"Dean and Knapp note one tiny but telling musical detail; an alteration to the third note of the melody when it returns in the 15th bar." The significance of this is unclear to me.
  • Editions
The earliest known score. OK, it dates from around 1716, but it was used for the Hamburg performances, which you have said were in 1715?
" by the Queen's" I would splurge on the word "Theatre" to follow this, assuming that is what was meant.

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I have generally followed your suggestions and revised the text accordingly. No mentions in sources of familiarity with Italian opera through travel. I've knocked out the Sadie sentence you highlighted as uninfomative, and I've removed the sentence that puzzled you over the alteration in "Lascia ch'io piangia", the significance of the alteration is better explained in the aria's own article. On the scores used in Hamburg, the 1716 one was the basis of the 1720s Hamburg revivals (I've clarified that). No specific information is given about where the 1715 Hamburg score came from, but I would surmise it was made up from the 1711 performing score. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Nitpicking from Smerus
  • In the lede:
para 2:'the opera scene', yechhh, why not just 'opera'?
Para 3: ' Rinaldo, with its spectacular vocal and orchestral passages' would be clearer than 'with its spectacular vocal and orchestral passages, Rinaldo'
  • Background
para 2 - 'With much of Hamburg still evident' - what does this mean exactly? In the music, the orchestration, the libretto, the stage treatment, the length of the intervals :-}.......?
  • Music
'Dean and Knapp note one tiny but telling musical detail; an alteration to the third note of the melody when it returns in the 15th bar' - as I recall, this is just a passing note (or couple of passing notes - don't know how it's notated) replacing a repeated note - which would be more or less standard decoration for the recurrence of a melody - I agree it sounds very nice, but is it really a 'telling' stroke of the composer? Anyway, as there is an article for this aria, perhpas such detial is better dealt with there.

That's all I have time for before going to work...--Smerus (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I have adopted them all, including the removal of the "telling musical detail" which another reviewer has also queried. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Addition from Gerda (thanks for taking the above)

I dont think the link to Halle as a city is so helpful to the reader of the opera article. I suggest to link to the Opernhaus Halle, and if not here, somewhere else in the article. Also: if you say Göttingen, you should say Hannover, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah no, Hanover is standard English usage, (cf. Milan, Kiev, Moscow) and is the WP article title. --Smerus (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Two more things (I've corrected some typos)
  • Role table: surely it isn't necessary to supply both English and Italian for unnamed characters? Italicising information about named characters is useful, but "Araldo, a herald? To the untutored eye, it might seem that there's a character called Araldo, who is a herald. Elsewhere, e.g. Otello#Roles, the character is just "A herald". "A woman", "Two mermaids" and "A Christian magician" will be just fine without the Italian. NB: "La donna" means "The woman". The other role table point is that when there is a chorus and/or actors/dancers/whatever, these are usually shown in a colspan row at the bottom, as in the Otello example. For Rinaldo, Grove Opera has "Mermaids, spirits, fairies, officers, guards, attendants".
  • It might be worth mentioning at the bottom of Performance History that Glyndebourne Festival Opera is mounting the opera for the first time in the year of its 300th anniversary.
  • That's all from me. Good luck with the FAC. --GuillaumeTell 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I have amended the roles table per your suggestions, and have added a line on Glndebourne 2011. Thanks for those. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Is it the case that the fairies, attendants et al don't sing? I know that a lot of (most?) Handel operas don't have choruses, or chorus numbers are sung by all of the principals, but I don't know this one well enough to be sure. --GuillaumeTell 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • They have no singing parts, per the libretto or either of the recordings I possess. The single chorus, the finale, is sung by the six principals. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Future from Gerda
  • If projects are of interest, the Rheingau Musik Festival announced Rinaldo (in concert in Eberbach Abbey) with the Lautten Compagney for 5 August this Summer.
    • And Operabase lists four other cities that are staging it this year, though only one of them has a new production. --GuillaumeTell 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but a line has to be drawn somewhere; we cannot keep adding details of performances, which presumaably will continue in 2012 and onwards, ad infinitum. I have added a line on the projected 2011 Glyndebourne production, but I think no more; the "Modern revivals" section is beginning to look rather bloated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Scores Deutsche Händelgesellschaft
  • How do you feel about the free scores? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK in External links, I think, but I'll check out that we can do this for sure. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • It's a regular external link for the Bach cantatas, and I just introduced it also for a 1713 Handel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Further comments from Tim riley : I asked a Handel opera admirer of my acquaintance to comment, and apart from generally admiring the article he comments:

  • Intro, para 2: 'the next several years' Why not say 'thirty'. Handel's last opera Deidamia dates from 1741 (Wikipedia article currently only a stub).
    • Handel's operas were not as successful during the 1730s and early 1740s. An arguement could be made that he no longer dominated the London stage during that period (although some would say he still did). The ambiguity of "several years" avoids the potential nit-picky arguement while still pointing out Handel was for a lengthy period the leading force in opera in England.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, the text doesn't say "several years", it says "several decades", which I think can be considered as taking us as far as 1741. Like 4meter4, I think it better not to refer to a specific period of 30 years, since Handel's influence wasn't uniform for this whole period. His main dominance was the 1720s, as I think is clear in the main text. In the 1730s fashions began to change and Handel became less popular, though I don't think any figure of remotely comparable stature arose to displace him. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Background, para 3: 'Queen's (later King's) Theatre'. It might help to demystify the change of name, referred to again later, if it was made clear it changes according to the reigning sovereign.
    • Fair enough, I've clarified this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Synopsis: The Poussin painting of Armida and Rinaldo shown against Act 2 strikes me as a bit gratuitous and 100 years out of date. If we must have a painting, why not Tiepolo's, painted for the Residenz in Würzburg in the 1750s, ie more nearly contemporary?
    • I'm not sure that I agree with you about the Poussin. Yes, it's 17th not 18th century, but Tasso's poem, the fons et origo, was 16th century. My main reason for choosing this particular image, however, is because there are uncertainties over sources and/or licencing on each of the other options listed on the talk page. I'd rather be safe when in the FAC cauldron. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Para 3 of Compositional History, para 3: 'Following the premiere n 1711, in the years up to 1717' - even if the missing 'i' is put back the repetition of 'in' is clumsy. How about 'In the years between the 1711 premiere and the 1717 revival...'; in the same para 'revision' in line 3 should be plural. Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I Joined a Teen-Age Sex Club[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Comments on organization, content, and acceptability of images will be appreciated. Thanks, SingToMePlease (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with FAC in mind (since this had an unsuccessful run there recently).

  • Since you asked about images I will start there. The article has three fair use images, which seems on the high side. I am not sure that all of them meet WP:NFCC. It may be that the copyright for this was never renewed - if that is the case (and the Library of Congress has a web page to search for these) then the images would be free to use here.
  • I also note that the image supposedly of California teens circa 1950 is one of a famous series by Ansel Adams of the Manzanar camp for interned Japanese Americans during WWII and is dated to 1943. As such I do not think this image really adds to the article (though it is a striking photo)
  • The first paragraph of the Critical response section has no references and needs at least one (esp. with a direct quote in it). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some of the refs need 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
  • I realize this is a short article, but the lead seems a like it could have a bit more information. For example, I would include the fact that this story is only five pages long in the lead. The lead also has almost nothing about the plot, but that is one of the longest sections in the article.
  • The plot summary seems overly long and detailed to me. Using the page size tool, I looked at the plot section of Watchmen, a FA about a 12 issue graphic novel. Its plot section is 4858 B (774 words) "readable prose size". This was 5 pages and not even all of one issue of its comic and its plot section is 3448 B (618 words) "readable prose size".
  • A FA should avoid needless repetition (it is expected that the lead, as a summary, will repeat some of the body of the article - that is fine). Here are some examples from the body of the article of the same information being given in very similar form two or three times. Two examples follow:
    • Americans relaxed their attitudes toward sex in the post-war years as scientific inquiry into matters sexual became a regular feature of life and GIs returning to the nation's shores displayed uninhibited mores. Context, paragraph 1
    • Robert S. Ellwood writes in 1950: Crossroads of American Religious Life that American morals had shifted by the middle 20th century and posits that GIs with uninhibited mores acquired abroad and sex research had contributed to the change: "People did not consider themselves especially virtuous [mid-century]; indeed, there was considerable talk about returning veterans ... who had come back with newly uninhibited views on smoking, drinking, and sex". Context paragraph 3
  • and here the same quote about indulging in sex orgies is used in two consecutive sentences:
    • Jet magazine, for instance, reported in its December 18, 1952 issue that a teen theft ring and sex club "celebrated" successful heists by "indulging in sex orgies".
    • The magazine informed its readers, "Stiff sentences were meted out to four ringleaders of a teen-age shoplifting ring and sex club in Bridgeport, Conn." and revealed that following "successful hauls, members celebrated by indulging in sex orgies."[2]
  • This leads to another issue - as written, the article relies very heavily on direct quotations. Another part of WP:NFCC is that copyrighted material like quotations is used sparingly. In the previous example, the first sentence does a better job of paraphrasing the material and using limited quotation from it.
  • Much of the Critical response section is a "quote farm" and needs to be paraphrased more - save the direct quotations for the really good stuff.
  • While I am pleasantly surprised that so much information could be found about a 5-page comic book story, it seems to me that some material is missing from the article. There is nothing on the artists who created the work beyond their names, two of which are linked. Any thing about them that could be added would help, even if it was background (not specific to this comic, but a few sentences on the linked artists)
  • There is also not much on Harvey Comics. For example, the article on Harvey romance comics includes more information about the history of the title this appeared in - probably should mention it had turned racier in only the previous issue.
  • At the same time, some of the article seems padded. Part of this may be the repetition already noted, but does the article really need a characters section (aren't the characters clear from the plot, which is about the only place they are discussed anyway?). Even if the CHaracter section is needed, does it really need to mention such trival characters as "Two high school students describing themselves as intellectuals" and "Three male members of the sex club"?
  • I also wonder if, in an article about a 1951 comic, a 1959 report on a teen sex clubs is relevant?
  • Have books that are not available on Google books been consulted?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because It really has chances to become FA.

Thanks, Taro James (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it would need a fair amount of work before it would stand a chance at WP:FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement, with FAC in mind.

  • The biggest problem this would face at FAC is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some of the refs are bare URLs, and/or do not have all the information needed. 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
  • The External links tool in the Toolbox on this page finds multiple dead links and others that are potential problems - these would need to be fixed before FAC
  • It is useful to have a model article for ideas and examples to follow - New Super Mario Bros. is a recent FA and may be a useful model
  • The lead seems like it could be expanded per WP:LEAD
  • 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, but this seems too short to do that - probably needs at least one more paragraph
  • The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which interrupt the flow. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in almost all cases
  • There is one disambiguation link that needs to be fixed - see here
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been improved to GA and listed as such for over a year now. I have been thinking about having some comments and suggestions on how to improve it for possibly an FA.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments by Jinnai
The songlists need to be unhidden per WP:ACCESS.
The first paragraph in the characters section should be redone as it contradicts the second paragraph by naming the party-members as the only "main characters" - the other two characters would be considered main characters, especially when one is a titular character. Better to have them as "main protagonists", "player characters" or "playable party members"
You can site the NA video game itself for the CN in development and release
Added a CN for the last sentance.
You should explain more about the "alternate ending" in the plot section that's mentioned. Not too much, but if its possible to get multiple endings, that should be mentioned in the gameplay section. If the alternate ending is part of the storyline itself (ie a fake ending or something like that) it should be made clear in the plot.Jinnai 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photographer[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA. It has recently passed GA, and it has been proposed among others as featured article for the April Fools Day main page.

I am particularly keen on good comments on the following aspects:

  • Things that are likely to come up at FAC.
  • Handling and copyright status of images. (I think there are no problems there.)
  • Verifiability matters. I can provide the most important offline sources as scans, if that helps, but they are all in German.
  • Any additional information or good images that I missed.

Hans Adler 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article, well-written, and well-illustrated. I have a few suggestions, mostly related to layout and the Manual of Style, that should help get this ready for FAC. I don't know anything about the content except what I've learned from reading the article, which I enjoyed.

  • I think the image description pages have the information needed to verify the licenses; if any quibbles about the form of the descriptions arise, they should be relatively easy to address. I try to make my description pages as easy for fact-checkers to understand as I possibly can. Clickable links to the original source are always a good idea, for example. Thus on the description page for the lead image, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R01996, Brieftaube mit Fotokamera cropped.jpg, I would add "Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive), {{BArch-link|Bild 183-R01996}}" to the "Source" line of the description. Otherwise, fact-checkers have to click twice to find the original. I'm in a little over my head here, because the template in the preceding sentence does not appear to work in the English Wikipedia but (I'm guessing) only on the Commons.
  • MOS:IMAGES suggests avoiding text sandwiches created by images on opposite sides of the page. A text sandwich occurs in the "World War II" section. One possible solution would be to merge the lower two sections under a single head, "World War II and after" and to move the toy soldier image down (but still on the left side so that the directional image of the toy soldier continues to face into the page).


  • I'd spell out as well as link Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on first use. It might be useful to add "of the U.S." too since the Germans and French are mentioned by country.
  • "Pigeon with German miniature camera, c. World War I" - Rather than "c.", which not all readers may recognize, I'd suggest something like "Pigeon with German miniature camera, from the World War I era" or something like that.


  • "As photographic techniques made further progress, at the end of the 19th century some pioneers began to employ it in unmanned aircraft." - "It" (singular) seems to refer to "techniques" (plural). Suggestion: "to employ them".

Julius Neubronner

  • "restaurant chef in Wiesbaden" - Link Wiesbaden?
  • "the dovecote had a spacious, elastic landing board" - Link dovecote here on first use rather than in the "World War I" section.
  • "Aerial photographs of Schlosshotel Kronberg" - Link Schlosshotel Kronberg in the caption since it's the first use of the term in the article?

World War I

  • "Already at the 1909 exhibitions in Dresden and Frankfurt... " - Delete "already" and start with "At the 1909 exhibitions"?

World War II

  • "while improving it with a mechanic that controlled the delay" - "Mechanism" rather than "mechanic"?


  • The citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found. Citation 42, for example, doesn't include most of this information. The original publisher is not WebCite or, which appears to be an URL used by the publisher, Centennial Photo.
  • Newspaper and magazine titles such as those in citation 25 should appear in italics.


  • The Commons link should be moved to an "External links" section.
  • Citations to Internet sources should include the date of most recent access as well as the publisher and other data mentioned above in my note about "Notes".
  • Citations to books should include the publisher. For example, the publisher of Hildebrandt's Die Luftschiffahrt is R. Oldenbourg, I think. If you don't have all of the bibliographic data in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent advice! It does look very helpful indeed. Hans Adler 22:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have implemented everything with the following exceptions:
  • I have not done anything additional about the image licences, as it should be clear enough and I didn't fully understand the advice.
  • I am not sure what to do about the text sandwiches. If I move everything to one side there are other problems, depending on screen resolution. I hope to get good advice at FAC from an image expert.
  • I have created an "external links" section just for the Commons template, but it looks odd. Again, I hope to get good advice from the FA experts.
Again, thanks for your help! Hans Adler 12:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for ways to improve the article after it's last FA nominaton, and want to bring it to FAC again before the end of the year, preferably in a few months time at the most.

Thanks, TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

Hey mate, I see from WP:PR that this review is at risk of being auto-archived, so I figured I'd try to at least give you something useful. I also took a look at the monstrous mess that was the article's previous FAC, and it's clear to me that this article is close to the FA mark and you just need a helping hand. Most of my review work comes in the form of prose tweaks and copyedits, which I suppose is helpful, but I know that that wasn't the major issue at the previous FAC. So, before I get to work improving the article's readability, let me ask you this: what issues from the FAC have you worked to improve, and which do you think still require work? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most important issues coming out of the FAC was referencing issues, some of which I didn't really agree with, but I think I've sorted out the most pressing issues in that department, so that's not really the issue anymore. I'm not really happy with the intro, though, I feel like the three paragraphs could be fleshed out a bit more, but I'm not good in that department. I also think another copyedit might be useful.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked to take a look at the article. I've only glanced at the lede and yes, there is work to do here. I will try to give you specifics in the next few days, but that long list of actors in the second sentence put me to sleep. Unless they are real famous, cut it to three.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I do think the lead needs expansion as well. As a side note, but it seems like this article is going to take a lifetime and more to reach FA status. I sometimes wonder if it's worth it.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's worth it. The propagation of knowledge is one of the few things that really matter in the long run. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be editing, would you? :P Anywho, I think the best plan of action will be for me to start copyediting/prose reviewing the body of the article. Once I've done that and become more familiar with the content, I'll try to give some feedback on how to expand the lead. Sound good?
Sounds good.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Resolved issues
  • Quote box: "where [the] once vibrant myth [of frontier] is dessciated." Was the typo "dessciated" present in the original source, or was there an error in transcription?
I think it was a typo on my part.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The concept for the film arose in the early 1970s, while Hooper worked..." I think Hooper's full name should be spelled out here. I don't see anything in the MOS about this issue, but my general rule of thumb has always been to give full names in the lead and in the first instance in the body in case the reader skips the lead.
  • "who also served as the inspiration for a number of other horror films" Such as?
  • "Many of the cast members were relatively unknown actors" I suggest appending this phrase with "at the time" or "prior to this film" or something similar.
  • "Icelandic-American actor Gunnar Hansen gained the role of Leatherface." I think "gained" is a weird choice of word for this sentence. I would replace it with "was selected for".
  • "As a result of the small budget, the crew filmed seven days a week..." I'm not sure I understand how the small budget would require filming seven days a week. Was it to save money on equipment rentals?
  • In the first paragraph of Filming, there are a few sentences that should be rearranged. "The house used for the film..." is about the house, "The film was shot mainly using..." is about the camera, but then "The largest proportion of the filming..." is about the house again. The information about the house should all be contiguous.
  • "Pie in the Sky (P.I.T.S.) donated $23,532 in exchange for 19% of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper as co-owners of 45% of the profits, and the remaining 36% was divided among 20 cast and crew members." These numbers are very confusing and misleading. All three percentages are actually half-percentages because half of the profits belong to MAB, but only the first sentence makes this explicitly clear. I suggest halving the second two percentages and adding a word: "Pie in the Sky (P.I.T.S.) donated $23,532 in exchange for 19% of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper as co-owners of 23.5% of the total profits, and the remaining 18% was divided among 20 cast and crew members."
    As to the figures, they are confusing, so I've tried to implement your changes. Thanks, --Tærkast (Communicate) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Burns' costume was so drenched with stage blood that it was virtually solid on the last day of shooting." What does "virtually solid" mean? The literal meaning of "Virtually" does not apply here, nor does the literal meaning of "solid".
    As for the comment about the costume, we go with what the source says. Perhaps it could be reworded.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    One other option would be to put "virtually solid" in quotation marks, assuming that's how the phrase appears in the source. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "In February 1976, theatres in Ottawa, Canada, were asked by the local authority to withdraw The Texas Chain Saw Massacre due to concerns about increasing levels of violence being associated by the public with the film." What does "increasing levels of violence being associated by the public with the film" mean? Assuming I understand it correctly, here's a rewrite: "In February 1976, theatres in Ottawa, Canada, were asked by the local authority to withdraw The Texas Chain Saw Massacre due to growing concerns about the amount of violence portrayed in the film."
  • "the film was reissued to first-run theaters" What is a first-run theater?
  • "Greater Union Organisation (GUO) Film Distributors were refused registration for a 2283.4 ft (83m 27s) print in July 1981." It seems rather odd to me that the primary unit of measurement for this fact is in feet. Also, why is this print given a time in minutes and seconds while the others are all just in minutes?
  • "Rebecca Ascher-Walsh believed the film ..." Who is this? The other people are all mentioned alongside their respective publications, but this gives no hint as to what makes Ascher-Walsh a reputable source.
    Made all those changes. I added a link to movie theater#programming which explains what a first-run theater is.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "On August 28, 1974, Louis Peraino of Bryanston offered Bozman and Skaaren a contract of $225,000 and 35% of the profits from the worldwide distribution of the film." I don't understand who is gaining what here. The best interpretation that I can come up with is that Peraino distributed the film and kept 65% of the profits, then gave $225k and 35% to Bozman/Skaaren to divide amongst themselves and their crew. Is this correct?
    As far as I know, yes.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    Here's one rewording that may make this clearer: "On August 28, 1974, Louis Peraino of Bryanston agreed to distribute the film worldwide, from which Bozman and Skaaren would receive $225,000 and 35% of the profits." You like?
  • "In 2006, Avatar Press lost the license to the DC Comics imprint Wildstorm" How exactly does one go about losing a license? I suggest replacing "lost" with "sold". Another possibility would be to say that "the franchise was relicensed to the DC Comics imprint Wildstorm".
  • "The first sequel was considerably more graphic and violent than the original film" What was the name of the first sequel? The reader should not have to navigate to the franchise article just to find this piece of information.
  • "The film was a semi-remake of the original" What does this mean?
    OK done, thanks.--Tærkast (Communicate) 22:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering how many different sources provide information about the production process, I imagine that somewhere in the literature there would be some commentary regarding how ridiculously demanding and unsafe the filming process was compared to today's movies. A modern film studio using union actors and technicians would never have 16-hour working days, and they certainly wouldn't have a running chainsaw 3 inches from an actor's face. Such information would be helpful for a reader who isn't aware of how much the movie industry has changed since the 1970s.
    Most of those issues have been resolved except for the possible commentary about the safety of the crew, as far as I know, there isn't anything specific that would cover that. --TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    Okey doke. If you do happen to come across such commentary, I think the article would definitely benefit from its inclusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Made those changes so far. Thanks, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'm happy with the readability of the prose. As for the lead, here are some interesting points that could be added to beef it up:

  • Hooper's reasons for why the film was falsely advertised as being true
  • The absurd conditions the cast and crew endured throughout the filming process
  • The film was initially banned in several countries
  • A bit more plot synopsis
  • The MoMA added the film to its permanent collection

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do, although I'm not that comfortable editing the lead, it's not my strong point.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the added lead material. I've gone through and touched it up a bit. At this point I'm happy with the article; is there anything else you'd like feedback on? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, everything looks good. Thanks for your comments, it's been helpful.--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
In that case...

Cryptic stamp of approval.PNG

Awesome! Once again, thanks! D'you think it's about ready for FA? --Tærkast (Communicate) 16:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably, but I think it would be in your best interest to find at least one other uninvolved editor to take a look at the article. I'm sure there are plenty of reviewers who would find issues that neither of us noticed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, although the sourcing was the big problem at it's last FAC, but I cleaned that up. So I'm thinking of taking it to FA again soon(ish), hopefully will be more successful this time round. Perhaps a copyedit is needed.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Burger King[edit]

Previous peer review

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

I am looking to renominate the article for GA status and need an outside set of eyes to look at it. Frankly I have been working on it so long it has begun to blend into a single mass of text. I need comments on grammar, content and prose as well as any errors that might be present. Do not go easy on me, as I want to get this thing to GA status by the end of March and FA status by the end of May.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I find this article to be broad in coverage and quite interesting in places, for example in its coverage of BK's global presence (including images). On the other hand, I noted (and sometimes fixed) many small errors in syntax, grammar, and breaches of the Manual of Style guidelines. I discuss a few of these below, but I'm sure I did not catch them all. I'd recommend another copyediting sweep; you might be able to find someone via WP:GOCE#REQ. More difficult to pinpoint is a kind of confusion I felt about the chronology as I read from top to bottom. For example, Donald K. Smith's Operation Phoenix is discussed in the "History" section, followed by other events ending in 2010, but it re-appears in the "Franchises" section. I wonder if it might not be a good idea to merge as much of the "History" material as possible with the lower sections to improve the general flow of the article and to avoid repetition. The plans for the company's future might not fit into any of the other sections and might be relegated to a note; plans change quickly, and this note might need frequent updating. Instead of "History", the top section might become "Origins" and include only the start-up background.

  •  Done "Originally called Insta-Burger King." - This is not a complete sentence.
  •  Done "The current ownership group, 3G Capital of Brazil, acquired a majority stake in the company in a deal valued at $3.26 billion (USD) in late 2010." - Any combinations such a "3.26 billion" that might be awkwardly separated on computer screens by line-break should be glued together with a no-break code. WP:NBSP explains these codes.
  •  Done "66% are in the United States and 90% are" - WP:MOS#Percentages suggests using "percent" instead of the symbol except in scientific articles and complex listings.
  •  Done "Despite the majority of the restaurant locations being privately held by individual owners, Burger King's relationship with its franchises has not always been harmonious." - Slightly smoother might be "Although the majority of the restaurant locations are privately held by individual owners, Burger King's relationship with its franchises has not always been harmonious."
  •  Done "This tactic would eventually come to hurt the company's financial underpinnings and cast a negative pall on its earnings." - Tighten to "This tactic eventually hurt the company's financial underpinnings and cast a negative pall on its earnings"?
  •  Done Is there a good reason to link the common words, "fish", "chicken", "salads", and "breakfast"?
  •  Done Link trans-fat in "unhealthy fats and trans-fats"?
  •  Done Maybe link sexism in "derided for perceived sexism"?
  •  Done"The new owners, through several new CEOs, have since moved to revitalize and reorganize the company, the first major move was to re-name the Burger King parent as Burger King Brands." - Watch out for comma-spliced sentences like this one. I fixed an earlier one. A full stop (terminal period) or perhaps a semicolon is needed after "reorganize the company".
  •  Done "Some of the structural changes Burger King underwent under the ownership group's watch were new advertising agency that created a series of new ad campaigns... " - Missing word, "a" as in "a new advertising agency"? Also, perhaps tighten to something like: "Changes at Burger King under the new ownership included an advertising agency that created a series of new ad campaigns, ..."?
  •  Done "These changes led a score of consecutive profitable quarters for the company between March 2004 and March 2009 that successfully re-energizing the company." - "Re-energized" rather than "re-energizing"?
  •  Done "Despite this, the slowing of the economy during the financial crisis of 2007-2010... " - En dash instead of hyphen in date range.
  •  Done "when TPG and its partners announced it would sell their 31% stake" - "Its 31 percent stake" rather than "their".
International operations
  •  Done "At the end of its fiscal 2010 year, Burger King is the second largest chain of hamburger fast food in terms of restaurant locations restaurants in the world behind industry bellwether... " - Doesn't make sense as written.
  •  Done "it relied on a regional franchising model in which franchisees purchased the right to open stores within a defined geographic region." - Tighten to "it required franchisees to buy the right to open stores within a defined geographic region."
  •  Done "By 2001 and after nearly eighteen years of stagnant growth" - Numbers bigger than nine are usually written as digits unless they start a sentence; i.e., 18.
Legal issues
  •  Done "the dispute eventually erupted into a geopolitical conflagration involving Muslim and Jewish groups on multiple continents" - "Conflagration" seems a bit extreme. Maybe "the dispute eventually escalated into a geopolitical debate... "?
  •  Done "After being brought on in 1978, one of Donald N. Smith's first changes to the menu... " - Since "one" wasn't brought on, maybe: "After Donald N. Smith was brought on in 1978, one of his changes to the menu... "?
  •  Done "Accompanying these new broilers was new holding equipment was a computer based product monitoring system for its cooked products." - Makes no sense as written.
  •  Done "The monitoring system allows for more concise tracking of product quality giving the company and its franchisees to streamline costs by more preciously projecting sales and usage." - Does not make sense as written.
  • "by initiating an overhaul of its flailing advertising programs" - Should that be "failing" rather than "flailing"? It could be either, I suppose.
  •  Done Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment do not take a terminal period. The caption for the lead photo, just under the infobox, doesn't need a period, for example, and there are several others like this in the article.
See also
  •  Done I would move the books link and the portals to "External links". I also have doubts in general about portal-link proliferation. Are the portals closely related to the content of the article? The more you link, the more diffuse the attraction of each individual link.
  •  Done Citations 1 and 2 need to include at least the date of most recent access and the publisher.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Vindolanda tablets[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the top-ten artefacts at the British Museum and considering the significance in British Roman history seems a good candidate for further improvement and revitalizing considering it is still relatively short but was originally created 4 years ago. Peer review comments with suggestions for what ought to be expanded (or corrected) and how the sources could improve would be useful in creating a to-do list and/or listing at WP:GLAM/BM for collaboration.

Thanks, (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The lead paragraph might say more about the initial find with references to published accounts of that find in academic journals --Profdrew101 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Green tickY I have added a couple of citations and the first year of discovery for the lead (choosing alternatives to Bowman as he is already well used). (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, as the nominator for PR, I'm migrating this to GAN as I would like to write to an expert on the tablets for some feedback and collate any of their (probably emailed comments) as part of that process next week. (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been watching this article for quite a while now and I would like to build this up to GA Status as previous attempts had helped. I will do anything to get it up to GA status because I take a interest in the town and would like to see it extended. I will be willing to extend it now - but I just want to get a second opinion on it first. Thank you.

Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a nice article, generally well-written, well-illustrated, and certainly broad in coverage. I believe it's close to ready for WP:GAN. I added quite a few nbsps as I went and did other bits of proofing. (WP:NBSP has an explanation of the nbsps.) Most of my suggestions below have to do with relatively minor prose and Manual of Style matters.


  • I note a few places below where I think an additional link would be helpful, but I also see some overlinking. It's usually enough to link a term once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. I would not link "strawberry", for example, more than once since most readers of English will be familiar with it already. I don't see a lot of overlinking in the article, just a few instances.
  • I've delinked a few links in the article. Jaguar (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


  • I don't believe I'd bold Nyland and Bradley Cross. WP:MOSBOLD suggests severely limiting the bolding in articles.
  • As these are redirects I believe it is useful so that someone searching for Nyland and arriving at this article knows they are in the right place.— Rod talk 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, I'd try to work into it at least a mention of the missing sections such as Governance, Climate, and Transport.


  • "the grounds of the current vicarage" - Link "vicarage" to rectory?
  • Done
  • Done


  • Extremely short sections give articles a choppy look. Two solutions are to expand or to merge. I'd consider merging the subsections under "Governance" to make one larger section without subsections. The transitions between paragraphs could be made relatively seamless by changing a few words.
  • Done

Village status

  • "This apparently illogical situation is explained by the relative importance of the two places in historic times. While Axbridge grew in importance as a centre for cloth manufacture in the Tudor period and gained a charter from King John, Cheddar remained a more dispersed mining and dairy-farming village. Its population grew with the arrival of the railway in the Victorian era and the advent of tourism." - This explanation needs a source; otherwise it appears to be an interpretation coming from Wikipedia itself (or one of its editors). Who says the situation is illogical, for example?
  • Although the two paragraphs of this subsection have one inline citation each, the citations are embedded in the text and therefore do not apply to any text that appears later in the paragraph. The later text therefore seems to lack a reliable source or sources. My rule of thumb for meeting WP:V is to include a source for every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every set of statistics, as well as every paragraph. If one citation supports an entire paragraph, the citation should be placed right after the terminal punctuation of the last sentence.
  • I've added some citation needed tags
  • I have added a few inline citations in the Governance sections. Jaguar (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

District and county

  • "which was formed on April 1, 1974," - Reformat as 1 April 1974 for consistency within the article?
  • Done
  • The second paragraph of this subsection needs a citation to a reliable source. Ditto for any unsourced paragraphs in the article.
  • I would not link common words like refuse collection, cemeteries, environmental health, library, and some others that most readers of English are familiar with. Linking common terms is distracting and reduces the value of the links to uncommon terms.
  • Some overlinking removed

Gorge and caves

  • "is the largest gorge in the United Kingdom" - Largest in what sense? Longest? Deepest? Can you quantify "largest"?
  • Good question and not clear from the sources
  • Could something be included about the geology of the gorge and its limestone? Does the village rest on limestone as well? What is the elevation of the village above sea level? How old is the limestone? How did it get there?
  • Could a bit of detail be added about the caves? Dimensions?
  • Done

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

  • "transport the water can be seen next to the sensory garden" - Link sensory garden?
  • Done


  • "Its owner and head brewer, Jem Ham, previously worked 15 years at Butcombe Brewery in nearby Wrington." - I'd probably omit these details, which seem unnecessary in an encyclopedia article.
  • Done

Notable people

  • I'd turn the list into a straight prose paragraph per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. I'd also eliminate the subhead, "Notable people" to make a slightly larger section with fewer abrupt breaks.


  • I'd eliminate the subheads here too. This would make room for the image, which now displaces an edit button and overlaps two subsections.
  • Done


  • "Fairlands Middle School, a middle school, categorised at a middle-deemed-secondary school," - Should that be "as a middle-deemed-secondary school" rather than "at"?
  • Done
  • "The Kings of Wessex School, a coeducational comprehensive school, rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted,[70] that has 1,182 students aged 13 to 18,[71] including 302 in the 6th form." - This is not a complete sentence.
  • Done
  • "Community education project I.T. for the Terrified which was originally set up in Wedmore in 1999" - Should this be "I.T. for the Terrified", in quotation marks?

Religious sites

  • "The chest tomb in the chancel is believed to be to Sir Thomas Cheddar and is dated 1442." - Do you mean "to contain the remains of" rather than "to be"?
  • Done
  • "including Cheddar Valley Community Church who not only meet at the Kings of Wessex, senior school on Sunday, but also have their own site on Tweentown for meeting during the week." - Why give more detail for this church than the others? What is Tweentown?


  • "A youth sports festival was held on Sharpham Road Playing Fields." - When?
  • Date added.
  • Here as elsewhere, I'd merge one-sentence orphan paragraphs with each other or with larger paragraphs to avoid a choppy look and feel to the prose.


  • The link-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead url in the citations.


  • Wikipedia house style takes precedence over source formatting in some cases. The all-caps title in citation 42 should be rendered in title case, "Economic Problems of the Protected Strawberry Crop in South West England", rather than in all-caps. Ditto for "Cheddar" in citation 23.
  • Some done. I've spotted some other problems with the refs & can't understand how ref 2 from the New Hampshire Board of Agriculture would have area data for Cheddar.
  • The abbreviation for a single page is "p." Citation 18 should be changed from "pp. 133" to "p. 133", for example.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I didn't request the review I've acted on some of your helpful comments as indicated above.— Rod talk 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the last Harry Potter book and I would like to nominate it for an FA later.

Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 00:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - I have read this book several times and would really like to see it get to FA. That said, I do not think this is ready for FAC yet, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The External links checker tool in the toolbox on this page shows three dead links and some others that may be problematic - these will have to be fixed before it can become a FA
  • I don't think the lead really follows WP:LEAD - it is supposed to be a summary of the article and as such not have anything that is just in the lead. For example, the publisher in Australia and New Zealand is in the lead only, as is the fact that the previous record for sales was held by Half-Blood Prince.
  • I usually write (or rewrite) the lead last - read the whole article and then write the lead as a summary. Imagine someone could read only the lead - what would you want them to know about the book?
  • Italics are not used for direct quotations per WP:ITALIC and WP:MOSQUOTE
  • I would avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they interrupt the flow of the article. The sentence On the dedication page for this book, the unusual layout resembles the shape of Harry's scar.;; reads like OR and needs a ref.
  • Parts of the Rowling's commentary and supplement section need references added. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The article needs more free images. Couldn't a picture of JK Rowling be used, for example?
  • The plot section is very concise, the epilogue is quite wordy - seems as if there could be a better balance between the two.
  • I am concerned about WP:WEIGHT issues - I checked with the page size tool and here are the section sizes in Bytes and words "readable prose size": Plot summary is 3036 B (472 words), Epigraphs is 273 B (48 words), Dedication is 152 B (26 words), and Epilogue is 1103 B (189 words). For material not even in this book, Plot introduction is 2757 B (447 words) and Rowling's commentary and supplement is 4223 B (670 words).
  • So, in terms of bytes, the sections on the book except for the plot (Epigraphs, Dedication, and Epilogue) are 1528 B, or 50.3% the size of the plot summary. This means either they are too big, or it is too small or perhaps a bit of both. The Epilogue and intro sections are much more detailed than the plot section. I would make the Epilogue less detailed and make plot a bit more detailed (for example there is no mention in the plot section of the wedding or the deaths of Mad Eye Moody or Dobby or Remus Lupin or Tonks (or even strictly speaking, the death of Voldemort). Why should Teddy Lupin, a very minor character, be mentioned in the Epilogue section, when his parents, who were major characters are not mentioned at all?
  • Even more worrying, the section on what Rowling said happened after the book, but which is not actually in the book itself, is 139% the size of just the plot section. Almost 40% more bytes are devoted to things that are not in the book than the main plot of the book itself. ANother way of looking at it is that the whole Contents section is 11 kB (1852 words) and the Plot section is only about 27% of that (even with the long Epilogue added, it is only about 39%). Please note that I have no trouble with the Plot introduction section, as this is very helpful for the 7th book in a series.
  • Parts of the Rowling's commentary and supplement section need references - especially when there is a direct quote
  • Having read the article, it really does not flow well. I would look at the suggested article outline in WP:NOVELS
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 33 WP:FAs at Category:FA-Class novel articles, which seems like a source of good models to follow.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I closed and deleted peer review 3 as this was still open - here is the relevant text from that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like feedback on a new section I have created. Comments are appreciated. Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 23:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment further. What I do not like about the article is the mis-match in the level of detail in the plot of the whole novel except for the Epilogue vs. the summary of the Epilogue and the material Rowling revealed after the book's publication. There is literally more material in this article on the things Rowling revealed afterwards than there is on the plot of the novel itself. Now as I mentioned, I have read this book several times and really like it, and I think it is important to have some indication of what happened after it somewhere in Wikipedia. I am not convinced that this is the place for it though.

I also worry about comprehensiveness of coverage, which is a FA criterion. For example, there is relatively little on the writing of the novel, but Rowling revealed that she originally was not going to kill off Tonks and Lupin, but decided she had to after she spared Mr. Weasley's life. The book was named best novel of the year by Newsweek's critic - see here, which is not mentioned. Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal had detailed reviews, one of which focused on Christian themes in the novel and series (think it was the WSJ). I also seem to recall ROwling saying in an interview that the last word of the last novel was "scar" and then she changed it and talked about it.

Parts of the article read as if they were written before the novel was released and have not been changed since (Background)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I echo Ruhr's comments. While it's fairly solid for a GA (although I'm not sure I'd have passed it now as opposed to when I did in 2009), the main issue is that the plot is overbalanced compared to other content, and much more could be added about critical reception and development of the novel. Also, I think most of Rowling's supplementary comments could be summarized; the actual fates of the characters are more relevant at the article pages for the characters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Final thoughts

  • Would it be possible to make a new article with the material that Rowling said happened after the book was done? I recall that "Dumbledore is gay" got a fair amount of press at the time, and I am guessing that enough reliable sources exist to have a short article, which this one could use WP:Summary style for. Also if Rowling ever writes / finishes / publishes the Potter universe encyclopedia that there was talk of, this could then become part of the background to that article. Just a thought.
  • I am also OK with the adding information to the HP character articles
  • I can't copyedit the whole thing, but I can make some suggestions on the new section. First off, I would just call it "Themes" - I am not sure the reviews are really interpreting the themes, and headers are usually short and sweet.
  • I would start the section with the current last sentence, but make it clear that it was something Rowling said before the book was published. So perhaps something like In a 2006 interview, before Deathly Hallows was published, Rowling said that the main theme of the series is Harry dealing with death.[60] then go on to mention reviewers who agreed with her.
  • I would make sure that all prominent reviews are included - for example, the Sunday Times had two reviews here and here
  • There almost have to be books about this novel that have been published in the past 3 and half years...

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I also thought the article seemed complete. The tone is factual and objective. The language is simple, the sentences are not convoluted but straight to the point. One observation that I share with the previous peer reviewer is that there is a discrepancy in the amount of detail is certain sections (e.g.introduction: "The novel has also been translated into numerous languages," an actual number, even if it's to say "over 120 languages" may be better)
  • Another possible concern is in terms of the referencing. Though the introductory paragraph provides a lot of useful information, there isn't a single endnote (e.g. "There are many themes in the book, including growing up, dealing with death, as well as many Christian allegories"... where did this "fact" or interpretation come from?).
  • In terms of presentation/formatting: you might consider putting the "awards and honours" section in bullet/list format. Perhaps a table.
  • A section that may be missing is a section with the editions of the book.
  • Maybe the target audience could be added into the info box--MalikaZ (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC) and user:Ar1681
Reply Would the "Editions" section work? Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 19:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In the plot introduction, you may want to consider stating which books the events you are discussing are from to give readers who are unfamiliar with the series a reference point. --Eca264 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Burger King products[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to take to it FA status and I know it needs more improvements. I need a fresh set of eyes to look over this and point out areas needing improvement. Please feel free to nit pick as I want to get this as good as possible.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 10:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

General issues

I've laid out some formatting issues below:

  •  Done The table of contents is overwhelming. Sections could either be merged, or sub-sections could be hidden from the table of contents (described at WP:TOC).
  • The article is 129 kilobytes. Consider putting some of the information into sub-pages, as articles over 100 kilobytes are usually split up. (per WP:SIZERULE)
  •  Done All non-decorative images need alt text that is not identical to the caption.  Working The captions in general also need work.
  • I'm confused about why the notes and references sections are separate. The see also section needs to come before the references/notes sections.
    • The notes section is separate because I intend to break out sources that have been used for multiple citations. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
      • That makes sense to me, but I'm not sure what the folks at FA would think. I'll try and make some non-format comments later. --Banana (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not knowledgeable in this area, but I'm not sure about the copyright status of some of the photos, as they show the Burger King trademark. [1] I would seek advice about this before going to FA.

--Banana (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The lead does not appear to be a summary of the article (WP:LEAD).--Banana (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandwiches and entrées

Comments just on the section 'Sandwiches and entrées'

  •  Done The lead contains information not in this section (such as that Insta-Burger king opened in Jacksonville, Florida).
  •  Done "As Burger King's flagship product, the Whopper is a line of sandwiches" explain if the whopper is a sandwich or a line of sandwiches. Is the whopper the flagship product or is it the whopper line?
    • I corrected this issue, the change was done by a copy editor during a recent sweep of the article by the COE guild.
  •  Done "The product, sold in the same style of container as the Chicken Tenders, was an order of fish sticks with Tartar sauce for dipping. Portion sizes were similar to those of the Chicken Tenders. The product was discontinued in 1990." Refer to the actual name of the product in one of these sentences.
  •  Done "To appeal to as many demographic groups as possible and to better compete with Wendy's, Burger King added a value menu in 1998" The next paragraph then beings in a similar way "to better appeal to the adult palate, BK introduced several new products to its menu in 2003, including . . ." I would rework one of the sentences.
    • I actually reworded both to improve the flow of the whole thing. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done "Not all these products met corporate sales expectations." which products? by how much did they fail to meet expectations?
  •  Done "With the introduction of the new broilers in 2009, Burger King replaced the Angus Steakhouse burger with the 7 oz (200 g) Steakhouse XT burger." The broilers haven't been introduced at this point in the article and it is unclear to me why the broilers are mentioned. Were they introduced to make the new burger, or did an upgrade in technology allow BK to make this new sandwich?
    • I clarified the statement a little to make the technology change more apparent. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

--Banana (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "In 1991, the company introduced Twister fries, spiral-cut fries with a spicy coating, as part of a promotional push." I would rewrite this sentence because I think having three phrases set off by commas makes the sentence hard to read. "As part of a 1991 promotional push. . . " or ". . . coating, as part of a promotional push in 1991" would both work (or some other arrangement).
  •  Done "In the late 1990s, BK co-branded several of its breakfast products with former parent Pillsbury; they introduced fresh-baked biscuit bread in 1996 and added miniature cinnamon rolls called Cini-Minis in 1998."Does they refer to Burger King or Pillsbury here?
    • I reworded the section a little to clarify the statement. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 19:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Reference 52 was not working for me.
    • It appears the website changed web servers and the new format no longer uses PHP. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 08:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done "Similar adaptations also occured in Israel, where kosher dietary laws forbid the mixture of meat and dairy products. Many BKs in Israel were fully kosher.[54]" I would briefly mention that Burger King is no longer in Israel.

--Banana (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Integrative medicine[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was very recently created by a brand new editor through WP:AfC (bravo!) and moved into article space. I'm interested in any feedback editors may have, but the following areas are of specific interest to me:

  • General commentary on where this article stands w.r.t. assessment and what tasks are recommended to eventually reach GA status.
  • The article is rather lengthy (61K as of this writing) and summarizes a lot of information pertinent to other articles. Suggestions on what to remove, what to shorten, and how to reorganize sections are appreciated.
    • Going with that, how much of the research results are appropriate to present vs the article becoming a directory of studies? Note that many of the citations are meta-reviews.
  • Tone and NPOV. Obviously the article was written by an author supportive of integrative medicine concepts. What stands out as overly promotional or non-neutral and what kinds of alternative views should be presented?
  • Thoughts on possible use of images, pull quotes, and other page layout tricks to reduce the "wall of text" look.

Many thanks, Zachlipton (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Aircorn Comments An impressively big article for a first time editor. Unfortunately as you mention size is an issue. I will go through each section paying attention to the points made above. AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Look forward to your comments. Zachlipton (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Have made a start. I will try and get to the rest in the next couple of days. I should let you know that this is my first review so don't take my comments as gospel. Hope it helps though. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thanks for such a through and useful review! Zachlipton (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


  • The first sentence should start with the most reliable definition, be concise and accurate. It can be expanded on further in the section and alternative definitions could be applied according to their weight if necessary.
  • Probably don't need to define health (wikilink health and that article should define it)
  • Single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, so it is probably easiest to remove all the sub headings and start straight in on the definition.
  • Would remove wellness, it redirects to health and I am not sure it adds anything Health does not.
  • I am not sure the Bravewell colaborative is the best source for a definition, found this which might be useful and shouldn't raise any reliability concerns
  • Do not bold not, only the name should be bolded or common alternative names (it could be italicised).
  • Avoid technical, "in house" terms or complex sentences. Imagine a lay person is reading this article and explain it as simply as possible (referring to the use of modalities here). Wikilinking a complex term is acceptable, it is amazing what articles can be linked.
  • Avoid lists if you can. Converting to prose may also allow the section to be shortened.


  • The WP:MOS discourages the use of Dr. (see WP:CREDENTIAL)
  • "As a result" not needed as the previous sentence conveys this.
  • Although the sources cited are reliable they are Primary Sources. Basically they say that the studies existed and can not be used to convey what effect they had. A WP:secondary source is needed for that.
  • "The single biggest shift in perception was that integration was the key" will need a cite
  • The next sentence reads a little like WP:Original Research. It is giving opinions and without attribution it sounds like the authors.
  • The last paragraph, especially the last sentence is too promotional. The History section should just deal with facts, what happened when. The article in general should really just stick to facts, and any opinions need to be Reliably Sourced and probably attributed if any disagreement could be raised.

Foundational Science

  • The heading doesn't immediately convey what this section is about. Not sure what an adequate title would be for this section, maybe something like "Principles" or "Theory".
  • Again prose is preferred over lists.
  • This whole section can be trimmed a lot, maybe even into two to three paragraphs. Anything that does not directly relate back to integrative medicine should probably be removed and the background information trimmed to the bare minimum. I have highlighted some (but not all) potential NPOV issues and other possible problems below.
  • I would also do away with the sub headings.

The Connection Between Lifestyles and Health

  • Would be very careful about saying diseases could be mitagated altogether through a healthy lifestyle. There is a lot of evidence that genetics plays a major part (especially in cancer and diabetes). Might be better to highlight the part the environment plays without discounting the hereditary effects.
  • Also I would avoiding saying things like "they have been shown to" in regards to scientific research. I haven't read a "good" paper yet that comes to a definite conclusion.

Mind-Body Connection

  • Titles (MD & PhD) should not be used. If important you could say Joe Blogs director/professor/etc of such and such, or something similar.
  • Could just mention fight and flight response and other studies, probably does not need that much detail in this article.
  • This section does not obviously relate to integrative medicine


  • Too much detail in this section about aspects that do not directly or obviously relate back to integrative medicine. There are main articles for these sections and they should contain the detail. This should be just a summary of that information with a focus on integrative medicine

Social Determinants of Health

  • urls should not be in the main article, it should be incorporated into a reference (might just be a formatting error)

Environmental Aspects of Health and Disease

  • "the way those genes are expressed can be modulated" would try and put a reference to this here. I would also change explained to claimed or something similar as explained seems to suggest this is generally accepted.

A Systems Approach

  • "are processed by one’s body, mind and spirit through a unique set of genetic predispositions, attitudes and beliefs" this needs attribution and a source

Patient-Centered Care

  • would not use "embraced"
  • Need secondary source for the effect of the report

Clinical Research

  • It does seem to be a collection of journal articles. My inclination would be to just cite recent reviews. They should cover all the up-to-date information and it is better for them to decide the weight of experiments than us. There are enough published in 2009-2010 to provide a good base. This one could be used as a start. In medicine, anything older than 2006-2007 is probably getting out-of-date, although there would of course be exceptions.
  • Instead of lists use prose and I would limit the sub headings here too. Maybe use therapy type instead of diseases?

Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public

  • This doesn't seem to warrant its own section. Maybe the Summit can be merged with another one.

Integrative Medicine in Academia

  • "To varying degrees and in different ways" this is too ambiguous. In what ways? Also needs a cite saying half of the schools are using it.

"a group of acclaimed medical schools" would remove that unless a strong cite can be found

  • Don't say "For more information:" use the urls as inline citations
  • Too much detail about what the programmes do.

Integrative Medicine Institutions, Best Practices in Integrative Medicine and Research Organizations

  • Would combine these sections with Integrative Medicine in Academia, maybe retitling "Institutions". They all seem to be discussion organisations that use Integrative Medicine.
  • Lack of secondary sources in these and the previous sections. Need a third party source to say a school or institution is "leading" and to establish notability

Cost Effectiveness

  • "Through its emphasis on prevention and wellness, its focus on patient empowerment and its mandate to treat causes not just symptoms, integrative medicine holds the promise of helping to curtail these costs." Reads too much like an essay.
  • The rest seems fine to me. In fact I would use it as an example of a better way to write the Clinical Research section.

Future of Integrative Medicine

  • "The practices and principles of integrative medicine have the potential to transform health care, improve the health care system, reduce costs and produce a much healthier nation better able to meet the challenges of the 21st Century." WP:Essay
  • Would recommend removing this. Future sections by there very nature violate WP:Crystal. If someone notable mentions something about the future of Intergrative Medicine it could be included, but I would not have a whole section for it.


  • Work needs to be done standardising the references. I recommend using cite templates {{cite doi}} would be very useful in this article.


  • Left it to last as I think it should be the last thing written in an article. Theoretically it should write itself, but will be one of the most contested parts in the article. The easiest way is to summarise each section briefly (no refs should be necessary).


My advice would be to trim back this article as much as possible. Make use of wikilinks and compress the sections. Each section should have a theme and the writing should stay focused on that theme. My recommendations would be something along the lines of (Definition, History, ?Principles?, Research, Institutions, and ?Cost effectiveness?). I would not include any alternative treatments at all, but would where possible add in criticisms. If you don't you can be sure someone else will. Not a fan of separate controversy sections, would much rather just add them where appropriate within the body.

The tone of the article is too promotional, but that could mostly be fixed by changing or removing a few words or sentences. I would avoid opinions unless they can be attributed to someone, and then you have to decide if the person making being attributed is notable enough to be mentioned. It also needs some secondary sources to back up the journal articles (reviews should do this).

Images of notable people (who at least have their own wikipedia article) or institutions would be nice if available. Could also use images that represent the therapies (acupuncture, massage etc) or diseases - but I would only use diseases as a last resort. Personally I don't like block quotes and tables/lists as they break up the flow of text. I would rank the article a "C" at the moment and after a heavy trim I would ask for a copy-edit and then relist for another peer review before attempting GA. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like to see how I can improve this article more. Maybe, I can nominate it for a FA later. Please leave your comments. Thanks, Novice7 | Talk 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Melicans

Overall it looks like a fairly nice and well-written article. A few comments I have:

  • File:JessicaSimpson Irresistible.ogg - it is within the limit, but the fair use rationale needs to be tightened up considerably beyond the generic rationale; it needs to be specific to the article. How does it aid the reader's comprehension? What about it exactly relates to the article? See this for an example of a specific fair-use rationale.
I added specific rationale. Can you please check it out, and tell me if its okay?
It's a bit better, but could still use something more. Is there anyway that you can relate the sample to a theme or lyric in the song that is discussed in the article? Something akin to what is in here (sorry; should have probably linked that one from the start!). That would definitely tighten it up a lot more.
I'll add more.
As a forwarning, one user at FAC will probably oppose based on the cover art in the infobox. You can try tightening that one up if you like, but it probably won't matter much; cover art for albums, singles, books, films, etc. are generally seen as essential and allowed by the FAC delegates, so if there is an opposition based on that factor don't take it personally. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've heard about that. I'll try to provide rationale for that too.
  • Consider converting the information in Track listings to {{tracklist}}.
Not done. Isn't the template used mainly for album articles?
  • In terms of prose I don't have much to offer; the one suggestion I can make is for you to vary the language a bit where possible. For example, "Siobhan Grogan of NME magazine reviewed the video stating that Simpson has no apprehension "about 'forgetting' most of her clothes for the video".[15] The video reached number two..." "Video" is repeated a bit too often.
Removed and fixed.
  • I always recommend manually archiving all of the links so that the issue of dead links is avoided in the future (handy if any links go down during an FAC, and so that you don't have to scramble if the article ever goes to FAR). WebCite is excellent, and can be implemented with the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= functions in any of the citation templates.
I will archive the links, thank you.
Archived and added few links. Will add others too.
  • Most of the references look good. Is ref 22 ( a reliable source? I'd check with the people at WP:CHARTS on that one; alternatively, Kww will definitely know if you ask him.
I've asked Kevin about its reliability.
It is unreliable. Changed to Billboard source.
  • References in a foreign language (which some of the chart ones are) should include the |language= parameter in the citation template. It isn't necessary for references in the English language, so it should probably be removed from references 43, 44, and 45. Since television shows are unchanging you don't need an accessdate for them; the airdate is sufficient.
Removed. Thank you.
  • Reference 40 might be a bit iffy at FAC; does FindArticles have permission to host articles?
I had doubts too. But, as the source preceding it already verifies her performance, I removed the FindArticles source.
  • Overlinking; an item only needs to be linked the first time it is mentioned; twice if it is mentioned in the lead or the infobox. I didn't see much of it in the prose, but in the references Jessica Simpson is linked multiple times, as are some newspapers. Only the first mention needs to be linked.
Removed many redundant links.

I think that is about it from me. The article is well-written and nicely referenced. I honestly don't think it is far from FAC at all. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Good luck! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Check MOS:IMAGES. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Removed an image that does not relate to the section. Novice7 | Talk 07:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Our Children, Ourselves[edit]

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

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but the article needs more work to approach GA quality. I cleaned up some misspellings and other minor errors, and here are further suggestions for improvement.

  • I'd try to find an image to add to the infobox. If none other is available, the Rajskub image would look good in that position.


  • Somewhere in the first paragraph, I'd add the word, "television".
  • "It was written by Dan O'Shannon and executive producer Bill Wrubel and directed by Adam Shankman." - Suggestion: "Dan O'Shannon and executive producer Bill Wrubel wrote the episode, and Adam Shankman directed it."


  • How old is Alex? What grade is she in?
  • "Meanwhile the Hoffmans, a couple that Gloria (Sofia Vergara) and Jay (Ed O'Neill) met on a vacation, come to visit the Pritchetts much to Jay's chagrin." - I'm guessing that Gloria and Jay are the Pritchetts. If so, I think the sentence would be more clear if you made this explicit; e.g., "that Gloria (Sofia Vergara) and Jay (Ed O'Neill) Pritchett met... ".
  • "He eventually tells them his true feelings not knowing that they were spending the night at their house." - Confusing. Whose house do you mean by "their house"?
  • "In another storyline, Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) and Cameron (Eric Stonestreet) bump into Mitchell's ex-girlfriend," - It's not clear from this plot summary that Mitchell and Cameron are gay. A bit more background is needed for readers who have never seen the earlier episodes.


  • "This episode was O'Shannon and Wrubel's second script collaboration, having co-written the episode, 'Airport 2010'." - Suggestion: "This episode was the second script collaboration by O'Shannon and Wrubel, who co-wrote the episode 'Airport 2010' ".


  • "In its original American broadcast, "Our Children, Ourselves" was viewed by an estimated 11.12 million households and received a 4.2 rating/10% share making it the highest rated program on Wednesday." - Combinations like 11.12 million need a no-break code. WP:NBSP has details. Also, the ambiguous front slash should be replaced with words, and "percent" is preferred to "%" in most simple cases.
  • "possibly because of Obama's speech on the 2011 Tucson shooting pushing the episodes timeslot by 20 minutes" - Is it necessary to repeat this here since it appears just above in the "Production" section? Would it be better if shortened to "possibly because of the 20-minute delay in its starting time"?


  • The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent.
  • The all-caps parts in citation 1 should be changed to Wikipedia house style; i.e., "Mitchell Runs Into an Old... "
  • The publisher is often listed near the bottom of web pages and is usually not the same as the URL. For example, in citation 2, Microsoft should be listed as the publisher rather than Sometimes you can find the publisher's name by clicking through to the "Home" page or the "About us" page if it is not on the page you are linking to.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Original Rabbit Foot Spasm Band[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it reads like an advert for the band, with lots of quotes from band members.

Thanks, DavidABalch (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible areas of improvement:

  • Much of the history section is quotes from reviews which should be moved into a separate section - and maybe some of them trimmed out.
  • "the band has been growing in popularity" - citation needed, otherwise it's just an advert
  • I'd say a Maida Vale session for Mark Lamarr is notable, but surely a list of all radio appearances isn't.

DavidABalch (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally clear but thin. That may be because the band is essentially local and has not received much critical notice outside of Oxford. If the band flourishes and becomes famous, it will become possible to find more widely varied sources to cite. If not, the article can still be improved. Here are suggestions.

  • It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see what other editors have done with similar topics. You can find a list of these at WP:FA#Music biographies. See Rush (band), for example.
  • The article seems self-promotional, perhaps not meeting the WP:NPOV guidelines, because all of the quotations and descriptions are honorific. Music audiences and critics commonly have a variety of opinions about any band. If possible, it would be good to cite critics who discuss the band's weaknesses (if any) as well as its strengths.
  • The citations are incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, URL, date of publication, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. I find it helpful to use the "cite family" of templates found at WP:CIT to help me organize my citations. If you use these, don't mix them with other kinds of citation templates (like the Citation family also found at WP:CIT).
  • Use double quotation marks instead of single except in the case of nested quotes; i.e., ‘Baron’ Stuart Macbeth should be "Baron" Stuart Macbeth.
  • Newspaper and magazine titles should appear in italics.
  • The references should be inserted in the text right after the terminal punctuation rather than before; e.g., "band played 119 gigs in 2009.[8]"
  • Double terminal punctuation is a mistake. Simply removed the extra terminal period from things like "ukuleles and washboards.[3]."
  • Song titles like "Nappy Head Rag" should be set off in quotation marks.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tintin in the Congo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's recently had a lot of work put into it using references, raising it up to B-class status. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This looks really well-done to me. I will do a close reading and make comments over the next day or two, but I wanted to say the one thing I noticed is that it has many non-free, fair use images. I can see this being a FA, but this would be a problem there - the article has to meet WP:NFCC. The lead iamge is pretty standard as fair use, and I would also support one image each from the black and white 1931 edition, and one from the 1946 color edition. I am not convinced beyond that that the other images meet NFCC, though they may. The one image that seems least justified is File:TintinCongo.jpg (cover of the English black and white version) - the image is not even discussed in the article and it seems decorative.
  • The other thing I noticed off the top of my head was that the lead says in French it is Tintin au Congo, but the infobox uses a much longer French title: Les aventures de Tintin, reporter du Petit Vingtième, au Congo. Which is it?
It is Tintin au Congo, or has been since the 1940s colourised edition. Sorted. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: To get rated above B class, this will have to pass WP:GAN or WP:FAC (or an A class review). I think with some tweaks it would do well at GAN, but would need those and a copyedit to pass FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I will try to point out several places where the languiage could be polished (but this is not a complete list). In the Lead, this sentence could be tightened and an unneeded word removed (either "subsequently" or "first") Originally serialised in the Belgian children's newspaper supplement, Le Petit Vingtième between June 1930 and July 1931, it was subsequently first published in book form later that year.
  • "further edition" sounds odd (and wasn't it just a new translation into a Scandanavian language?) Hergé would later redraw and colour the work for a new edition in 1946, and then made alterations for a further edition in 1975.
  • I am not sure originally is needed here (can't something only be commissioned once?) Originally commissioned by Hergé's boss, the Abbé Norbert Wallez, ... Also would "editor" be better than "boss" here (it is more specific)
  • Problem sentence In the latter decades of the twentieth century however, the book came under criticism for its racist portrayal of the Congolese people, something due to the colonialist prejudices that existed in Belgium in the 1930s. First off, all the examples cited are early in the 2000s, so it should make clear that criticism began in the latter decades of the 20th century and continues. Second, the MOS says to use numbers for things larger than 10, so 20th century (unless it is a quote or standard name like the newspaper "Twentieth Century") - see WP:CENTURY. Third, and most importantly, I worry about the POV of "something due to the colonialist prejudices that existed in Belgium in the 1930s". I would feel better if it were even "something that reflected the colonialist prejudices found in Belgium in the 1930s" or "something that Herge said was due to the colonialist prejudices in Belgium in the 1930s" since the only statement to this effect I could find in the article is Herge's own statement.
  • The MOS says to introduce someone with their full name, then only use last name in subsequent references (unless there are two or more people with the same last name). So one "Tintinologist Michael Farr" is used, only "Farr" is needed for later uses
  • One last sentence - run on that needs to be split into at least two sentences The story would prove, like Land of the Soviets before it, to be popular amongst its Belgian readership, and as such Wallez decided to repeat the publicity stunt he had used when Soviets had come to the end of its serialisation: in July, 1931 he employed an actor (a different one to Henri de Donckers, who had been used the year before), to dress up as Tintin in colonial gear, and to appear in public in Brussels and then Liège, accompanied by ten African bearers and an assortment of exotic animals hired from a zoo. Also, "(a different one to Henri de Donckers, who had been used the year before)" is not grammatical and I am not sure why the name of the actor not employed it needed here. Perhaps it could be
    • ^ According to Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 212, the word σμύρνα (smyrna) is a dialetic form of μύρρα (myrrha).
    • just something like "(a different actor than he had hired the year before)".
    • At FAC the number of fair use images would be a problem, as would the need for a copyedit (see WP:WIAFA - criterion 1a, the need for a professional level of English, is one of the more difficult criteria to achieve.
    • Another criteria for FAs that this may run into is comprehensiveness, which might also be a WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issue. Looking at tjust the first paragraph of "Colonialism and racism", there is one sentence summarizing the criticism, followed by six sentences (most of which are direct quotations) from two "Tintinologists". I am a bit worried that a) someone difetified as a Tintinologist might not be the most neutral source, and b) reading just the TIME magazine article, there was a 2004 incident not mentioned in this article that I can find: "During a diplomatic spat in 2004, Congolese Information Minister Henri Mova Sakanyi charged the Belgian government with "racism and nostalgia for colonialism," adding, "It's Tintin in the Congo all over again."[2]
    • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
    • The disambiguation links finder tool in the toolbox on this page finds three dab links that will need to be fixed. It also finds one dead external link.

    Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

    Mothers of the Disappeared[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Hello everyone. I've worked on this article for a few months now, and I'm just about ready to nominate it at FAC (my plan is to get it up there late February/early March). I've listed this article for peer review here because, well, it's always nice to have a fresh set of eyes look over the material! I'm not too worried about content or layout; historically it is prose that is my weakest point, so any reviews/suggestions/clarifications on that aspect would be very welcome.

    Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 08:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: This looks ready for FAC to me. I made a few small punctuation changes, and here's a very short list of quibbles and suggestions.


    • "The song was written on a Spanish guitar... " - Would "for Spanish guitar" be more accurate?
    • "The lyrics contain an implicit criticism of the Reagan Administration, which backed the South American regimes who seized power during two coup d'états and caused the disappearances, and provided financial support for the military regime in El Salvador." - Tweak slightly by changing "who" to "that" and fiddling with a couple of other things for clarity? Suggestion: "The lyrics contain an implicit criticism of the Reagan Administration, which backed two South American regimes that seized power during coup d'états and which provided financial support for the military regime in El Salvador."
    • "who variously described it as "powerful",[6] "stunning beauty and sadness",[7] and "a moving tribute" - The second item in this list doesn't quite fit grammatically. Would it be better to say something like "who variously described it as "powerful",[6] "a moving tribute", and a work of "stunning beauty and sadness"[7]?

    Writing, recording and inspiration

    • "held in a concentration camp for two years by the fascist Chilean government... " - Link fascist to fascism?
    • "Producer Daniel Lanois was the principal mixer of the song. Bono described Lanois's mix as a performance, recalling that he had used the studio as an instrument to achieve the end result." - This seems a little vague. Would something like "Bono, likening the studio itself to an instrument, described Lanois's mix as a 'performance'."

    Composition and theme

    • " 'Mothers of the Disappeared' runs for 5:14." - Would it be helpful to add (5 minutes, 14 seconds) in parentheses here?
    • "At the fifty-second mark the drums play a more regular beat and The Edge's guitar enters playing accompanied by Eno's synthesizer." - Tweak slightly? Suggestion: "At the fifty-second mark the drums play a more regular beat, and The Edge's guitar, accompanied by Eno's synthesizer, enters." Also, link synthesizer?
    • On my computer screen, there's a bit of a text sandwich between the Reagan image on the left and the quote box on the right. This could be easily fixed by moving either of the images up or down five or more lines in relation to the other image.

    Live performances

    • There's a smaller (three lines or so) text sandwich in this section. The fix is the same: move the images slightly in relation to one another.
    • "At the conclusion of the song, the band members faced the Madres and applauded, an act in which the rest of the audience joined them." - You might not need the word "them" at the end of the sentence.


    • I always try to make it easy for fact-checkers at FAC to verify the image licenses. It would help them if you could change the link on the description page for File:President Ronald Reagan receives the Tower Commission Report with John Tower and Edmund Muskie.jpg so that it goes to the University of Texas page with the copyright information rather than to image itself (which tells fact-checkers nothing). You might also be able to identify the author, the date of original publication, and get rid of the tag on the license page.

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for the suggestions; I've made most of the tweaks that you proposed. Your feedback is much appreciated! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Aknights10 comments: I really appreciated this article because I really love this song! The content is great and so is the layout, however, there are a couple of inconsistencies with regards to the grammar. At various points throughout the article you say things like the people or the children "was disappeared". As opposed to saying "was disappeared" It would be better and grammatically correct to say the children disappeared. Furthermore, there is another mistake in the introduction where you use "further" incorrectly. Also, At another point you say that U2 decided to sing the refrain of the song in Spanish, however when you describe the change in the lyrics you show a transition from the Spanish lyrics to the English lyrics. Good luck with your article! --Aknights10 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


    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 nominate it for GA and feel it should be reviewed first. I usually just nominate it for GA without a review, but I feel this one was kinda slopped it together. Also, it'd be awesome if one of the reviewers would tell me where i could get some background info (hopefully enough for a section), but if not, that's fine… Thanks, CrowzRSA 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    • I thought the personnel tab was interesting and helpful. Many rap/hip hop albums contain references to other artists and it was nice to see the referenced artists in the album. --Taekyukim91 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: The basics are here, but I see quite a few prose and style problems. Sorry, I can't help add more content; I know little about rap music. Here are a few suggestions:

    • Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked. The first example of this kind of linking occurs in the second sentence of the lead, where funky is linked. Quite a few other links inside quotations appear further down in the article. They should all be removed. If any of those links are really important, it may be necessary to paraphrase rather than quote, or to link them elsewhere.
    • When citing a source for a claim, make sure that the source really supports the claim. The second sentence of the lead says, "whose production was deemed by critics as 'dense' and 'funky' ", but the source supports only "critic", not "critics". You need to say something like "whose production was deemed dense and funky by critic Jason Birchmeier".
    • The prose needs more careful copyediting in places. The first sentence repeats the word "released". The second sentence uses "produced" and "production", another repetition. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a comma after "California". The second sentence of the second paragraph does not make sense as written: "Four singles were released from the album, three of which charting in the United States (US)." These are not huge errors, but they all occur in the lead and will annoy or confuse readers.
    • In the "Composition" section, what does "specialized in gankin" mean? Should that be "ganging"?
    • I would not link common terms like "radio" and "television", which are linked in the "Commercial performance" section. I don't see a lot of overlinking, but it's probably not necessary to link terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once in the main text. For example, I would not link "Compton, California" three times, just once on first use.


    • Often the publisher is not the same as the web-site URL. In citation 2, for example, the publisher is Rolling Stone rather than "". Citation 4, which also cites Rolling Stone, is correct. For another example, the publisher for citation 6 is Technorati, I believe, rather than Blogcritics. You can often find the publisher's name at the bottom of web sites, next to the copyright information.
    • Is the Blogcritics page a reliable source? Does it meet the WP:RS guidelines? Blogs usually don't.
    • Citations, such as #7, to books should include the place of publication, if possible. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
    • When single and double quotation marks bump against each other, as they do in citation 9, they should be separated by a no-break code, explained at WP:NBSP.
    • The date of most recent access is missing from some of the citations. Examples are citations 21 through 24.


    • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
    • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for comments. CrowzRSA 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

    2009 Little League World Series[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I know the article is in bad shape but I want to know what should be done to get it to GA.

    Thanks, Spongie555 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

    Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this article. Agree it needs a lot of work, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:GAN.

    • The biggest problem the article has right now is a lack of references. In its current state it would be a quick fail at GAN.
    • 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
    • The few references that are in the article are all from Little League itself. Since the World Series is covered in many newspapers and magazines, it should not be hard to find many more Reliable sources to used - searching on Google finds lots of potential sources
    • The lead needs to be expanded so that it is 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
    • There are several images of the facilities on Commons. Here is a picture of File:Little League Volunteer Stadium 2.jpg and here is one of File:Little League World Series and Lamade Stadium.JPG. There are others on Commons here
    • The article is mostly stats - who played who and when and what was the score. I would add background to provide context for the reader and add text to explain the tables. For example, why did CHula Vista play Torrance three times in the South California Divisional?
    • The dab finder finds three disambiguation links that need to be fixed (see toolbox on this page)
    • Italic text does not follow WP:ITALIC
    • A model article is useful for ideas and exmaples to follow. There are 2 FAs on World Series 1926 World Series and 2004 World Series that may be useful as models.
    • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

    Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    2009 World Series[edit]

    Previous peer review

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Peer review #2 on this article, #1 is available here. Wizardman has been talking about finally getting this to FA quality, and I tend to agree. Twice tried in 2010 but it never quite set aflame during FAC. I believe I've dealt with every issue suggested, would love any further insight you have! Thanks, Staxringold talkcontribs 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Quick review Contridictions: doesn't, didn't, should be does not, did not unless they are in quotes

    Americanisation v British spellings e.g. Honor v Honour, don't know what you've got written but it should either be British or American spellings and not both in the aritcle.

    Note the above 2 are of the automated tips and I've done this quickly so I can't double check. But lately there seems to be a bug with it where it doesn't pay much attension to the article. E.g. It says that this article fails for it's lead, when it does not. So there maybe some work there, there may not be some work.

    • Yeah, I don't see any honour/colour/etc mixups, a clearly American event so uses American-style English. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Feel that the final paragraph in the lead could be refined or split with a fourth paragraph detailing the records. Think a bit too much priviledge on what happened in the game. (just my view point.)

    You have 2 DEAD links you need to look at as I recall in FA rules that the article must not have a dead link in it I think.

    USA today and Glee are in italics but ESPN and all the broadcasters in Broacasting sections are not. Should this be consistant either all publishers and broadcasters in Italics or not at all?

    • As I understand it print media and TV shows/movies are italicized, but I've never really seen things like ESPN, FOX, etc italicized. Easy to change if I'm wrong. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Commissioner Bud Selig explored options to include a game during daylight instead of the evening, which had been rumored to be October 31 due to the Halloween holiday. He eventually opted to move the start times of the games before 8 p.m. ET for the first time in 30 years, and also rejected suggestions to play the games at neutral sites.[51][52] The Philadelphia Eagles and New York Giants played across the street from Citizens Bank Park at Lincoln Financial Field on the day of Game 4. The National Football League moved that game's kickoff time to 1 p.m. to avoid it ending too close to the start of Game 4.[53] Similarly, Game 5 was played at Citizens Bank Park on the same day as the Philadelphia Flyers hosted the Tampa Bay Lightning at the Wachovia Center. The opening faceoff of the hockey game was scheduled for 7 p.m. but the National Hockey League moved it to 5 p.m. to avoid conflict.[54] Feel that this paragraph needs to be the second para in that section with this paragraph moving to the last para in this section

    The Phillies won the previous season's World Series against the Tampa Bay Rays for the franchise's second championship. The Yankees lost their previous World Series appearance to the Florida Marlins in 2003 and had not won since 2000 against the New York Mets. This was the fifth Series played between teams from New York and Philadelphia, and was the first Yankees–Phillies matchup since 1950.[1] The series was also the fourth consecutive time that the Phillies faced a team from the AL East in the World Series, and the Yankees had faced an NL East opponent in three of their four most recent World Series appearances.[45] This World Series has been nicknamed the "Turnpike Series", for the New Jersey Turnpike, which connects New York to Philadelphia through the state of New Jersey.[24] Major League Baseball nicknamed it the "Liberty Series", based on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia and the Statue of Liberty in New York.[46]

    • Sorry, I don't quite get what you're asking. Could you describe it with just the lead-in words of the para rather than these giant blocks of text, not really sure what order you're looking for. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll make the change of what I was trying to convay feel free to revert if you disagree. KnowIG (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    Joe West, Dana DeMuth, Gerry Davis, Brian Gorman, Jeff Nelson, and Mike Everitt served as umpires for the series. The umpires for the series were...

    That's my thoughts on what is a totally wow article. KnowIG (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Lee's pitching performance made history in several ways. Change to Following Lee's pitching perfomance he achieved the following feats:

    • Thanks for this, I'll get right on these changes. That last note seems very awkward though, those feats didn't follow his performance, they were his performance. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, just checked the link-checker, I only see 1 dead link (the ABC News link on Game 4), but I'm replacing that with a TV By the Numbers link. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Dragon Warrior[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because would like to bring this up for FAC and want to know what could be done to improve it.

    Thanks, Jinnai 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: This is not a complete review but rather an incomplete list of suggestions for improvement.

    • Although the prose is generally pretty good, it is not yet good enough for FA. I would suggest enlisting the aid of a copyeditor, preferably one with gaming experience. You might be able to find one via WP:GOCE#REQ.
    • I think the fair-use rationale for the lead image is justified but that the other images are decorative rather than necessary for a reader's understanding of the text. I doubt that any but the first will pass the WP:NFCC test at FAC.
    • At least two paragraphs, in the "Manga" section, lack sources. The "original research" tag in the "North American localization" section should also be addressed.


    • "It was then and purchase by TSR, Inc., which then published it as an alternate line to Dungeons & Dragons until 1987." - This sentence in the note does not make sense as written.
    • "Its effects on the console RPG genre have been considered to be above and beyond that of the more widely recognized, in the West, title of Final Fantasy." - Awkward construction. Suggestion: "Its effects on the console RPG genre are considered to be more important than that of Final Fantasy, which is more widely recognized in the West."
    • The claim about "above and beyond", which I suggest modifying to "more important", needs a source since it is an unusual claim.
      • Does the new rewording need a citation still? I would prefer not to per WP:LEADCITE if it doesn't.Jinnai 01:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Dragon Warrior is credited for setting the basic template for which all other RPGs use today." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Dragon Warrior is credited with establishing the basic template for all other RPGs."
    • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead url in the citations.


    • "allowing the Hero to level-up in ability and allows them" - "Hero" is singular, but "them" is plural.


    • The date formatting should be consistent throughout the citations.
      • Done.
    • Some of the citations are incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, url, date of publication, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.

    • References to books should include the place of publication as well as the publisher. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

    It is common practice and accepted that at least 1 video game image is needed for any non-text-based video game as a description cannot easily describe it. The rest, well I'd like to know your opinions as to why.
    I will check the citations, but "author" and "Date of Publication" are not required if one cannot be found.Jinnai 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Ruhrfisch comments In response to your post on the peer review talk page, I read this PR and then scanned the article. Here is what I saw on a quick look.

    • The PR points out that multiple fair-use images would be an issue at FAC and I see that it has six fair use iamges. How does each one of these meet every single criterion in WP:NFCC?
    • Looking at the Slime image, for example, I do not see any real discussion of slime in the article except for the caption and a breif statement at the end of the article that many Japanese will draw a slime that appears similar to this one. If this is meant to illustrate that, then the image should be near that text. The fair use rationale says the purpose of the image in the article is To show the original battle screen for Dragon Warrior and how it does not change the overworld map, but simply overlays it. In addition, it shows the basic menu system that is used throughout the game. but the image is not discussed in this context either.
      • The boxart, per NFCC#1 and recent RfC that 1 coverart is accepatable because the critical commentary is about the work, not the cover as decided there.
      • The battle one shows gameplay image.
      • The next two show how the game was changed from Japanese to English.
      • The last two depict the graphical changes that were made during the remakes and how they differ from both the original and each other.
      • I agree the battle image is the weakest, but image use is discussed later in development and restrictions placed on the game...although maybe I forgot that. I'll go check.Jinnai 22:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the article (still) needs a copyedit - for most articles at FAC, the most difficult FA criterion to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. Looking at the edit history it does not appear that a copyedit has been done.
      • If you spot anything please feel free to add that. Finding copyeditors for video game articles is not an easy task, although since this is a short article, it may be easier.Jinnai 22:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that the lead really follows WP:LEAD - my rule of thumb is to include every section (header) in the lead in some way, but the Plot and Characters do not really seem to be in the lead, for example.
      • I added something. The plot is VERY bare-bones and the characters few in number.Jinnai 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Some of the references are still incomplete - fro example current ref. 17 is Oleg, p. "Brief History of Japanese RPGs" There is a broken link to "Oleg". I am not sure if it is supposed to be "Oleg, P." (so the "p." should be capitalized?) or if it is "p." is that an abbreviation for "page"? If so it needs a number after the "p.". The main problem is that I do not know what "Brief History of Japanese RPGs" is - is it a book or a chapter in a book or an article from a newspaper or magazine or journal or is it a web page? Part of the purpose of refs is to provide enough information that an interested person can find the source and learn more. I could not do that based on what is here.
      • I removed that source as it appeared to be unreliable and replaced it with a quote taken from the main article that explains it in a similar manner (from the creator himself). In light of that I re-checked the other sources and cleaned up formatting issues.Jinnai 22:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

    Note this is not a complete review, but if I can find this many problems in a few minutes, the article would not do well at FAC. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    I've addressed the issues raised here, save the copyedit which I cannot do myself.Jinnai 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

    Pretty Girl Rock[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA status. Comments about improvements for the article are more than welcome.

    Thanks, Ozurbanmusic (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

    Hi, Ozurbanmusic, I'll review this article. I enjoyed my first reader through, but I'll review according the GA criteria. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    I'll use Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs as a checklist where appropriate. --Philcha (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    I think the comments I've made so far may imply changes to the structure, so please respond these. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


    • Nothing about conception (where the idea came from and by whom) before (first) production. --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Section "Composition and critical reception" has nothing about composition. If there is "Composition" info, I'd expect it early in "Background and release". --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Any variations in composition, arrangement, etc. between performances, e.g. many singers use easier versions for live than for recorded, or the album may have improvements over the single? I note Hilson gave a remixed version of "Pretty Girl Rock" on the Lopez Tonight and a Motown-themed performance for the Late Night with David Letterman, and more in section "Track listing". --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)



    • The Infobox has no citations and the info in the box is not supported by main text that has citations. --Philcha (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The Infobox says the only format is Digital download. Was there no CD / DVD of the single or the album No Boys Allowed? I note that there's a cover for the single, and there's a booklet of No Boys Allowed. If there are multiple formats, I suggest detail in the main text and summary in the Infobox. --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    (sections of the article)


    • Instead of "Sources" at the end, I suggest at the top e.g. "Album notes for No Boys Allowed (with citation):" --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Any personnel changes for other versions? --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


    Check for dead links and DAB links

    Lead (I review the lead last in case any of the main text has changed)

    Shaun Whalley[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to try and make it a Good Article and need other people's views and contributions.

    Thanks, LiamTaylor 16:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)
      • I've left my comments considering the GA criteria as reaching GA status is your aim with the article.
      • 1. Well-written:
        • Clear and concise:
          • Sometimes the language could be a little clearer, e.g. "where he grew up and he was also educated around the area" could be shortened to "where he grew up and was educated"; it's not as long-whinded and makes the same point. Keep things clear and concise.
          • "Winger" and "Striker" - these are common nouns and so do not need capitalising.
          • "non-league" - "league" needs capitalising.
          • "New Years Day" - should be "New Year's Day".
          • ""Quarter Final" - should be "quarter-final".
        • MoS:
          • The place of birth should be located in the main body of the article, rather than in the lead.
          • "In October 2010 he was called up..." - like the previous point, should be in the main body rather than the lead.
          • "Club career" - this should just be "Career" as he doesn't have an international career.
          • "1-0" - the dash needs to be replaced with an endash (–).
      • 2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
        • There are a number of claims that are unsourced, e.g. that he played in the Norwich youth team, was released by Chester in May 2005, joined Accrington November 2006. These need to be referenced by reliable sources, but they shouldn't be too hard to find.
        • The stats that are unsourced also need to be referenced.
        • Some of the references for the stats don't link to the right place; when I access "Accrington Stanley 2006/2007 player appearances" I get the 2010-11 Southampton stats.
      • 3. Broad in its coverage:
        • There is a lot of emphasis on his Hyde career (which I can understand with you being a supporter), but if the article is to reach GA status the article will need more balance.
      • 4. Neutral:
        • Some examples of bias that need removing e.g. "spectacular" and "bizarre".
      • 5. Stable:
        • No apparent problems here.
      • 6. Images:
        • Images aren't a necessity for GA status but there are two present.
    • Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Comments from BigDom talk: I haven't gone through Matty's comments so some might be duplicated

    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a concise summary of the article and include a brief conspectus of each section. Everything in the lead should generally be mentioned in the main body of the article as well (such as the FA XI squad information)
    Early life
    • Is there a source to say he was educated in Whiston?
    • Citations should come after punctuation marks, not before and not in the middle of sentences (this is a problem throughout)
    • The second sentence is very discursive - it needs splitting up and almost completely rewording. For example "played football a lot" is not very encyclopaedic.
    Early career
    • This section needs expanding; there's only the same amount written about the first six years of his career than there is about his five months at Hyde. Also, why do the latest two clubs have their own subsections, while this bit is all grouped together?
    • The first sentence of paragraph 2 has been almost directly copied from ref [6]
    • Ref [7] doesn't support the appearances and goals information contained in the preceding sentence
    • Ref [10] is a broken link
    • "where he made nine appearences at the end of their season scoring 4 goals" - inconsistent use of numbers as words and figures (should be four not 4)
    • Could note that the Conference is the level below the Football League for readers unfamiliar with English football - GAs should be accessible to everyone.
    • "he scored his third and fourth goals of the month as he scored two" - the second half of that sentence is redundant; it is clear from the first half that he scored two
    • Need to include some details about his loan at Southport in 2009. One short line to say that it happened isn't enough
    • "hopefulls" is spelled wrong
    • Starting a sentence with "Then on" is poor English
    • Ref 22 has no mention of the number of league appearances for Droylsden, also "appearences" is a typo
    • Source for the Manchester Senior Cup win?
    • Ref [33] says nothing about speculation from the fans or an approach from Southport. Either source the info or remove it.
    • Do you need two references for the same match? ([29] and [30])
    • The writing is generally OK in this section
    • The references are formatted inconsistently, e.g. some have Hyde FC, others have and the rest are Some don't have a publisher at all. It doesn't really matter which format you choose as long as you stick with it.
    • "He would make" - poor grammar, wrong tense. Change it to "He made"
    • Captial S in "saturday"
    • "the 29th January" --> "29 January"
    • Remove "He made his debut" from the start of the next sentence (it has already been said that he made his debut in the line before)
    • That sentence also has the word "Southport" in it three times, it gets a bit repetitive
    Style of play
    • "Striker" and "Winger" should not have capital letters
    • The interviews are not reliable sources unless you provide information about when they took place, who the publishers or interviewers were, etc. Otherwise, they cannot be verified - we don't know whether or not Scott McNiven said that he was "quick"
    • "skillfull" should only have one "l" at the end
    • Reference titles need to be consistent - some have the score with hyphens, others with en-dashes.
    • The date formats aren't consistent either
    • The last ref (Soccerbase, [56]) doesn't go exactly where you want (this might be because Soccerbase has changed recently)
    • In the references, year ranges should have an en-dash e.g. 2004–2005 not 2004/2005. Should also be consistent regarding the "20" in the second year (compare 2005/06 and 2007/2008 for example)
    • Is there a definitive source for his place of birth? The article says Whiston, but Soccerbase says Prescot (although I think they are very close)

    Quite a few things to sort out before considering GA status, but most of the points above are minor and shouldn't take long to rectify. Good luck, BigDom talk 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    Reaction Engines Skylon[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently gone through a major revamp and the editors on this article are interested in getting some feedback.

    Thanks,   Novus  Orator  12:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting, and I hope the project succeeds. Most of my comments below have to do with prose or Manual of Style issues, although a few deal with other issues.


    • Spell out as well as abbreviate HOTOL?


    • "In aerospace, Skylon is a design by the British company, Reaction Engines Limited, for an unpiloted, airbreathing single-stage to orbit, combined cycle jet engine based spaceplane." - Too many adjectives in front of "spaceplane". Suggestion: "Skylon is a design by the British company, Reaction Engines Limited, for an unpiloted spaceplane. It uses a combined-cycle, air-breathing jet engine to reach orbit in a single stage."
    • "are hoped to be below the current costs of launch" - Would it be helpful to include some numbers here? How much are those costs?
    • "including the costs of R&D" - Spell out R&D on first use; i.e., "including the costs of research and development (R&D)?
    • Spell out as well as abbreviate LOX on first use?
    • "Some research and development work is on the engines is proceeding under a small ESA grant." - Doesn't make sense as


    • Spell out as well as abbreviate ESA?
    • "RES has submitted a proposal to the British Government" - What does RES refer to? If you mean REL (for Reaction Engines Limited), the abbreviation should be given in parentheses as "Reaction Engines Limited (REL)" in the first sentence of the lead so that the abbreviation later makes sense by itself.

    Structure of the fuselage

    • WP:MOSBOLD generally advises against using bolding in the main text. For emphasis, italics is generally preferred. This advice against bolding would apply to C2 in this section and also to Skylon in the caption in the next section, to Skylon 2 in "Payload bay". For those, I'd recommend plain text.
    • "The propellant is intended to be kept at low pressure to minimise weight... " - This seems wrong to me. The total weight of the propellant needed would be a constant, wouldn't it? It could be fitted into a large container at low pressure or a small container at high pressure, but its mass (weight) would be the same in either case.

    SABRE engines

    • "One of the significant features of the Skylon design is the engine, called SABRE." - Spell out and abbreviate as Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine (SABRE) on first use in the text?
    • "26 km altitude" - Convert to imperial also; i.e., 26 kilometres (16 mi)?
    • "The air is then burnt much like in a conventional jet." - Maybe "used for combustion" would be more clear than "burnt"? Readers are probably used to thinking of the fuel as "burnt" rather than the oxidant.
    • "Because the engine uses the atmosphere as reaction mass at low altitude, it would have a high specific impulse (around 2800 seconds), and burns about one fifth of the propellant that would have been required by a conventional rocket." - Would it be better to stick to present tense throughout when discussing the Skylon? This particular sentence mixes present tense ("uses") with conditional verb forms ("would have"), instead of matching "has" to "uses".

    Payload bay

    • "The payload bay of the Skylon C2 design is a cylinder 12.3 metres long and 4.6 metres in diameter" - Imperial conversions? Ditto for other measures in this section.

    Current project status

    • "under an ESA grant of one million Euro" - Write as 1 million with a link?
    • Do you mean REL instead of RES?

    Research and development programme

    • "They required heat exchangers far more advanced than what was available at the start of the project; having proved their design to be technologically feasible,[9] the greatest engineering challenge has been solved." - Sourcing claims like this to the manufacturer is a questionable practice since the claims are self-serving. Can you find a source with no apparent conflict of interest? WP:COI has details.
    • "The former UK Minister for Science and Innovation in 2009, Lord Drayson, commented on Skylon in a speech: "This is an example of a British company developing world-beating technology with exciting consequences for the future of space." - WP:MOSQUOTE suggests using the blockquote for quotations of four lines or more. This one is only one line. To make the appearance less choppy, I'd suggest turning the quotation into a regular in-text quote and merging the short paragraph and quote with the larger paragraph above it.


    • Nothing should be double-bolded. Perhaps italics would be better if you want to include links (which add bolding automatically). For example, Wingspan would become Wingspan. If you use italics for Wingspan and some of the others, you should use italics for all.


    • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent.


    • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

    Australian Film Institute Award for Best Film[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a lot of changes to it and I would like to know what else I need to add. Thank you in advance, DonEd (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

    Ruhrfisch comments: thanks for your work on this article - here are some suggestions for improvement, assuming you will eventually want to try this at WP:FLC.

    • The disambig links finder in the Toolbox (upper right corner of this peer review page) finds several disambiguation links that will need to be fixed.
    • The external links tool finds one external link that is problematic and also needs to be fixed.
    • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film is a FL and seems like it would be a useful model.
    • I see the model article uses color, but also specifies in the intro that bold is used and that the first listing each year is the winner. This uses color and bold to indicate winners - I would make sure this is consistent with WP:ACCESS Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information.
    • I am also not sure the article's use of bold text follows WP:ITALIC, although it does follow the model FL
    • I really don't understand this sentence: The nominees from 1958 to 1976 are not available.[3] Does this mean they did not announce the nominees then, only the winners? Or does it mean that the source cited does not have the nominees in it? I assume if they were publicized at the time, then old newspapers or magazines would list the nominees, for example (and libraries generally have these).
    • I also do not understand why two winners are listed for the first two years, but only one winner since then - need to make this clearer
    • The article does not use links consistently - in the first part everything is linked even if it is a red link. However, in more recent years, there are several unlinked names.
    • List articles do not start with "This is a list of..." or "This page lists..."
    • The model article puts all the entries into one table, and does not break them up by decades
    • Article uses "it's" where "its" is meant
    • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

    Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a lot of work into it and I'd like to see it reach Good Article or Featured article status. Please point out where the article needs improvement, some tips for doing so, citations that are required and I will source them and complete the article.

    Thanks, Biatch (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: Ballarat is certainly interesting, and this article looks promising. However, it will need a good deal of work to bring it up to GA standards. This is not a complete line-by-line review, but here are several suggestions for further improvement:

    Claims, sourcing

    • My rule of thumb for meeting WP:V is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every direct quotation, every set of statistics, and every unusual claim. Many paragraphs in the existing article include no inline citations to sources. Claims such as "Greater Ballarat also has some semi-rural suburbs of 2-acre (8,100 m2) to 20-acre (81,000 m2) blocks within 15 minutes of the CBD that are very popular with families which include Miners Rest and Bunkers Hill" are not common knowledge and should be backed up by reliable sources. Other examples of statistics needing sources appear in the "Demographics" section. These are only examples, not a complete list.  Done have removed the claim stated

    Sections and subsections

    • To keep articles from looking choppy, it's a good idea to merge or expand extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections and subsections. This article has an awful lot of short subsections and one-sentence orphan paragraphs, at least some of which could be merged to good effect.


    • I added a second colon to the file names on File:Ballarat montage.png so that the linked file names would appear without the images. I used to have trouble with this until another editor showed me the work-around, which is to add a colon before the word "File".
    • The license page for the montage has other problems, as indicated by the tag. I've never done a montage, so I scrambled around a bit this morning to find an example of how a featured article uses and licenses a montage. If I were doing a montage, I'd think about organizing the information in the same way as File:NYC Montage 12 by Jleon.jpg. I would also upload the montage to the Commons. There's a bit of a learning curve associated with Commons uploads, but adding free-use (not fair-use) images there makes them more widely available to Wikipedia projects.
    • MOS#IMAGES advises against displacing heads, subheads, and edit buttons with images, overlapping section boundaries with images, and creating text sandwiches between images on the opposite sides of the page. The existing article has all of these layout problems, which can usually be solved by moving images to different locations and by making sections big enough to accommodate the images. Sometimes, though, a section or subsection simply has too many images.


    • Many of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 5 is a bare url, as are many other citations in the article. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found. I like using the "cite" family of templates to help me organize my citations. You can find these at WP:CIT. (Don't mix them with the Citation family, also found at WP:CIT.) Since citation 84, for example, uses "cite web", and is complete, you could simply imitate its form. The template family includes "cite book", "cite journal" and so on, each with its own parameters.

    Heads and subheads

    • Rather than repeating "Ballarat", which is part of the article title, it's better to recast heads and subheads per WP:MOSHEAD. Something like "Since 1990" would be preferred to "Contemporary Ballarat".  Done


    • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find 13 dead urls in the citations and 4 links in the main text that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.  Done

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

    Kylie Minogue singles discography[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I am preparing this article for the FL process. Besides the lead, I want a portion of the review to be focused on the accuracy of the chart positions. Some IP edits slip under the radar and they stay as is.

    Thanks, I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    Note: The peer review cannot begin while the Underconstruction banner is in place. Please advise here when the major article construction is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    There was not much editing in the last few days so I removed the banner. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments:

    • You need to fix the dead links in refs 26 and 27
    • The lead section needs to be subdivided. It's 1000+ words and six paragraphs at present. I would suggest a relatively short lead with two prose sections, possibly dividing at the end of what is now the third paragraph - or possibly after the fourth.
    • Per MOS guidelines I would use numerics for values over 10, e.g. "51", "28" etc. That would be consistent with "68 million".
    • "Due to the single's success..." → "Following the single's success..."
    • "They would create..." is the wrong tense here; simple past: "They created...", or connect to previous sentence: "where they created...." Look for other wrong uses of "would"
    • "in the beginning" → "at the beginning..."
    • "herself" not "her self"
    • "4 singles" should be "four" per MOS
    • "of the United Kingdom" → "in the United Kingdom"
    • "to completely miss": apart from the ugly split infinitive, the word "completely" is redundant.
    • "reached the terms stated in her recording contract": is this an overcomplicated way of saying she completed her contract?
    • "She decided not to renew it, and a Greatest Hits was released." Replace "and" with "after which"
    • Fourth paragraph: another redundant "completely"
    • "All of the singles ... did not peak..." Very clumsy. "None of the singles ... peaked..."
    • "2000's Light Years is not incorrect, though inelegant. Light Years, in 2000,..." better
    • "...peaked at number two and gave Minogue her first number one album in Australia." Where did it peak at no. 2?
    • "stayed within the bounds of..." is unnecessarily verbose. Just "achieved" will do
    • "Still" is too imprecise for a WP article. "As of February 2011..."
    • She "garnered"? Wrong word, "garner" means "to store away".
    • "included" and "include" in close repetition in the final paragraph
    • I think "greatest hits" should have quotes
    • The term "spawned" is used three or four times. It's an unattractive term and I think strictly once only, if at all.

    The charts themselves look excellent. I can't vouch for their accuracy, of course, but it looks as though you've done your homework here. As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, please use my talkpage if you have any queries arising from this review, or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

     Done, except
    • I don't know where to make up the links for the refs that were dead. I'll find a way, I always do.
    • Due to the typical format of discographies, I'm not sure if I want to divide the lead.
    • We at WP:Kylie are still in debate on which charts should be used, so not all of them are locked down and verified yet. But they will be before the article attempts WP:FA.
    Thank you so much for your help. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Clijsters–Henin rivalry[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because 2 months ago almost this page was almost deleted as it was just the table. I saved it by adding prose. And following Justine's sad retirement I've finished it off. I want to get to a GA or FA or more suitabley FL at this rate. So I want feedback. I know about 98/99 not being written as I can find a ref for it. I am also missing another couple of refs, so apart from that what else is needed

    Thanks, KnowIG (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments:-

    General points
    • You need to make a decision about whether this is a list or an article. Either way, the lead section of 858 words in six paragraphs is too long. I would suggest a fairly short summary lead, followed by a main prose section documenting the rivalry, then the tables.
    • I have no idea what terms like "Tier 1", "Premier Mandatory" etc mean. The article should be aimed at the general reader, so such tennis-related terms must be explained.
    • With nine different colours employed, I think the main table may be somewhat over-presented. Attention is drawn away from the actual information. Do we really need all these match categories? Personally I'd have made a simple division: Grand slams and the rest.
    • In the short "Breakdown of the rivalry" section you can delete the "Year-End Championships finals" line (no matches), and the "Fed Cup matches" detail as being rather obvious. Maybe the information in this section would look neater, and more visible, if it was summarised in a short table rather than in a bullet-pointed list.
    Prose points

    Almost too many to list. These are from the first two paragraphs, and I've made some minor fixes myself:-

    • Why write out "twenty-five"? WP convention, except in special circumstances, is numeric representation for values over 10. Incidentally, your head-to-head colour key box seems to show 26 matches.
    • " a grand slam tournament." → "in grand slam tournaments." Linkk needed for "grand slam"; I don't think "tennis" needs one, though.
    • "3 sets" → "three sets"
    • Not "this brought" after a comma. Suggest: " three sets, to make their head-to-head..." etc
    • " The Belgians..." You haven't previously specified that they are Belgians, and should do so in the first line. Then find a different term, e.g. "The pair...", "The two..." when referring to them collectively.
    • "grand slam" or "Grand Slam"? Consistency needed
    • "Henin leads 5–3 in Grand Slam play including winning all their final match ups" needs rephrasing. I wouldn't use "match ups" which is slangy and unencyclopedic. Perhaps: "Henin leads 5–3 in Grand Slam tournaments, including wins in each of their x finals pairings".
    • "They first met in 1998. 2001 was a historic year for the pair". Follow up their 1998 meeting with some detail or wording before moving to 2001. Also, describing the year as "historic" sounds like editorial opinion, so the comment should be cited or cut.
    • Link "Indian Wells"
    • "At the French Open the tournament witnessed Clijsters and Henin facing off..." Verbose; just: "At the French Open Clijsters and Henin faced off..."
    • We don't want "create history" and "created history" in successive sentences
    • "Just two weeks later..." Don't use "just": "Two weeks later...". And remove the "though" later in the same sentence

    I've not gone beyond the second [paragraph, but a quick glance down indicates further problems. Henin becomes "Henin-Hardenne" without explanation; "the World Number One was at stake" meaning the World No. 1 ranking; lots of superfluous "justs"; unexplained tennis terms such as "straight sets" etc. Although I have not read these later paragraphs thoroughly, much of the prose seems to be providing match details that are given in the table. A lot of this could be cut out altogether.

    I suggest that you work on the prose and other points, and let me know when you would like me to take another look.Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Digital forensics[edit]

    Previous peer review

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I wrote this article almost entirely from scratch in Aug/Sept last year. It was Peer Reviewed in September and promoted to GA status in November 2010. Since then I have extensively expanded and massaged the content in a push towards getting it read for FA review. Although I still have items on the to do list it would be nice to get yet another review of the content and insights into how to improve readability, coverage and so on.

    Thanks, Errant (chat!) 15:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    A few comments by North8000 - NOT A REAL REVIEW[edit]

    These thoughts came to mind after a first read:

    • "Haphazard" in the lead sounds negative / judgmental. Use a different word or phrase?
    • The overview/uses of material is focused on law enforcement. Skips one big certain field which is government intelligence. (of course, much harder to source, but at least mention it) Are hacking and corporate espionage also fields?
    • "Where's the beef?" There's no section in there that describes the actual process. Even the linked article "digital forensic process" barely did that. Maybe give a few nuts and bolts examples. Undeleting hard drive material, accessing normally inaccessable data on a portable device.

    Hope these help a bit. Feel free to ignore. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for the comments. Some useful ideas there, particularly "Where's the beef". digital forensic process is a work in progress but you are right, there should be some of that content in the article. Government intelligence... I could make mention of intelligence gathering, that is pretty common even in LE - government level *shrug* who knows what they get up to :) Are hacking and corporate espionage also fields; no. They are the sort of crimes DF would be used to investigate, but they aren't fields. --Errant (chat!) 10:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked hard on fluorine, so I think it can't have its previous quality rank anymore; I believe, it's now worth more than C. But I mustn't decide on my own-- I'm opening a peer review in order to re-rank this Top-importance C (like Iron at some point) and improve further; I hope to make it a FA at some point; everyone's welcome to check that against A-class (my current target) and B-class (my plan B) criteria; I'll be there to point your views and do the further work.

    So, in short, I want to:

    • re-rate it as an A-class
    • (if possible) bring to the condition of a FA to make it a possible FAC;
    • if first two failed, then just to make it a B and get things that are needed to improve it further.

    I guess, that's it. Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

    I don't have much time now, but I will come back to give more details. Here are a few tips for now:

    • Britannica is a very bad reference. For example, you said in the lead that: To date, it is the only chemical element not to be oxidized to form any positive ion by other chemicals.[1] which is wrong (helium and neon?)
      I agree that the use of Britannica should be avoided for claims such as this. Chemistry information should be sourced to chemistry publications, not to general-purpose encyclopedias. Similarly, facts which may change over time should not be sourced to publications which are updated on a timescale of years (if at all). The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is an excellent source for this sort of thing which is published annually. Most good libraries will have a copy of it in their reference section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    It doesn't even say so. I don't know/remember why I linked this with it (must be a mistake). I suggest no link. Would that be fine, if other 1-17 groups are not in need to explain they can be oxidized to a positive, and all the noble gases are explained in Noble gas compounds section (Kr, Xe and Rn have at least difluorides with Wikipedia articles, there are also HHeF, HArF and even NeF given serious references)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • physical could contain boiling/melting points, and be a bit more expanded to contain some more information about the atomic properties: ionization energy, anionic radius (smallest)
     Done --R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • isotopes: talk a bit about 19F NMR (frequency and sensitivity)
    • history: 1906 was the second Nobel yes? it is probably worth noting that
    It was the sixth Nobel Prize in Chemistry and the first one for him. Why is it worth nothing? It's worth, I think, to be mentioned.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • production: might be interesting to talk a bit about fluorides, or other commercially important compounds (as F2 is really rarely used)
    • compounds: put it as a separate section after characteristics one and merge it with the Ng one
     Done by some else; I did check that, I think, it's really done. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

    GREAT work with the article! Keep it up! Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

     Done by ebe123; I checked all, made just 1 fix and it's excellent!-Ebe123 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by stone[edit]

    • Lead
    *Citing sources is only necessary for highly controversial issues, here only for water fluoridation.
    • Britannica as tertiary source should be avoided better sources are books.

    Done the first one. In case of Britannica, removed only from lead and any serious (disputable) statements, but left on minor issues books don't probably talk about. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Chemical
    *Difference to chlorine it forms more covalent bonds to hydrogen
    *noble gas compounds are mentioned twice while the salts and the coordination compounds of fluoride are not mentioned.

    Ng comps mentioned once, but about salts something appeared, something about H-F bond.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Occurrence
    • mineral fluorite, which is widespread the phosphate,fluoride minerals are also very common . Is there a possibility of mentioning how the fluorite deposits are formed. Is fluoride a incompatible element in the Goldschmidt classification?

    I've written something about minerals mining; something was added about minerals themselves. Why is Goldschmidt classification needed? It's not used widespread anyway or anything.--R8R Gtrs, temporarily out of account83.237.97.84 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

    • organofluorine compounds are rare are there others than fluoroacetate and fluoroethanol?
    • History
      The teflon story has to be told.
      The Freon story has to be told discovery of Freon
    Do you really think so? Article is big now; further enlargement could be bad, especially with that teflon and freon tell about that properly.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    Yes! Everybody encountered the two and it is similar in importance to the Manhattan project.
    I added a few sentences on Teflon and Freon.
    • Production
    • Here the weight given to the chemical routes is much to large. Both sections are the same length they should be 1:1000.Best would be to move the chemical routes to chemistry of fluorine or fluorine compounds.
    Why? It spans over a little space but is very notable.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    The section has the same length than the section about electrolysis and this is wrong proportion. Expanding the electrolysis section might help. The chemical synthesis is better suited in the chemistry section, because this production was done once and has no significance beyond curiosity.--Stone (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The industrial production reads like I can do it at home on my kitchen desk. There a little more text about the exact way to get it would be nice. The chlorine article is a little bit more descriptive.
    • Is the gas stored and transported in liquid or under pressure? at the end
    • Compounds
    • To talk in length about strength of an acid and not using pKa is strange.
     Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Inorganic compounds
    • Why is calcium fluoride preeminant in occurrence?
    • Why is calcium fluoride so much less soluble than the chloride.
    • The First row periodic table elements behave a lot different than the later row elements and this has to be stated somewhere in the article.

    Latter two things are already in the article, in Chemical--R8R Gtrs, temporarily out of account83.237.97.84 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Organofluorine compounds
    • strength of many fluorinated acids there a pKa of two corresponding acids would help.
    One acid removed, but another one given as an example. It's readable, check that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Applications
    • The use of fluorite in steel production might be the largest application.
    • The production of synthetic cryolite is an other important one.
    • The perfluoroctyl derivatives used for anti stick applications
    • (The holocaust memorial in Berlin is coated with perfluorocoating to prevent vandalism )

    The last one's interesting but probably shouldn't appear, just because of article's enormous size. The third one isn't important. Not widespread, I mean, not even close to that (that worth maybe nothing, but I haven't found a single ref saying perfluoroctyl derivatives used for anti-stick applications). The second one actually was in the article, but I've expanded a bit. The first is the only one still to be added.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not sure it's now actually necessary. You may be tired of that, but the article's big and, which is more important, those sections explain the subject properly.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Sources

    :Why is The Wooden Periodic Table. a credible source?

    Holleman needs page numbers
    Why a credible source?
    Why is Scorecard a credible source?

    The first one removed several days after renewal; the third and fourth are also gone; without a book, I can't type pages for Holleman...--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    The article is now much better, but it has some way to go. Thanks for your work on the article! I like it to see that somebody attacks the problem of the low quality article from the upper right corner of the PSE. --Stone (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

    I work on the upgrade. --Stone (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

    Use of fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in assessing the process of tuberculous spondylitis has to be expanded.

    Expanded a bit. Does anyone think now it's alright?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    Second round from stone[edit]

    • Characteristics Physical
    • Not all numbers and paragraphs have a source.
    Slowly the number of unreferenced paragraphs drop.-- Stone (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
     Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Inorganic compounds
    • No source given for the whole paragraph.
    • Organofluorine compounds
    • No source given for the two paragraphs.
    • Elemental fluorine
    • microelectromechanical systems needs source
    • Fluorine containing compounds
    • potassium fluoride, and sodium hexafluoroaluminate anti-reflective coatings for mirrors needs source
    • Uses of isotopes of fluorine
      One point why uranium hexafluoride can be enriched is that (238-U)(19-F)6 can be separated from (235-U)(19-F)6
      While the in the hypothetical case of (238-U)(18-F)5(19-F)1 has the same mass than (235-U)(19-F)2(19-F)4. The monoisotopicity of fluorine makes it an ideal partner for all enrichments processes based on compounds.
     Done. Also, something about fluorine-18 positron emission tomography.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Fluorine containing compounds
    The applications section should explicitly state what are large applications and what are the minor ones.
    • The use of fluorite in steel production might be the largest application.
    The production or occurrence section could be expanded with the main sources for the fluorine and fluoride used. I recommend the book:

    there should be a check if all sources are credible. --Stone (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Other talks[edit]

    • The chemical production section should probably discuss XeF2 as a "F2"-source for chemical purposes. Nergaal (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Fluorine is now an A-class article. Does anyone want to nominate it for WP:GAN or WP:FAC? —Terrence and Phillip 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Not until the issues listed here are fixed. Nergaal (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    Not too early? It's still in process of being written. At the point we'll finish on it, it'll get stable and just very good, someone definitely should nominate it for WP:FAC, but not on GAN, since an A should look for FA, not GA. It'll take some serious work even through more than a half is now done.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Actually in WP:ELEM we kind of decided some time ago that A<GA (just because there is not real review process); A's are usally GA-worthy that need copyedits and a second editor's check (usually the GAN reviewer). Nergaal (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    I think for me the Peer reviewing is over and done! I like the article, but for sure it needs some polishing in language and copy editing. One point I will never get is to kill all items on the endless Manual of Style list. For me we should first get it to GAN and after some work by the chemical elements project we will try a FAC. --Stone (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you for your reviews and work, these were very helpful! If anyone can add something on minor things, similar to those discussed on a recent californium peer review, please, add them! I, however, still hope to bring it directly to FAC without GAN (similar to californium, but without a comparison, since californium wasn't edited so heavily), but, at least, I'd better try to reach high that so not (even through GAN does make some sense).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

    RJHall Comments: Over all it looks pretty good, although, per Stone above, I agree that some of the text needs polishing. Here's a few comments that I hope will be useful:

    • "The free element, never found in nature..." I'm not sure this is true. It probably exists in the ISM[3] and as cations in stars and planetary nebulae.[4]
    • Right there is the Stinkspat from Bavaria, which also contains F2.--Stone (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "dental caries" should be wikilinked.
    • "Fluorine has only one naturally-occurring isotope, fluorine-19..." I think this is not quite true. Fluorine-18 is believed to be created in novae explosions.[5], [6] p. 19., [7]
    • There are a number of occurrences of ", and" (with a redundant comma), many of which would work just as well with just an "and".
    • Some of the images use Image: rather than File: and a few also need alt= text per WP:ALT.
    • The references section will need some work. For example:
      • The format of names in the references section is very inconsistent. There is, for example, "Jarry, Roger L.; Miller, Henry C.", which is okay. But there is also "Olivares M and Uauy R", "Lidin P.A., Molochko V.A.,", "Lewars,, Errol G.", "Ken Croswell" and "H. Moissan". These are likely to be flagged during the FAC, so best to take care of them now.
      • I believe that the use of Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference is frowned upon.
      • Could you find a better reference than ""?
      • The "NuDat 2.1 database - fluorine-18" ref. has a citation needed flag.
      • "A recent discussion of world fluorite production and export" needs a better citation format, as does "Discovery of fluorine",, &c.
      • You looked before I was able to start the doi-bot, sorry.--21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Does every link in the "External links" section conform to WP:EXT?

    Thanks and good luck with the article.—RJH (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

    International Federation of Business and Professional Women[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some help with making it less like an "advertisement"

    Thanks, Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments: As the banner at the top of the article indicates, this article is not presently in a form which complies with Wikipedia's neutrality perspective. I am sure that BPW International is a suitable subject for a WP article, but it needs substantial amendemnt. In its present form it is not really suitable for peer review, which is intended for articles in a relatively advanced stage of their development; however, here are a few suggestions for improving it.

    • Develop the History section. For an organisation with an 80-year history, these few lines are quite inadequate - they hardly take us beyond the foundation year.
    • Give us more profile information about the organisation. Is it still based in Geneva? Where does it get its income from: members? grants? other sources? What is its approximate annual budget? Does it have a management structure... etc, etc.
    • What sort of activities does the organisation currently promote> Give specific examples of recent high-profile events.
    • What kinds of difficulties and negativism has the organisation had to overcome to establish itself as a viable international federation? How is it viewed today, in the business world? Have business journals, press or other magazines carried articles about it? Does it publish any magazine of its own?
    • Ensure that all the information that you provide is cited to a rliable source. Primary sources such as the federation's own literature should be used with care; OK for aims and objectives and entirely factual information, but not for any commentary.

    I hope these points serve to show you ways in which the article might develop. As a fairly occasional WP editor you might wish to avail yourself of some of the "How to..." stuff that Wikipedia provides. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Moseley Rugby Football Club[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've been slowly improving this this article over the last couple of years, but would appreciate some comments about it. I suspect its fairly biased and heavily weighted to the last 10 years but any comment would be appreciated

    Thanks, Dunk the Lunk (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

    Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement. I assume you eventually want to get this to Good or even Featured article status, so I will make comments accordingly.

    • The disambiguation link finder (toolbox in the upper right corner of this page) finds a few dab links that will need to be fixed.
    • The biggest problem I see with the article right now is that there are quite a few places that need references. For example all of the records broken in the The Bournbrook Era - Crisis and Final Rescue section need refs, and unless I am mistaken and missed a ref, I did not see a single reference in the Club honours section or any of the sections following it, i.e. Current Standings, Teams, Transfers In 10-11, Transfers Out 10-11, Notable former players or Sam Doble. The lack of refs would be a quick fail at GAN or FAC.
    • Wherever possible, try to use references that are to third-party reliable sources that are independent of the club.
    • I would also spell out MSA in the references.
    • 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.
    • The lead can be up to 4 paragraphs long (depending on the article length) but this lead is only one paragraph. I would expand the lead to two or three paragraphs - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way so there seems to be a lot of room for expansion of the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
    • The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even short sections. I would either combine these with others or perhaps expand them to improve the flow of the article. As one example, the Building for the Future section is only two sentences (and has no refs).
    • I agree that the article has some problems with WP:Recentism - this is also a WP:WEIGHT issue. Could there be an article on the team in the new Billesley Common and just a summary of the seasons here?
    • The article also has some pretty serious gaps in its coverage of the history of the team. Comprehensiveness is a FA criterion, and GAs have to cover the major points, but the article has major holes in hisotry - 25 years pass between the Olympics and next mention in History, then 30 years (1935 to 1965). There is more on the 2007/2008 season (and 2008/2009 and definitely 2009/2010) than there is on the 50 plus years in the Golden years section.
    • Headers need to follow WP:Head - do not repeat the title of a header in a subheader, so under Seasons as a header, the subheaders do not need to repeat the word "season" (2007/2008 season could just be 2007/2008)
    • File:MOSELEY IMAGE.png is almost certainly copyrighted by the club and not by the uploader - I assume this needs a better license (probably under WP:FAIR USE)
    • Make sure to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR, As two examples, I owuld explain how they could play one game and still win a silver medal in Paris in 1900 (Germany lost its one match too), and When league rugby commenced, the team was placed in the Courage National Division 1, the top division at the time. needs to give the year this happened. If you are a fan of the club you almost certainly know this, but if you come the article ignorant of these details, the article does not do as much as it could to inform the reader.
    • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

    Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    The Ruins of Gorlan[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this article a GA or A class. Things I want done

    • I want a grammar and punctuation check.
    • I also want a full read over.
    • Do whatever you can to make this article better.

    Thanks, UserDarkJak495 talk orange 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments: I think you need to go to this WP page and study some of the book articles that have made it to GA. That will give you a better idea of what the requirements are for a book Good Article - though even here, some are much better than others. Meanwhile, here are a few comments on the article as it stands now:-

    Lead: The lead is too short, and needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article.

    Concept and development
    • "...decided to write them into a full-length novel." The verb "write" sounds wrong; perhaps "write them up..."?
    • "Horace disappears" What does this mean? Disappears magically, whooosh! or merely disappears from the stories?
    • "on the boar hunt" → "on a boar hunt".
    • "rehabilitate" does not need to be in quotes
    • "which was not in the original stories and was later incorporated into the novel." The "and" conjunction is wrong here. A possible rephrasing would be: "which, although not in the original stories, was later incorporated into the novel."
    • "He planned this parallel storyline in Battleschool to develop and show how Horace could help Will through his 'linear thinking'". I don't know what this means. What is "Battleschool", and what is meant by "linear thinking"?
    • "Flanagan was careful to make the distinction that Horace was not stupid..." No "distinction" there. Possibly "careful to make it clear that..."
    • "Will" needs to properly identified in the plot summary. Likewise "Sir Rodney" and "the Baron"
    • I am confused by this plot summary. In the Concept and development section the relationship between Will and Horace seems central to the story, yet the plot summary does not mention Horace.
    Further points
    • Book articles, particularly those at GA or above, tend to have "Character" sections in which the main characters in the novel are briefly discussed
    • The Critcal reception section should be considerably expanded, and should be placed before the Audiobook information which is of minor importance. Phrases like "People consider..." should be avoided.
    • Apart from how the critics received the book, what was the publlc's reaction ,as expressed for example in sales figures?
    • Referencing does not look strong, and attention is needed to formats.

    Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Treaty of Narva[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because… I am trying to determine which countries military was involved. It already has the Polish Military in WikiProject Military History. I feel the Russian Military and other countries that were involved should be mentioned even though the geography has since changed. Even the assessment would be up for discusion. Any other feedback such as other WikiProject Country Templates, etc would be appreciated.

    Thanks, Adamdaley (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

    Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is typically for articles that are looking to go to WP:GAN or WP:FAC. I am not an expert in this history (and must admit although I knew about Augustus the Strong, I had never heard of this treaty). Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

    • The lead and article body both metion Augustus the Strong and the Saxon electorate, but neither the infobox nor the categories mention Saxony or the Saxon Electorate. Shouldn't they?
    • The next thing I would say is to look at the sources used in the article - what do they say about the treaty and the parties and militaries involved? Follow their lead, since Wikipedia is based on verifiable information from reliable sources
    • I would also ask the good people of the Military History WikiProject to take a look at this - there will be people there who know more about this than I do and who can give better specific advice.
    • Another idea is to look at a model article as a source of ideas and examples to follow. There is one FA on a treaty - Treaty of Devol - which seems like it owuld be a good model article for this one.
    • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the terms and consequences do not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
    • I think that the images of the treaty itself (linked in the article as an EL) are free under US copyright law (as the treaty is old enough to be PD and photos of 2-dimensional PD works are free). Would it be possible to put an image of either the first or perhaps the last page of the treaty in this article?
    • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

    Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    List of Fulham F.C. players[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because after extensive work to bring it up to scratch, I think it could be close to being considered for FL. I would appreciate comments for improvement, particularly on prose and referencing. Thanks, 03md 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments:

    • The article title is misleading. Not until the "Players" section is it made clear that this is a list of players with 100 or more appearances. This should be clarified either by altering the title or by extending the hatnote. See, for example, List of Manchester United F.C. players.
    • It says "Since playing their first competitive match, more than 800 players have made an appearance in a competitive match, of which 166 have made at least 100 appearances (including subsitute appearances). All players who have reached this milestone are listed below. I will add to the hatnote though.
    • Odd rough prose:-
      • "...Fulham St Andrew's Church Sunday School F.C., before shortening it to Fulham F.C. in 1888." ungrammatical, try: "Fulham St Andrew's Church Sunday School F.C., shortened to Fulham F.C. in 1888."
    • Done.
      • "They played their first match as a professional football club..." → "They played their first professional match..."
    • Done.
      • "The club also competed in the Southern Football League until 1907..." The "also" is unncessary; perhaps "The club competed in the Southern Football League between 18.. and 1907".
    • Done.
      • "more than ten years in the top flight" - perhaps make that "seasons"
    • Done.
      • "Since playing their first competitive match, more than 800 players have made an appearance in a competitive match.." Ungrammatical. "Since the club's first competitive match, more than..."
    • Done.
      • "Fulham's all time record appearance maker..." Very clumsy phrasing. Perhaps "The record number of appearances is held by..."
    • Done.
      • In the next sentence, "the only player other than Haynes" should be "the only other player".
    • Done.
    • What information is the link on "test matches" directing me to? I have never heard this term used in connection with Association Football.
    • Removed as redundant.
    • The default order of the table is debut season, but I reckon most people who consult this list will have a player in mind. I know the MUFC list previously referred to organises in season order, but I think that was a mistake and that a stronger case could be made for alphabetical organisation by players' surnames. I am aware, too, that a click on the symbol in the column heading will produce the alphabetical list, but not all your readers will know this.
    • I appreciate your comment but that is the point - when I constructed the list I did it alphabetically but have spent a great deal of time altering the format to chronological. I would prefer to put a note about this rather than change it back. The same thing will apply with the other Fulham and Man United lists that I have worked on (I had no involvement in the main United list). 03md 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • There should not be empty cells (except in notes or ref columns) If for example a player's position is not known, write "unknown"
    • Done. I realise some of the pre-war positions need to be altered though.
    • Tosh Chamberlain? I can't believe that was his real name. If his first name is not known, then at least put the "Tosh" in quotes.
    • Done - I found out his real name is Trevor Chamberlain. 03md 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Those are my comments. I hope you found them helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thomas Beecham[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I have listed this article for peer review because this article is currently a GA and would be glad of other editors' comments to get this to FAC level. Thomas Beecham was not only a major musical influence in Britain, but he also founded several famous orchestras there and conducted international orchestras. I believe he deserves one of the the best articles possible.

    Thank you, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comments from Arctic Night

    • Lead
    • "staging... his own hand-picked orchestra and a wide range of repertoire." - not sure if this is grammatically correct.
    • "He was known for his wit, and many "Beecham stories" are still told nearly fifty years after his death." - I'm not a fan of one-sentence paragraphs in leads - plus, this article has too many lead paragraphs for my liking.
    Lead has been rewritten. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Biography
    • "He did not find university life to his taste..." - a little colloquial, don't you think?
    • "...a youthful team... They included names..." - I don't think 'they' is correct here.
    • The first paragraph of the 'Bedford Estate' section needs to be sourced. The FAC reviewers will slap you if it's not.
    • I'm not a fan of splitting the 'London Philharmonic' section into sections like that.
    The London Philharmonic's subsections have been merged back into one section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "he married Utica Celestina Welles, daughter of Dr Charles S. Welles, of New York, and his wife Ella Celeste, née Miles" - this is a little confusing, who was Ella Celeste the wife of?

    I'll keep going with my peer review later on :) Arctic Night 10:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


    Previous peer review

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if there is a possibility that this article will be a featured article someday. What do I need to do.

    Thanks, Diego Grez (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: I enjoyed reading about Pichilemu. However, to reach FA, the article still needs a good deal of work. It is generally well-written but is not comprehensive and not does not comply with Manual of Style guidelines in places. The article's organization could also be improved. Here are specific suggestions:


    • The quotation from José Toribio Medina is a bit long and probably includes unnecessary detail. Would it be better to paraphrase it than to quote it at length?
    • "by President José Manuel Balmaceda in 1887.[11][10][12]" - By convention, when a series of citation numbers appear together like this, they should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [10][11][12]. Ditto for any other similar strings of citations in the article.


    • Featured articles about cities and towns generally include something about the geology of the surrounding region. It would be appropriate, for example, to add something about tectonic plate movements and the earthquakes. What is the geologic history of the region, and why is it earthquake prone?

    Government and politics

    • "he was elected in 2008 with 42.08 percent of the vote" - Round to "42 percent"?
    • The chronology of this section is a bit confusing. Would it help to maintain chronological order? You might move two sentences ("Between 2007 and 2009, Pichilemu had seven mayors,[52][53] after Jorge Vargas González was removed from the office for commiting the crime of bribery;[53][54] he was mayor for over 10 years, from 1997[55][56][57] to 2007.[53] Vargas was succeeded by Victor Rojas, who was later accused of the same crime and eventually removed from the office too.") up to just after "Pichilemu is governed by the mayor (alcalde), who manages the executive function." Then could come the sentences about Marcelo Cabrera. After that could come the council's election of Roberto Córdova and then the listing of the council members. Also, I think you need to make a more clear distinction between election by popular vote and election by the council. It was only in the first sense, if I understand correctly, that the "last elected mayor was Marcelo Cabrera".

    Culture and economy

    • "Dr. Aureliano Oyarzún investigated pre-Ceramic middens... " - The Manual of Style suggests avoiding academic titles like "Dr." and instead using a brief description, something like "Archeologist Aureliano Oyarzún" or "Aureliano Oyarzún, professor of X at Y University", or whatever the case may be.
    • Would it be better to move the ancient culture material to the "History" section?
    • Could something be added about more recent culture? Art, music, theater, dance, religion, festivals or celebrations?
    • Can anything about economics be quantified? What is the annual per capita income? How much money do tourists bring in? What fraction of the local economy depends on tourism?

    National Monuments

    • The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections because they make for a choppy article. This section has four one-sentence orphan paragraphs. I'd find ways to merge all of them with each other or with other paragraphs. Expansion of shorties is another possibility, if more material is available on any particular subject. This same suggestion applies to orphans elsewhere in the article, the last sentence of "Culture and economy", for example.

    Ross Park and Hotel

    • WP:MOSQUOTE suggests using block quotes for quotations of four lines or more, and it deprecates the use of fancy quotation marks. The Jaime Parra quotation is a little short for a block quote but might be OK, or you could simply add it to the main text in regular quotation marks. The block quotes don't need quotation marks.

    Railroad history

    • I would consider moving the railroad history subsection to the "History" section and merging all of the remaining subsections of "National Monuments" to make one large section. I think this would result in a less choppy, crowded layout.
    • "357 kilometres (222 mi) of railway lines were constructed... " - Sentences should not begin with digits. You can write the numbers as words or recast to avoid the problem; e.g., "In the O'Higgins Region, 357 kilometres (222 mi) of railway lines were constructed... ".

    Important places

    • Might this better be called "Tourist attractions"? Could it be merged with "Beaches" and "Surfing"? Or could "Beaches" and "Surfing" be merged under one subhead under "Tourist attractions"?


    • The Fodor's quote is too short for a blockquote.

    Important dates

    • I'd suggest working these into the text of the "Culture" section and eliminating the table. Perhaps it would also be best to separate "Economy" from "Culture" as the latter gets bigger and to expand "Economy" as well. Perhaps "Tourist attractions" could become a subsection of "Economy" since tourism is the main economic force in the city.


    • Most featured articles about towns and cities include information about transportation. What highways connect Pichilemu to other places? Is there a local airport? Is there a bus line? Are the remaining railway lines in the area used for anything? How do people typically get about?
    • A map showing the relation of the O'Higgins region to the rest of Chile would be helpful to foreign readers.
    • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find three dead links in the citations and three links in the main text that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
    • Captions consisting solely of sentence fragments do not take a terminal period. I fixed the caption for the lead image, but some of the others need fixing too.


    • To prepare for FA, you'll need to make sure that the image licenses are correct and that the descriptions are complete. Just spot-checking, I see that the link to the source of File:Agustín Ross crop.jpg is dead. It needs to be repaired or replaced so that fact-checkers can easily verify the license claims. The "own photos" are relatively easy to describe and license correctly, but the others can be difficult, especially if someone else uploaded them with incomplete data.

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    Rita Bennett[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now complete and needs reviews/opinions on the overall article. I want to see it promoted to GA status. If any part of the article needs work, reviews are welcome.

    Thanks, HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: This is a good start but has problems that will need to be addressed before the article could be considered ready for WP:GAN. My three main concerns have to do with basic information that's missing from the plot summary, possible original research in the "Literature" section, and the fair-use claim for the lead image. I also have concerns about prose and Manual of Style issues. Here are my suggestions:

    • Although book, film, and series titles (like Dexter) take italics, the individual episode titles should appear in quotation marks rather than italics. For example, "The Getaway" in the lead should be changed to "The Getaway". Ditto for all other names of individual episodes throughout the article.
    I changed all the episode titles in the prose.  Done


    • "Dexter proposes to her in 'All in the Family', which she accepts" - "and" instead of "which"?
    Changed to and  Done
    • "Benz described the death scene as "very poetic". E! writer Kristin Dos Santos called the ending "horrifying", and said of Rita, "This death just might go down as one of the most shocking deaths ever on television." - Direct quotations, even in the lead and even if sourced in the main text, need in-line citations.
    Citations added to match the quotes  Done


    • "so Dexter drives his body back to Paul's hotel and frames him for drug abuse" - Link "frame" to frame-up?
    I linked frame to frameup  Done
    • Someone who has never seen any episodes of the show will not be able to follow parts of the plot summary because it includes mention of characters who are not explained in any way. (See the following four comments for specifics.) You can probably fix these by adding a brief description, something like "X, Y's mistress" or "A, B's brother", or "Z, whom Q met in a bar".
    Reviewed the prose and added character tidbits to give the reader a better understanding.  Done
    • "while still trying to evade Doakes' constant surveillance" - Who is Doakes?
    Added "while still trying to evade his suspicious superior Sgt. Doakes' constant surveillance"  Done
    • "but she is still hesitant to forgive him, as Lila retaliates by pursuing Angel" - Who is Angel?
    as Lila retaliates by pursuing Dexter's co-worker and friend, Angel Batista.  Done
    • "Dexter is forced to lie about running away with Lila in front of Debra" - Who is Debra?
    This was covered earlier, but I mentioned sister in the sentence.  Done
    • "Debra decides to skip her flight to Oregon with Lundy" - Who is Lundy?
    Added "Debra decides to skip her flight to Oregon with her boyfriend, Frank Lundy to help with finding the children.  Done
    • WP:MOSQUOTE deprecates fancy quotes like those used in the quote box in this subsection. To delete them, you can just remove them from the template. Ditto for the quote box in the "Death" section.


    • The only cited source for this section supports few of the claims even though the placement of the in-line citations might suggest otherwise. This makes it appear that much of the section represents original research (WP:NOR) and that it therefore does not meet WP:V.
    Sources added to comply with Wiki's verifiability policy  Done

    • "So far there are a total of five books... " - Rather than using a vague term like "so far", it's better to be specific by saying something like "As of 2011, there are a total of five books... ".
    Worded to "As of 2011, there are a total of five books... ".  Done

    Conception and casting

    • "Benz had been a "disgustingly huge"[38] fan of Michael C. Hall from his role in Six Feet Under and she said in an interview with Vanity Fair that "I was such a fan of his from Six Feet Under, to the point where my cell-phone ring was the show’s theme song. I had to change it once I got cast!". - Trim to eliminate repetition?
    Trimmed  Done

    Critical reception

    • "opinionating that “There were a couple of forced moments in "Popping Cherry", most notably the drug dealer who came to Rita's house, in broad daylight, demanding money for her ex-husband's debts; it was all a bit over the top and cliché. On the other hand, it was interesting to note Dexter's inaction in that scene, making one wonder if perhaps he fears that any public display of physical defense, even for Rita, might result in him going too far and revealing what he is." - This quote is long enough to look better as a blockquote, explained at WP:MOSQUOTE. Also, "opinionating" is not a real word. Using the more straightforward, "saying" or "adding" (in this case), would be fine.
    Done  Done

    • "Jarett Wieselman of the New York Post has said "Rita always felt like the light in that dark show", she states that "In the beginning Rita was the vessel through which the audience could love Dexter." - Not a complete sentence. Do you need a terminal period after "show"? Is Jarrett a "she"?
    Fixed.  Done
    • "Claire Zulkey said that the twist ending was intense, and the teleplay was woven with feature several moments that had led him to suspect different conclusions." - "Expect" rather than "suspect"?
    Changed  Done


    • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent.


    • These are both nice images. However, I don't think the fair-use rationale for the lead image is justified because the second image is free and serves the same purpose. I would suggest deleting the fair-use image and replacing it with the free one. Please see WP:NFCC, especially part 1, which begins: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
    This is the only part I disagree on.
    Hello, thanks for reviewing the article, I should just mention however, that a picture of Julie Benz and a picture of Julie Benz in character does not count as the same image type. Meaning that the picture of Julie is not interchangeable with the print-screen and therefore there is no salvageable free equivalent. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Gery Chico[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it failed its first GAN, and I would like to take it back to GAN soon. But before I do so, I'd like to have an unbiased editor to review all aspects of this article, especially its neutrality, since I have a declared conflict of interest, as discussed on the first GAN.

    Thanks, Geread (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

    Doing... Here are some ideas on how to improve the article:

    • The first paragraph of the lead, and particularly the very first sentence, should focus on that which makes Chico notable. Why should we care about his mixed heritage if we don't even know who this guy is?
    • "Gery also did chores at the church rectory where his mom worked as cook, and also worked at his dad's printing business and gas station" Avoid using "also" multiple times in a single sentence.
    • "A political science major, he volunteered in the 11th Ward." What is the 11th Ward? Perhaps this phrase would be recognizable to locals, but I have no idea what it refers to.
    • What is an "externship"?
    • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, such as the one at the end of Legal career. These paragraphs should either be merged into existing paragraphs or expanded.
    • The article would benefit from an image or two. Since Chico served on the Chicago Park District board, I would think images of Chicago parks (and schools) would be appropriate for inclusion.

    I won't be watching this page, but feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you need clarification. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

    List of Burger King ad programs[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I need to make it a featured list and have never worked on one. I need help.

    Thanks, Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 04:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


    Not really a full review, but a few questions and comments:-

    • The abbreviation "ad" is informal; should it be in the title?
    • Is it accurate to describe slogans as "programs"?
    • The lead section needs to be developed if it is to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD
    • The slogans list is described as a "partial history". Does this mean "incomplete list"? Is it intended to complete the list? Are the missing dates part of the incompleteness? Can it be assumed that other lists are considered "complete"?
    • Unless I am misunderstanding something, the references in the slogans list don't seem to cover all the detail in the list. Are there uncited sources?
    • Media tie-ins: Again, I am puzzled by the referencing. Some items have several references, others have none.
    • Ref 10 is not formatted. Ref 11 is incompletely formatted. I have not carried out an extensive references check.
    • The toobox on the right reveals three dead links.

    Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Allot to answer to, so I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

    • Ad and its plural ads, to my knowledge, are abbreviations that are widely used in the United States.
    • Slogans are part of programs, I hope to work to attach the slogans to the advertising agencies and ads they accompanied
    • The lead does stink, doesn't it? I'll work on that.
    • The very earliest ad programs from the 50's are not present because the company was local to Florida up to that point and there are very few sources available online.
    • The archived slogan page from Burger King is actually pretty comprehensive, but it is only up to 2006 or so.
    • I have been working to cite all of the tie-ins, which is taking a very long time because of the large expanse of the list. You can see where I've stopped - that is where the citations basically stop.
    • Some of the bare references were put in place by others. I am again working on those.
    • I haven't had the chance to work on the dead links, again very long time to get all of the references for all of the bullet points.

    Besides the cites and lead, what else do you believe needs improvement? --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Elaborate on Media tie-ins section
    • Slogans are just long lists - possibly add more context
    • Add links to particular ads if available

    jc3881 (talk) Pscrosta (talk)

    Stevie Ray Vaughan[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now complete and needs reviews/opinions on the overall article, like what details should be kept or left out, and how the sections should be titled. If any part of the article needs work, reviews are welcome.

    Thanks, Alanbarrybush (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

    GreatOrangePumpkin comments (forget my "period after quotation mark"-comments)

    hello Alanbarrybush. You should revise the article several, as there are several details in prose, MOS and other stuff.

    • was one of the most influential American guitarists of the late 20th century The article should not begin like this. I suggest: was an American [[blues]]-[[guitar]]ist...
    • He became the leading musician of the newly popular blues rock sound with a series of network television appearances and charting albums the two words newly popular should be deleted; sounds for me like it is not written in a natural point of view
    • His energized interpretations of blues music and style made him hugely popular another POV sentence - delete it
    • After three years without a new album, he returned to the studio, which led to the release of In Step in 1989. you said three years, but later wrote the same at the end (in 1989)
    • The single "Crossfire," released in July 1989, was a number one hit remove comma after Crossfire, and rewrite it like this: The album produces the single "Crossfire" in July 1989, which became a number one hit
    • He died suddenly in a helicopter accident afterward, crashing into a nearby ski slope I would link to ski slope
    Early years
    • where classmates remember him walking the halls and playing air guitar. I think it is a nonrelevant trivia sentence and must be avoid.
    • At age six, he started his addiction to alcohol when he went into his father's liquor cabinet and made himself a drink at the age of six; also very odd for an encyclopedia
    • I could go on; for example He received a guitar of his own for his birthday, a toy from Sears made out of Masonite. and with five refs!
    • playing it so many times that his father often smashed the record to pieces delete it please
    • Vaughan, who never received formal guitar lessons or learned to read music, studied and played by ear no ref?

    (I skip the whole Career sections)

    • Omniflight, the helicopter's owner, was sued by Martha and Jimmie Vaughan for being negligent in allowing the unqualified pilot, Jeff Brown, to fly a helicopter and taking off in dense fog what is omniflight?
    • Vaughan's first guitar was a toy from Sears with a Western motif, given to him for his seventh birthday already mentioned above
    • In 1963, he received his first electric guitar was a Gibson ES-125T, a hand-me-down from Jimmie. remove "was" and reword it, and what is a "hand-me-down"; who is Jimmi, e.g. write the full name.
    • In 1974, Vaughan acquired a battered 1963 Fender Stratocaster from Ray Hennig's Heart of Texas Music in Austin, which became his favorite guitar ever since, and gave the guitar names like "Number One" and "First Wife." why not just "his favourite guitar since"; "First Wife." -> "First Wife".
    • As his career progressed, he played a variety of electric guitars, predominantly Fender Stratocasters. no ref?
    • He also played the drum kit, though not often; his drumming can be heard on "Empty Arms" from the Soul to Soul album. ref where you found this information.
    • In 1991, Texas governor Ann Richards proclaimed October 3, Vaughan's birthday, to be "Stevie Ray Vaughan Day." period after quotes!
    • period after quotes
    • His album sales in the US stand at 11.5 million units. here's the source
    • Family Style, released shortly after his death, and his best-selling, non-Double Trouble studio album at over a million shipments in the US, won the 1991 Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Blues Album. odd sentence construction.
    • In 2003, Rolling Stone ranked him seventh of the "100 Greatest Guitar Players of All Time." He was posthumously inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame in 2000. no refs
    • I won't even start to review all the one-sentence-parameter-references and I suggest you to write it more lucid. The first two books in the "Bibliography" section haven't any ISBN.

    And I suggest you to request the article for a copy-edit here, as I see some issues in the prose. But good job anyway. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Okay so I did several edits to the article, correcting those that you mentioned, and anything else that might have needed revising. I appreciate the help. Anything else I should do or recommended? I want to get this article perfect so it can be featured; it deserves to be featured.--User:AlanbarrybushTalk 05:27, 9 February 2011

    • A quick look at WP:LEAD suggests some edits as well: there is no need for that many references (see Wikipedia:Lead#Citations), esp. if this is ever to be a Good or Featured article. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


    Previous peer review

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because…from a Wikiproject Dorset point of view it ought to be one of the best articles. It was once a featured article and although that might be a tall order, I would like to do what I can to improve it. Thanking you in advance for your attention and comments--Ykraps (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments

    • The link in ref 20 appears to be broken. I cannot access the page.
    • The most immediate area for attention is references. Throughout the article there are paragraphs that end without a citation, which gives the impression that many statements are unsourced. The "Education" section carries an "unreferenced" banner because it has no refs at all.
    • There are several citations in the lead. It would be better if these facts were cited when they occur in the main text; the lead should be a broad summary of the article, and should contain nothing that is not contained within the main text.
    • In the list of citations, formats should be consistent. For example, the retrieval dates in 1 and 2 are differently formatted.
    • Arkell, listed in the "references", is not a cited source and should be listed as "Further reading". Likewise Davies, Dwyer, Perkins, Pitt-Rivers and Taylor. Encyclopædia Britannica and West are websites and should be formatted in the same style as the other online sources, though I don't see any citations to these, either. The impression is given that the article has been amended, but that the sources have not been updated.
    Prose issues

    I have not carried out a detailed prose check, but from a quick reading it doesn't look too bad. Here are a few points:-

    • There is a tendency towards too many very short paragraphs; see in particular "Economy and industry". The "Culture" section has a single line paragraph.
    • Awkward phrasing: just a few examples from early on:-
      • "The county town has been Dorchester since at least 1305, situated in the south of the county."
      • "Dorset's high chalk hills have provided a location for defensive settlements for millennia, there are Neolithic and Bronze Age burial mounds on almost every chalk hill in the county, and a number of Iron Age hill forts, the most famous being Maiden Castle, constructed around 600BC." Everlasting sentence needs splitting and repunctuating. There is a general tendency towards overlong sentences.
      • "Dorset was fortified with the construction of..." Should be "by" not "with"
      • "The climate of Dorset has warm summers..." Climates don't "have"
    • Although tourism is mentioned in the Economy section, one would have expected to see something about the development of tourism as an industry in the History section.

    These look generally Ok, but File:Abbotsbury, Dorset - Tithe Barn.jpg lacks source information and name of author. Not clear that the author was the uploader, and why is the "last version" date earlier than the "first version" date?

    These are all areas to work on. I would also recommend a full copyedit and prose check. There is no reason why this should not become featured again, though GA might be a useful interim stp. As you have a limited and very recent edit history with this article it may be appropriate for you to work with other active recent editors, although the principal contributor seems long gone, at least as far as this article is concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I will copy your comments to the article's talk page in case other editors feel inclined to contribute.--Ykraps (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Jerry West[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I have been making some modifications and I think that this is almost at FA-level. However, I know there are a few things that need some nitpicking, but with how much I've tweaked the article any tiny issues I'll probably end up not seeing.

    Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

    Comments from Jappalang

    Early life

    • "West was born as the fifth of six children of his mother ..."
      "Born" is repetitious (considering the preceding sentence) and "mother" is redundant; just "West was the fifth of six children of ..." and so forth will do.
    • "... to his storage shed."
      The neighbour's or West's?
    • "West spent years shooting baskets from every possible angle, ignoring mud in the backyard, his mother's lashes when he came home hours late for dinner, and playing with gloves when the ground was covered with snow."
      The sentence structure seems incorrect... "ignoring mud ..., his mother's lashes ..., and playing with gloves ..."? He ignores "playing with gloves"? This sentence should be rephrased.
    • "West spent his childhood days hunting, fishing, and playing basketball so often that the NBA acknowledged it as "obsessive"."
      Does "obssessive" pertain to hunting and fishing as well? If it is restricted to basketball, it stands to reason that the obsession should be integrated with the previous sentence and the other two activities cast as extras.

    High school

    • "West attended East Bank, West Virginia, High School from 1952–56."
      Is that the actual name of the school? Would it not be more appropriate to say "a high school in East Bank, West Virginia, ..."? Later sentences just state "East Bank High School".
    • "... due to his lack of height. However, Shaver emphasized the importance of conditioning and defense ..."
      Drop "however"; it is inappropriate, considering that Shaver's lessons are not contradictory to West's benching for lack of height.
    • "He was named All-State from 1953–56, ... when he was named West Virginia Player of the Year, ..."
      Should that not be "named to (the) All-State" or such? Also note the repetitive "named".
    • "... in a season, averaging 32.2 points per game."
      "... in a season with an average of 32.2 points per game."
    • "... to hit high-pressure baskets."
      I do not think a layman would understand a "high-pressure basket". I suggest "... to score while under pressure from opposing defence."

    West Virginia Mountaineers

    • "More than 60 universities showed interest in West, ..."
      The previous sentence never talked of graduation. It would be incredulous to assume he played in East Bank until 1999. Work his graduation into the beginning of this section.
    • "... West Virginia University, located in Morgantown, West Virginia."
      Considering that he stayed in West Virginia, attended a high school in the state, and about to attend a University named after the state, stating Morgantown is in West Virginia seems quite redundant to me.
    • "... member of the WVU freshman squad which won that achieved a flawless 17–0 record (all wins, no losses) ..."
      Furthermore, "WVU" should be appended to the full name, which should be mentioned first, per WP:MOS#Abbreviations.
    • I am not certain here, but would commas not serve to delimit the awards rather than semi-colons?
    • "The Mountaineers went 26–2 that year, ending the season with an 89–84 loss to ..."
      Why is the score for the loss reported here? It serves nothing in my view and could prove confusing to a layman when a win-loss statistic is set in the preceding clause.
    • "The next season 1958–59 was even more successful."
      To whom? The team or West?
    • "He tied the NCAA five-game tournament record ..."
      What is the NCAA?
    • "He was named also Further awards were All-American ..." (to break the repetitiveness of "name")
    • "Later, he was named to be a member of the U.S. Pan American Games basketball team which won the gold medal."
      "He was also picked to be a member of the U.S. Pan American Games basketball team, which won the gold medal."
    • "As a testament to his toughness, West once had his nose broken against Kentucky. Despite intense pain and only being capable of breathing though his mouth, he scored 19 second-half points and led WVU to an upset win over the Kentucky Wildcats."
      The first sentence makes it seem he broke his nose to show himself as tough...
      "West demonstrated his tenacity to the game in a match against the Kentucky Wildcats; an incident in the game broke his nose, but he continued playing despite intense pain and having to breath through his mouth. He scored 19 points in the second-half, leading WVU to an upset victory."
    • "In West's his final collegiate season ..."
    • "a call-up to the All-American selection, and being voted Southern Conference MVP"
    • "West's best performance was a 40-point, 16-rebound game against Virginia, in which he grabbed 16 rebounds and scored 40 points."
    • "... he scored ... fifteen 30-point games."
      That does not seem quite right to me (score a game?).
    • "In his career, West totaled 2,309 points and 1,240 rebounds."
      Does this include his play in the NBA, or is this about his stint as a school player (which in this case, would it be for high school and university or just the latter)?
    • "West currently holds 12 WVU all-time records."
      Generally, scoring records are easily broken; this would have to be cast for preciseness (WP:PRECISE).
    • "... co-captained the U.S. men's basketball team at the 1960 Summer Olympics which and won the gold medal."

    "Mr. Inside" and "Mr. Outside"

    • "West then made himself available for the 1960 NBA Draft, ..."
      This does not seem right, considering the Draft article states "A player who had finished his four-year college eligibility was eligible for selection. If a player left college early, he would not be eligible for selection until his college class graduated." West's graduation does not seem to be up for him to decide (although he can disqualify himself from the draft).
    • "... and was drafted with the 2nd overall pick by the Los Angeles Lakers, which were a relocated franchise in 1960. West became ... California)."
      "... and was chosen by the Los Angeles Lakers as the 2nd overall pick." sounds better? Furthermore, I see no point in talking about Laker's relocation here (hence, dropping the entire bit in my suggestion). There seems to be no relation about the move with West in any form.
    • "... with his vertical jump—he could reach up to16 inches above the rim when he went up jumped—and his work ethic, ..." (the "with his" seem redundant)
    • "West won Schaus's trust ..."
      This sentence, particularly with its placement in this section, makes it seem Schaus never trusted West at WVU. Is that the case?
    • "West won Schaus's trust and, alternating with Hundley, Selvy, and Leonard, played 35 minutes per game and established himself as the Lakers' second scoring option."
      Break this sentence up. There are too many "and"s in there.
    • "These performances soon earned ..."
      "Soon" is redundant.
    • "... to put away the Detroit Pistons;"
      "Put away" is informal speech, inappropriate for an encyclopaedic article. Furthermore, the semi-colon should be a comma.
    • "... but then lost to were later defeated by the St. Louis Hawks in seven games, losing the final game 105–103." (eliminate the lost-losing repetitiveness)
    • "... the Lakers could only make had limited use of Baylor, ..." (eliminate POV and repetitiveness of "could only")
    • "... and could play only 48 games."
      Was this a rule by the US Army, or was it because he had time only to play these number of games? This should be clarified and if the latter, I suggest simply rephrasing it to a separate sentence: "He played 48 games for the season."
    • "... a handle which that stuck with West ..."
    • "... hit several clutch baskets ..."
      What are "clutch baskets"?
    • "The 1962 NBA finals would serve as the beginning of started the greatest rivalry in NBA history." (cut down the fluff, note also the missing period)
      The "greatest rivalry in NBA history" should be in quotes (at least "greatest rivalry" should be); is the phrase in the source (unable to check as current system is prohibited from accessing sports sites).
    • "Again, the Lakers reached the finals, and again, they battled faced the Celtics." (over dramatic)
    • "... Baylor and the Lakers fell back 3–2; then they succumbed in Game 6 in front of their home crowd with a 112–109 loss."
      "... the Lakers were trailing three victories to two after the first five games. They lost the next game and thus the finals at home with a score of 112 to 109."
    • "As the game ended, veteran Celtics playmaker Bob Cousy threw the ball high into the rafters of the L.A. Sports Arena."
      I fail to see the relevance of this to an article about West.
    • "In the following 1963–64 NBA season, West for the first time became the Lakers' scoring leader, outscored the rest of his teammates for the first time; his 28.7 points per game eclipsing was more than the 25.4 by Baylor, who stated that he suffered from knee problems." (eliminate POV-ish term and noun plus -ing structure)

    Leader of the Lakers

    • "... West averaged a career-high of 31.0 points, only which was later surpassed by perennial scoring champion Wilt Chamberlain." (eliminate POV-ish terms)
      Based on Chamberlain's mention, is this a team record? If yes, it should be clarified. If not, then why should Chamberlain be mentioned (since it implies someone else scored higher than West at that time)?
    • It is a bit disconcerting to read "L.A." when it is "Lakers" previously and elsewhere (and we are used to the use of team names instead of city). The same for Baltimore Bullets.
    • "... spectacularly took over Baylor's leader role as team leader, as he scored scoring 49 points and willed the shocked inspiring the Lakers to the win." (POV)
    • "The Bullets took their two home games, despite West scoring 44 and 48 points respectively, ..."
      Ignoring the noun plus -ing structure in the second clause; this makes it seem the team depended entirely on West to score... that is quite POV-ish.
    • "... a figure that is still an NBA record."
      Scoring records can be broken; best be precise as stated earlier.
    • "... the Celtics easily beat the ... which Boston easily won ..." (POV)
    • "... West scored 45 points, but Boston still won ..."
      I fail to see the contradiction that implies West's 45 points should be a victory for the Lakers.
    • "West missed 14 of 15 shots and could not prevent yet another Celtics win."
      Again... I am not that certain the entire destiny of the Lakers's team of more than 10 players soley depended on one guy.
    • "... whose size and speed created serious mismatch problems for the Lakers."
      "Mismatch problems" is not really clear; might I suggest instead "... whose combination of size and speed could not be effectively countered by the Lakers."
    • "... willed themselves back to a close 95–93 ..."
      This sentence, particularly the use of "willed", makes it seem that all they had to do was to think hard and the scoreboard changed to 95–93... Oxford dictionary: "chiefly formal literary intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen:"
    • "The following 1966–67 NBA season saw ..."
      I think it was Andy Walsh or Ling.Nut who said that years (non-living objects) cannot see and should not be subjected to anthropomorphosis, which I agree with.
    • "... Butch Van Breda Kolff took over; under his reign, ..."
      The semi-colon seems to be misused here. It should be a separate sentence.
    • "The 52 wins were accumulated despite West playing only ..."
      I think there is a serious POV-ish tone (casting West as the sole instrument of victory for the Lakers) by this point in the article.
    • "But West, who had scored 38 points in a Game 4 win, had sprained his ankle and ... an injured West scored 35 points, but Boston won by three points."
      As above...

    Arrival of Wilt Chamberlain

    • Wilt Chamberlain is already linked earlier, unless that mention (link) is to be removed.
    • "... with Van Breda Kolff. Van Breda Kolff ..."
    • "... West privately complained to Bill Russell of exhaustion, ..."
      Why would he do that? Were they buddies off the court?
    • "... lost the game 108–106 despite a triple-double 42 points, ..."
      POV-ish casting
    • "West incredibly connected, ..." (POV)
    • "... the Lakers resigned Gail Goodrich, ..."
      I think "resigned" is not the proper verb here.[8]
    • "... West himself injured his knee and was out for the season; ..."
      "... the team's next casualty was West, who was out for the season from a knee injury; ..." Baylor's injury was the team's loss, not West's.
    • "... championship-bound Milwaukee Bucks. The Milwaukee Bucks featured ..."

    Late success and twilight years

    • What does "had a season for the ages" mean?
    • "West himself contributed with 25.8 points and leading the league with a career-high 9.7 assists per game, was named All-Star, All-NBA and All-Defense First Teamer and voted 1972 All-Star Game MVP."
      This can be broken into simpler sentences.
    • "... the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a four game sweep, and then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks, and defeated them in six games."?
    • "Although West suffered a terrible shooting slump during Games 1 and 2, the Lakers tied the series at one win each, ..."
      I do not see what is contradictory between Lakers' performance with West's own.
    • "In this game, he now had scored 4,002 playoff points, which set an all-time NBA record."
      By the end of this game, he had scored a total of 4,002 playoff points in his career—an all-time NBA record."
    • "... due to a superb performance by Wilt Chamberlain, ..." (his game, not the person)
    • "... and he won the game and their first-ever NBA title."
      West scored the last point (won the game)? "Their" can be construed to refer only to Chamberlain-West.
    • "Now having vanquished this long-time bane, ..."
      This seems a bit over-dramatic...
    • "... and despite Chamberlain scoring 23 points and grabbing 21 rebounds, ..."
      Now it is Chamberlain's turn?

    Coaching and managing career

    • "... he led the Lakers of with their star center and former rival Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ..."?
    • " credits ..."
      Should there be a ".com"? Should it not be just NBA?
    • With that much acrimony between him and Cooke when he left the Lakers, how did he ended up hired in the establishment?
    • "... laid down the fundaments of foundation for the Lakers three-peat ..."
    • "West's Memphis stint with the Grizzlies was not as spectacular as his Los Angeles stint the one he had with the Lakers, ..."
    • "... a franchise which that was about to be sold ..."
    • "West himself won his second ..." (redundant)
    • "... to Chris Wallace, from Buckhannon, West Virginia."
      I am not entirely certain why Wallace's origin has to be stated.


    • "West ended his career ..."
      Playing career?

    Player profile

    • "However, contemporaries ..."
      Drop "however": I do not think the views of West's fellow players at that time contradict with the previous comments of his abilities.

    Personal life

    • "... they got divorced." (redundant)
      Suggestion: "West married his college sweetheart Martha Jane Kane in 1960. They divorced in 1976."
    • "Jerry married his current wife Karen in 1978."
      "West married Karen Bua in 1978."[9] More encyclopaedic without problems of precision.
    • The Tweety Bird mention seem repetitive of the ones made earlier in "Mr. Inside" and "Mr. Outside". Maybe they should be joined together in one of the sections instead of split among the two.
    • Some parts start to read like a list of quotes.

    NBA statistics

    • I think the statistics should be cited like any other section.

    See also

    • The list seem overly long and "assists" and "steals" does not seem to fit in with West (I do not recall the article state that he had a highest assist, steal or such).


    • Images are fine.

    External links

    • and are already linked in the Infobox. Why are they here again? This would be over-promoting the links.

    I always think of basketball, football, and such to be team games (the contributions of defenders who do not score highly should not be overlooked, and so-called main scorers are not always the highest scorers); please forgive me if I am quite irked to see players touted as the sole "saviours" in their biographies. I think a neutral (NPOV) article should not take such a stance (unless it is widely acknowledged the performance of a team solely depended on that player for that game). Otherwise, the article seems fine and mighty comprehensive for a basketball player. Note that I have not checked the article against the sources or the sources themselves. Jappalang (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for the review. I'll look over everything and make changes over the next week or so. After re-reading the article it does seem a bit POV. As for the issue of individual vs. team, since basketball is only 5-on-5, individuals are more significant in that sport than, say, baseball or either football. Having said that I will try to tone those parts down. I also found a new bio on him written last year that seems to have some new information, particularly on the early life stuff, so I'll be doing some rewriting from that anyway. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    The Veronicas discography[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded the article and updated the tables and sources. I would like to know what else I need to add to the page as I want to make this a featured article. Thanks in advance, DonEd (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    Peer review[edit]

    Started by–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    1. You probably want to aim for a Featured List (FL) rather than a Featured Article.
    2. Check existing [[Category:FL-Class_Discography_articles]], especially recently assessed ones.
    3. Did you use the Toolbox? Check them all: it'll save time later.

    Note: unless otherwise indicated, maintain existing formatting &/or wikilinkage.

    1. Use unbreakable space between words that should be wrapped together. e.g. top five
    2. Give acronym, by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) at first appearance. Tells casual reader what ARIA Awards and ARIA Charts relates to.
    3. also won an ARIA Music Award for Best Pop Release in 2006 > also won Best Pop Release at the ARIA Music Awards of 2006 Note: changed wikilink.
    4. New Zealand and peaked in the top forty of countries such as Italy, > New Zealand, and peaked in the top forty in Italy, reduces wordiness.
    5. UK and number twelve on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart. > UK and number twelve on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart. Note: delinked Billboard – its found in the Bubbling Under page – reducing overlinkage.
    6. for the 2005 ARIA Music Awards in the Best Breathrough Artist Single category > at the ARIA Music Awards of 2005 for Breathrough Artist – Single. Fixed wikilink, 'Best' is not used in the category title, endash used between Artist and Single.
    7. for over 75,000 sopies sold. > for over 70,000 copies shipped.
    8. The following single, "Revolution", reached the top twenty in Australia and the final single from the album, "Leave Me Alone", peaked in the top fifty of the ARIA Singles Chart.[1] > The next single, "Revolution", reached the top twenty on the ARIA Singles Chart and the final single from the album, "Leave Me Alone", peaked in the top fifty.[1]
    9. In 2007 they released their sophomore album Hook Me Up > In 2007 they released their second album Hook Me Up Maintain existing formatting & wikilinks. Sophomore is not commonly used in Australian English.
    10. The first single off the album of the same title reached number-one in Australia becoming their first number-one single, and achieving platinum status. > The lead single, "Hook Me Up", became their first Australian number one and achieved platinum status. Note changes to wikilink & formatting.
    11. The single topped the Irish charts while reaching the top five in countries such as > It topped the Irish charts while reaching the top five in
    12. Delink United States: its a common term.
    13. both reached the top ten in Australia, making it their third and fourth consecutive top tens in the country, and also achieving Gold status. > became their third and fourth consecutive top ten Australian hits and both achieved Gold status.
    14. nominated at the 2008 ARIA Music Awards for Best Pop Release, Highest Selling Singles and Highest Selling Album. > nominated at the ARIA Music Awards of 2008 for Best Pop Release, Highest Selling Single and Highest Selling Album. Changed wikilink.

    I've done a quick run-through of the Lead. I may come back to it later. Next I'll tackle the wikitables.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    General comment: in your wikitables, as much as possible, for same or similarly named columns try to make them the same size and style.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    1. Peak charts for some markets are in later years? If so, note(s) to that effect should be supplied per album.
    2. Delink overlinkage of AUS in the body of the table (last two columns) – leave first appearance but delete other(s).
    3. Fix link pipe on US in body, first appearance should go to Record Industry Association of America. Second or subsequent appearances should be delinked.
    4. Cite source for WW sales.
    5. Lead tells me they are signed with Sire Records, why do I find a release by Pony Canyon? While talking about Sire, its affiliation with Warner Music should be mentioned in Lead too.
    6. While talking about the compilation, the Pony Canyon website implies the album title is merely Complete by The Veronicas not The Veronicas Complete. See here. This is supported by, a resale website, here. The release does not appear at their MusicBrainz entry, here. I can't find mention of this album title on their official website. This needs to be fixed and the article The Veronicas Complete may need to be renamed if its title is only Complete.
    7. Delink second & later linked terms.
    8. First two EPs appear to be live recordings, a note is needed.
    9. In singles table delink previously linked album titles.
    10. Couldn't find The Veronicas' "4Ever" on Billboard website. So you need a ref for 112 position.
    11. Soundtrack appearances: "Us Against The World" > "Us Against the World"
    12. Music videos: some directors still needed.
    13. Version > version Seven times.
    14. / > : (colon with a space after) or / (space before and after slash).
    15. "Take Me On The Floor" > "Take Me on the Floor" Twice.
    16. Song writers should be verified by searching Australasian Performing Right Association website at Works Search e.g. "What's Going On?" was co-written by the twins with Bernholm and Johansson. Co-writers should be acknowledged in a note. You should change intro sentence > Apart from their own music they have also written or co-written songs for other artists. Note: I haven't checked all of these song titles.
    17. Written for Casey Donovan for her debut album after winning the second series of Australian Idol.[51] > Written for Casey Donovan's debut album after she won the second series of Australian Idol.[51] Clarifies who won Australian Idol.
    18. Luske Steele > Luke Steele Also fix wiki pipe to Luke Steele (musician).
    19. when they were 17. > when the twins were about 17. Source does not definitively say they were 17. Without clarification 'they' could mean Luke was 17 too. Also other co-writer(s) needed.

    shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    References Comments and numbers relate to the References section & ordering that existed on 14:42, 10 February 2011. Subsequent edits may change the order or the references themselves.

    1. <ref name="Australian-charts">[ "The Veronicas - Australian Chart Positions"]. ''''. Retrieved 22 April 2008.</ref> Some problems here: the current url points to The Secret Life Of... with its charting outside Australia, the album's track listing and chart trajectory displayed before getting to Australian charts for singles and albums. A better url is [ "Discography The Veronicas"] The publisher is Hung Medien. The work is Australian charts portal. Update Retrieved date, otherwise "This Love", "Take Me on the Floor" or "Popular" are not verified.
    2. Similar problems to [1]
    3. <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=2006: 19th Annual ARIA Awards|publisher=Aria|accessdate=22 July 2008}}</ref> > <ref>{{Cite web | url = | title = ARIA Awards 2010 : History: Winners by Year: 2006: 20th Annual ARIA Awards | publisher = [[Australian Recording Industry Association]] (ARIA) | accessdate = 22 July 2008 }}</ref>
    4. <ref name="Accreditations a 2006">[ "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 2006 Albums"]. ''[[Australian Recording Industry Association|ARIA]]''. Retrieved 22 April 2008.</ref> > <ref name="Accreditations a 2006">[ "ARIA Charts – Accreditations – 2006 Albums"]. Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA). Retrieved 22 April 2008.</ref> Note change to formatting: no wikilink for Australian Recording Industry Association (previously linked), no italics for publisher, hyphens to endashes in title.
    5. Fix title, Retrieved date.
    6. <ref name="U.S. chart position">{{cite web|url=|title=U.S. chart position|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|accessdate=9 July 2007 |archiveurl = <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 29 September 2007}}</ref> > <ref name="U.S. chart position">{{Cite web | url = | title = Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles – "4Ever" | work = [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]] | publisher = [[Nielsen Company|Nielson Business Media Inc]] | date = 8 April 2006 | accessdate = 13 February 2011 | archiveurl = | archivedate = 29 September 2007 }}</ref>
    7. See [3] for similar. Don't wikilink publisher this time.
    8. See [4] for similar.
    9. <ref name=eincharts>Everything I'm Not charts. [ THE VERONICAS - EVERYTHING I'M NOT (SONG)] ''''. Accessed 23 November 2009.</ref> > <ref name=eincharts>[ The Veronicas – "Everything I'm Not" (song)] ''Australian charts portal''. Hung Medien. Accessed 13 February 2011.</ref>
    10. Similar to [9].
    11. Similar to [4].
    12. Similar to [5], take care with album title: italics needed.
    13. Delink Billboard, already linked. Problems with url: is this a dead link? Try archive copy ala [6].
    14. Similar to [4].
    15. Similar to [5].
    16. Author? Date? Publisher not italicised.
    17. Needs to be replaced by more authoritative ref: ARIA itself. See [3] for similar.
    18. <ref name="Ultratop">[ "The Veronicas - Belgium Chart Positions"]. ''''. Retrieved 16 September 2008.</ref> > <ref name="Ultratop">[ "Discografie The Veronicas"]. ''Belgian charts portal''. [[Ultrapop]], Hung Medien. Retrieved 13 February 2011. Note: Some information in [[Dutch language|Dutch]].</ref>
    19. Why is the US Billboard Hot 200 used to ref Canadian positions? Chart position of 57 not substantiated.
    20. Doesn't give Irish charting: appears to be Australian. Needs to be fixed.
    21. Similar to [18] but needs more work. Language is Swiss German
    22. For UK positions OCC is preferred, for historical charts see archive.
    23. Similar to [4].
    24. Change url to this to prevent print window appearing, this one also shows Key for Gold symbol. After publisher provide acronym (RIANZ).
    25. Similar to [4].
    26. Use RIANZ for NZ accreditations, see here. Similar to [24] but don't link publisher this time.
    27. <ref>{{cite web|url= |title=The Veronicas Complete Japan Double CD (457379) | |accessdate=6 January 2011}}</ref> > <ref>{{Cite web | url = | title = The Veronicas ''Complete'' Japan Double CD (457379) | publisher = Esprit International Limited (EIL) | accessdate = 6 January 2011 }}</ref>
    28. Seems OK.
    29. Wrong title. Wrong publisher. May be unreliable. Curiously there's no mention of this title at MTV's own site, see here for albums.
    30. Seems OK.
    31. Irish Recorded Music Association site for current charting. Wrong place?
    32. Similar to [18] but needs more work. Language is Dutch.
    33. Generic Billboard page: does not go to expected chart.
    34. Similar to [4].
    35. Similar to [24], but url needs to be fixed to go to correct historical chart and not current one.
    36. Similar to [1].
    37. Seems OK.
    38. Seems OK.
    39. Ref needs expansion: title of chart, page no., publisher, date, accessdate, format.
    40. Similar to [39].
    41. Fix title, e.g. DVD and CD.
    42. Similar to [4].
    43. Similar to [41], don't wikilink publisher here.
    44. Author name. Reliability of this source is questioned by some reviewers.
    45. Expand ref. How does a typical user find the director information here?
    46. Expand ref. Fix url to go to relevant director instead of generic intro. May need to try an archive site or find a new ref.
    47. Expand ref. Site also gives Cameron for "Take Me on the Floor", Hales for "When It All Falls Apart", Meyers for "4Ever" version 2, and Kern & Petty for "4Ever" version 1.
    48. Can't find ref. PDF does not load.
    49. Official website: not reliable? Expand ref.
    50. Actual source is Official website: a press release. Clearly says Reuters not responsible for the content. Expand / fix ref.
    51. I get re-directed, it is difficult to find the citation, casual users may need further direction or a better url. Not sure if the MTV biography is based on the Allmusic biography or vice versa but they are very similar. Allmusic does not specify song title for Donovan's work. As indicated earlier, APRA gives the song's writers (including the twins, Bernholm and Johansson) and its performers (including Donovan). Together with Allmusic biography, the claim is verified.
    52. Expand ref. Supports Donovan's song and DeAraugo's song.
    53. Discogs is not reliable. APRA confirms Cascada and DeAraugo perform this. Other co-writers needed in a note.
    54. Expand / fix ref. Author, date, publisher and owner.

    Other appearances? According to Allmusic, as Lisa & Jessica, they released three albums: I can't find the names of these. As members of Teal they released a single, "Baby Its Over", which has also been performed by The Veronicas (see APRA). Some of their song writing for others occurred before they were renamed as The Veronicas.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    SS Edmund Fitzgerald[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    . I've listed this article for peer review because… Our goal is to achieve FA and then article of the day on November 10th, the day of her sinking. We have tried to put ourselves through several tough self-reviews on this, and then asked for and received a thorough / tough review when we achieved Good Article status. We welcome any review to point out anything we missed, plus we're least sure of ourselves (and request review) in the following areas:

    1. Prose. While we think that the wording is precise, we're not sure about its prose
    2. Reference formatting
    3. Should we drop the "Due South" section due to weak referencing? (we took that material out)

    We have 3 currently active editors, 2 of them very active, ready to respond to any feedback.

    Thanks, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


    First a question: Are you intending to try for FA directly from the now GA rating? That can be a tough jump. There is a ships A-class review which is supposed to be a stepping stone to FA. But this peer review will help before going to that A-class review. Brad (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    Hello Brad010. We hadn't thought about that explicitly. I guess that one thing that did occur to me is that 3/4 of the noteworthiness and content of this is about the sinking and investigations and related factors and only 1/4 about what in a typical ship article, and so I had some thought that trying to use the same outlines. / routines etc from a ship article here might be a square peg in a round hole situation. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    I would advise waiting for a review here and then deciding whether FAC is a feasible objective. From my experience the Milhist A criteria, while excellent, are slightly different from the FA criteria, and might be thought more of a parallel than a stepping stone. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Images need alt text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images
      Done. Hope it is correct.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The lead section for an article this size should have 3-4 good sized paragraphs that summarize the main points of the article.
      Will work on it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      North Carolina-class battleship is a good example of an FA quality lead. Brad (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      Done (I think) What do y'all think of the lead now? North8000 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      Much better. I noticed you ref'd the strong statements in the lead which is good but the last paragraph needs work and expansion. Probably a good idea to expand on the pop culture impact but don't get too carried away. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • More information on the pre-sinking career of the ship would be nice though I suspect sources don't reveal much. That's all I have time for today. Brad (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      Working on it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      Done, I think.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      I like this very much. You've added a soft and human side to the ship such as the Captain entertaining people while going through the locks. Things like this are important as they don't concentrate on the gloom and doom. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The list of crewmembers may cause trouble with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The best thing to do would be to work their names into the body of the article where possible and where warranted. Pointing to an external link of all crewmembers would solve the problem.
      I changed one of the external links so that it takes the viewer to the crew list. I won't delete the list from the article until other editors weigh in.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      Crew list has been replaced with a paragraph.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      Also very good but I would now suggest that you take that paragraph and combine it with the last paragraph in the 'Search' section. Eliminating the crew section because it's only a paragraph. But also the mention of Lightfoot's song seems out of place in the search section. That should be eliminated. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      My first thought was to put the paragraph about the crew in the search section. I'll move it to that section. We can move Lightfoot's song to the memorial section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      Counter-opinion I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about article notability, not about any RS-sourced content within an article that fulfils notability requirements with the RS coverage of its main subject. My point against a crew list table would be that it is of little relevance for most readers and just takes up space. However, there is a solution to that: see Help:Collapsing. The above is not a recommendation to the article's editors without consensus, so if you think that's acceptable, please say so. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      Done. I think all points above were good. Particularly the focus on what is useful to the reader. I think that the replacement paragraph kept what is of interest to the reader. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • High quality reliable sources are required for FA. Does boatnerd meet the requirement? Brad (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      Boatnerd aka Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping has already been questioned as a reliable source during one of the reviews. Has it been accepted as a source in other FA ship articles? Do you think it meets the requirement? Alternative sources will likely cover it anyway. Please let us know your thoughts.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      Deleted Boatnerd citations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      One remaining Boatnerd citation - possible deletion after talk page discussion.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      I think you made the right choice removing that source. I've seen similar sources get totally gunned down at FACs. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      Resolved. The last Boatnerd citation has been replaced with a different source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Name consistency: The name of the ship throughout the article is not consistent. There is Fitzgerald or Edmund Fitzgerald used randomly. What was the most common way of referring to the ship? Also, the possessive of Fitzgerald should be ''Fitzgerald''{{'}}s which gives you Fitzgerald's instead of using ''Fitzgerald's'' which gives you Fitzgerald's. The 's should not be italicized; only the proper name of the ship should be. Brad (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      On your first point, couldn't one say that the full name is Edmund Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald is a legit shortening? Like if there was an article about Larry Wentworth, you might use his full name occasionally in the article, but mostly just refer to his as "Wentworth"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk)
      The point is about consistency. Shortening the name is natural but it shouldn't be Fitzgerald and then a few sentences later Edmund Fitzgerald. One method followed for another article was in each section upon the first mention of the name to use the full name and then after that the shortened version. Repeating the process throughout the entire article. Brad (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      I went through the article and tried to catch all the possessives of Fitzgerald. I revised to use Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson at the start of each section (but not subsections. I didn't address naming conformity in the lead as another editor has recommended revision of the lead.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


    This is very interesting, well-written, well-organized, well-sourced, and apparently comprehensive. I made quite a few minor proofing changes as I went. The article is not far from being ready for FAC, but the images are a bit thin, and some of the licenses look shaky. I also note some Manual of Style considerations in my comments below.

    Heads and subheads

    • WP:MOSHEAD says the heads should generally avoid referring to the subject of the article or to higher-level headings. For this reason, I'd suggest removing "Fitzgerald" from the two heads that use it.
    Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Some of the heads and subheads should be more telegraphic. "Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice after Fitzgerald sinking" could become "Changes to shipping practice". "Flooding of cargo hold from ineffective hatch closures or collapsed hatch covers" could become "Cargo-hold flooding". "Three sisters/rogue wave theory" would be better as "Rogue wave theory". (The ambiguous front slash is generally best avoided.) "Contributing factors to sinking" could become "Contributing factors".
    Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


    • Generally, it's enough to link a term once in the lead and once in the main text. I would not link taconite multiple times, just on the first instance. I don't see much in the way of overlinking, but I noticed this one, and I'm pretty sure there are a few others.
    Done, also removed multiple links for Whitefish Bay.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


    • Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment do not take a terminal period.
    Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


    • "When Mrs. Edmund Fitzgerald... " - Wikipedia generally avoids "Mrs.", "Mr.", and "Ms.". It would be better to give her full name and identify her as Edmund Fitgerald's wife. If you can't find her first name, "When Edmund Fitgerald's wife... " would do.
    Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "the Fitzgerald again struck a lock's wall along with losing its original bow anchor in the Detroit River." - More smooth might be "the Fitzgerald again struck a lock's wall and lost its original bow anchor in the Detroit River."
    Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Final voyage and wreck

    • "NTSB report probable tracks of Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson." - This doesn't quite make sense as written, and NTSB should be spelled out. Suggestion: National Transportation Safety Board chart showing probable tracks of Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson
    Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "on the afternoon of Sunday, November 9, 1975" - Dates do not normally include the day of the week. Ditto for other dates in the article.
    Done. Also checked other dates in article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "They instructed him to call back on channel 12... ". - Coast Guard is singular and should be matched with "it" rather than "they". Since "It instructed him" sounds a bit awkward, I might say something like "Responders instructed him... " or something like that. After the first plural, the "they" pronouns will make sense. Ditto for other mismatches between Coast Guard and "they" later in the article.
    Corrected this paragraph. Still need to check the rest of the article--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC).
    Checked the rest of the article and revised as needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "the upbound saltwater vessel Nanfri and was told that they... " - Same problem. "Nanfri" is an "it". In this case, I would use "the upbound saltwater vessel Nanfri and was told that it... ". And later in the sentence, "its radar".
    Corrected this paragraph.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Legal settlement

    • "Fitzgerald author Hemming" - I'd give his full name here and describe him in some other way; "Fitzgerald author" is a bit misleading. Perhaps "author Robert Hemming" or "historian Robert Hemming"?
    Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    1975 discovery

    • "The wreck was first located on November 14 approximately 17 miles (15 nmi; 27 km) from the entrance of Whitefish Bay at 46°59.91′N 85°06.6′W / 46.9985°N 85.11°W / 46.9985; -85.11 very near the international boundary in Canadian waters[31] at a depth of 530 feet (160 m) by a U.S. Navy aircraft with on-board magnetic anomaly detector equipment,[53] normally used to detect submarines." - Too complex. Suggestion: "A U.S. Navy aircraft equipped to detect magnetic anomalies usually associated with submarines found the wreck on November 14, 1975. It was located about 17 miles (15 nmi; 27 km) from the entrance of Whitefish Bay, very near the international boundary in Canadian waters at a depth of 530 feet (160 m)." I think I'd leave the coordinates out of this sentence since they are already provided at the top of the page.
    Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    I have some concern over co-ordinates, implied co-ordinate accuracy and sourcing for coordinates in the article. The one at the top is basically unsourced, I think placed by the coordinates project folks. I asked at that project talk page for where it came from / sourcing and wasn't able to get an answer. If this one was sourced, I would hate to give that up. I'll see if that was an on-line source for location then we can discuss from there. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    OK, they were in the NTSB report on page 2. The coordinates at the top were the same except missing a digit which I fixed. I'm going to see if I can cite the coordinates at the top.North8000 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    No luck. I'm not comfortable that such a significant statement (the location of the wreck) is not cited. If there are no objections, I'm going to try to put it in as text somewhere with a cite to the NTSB report. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    It does make for awkward reading in a sentence. How about putting it in the info box with a citation?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sounds good if it's doable. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    The |Ships note parameter in the infobox can accommodate an explanatory note for just about anything. Being sunk is an unusual "general characteristic", but maybe that is not a sticking point. Finetooth (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    It is done North8000 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "The GLSHS conducted an unlicensed side-scan sonar survey of the wreck of the Fitzgerald in 2002.[76][77][78] Mike Simonson of Wisconsin Public Radio reported. The director of the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum on Whitefish Point near the sinking site admitted to an unlicensed dive in 2002. So earlier this year, the Ontario Ministry of Culture warned him and anyone else to stop commercial dives to the Fitzgerald." - This paragraph is unclear in a couple of ways. I think there should be a comma after "2002) instead of a terminal period. Also "So earlier this year" is confusing. The specific year should be substituted for "this year", and I would drop the "so" so that the sentence says something like "In X, the Ontario Ministry... ".
    Done. This was a direct quote but the punctuation needed correction. I clarified the year by including it in brackets within the quote.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "a $1 million Canadian fine" - For clarity, would something like "a $1 million fine in Canadian dollars" be more clear?
    Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Rogue wave theory

    • ""hit by two 30 to 35 foot (9.1 to 11 m) seas about 6:30 p.m., one burying the after cabins and damaging a lifeboat by pushing it right down onto the saddle. The second wave of this size, perhaps 35 foot (11 m), came over the bridge deck." - The quotation should not include metric conversions unless they were part of the original. In other words, quotations should be exact.
    Done North8000 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Structural failure

    • "resulted in a L/D slenderness ratio" - Spell out "L/D", which readers may not otherwise understand.
    Done North8000 (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Lack of instrumentation

    Done North8000 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice

    • "in each man’s quarters and in his customary work station" - Do women ever work on these ships? Is "man" the right word?
    Done. I neutralized the wording. I think that this was a needed fix rather than being too PC. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "On every November 10 the Split Rock Lighthouse in Silver Bay, Minnesota emits a light in honor of the Edmund Fitzgerald." - I would merge this one-sentence orphan paragraph with the paragraph above it.
    Done North8000 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Musical and theatre tributes

    • I'd merge the last three short paragraphs in this subsection to avoid a choppy look and feel.
    Done North8000 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


    • These generally look fine, but citation 178 lists an URL ( as the publisher when it should be Canoe, Inc. URLs are generally not the same as the publisher's name. You can usually find the publisher's name at the bottom of web pages or on the "home" or "about" page.
    Done. This was actually citation 179.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Citation 135 is incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.
    Done. This was actually citation 136.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "" should be replaced by "E.W. Scripps Co." in the Johnson entry. Ditto for other entries in which the URL has been used instead of the publisher's name.
    Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I would spell out rather than abbreviate the state names; e.g., "Michigan" instead of "MI".
    Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Should Diver Magazine appear in italics?
    Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    Further reading

    • National Geographic should appear in italics.
    Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


    • File:SS Edmund Fitzgerald scale model.jpg displaces an edit button and would look better on the left, where it would aim into the page rather than out. To make room for it, I would simply merge the orphan lead sentence of the section with the "Weather forecasting" subsection.
    Done. Moved image to left so that edit button is not displaced.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • File:Edmund Fitzgerald Trackline.jpg has problems with its license page. The source links are dead; thus fact-checkers cannot easily verify the license. Also, NTSB should be spelled out as National Transportation Safety Board; most readers will not recognize the abbreviation by itself.
    Corrected caption. Still need to check license page.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    Corrected license.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The source link for File:Edmund Fitzgerald Lifeboat.jpg is dead, and the description page is flagged with a "category" warning. This and the other image-description pages should be made as complete and tidy as possible to prepare for FAC, where they will be looked at closely. I did not check all of the license pages; these couple of things turned up on a spot check.
    Contacted author of file for clarification. Will replace image if not able to clarify license.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


    • The dab tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dab, to The Blade.
    Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks ! 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


    Some further notes.

    • Infobox: complete converts, expand or wikilink "oa" abbrevation. Done
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Speed, power, too. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Done now, I think.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Lede: I think the first sentence should be changed in accordance with WP:MOSBEGIN: it should refer to the sinking as the most significant connected event rather than the launch date. Done
      Revision made to start the lead with the sinking. Should SS Edmund Fitzgerald be preceded with "the" at the start of the lead? Please don't hesitate to improve this revision if needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      Huh... ack. Now you'll hate me for this, (I hate to say it after you worked so much), but I think most of your original lede should be restored. I only suggested a change to the first sentence (and a resulting change to the second to incorporate what the first should drop). The guideline here is for something like pyramide structure in journalism: first sentence, lede, article body expand on the subject in three steps. You define the subject in the first sentence, and that includes in this case the ship's nicknames and the fact that its sinking was the most important event. Then from the next sentence of the lede, you continue with a brief summary of the article, that is start with the launch in 1958 and end with the paragraph on theories, as before. (It's good if you read WP:MOSBEGIN, but the previous lede was already in line with it apart from the end of the first sentence.) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      Agree! Possibly revert the changes to the lead and then just tweak that one sentence? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      No problem. I think I got it back to the former lead (I had to do it manually). I suggest that the first sentence include the date November 10 since our goal is to achieve FA on November 10.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      I now slightly re-worded it, moving the launch date to the second sentence and adding to the first that it was already known for its size before the sinking made it famous. You can of course re-word it again if it doesn't sound good (enough). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Also lede, second paragraph start: "The Fitzgerald set sail" ...on its final voyage. Also, Fitzgerald in Italics. Done
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Only the Italics :-) Also, I forgot to note on first occasion: the "set sail" figure of speech, talking of a non-sailship, is probably against WP:IDIOM. (English is not my first language, though, so if "set sail" is not a figure of speech but an expression that lost its original literal meaning like "ride" when applied for vehicles, forget it.) ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      I think it might be a figure of speech but I revised it anyway.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wind speeds, wave heights: use convert. Done
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Construction & History: Since the Construction section contains more events and context than technical details, I suggest to include it as the first sub-section of History, and to put the details on operation into a sub-section titled Operation or something. Done
      Moved text pertaining to events to history section, added subsections in history section to reflect ship's career.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      Sorry for not being clear; what I meant was to include the entire unchanged Construction section as a sub-section of History. In your current edit, the first paragraph of Construction is still mostly events, and removing those would reduce the section to a stub. I checked some of the FA-rated shipwreck articles. Take a look at the sectioning of AHS Centaur, HMS Ark Royal (91), Japanese battleship Yamato and USS Massachusetts (BB-2). I think the best solution would be: restore the original content of Construction, then rename it "Design and construction", and also rename History to "Service history".
      I renamed the construction subsection and moved some text around. I didn't rename to "Service history" because the history section also includes the "Search" and "Legal settlement" sections. I hope this works better.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      Yes, it now looks fine with me, it's how I originally recommended. I just hope it will be okay with later WikiProject Ships reviewers, too, because a separate Design and construction section seems quite common in ship articles. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      Rather than note that "sometime" sounds strange, I went ahead and edited the sentence on the naming myself, by moving it to the paragraph on the launch. Which leads me to one issue I wanted to ask eventually: why is the launch in the Career section (if I am not mistaken on-board construction still goes on after a ship's launch), and why does the paragraph on the contract with Oglebay Norton Corporation precede it? If there is no special reason, IMHO the paragraph on the launch and sea trials would be better placed at the end of the Design and construction section. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      I moved the launch and sea trial to the Design and construction subsection and rearranged paragraphs. If this doesn't make sense, please revise it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      Further, I just noticed that "Contributing factors" is a main section. IMHO it logically belongs under "Theories on the cause of sinking"; that is "Contributing factors" and all its sub-sections would be better moved one level up. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      I think as long as it remains a section we are structurally okay. They are different than a primary cause. If there's any minus, it's that having a lot of material, the level 3 and level 4 headings sort of look the same which might make it harder to follow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      Perhaps I should have approached this by focusing on the titles. The section title "Theories on the cause of sinking" doesn't exclude theories on non-primary causes, while the section title "Contributing factors" is not fit as a top-level section title (the first-time reader of the table of contents might ask, factors contributing to what? the SS Edmund Fitzgerald?). I'm not against keeping the two main sections separate, but then the titles of both have to be modified. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      I wasn't implying a particular answer (nor that I even have one) , just talking. "Cause" is actually a more complex term than one would think. Accidents are a chain of events and also a combination of factors, and that's the simpler case (unlike this one) where the important stuff is known. I think that the common meaning of cause is the 1-3 major unusual things that made this happen. Certainly one is the waves (caused by the wind). I think that the items under theories of causes would also be at this level. Again, still just talking.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      How about changing the title to "Theories on primary cause of sinking"?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      Yes, something in that direction, and the other "Theories on contributing factors of sinking" or something. Looking at the table of contents again, top-level section 2 is probably clearer as "Wreck discovery and surveys", with the "Surveys" subsection then changed to "Underwater surveys". ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      Revised as recommended.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • In the Construction section, and later in the Theories on the cause of sinking section, some paragraphs have multiple cites only at the end, although significant claims are made in separate sentences. The specific source of each claim should be made identifiable. (See WP:INTEGRITY) Done
      I added more specific citations to the above sections. I can add more if needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      Great work! But, having followed some source links, I give you more... in the External links section, remove all links already used as references. ( Done) Also, although all the images there seem to be incorporated in the article already, you may want to add the interwiki Commons link (in the form {{Commons category|Edmund Fitzgerald}}, placed right below the section title, before the first bullet point). --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      I removed the extra external links. Does the interwiki Commons link go in every section that has an image?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      No, it goes in External links only. (For the guideline mentioning this see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#External links.) I don't know why I bothered with the specialised commons category template, however; {{Commons}} works fine.
      This interwiki link is most useful for readers if Commons has more images related to the subject than included in the article. So it's up to you to decide whether the Commons link makes sense (I would put it in for exampe if you would upload images in the future which may not find use in the article or replace ones now in the article). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Converts: if round numbers aren't rounded but are to be taken as precise numbers (i.e. 730/75 feet limits), fix conversion precision (i.e. {{Convert|75|ft|m|1}} resulting in 75 feet (22.9 m)). Done
      Done North8000 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      The limit numbers come up gain in the text; I also wonder about the deadweight tonnage (infobox) vs. the carrying capacity (second paragraph of Construction section). ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • In the third paragraph of the Construction section, a number of the technical terms could probably be wikilinked.
      With subsequent revisions, it's now unclear where this now refers to. I checked that general area and it looks like this might be done. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      Yes, my bad. I meant the paragraph on the ship's interior. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      I wikilinked in the paragraph about the ship's interior. If I overdid it, please revise as needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Cites: on many places, there is no space between a sentence-end closing ref tag and the first letter of the next sentence. At some places however, there is space between multiple references. In the second paragraph of the current History section lead, the order of references 22 and 24 should be the opposite. Done
      I see that this was mentioned repeatedly during the GA review, too. Therefore I suspect that editors tried to catch these by simply reading through. So I suggest instead to use the browser's search function -- one search for "> <ref" to catch the extra spaces, and one long search each for "ref/>" and ""/>" to catch the lack of spaces. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      I did that at the time but since then there has been a lot of new work. We'll do that again. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Fortunately a bot did it now, also catching a lot of other minor typos. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't the Fitzgerald and the Anderson be preceded by a "the" consistently? (I'm not sure, but "Fitzgerald was ahead of Anderson at the time" sounds strange.) Done
      Checking the relevant WikiProjekt Ships guideline, leaving away the "the" is entirely okay -- so it is just me after all. However, another guideline says that when using pronouns, both "she" and "its" is okay, but one article should be consistent in using just one. I suggest the replacement of "she" (two occurences) and "her" (four occurences) with the neutral equivalents. Done
      I went through the article and tried to precede the ship names with "the" where appropriate. The inconsistencies evolved from a number of editors contributing over a number of years. I believe that this same point came up in another review and I tried to correct it. I ran a search and tried to replace "she" and "her". However, it is my habit to unconsciously refer to ships in the feminine form so it is hard for me to catch it in the article. If don't you mind, please correct the "she" and "her" uses that I didn't catch. Thank you for all your ongoing help.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      No "she"/"her" remain :-) For the record, I proposed the replacement of feminine forms because those seemed less frequent after a cursory look; but replacing all the "it"/"its" with "she"/"her" instead would have been just as good. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      Furthermore, in the Final voyage and wreck section, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph (which includes the second "she") should probably get a clearer wording. Does "including" refer to the top-side damage or to the report? I take the loss of two vent covers and some railings was the top-side damage and list is a direct consequence of taking on water, so I suggest a pairing that way. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      I see that was solved, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Times: p.m., pm, PM all occur in the article; WP:MOSNUM recommends the lower-case versions, I suggest "p.m." everywhere for consistency (except for quotes; there keep the original formatting of course). Done
      Done. Fixed one PM in the lead.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      But only with one dot, and the "pm" remained on two locations; I fixed those myself. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wind speeds: no dash between number and unit ("knot") unless it's an adjective ("x-knot wind"). Done
      I see you began to deal with that as part of the other unit conversion issue. You'll hate me for this, but after the recent knot->mph changes, I realised there is another thing to change: the consistent unit abbrevations. On the first occurence of units outside the infobox, use "|abbr=none" to display all units as written-out words. On all other occurences, due to the now cycling kn-mph-km/h units, it's best to use "|abbr=on". ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      Thanks for your "you'll hate me for this" concern/note, but your comments are much appreciated. As an aside, I basically just kept those three way units......not sure if they are good or bad. But just clarifying, what you are saying is that each unit be spelled out the first time it's used (not counting the info box) and then abbreviated for every subsequent use in the article? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      Let me spell the problem out. The default behaviour of the convert template is to spell out the original unit and abbreviate the conversions. That is, "{{convert|49|mph|kn}}" produces "49 miles per hour (43 kn)", while "{{convert|43|kn|mph}}" produces "43 knots (49 mph)". When units are cycled to stay faithful to sources, but a reader looks only at the unit s/he is most familiar with, the back-and-forth change between spelled-out and abbreviated unit can be annoying. So, it's best to tell the template to keep both original and converted units in the same form. "{{convert|49|mph|kn|abbr=none}}" produces "49 miles per hour (43 knots)", while "{{convert|49|mph|kn|abbr=on}}" produces "49 mph (43 kn)".
      Now, according to MOS:NUM#Unit names and symbols, using unit abbreviations in prose is acceptable when they occur many times, but they should be spelled out on first occurrence. So for units you used frequently, I suggest to use "|abbr=none" on first occurence in prose (like in the lede for the damned speed triplets), and "|abbr=on" everywhere else.
      A final note -- sorry if you realised this already, I just want to go sure; the out of place dashes I noted in the original bullet point are produced by the "|adj=on" parameters (see: "{{convert|49|kn|mph|adj=on}}" produces "49-knot (56 mph)"). --Rontombontom (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      I think I did most of them, but I have a couple questions on the template conversions:
      • Is use of abbreviations mandated? When the first unit in the conversion (which is the one that is 'in the sentence') is very short (like "feet" , "knots") what do you think about leaving the full word in there. It seems so much easier to read / flow nicer, and the abbreviation just shortens it by like 2 characters
      • Is use of the "adj" feature (which creates the dash) mandated when the word is use as an adjective? Often leavign it out seems the norm. 35 foot waves vs. 35-foot waves.
      Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      Regarding the adjective dashhyphen, yes, it is mandated when units are spelled out (see WP:HYPHEN); lack of use is down to sloppiness or (if you refer to usage on Wikipedia specifically) unfamiliarity with the template, I think.
      Regarding not abbreviating short units for readability, well... I proposed to do it for all units for the sake of consistency, but now I am not so sure anymore. In addition, I'm not from an Anglo-Saxon country and my default is metric units, so I may be mistaken in my assumption that the back-and-forth between "miles per hour" and "mph" is as disconcerting for US readers as one between "kilometres per hour" and "km/h" would be in my eyes. So I asked a more experienced reviewer to weigh in on that. (Oh, and apologies in advance if this will result in you having to redo all the converts again...) --09:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      Thanks. Just to clarify, the idea that I am suggesting/asking about is to (after the initial use) to:
      consistently abbreviate the long units (eg "mph" would always be "mph") everywhere, consistently use the full word for the first unit unit in each conversion when it is short (e.g. feet and knots), and consistently let the template abbreviate converted units. So it would always be "at a depth of 530 feet (160 m)" rather than "at a depth of 530 ft (160 m)"
      Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Ship personnel: in the Search section, I suggest wikilinking. ( Done) In the Infobox, I wouldn't know if Wikiproject Ships or Shipwrecks has a line on this, but "hands" is probably better replaced with a more widely used and understood term. Done
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Good job; didn't expect that so many had Wikipedia articles! --Rontombontom (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Waves and weather section: 43.45 knot is a conversion of 50 mph in the source with unjustified precision. Done
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Now it converted to 49 mph... Scanning the whole section, I find more examples of suspect decimal precision speeds in knots where the source likely used whole numbers in mph. I think the correct action in this situation would be to have mph as the default value and use convert to generate knot and km/h. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Waves and weather section: dot missing from Arthur M. Anderson. Done
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Breaking apart section: the first paragraph looks like WP:OR. It should be sourced thoroughly, and sourced in its connection to (theories about) the Fitzgerald case. Done
      I think you're right. I'll take a try at that. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      I changed the paragraph with material from the Coast Guard and NTSB investigations. Should the breaking apart section be moved to the structural failure section since that was why it was considered during the investigations?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      It definitely should not remain as a separate theory. I'd say either combine it into structural failure as you suggested, or make it a part of the introduction in the "theories" section. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      That looks good. By the way, another style recommendation: while WP:MOSQUOTE allows the use of HTML blockquote, IMHO the framed blockquotes produced by Template:Quotation look nicer, and the quoted-ness of the quoted text is more obvious. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      That's a nice template! I redid all of the block quotes.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Lack of watertight bulkheads section: The first sentence, "Great Lakes freighters lack of watertight bulkheads in the cargo holds made them like "motorized super barges" when comparing their construction to ocean-going vessels." is jarring (and an apostrophe is missing from freighters'). Something like "The lack of watertight bulkheads in the cargo holds made the design of Great Lakes freighters more similar to that of motorized barges than that of ocean-going vessels." would be better. Also, use "motorized super barges" only if it is in the source. Done
      Done using the above sentence. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Lack of instrumentation section: was the Mark Twain reference in a source? If so, add citation, if not, this is WP:OR. Done
      The Mark Twain reference was from the source. I added a citation.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Complacency section, last paragraph, "It was countered": by whom (if named in the source)? (See WP:WEASEL) Done
      Revised to say who countered.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice section, point 8: Reference 182 is a dead link (probably Thompson 1994?) ( Done); and does the original really use both "U.S." and "US"? ( Done) Also, is there a date (year) for the start of the practice? Done
      The dead link of the now Ref 181 was repaired by Redrose64. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      I corrected the quote by deleting "of all US ships" that was not included in the original. I haven't been able to locate a source that specifies the year the Coast Guard started the pre-November inspections.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

    (Review end)--Rontombontom (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you for the detailed list that will improve the article. We will work on the corrections.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    I may add more after a more thorough reading. I forgot to say that I found it interesting and very thorough. Meanwhile, a minor formatting suggestion: use "*:" to indent replies to bullet points. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


    Further Finetooth comment[edit]
    Rontombontom asked me to weigh in with an opinion about the conversions and abbreviations. In articles to which I'm the main contributor, I rely on the conversion template without the |abbr parameter. If I have to add something by hand that the conversion template can't deal with, I maintain the same pattern as the conversion template throughout the article; that is, I spell out the primary units and abbreviate the others. I also link uncommon units on first use. I use the |adj=on parameter to add a hyphen to things like "30-mile-per-hour (48 km/h)" wind, or sometimes I add it by hand. Doing the conversions in this way makes the articles internally consistent without running afoul (I think) of the Manual of Style (MOS). My method has, so far at least, survived scrutiny at PR, GAN, and FAC. On the other hand, when I'm reviewing, as opposed to nominating or seeking advice, I defer to the nominator or main author if what he or she is doing is internally consistent and is based on a rationale that seems reasonable to me. If this were "my" article, I'd stick with spelling out the primary units and abbreviating the rest, for double or triple conversions. In the lede, for example, I'd use "730 feet (222.5 m) long and 75 feet (22.9 m) wide. I wouldn't link "foot" or "meter" because they are so common, but if another editor felt they should be linked, I'd link them on first use. I'd render the next conversion in the lede like this: "with sustained winds of 58 miles per hour (50 kn; 93 km/h). Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    I should add something about the rounding. If the 750 feet is a precise measure, then it makes sense to make a precise conversion. On the other hand, is the 750 feet precise? Finetooth (talk)
    I see that I have ducked the question about the back-and-forth problem created by citing a mix of sources using different kinds of units. I don't know of a neat standard solution to this problem. Sorry. I wish I did. Finetooth (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks! Much to ponder there. Answering your one question (when you said 750, I assume you might mean the 730 feet on the seaway max). I did not research it but assume that it is a legally defined number, and in feet, i.e. an exact number,. So I thought that a rounding error of a 1/2 meter in the conversion might be too much and so I forced the extra digit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    I add that I checked the guideline again. The first good news is that I can't find a requirement of a consistent spelling-out/abbreviation choice for all units there. Second, the length rationale which you also raised features explicitly in a parenthesis: "but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a very long name) is used many times in an article". Based on this, I think your idea that mph be abbreviated but knot and feet not, is acceptable, even the abbreviation of mph only. And I think your idea is a good enough solution for the back-and-forth problem (knot/kn didn't concern me that much as miles per hour/mph).
    Minor note on wikilinking: you can force convert to produce what Finetooth suggests (wikilinking only the abbreviated units) with the "|lk=out" parameter: "{{convert|43|kn|mph km/h|lk=out}}" produces "43 knots (49 mph; 80 km/h)". --Rontombontom (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I meant 730. Every editor needs an editor (or six). After thinking about the back-and-forth question some more, I submitted it as a question on the FAC talk page at WT:FAC#Conversion question. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    I put a reply there. (I realise that the problem with the solution you asked about on the Talk page was discussed above under a different bullet point than the one where abbreviations were discussed - I should have indicated that earlier.) --Rontombontom (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    I think that we have 4 or 5 questions kind of blended together here and so this is getting confusing. I'm going to try to clarify what the questions are on the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for the thorough and detailed answers at the article's talk page. I think that the units and conversion related work is done (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

    There is still the deadweight tonnage vs. the carrying capacity issue I mentioned upthread, but that probably only needs my education and no tinkering with conversions or anything in the article (except sourcing). My questions are: (1) do those two terms designate different specifications or are they synonymous? (2) Can there be a numerical difference between them? (The infobox says deadweight tonnage was 26,660, the Design and construction section says carrying capacity was 26,600.) (3) With what precision are these values to be understood with? --Rontombontom (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    By the way, realising that my review and replies to it became rather hard to follow, for convenience, I inserted done-not done marks. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    When reviewing FA American commercial ship articles on WikiProject Ships, DWT is commonly used so I did not revise that in the info box. I did revise the info box and Design and construction section to 26,000 long or gross tons as reported by MacInnis and Thompson.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    I started checking into the DWT definitions and ended up making up more questions myself than I answered. It's clear the DWT refers to capacity for all load (cargo, people, fuel, supplies etc.), but beyond that it's unclear. I originally thought that DWT might be directly legally defined, but now I'm guessing not. Especially since it appears that load lines are legally defined (at least in this case) and those vary with the season, and in the Fitz's case, underwent a major (39") change during her service. (my 30 second wild-ass guess is that the 39" change equates to a 4,800 DWT change! ) Next, per the Wikipedia article, the units for DWT are not consistent. Sometimes it's defined by long tonnes, sometimes by "metric" tons. (and, both are different than the common meaning of "ton" in the US.) I think that we are going to have to see what the sources say, and, to whatever extent we can, give any figures the context of the actual units, what determined the number and whether it was before or after the load line change. And then try to simplify that. :-) North8000 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Deadweight tonnage is a stub article apparently written from a British viewpoint, so I don't know, maybe US inland water shipping could have used short tons, too... but either way you'll have to check it in sources, it appears. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    I could not find deadweight tonnage for the Fitzgerald in any of my source books, on page 7 of the NTSB report, page 2 of the Coast Guard report, or in the Great Lakes Vessels Database. Unless someone can locate a source, we should probably delete the deadweight tonnage from the infobox.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Looking at the vessel database, I note that (1) it quantifies a net tonnage change in 1969, which should be in the infobox and the Career section; (2) it has ship dimensions precise to the inch, which differ from what's in the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Can you find a source for "carrying capacity"? --Rontombontom (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    On the dimensions, tonnage etc. we should probably noodle on this a day or 2 to make sure the changes are solid. That's a big difference in length. Database says 711 ft., it looks like at least a few sources say 729 ft. Could this just be how it's measured? (e.g at the waterline vs. max length) Is there a conflict between sources? Should we consider the database to be a wp:RS? And by "RS" I don't mean just reliable, I mean passing muster as a wp:RS. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    Please see page 2 of the Coast Guard report. The Fitzgerald's overall length was 729 feet and its bp (Length between perpendiculars) was 711 feet. The NTSB report (page 7) said the ship length was 729 feet. The database under discussion is from Bowling Green State University. The carrying capacity of the Fitzgerald was about 26,000 tons (see page 50 of 40th launch anniversary. I will add 2 more sources that confirm the 26,000 ton carrying capacity.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    Length is cleared up then -- I suggest to add the between perpendiculars measure (with inch precision, converted to tenth of metre precision) after the overall one in the infobox. Regarding the discrepancy in depth, that may be related to the change in minimum? Regarding the carying capacity, the Telescope source contains multiple numbers (all without specifying the ton as short or long ton): 26,000 ton (pdf page 6), 27,000 ton (pdf page 23), later increased to an unspecified 30,000 ton plus (also pdf page 23) which was also exploited five times. Note that the article currently says 26,600, which would explain both the 26,000 and 27,000 figures.
    I agree with North8000 that you can take your time sorting out the sources before editing the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    Regarding the net tonnage comment someone snipped inadvertently, I note that the USCG and NTSB reports confirm the post-1969 reduced net tonnage, too. In addition, the NTSB report (page 9) also gives the actual tonnage of the taconite on the last voyage (26,116 long tons, page 9). --Rontombontom (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    Was the reliability of the Marine Historical Society as source discussed in earlier reviews/on the article Discussion page? Its Edmund Fitzgerald page specifies 26,600 as the (original) DWT, explains the 1969 reduction in net tonnage, dates the 1970 collision. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    I find the 33'4" (rather than 39') draft is mentioned in the Queen of the Lakes book, too (p. 164). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    I know that in at least some cases (such as the definition of "D" in L/D slenderness ratio), "depth" does not mean draft, it is basically the height of the main body of the ship in the center area. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    At the moment I'm a bit uncomfortable with the "inches" degree of precision on the warterline length. It appears that it is based on a variable anyway, which is the location of the waterline. Such varies with the seasons, and changed dramatically with the large change in the load line. Also, I think that the only source for that precision at this point is that website. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    The Plimsoll line is directly related to freeboard. According to Bishop (page 137), the change in the Fitzgerald's winter freeboard resulted in it hauling 4000 tons above what it was designed to haul in 1975. In response to an above question, the Marine Historical Society article appears to be in error on more than one fact (see the discussion of Seaway Max on the article's talk page). I will work on replacing that article with other sources.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    4000 tons = about 4,400 US tons. So my 4,800 ton wild-ass guess was "way" off  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    Second review[edit]

    My first review focused on formatting issues, and got bogged down in the verification of various figures. Those are now sorted out, and now I finished a second review after a more thorough reading (as foretold at the end of the first), this time focusing on the prose (which you asked for PR for). I did some copyedit of minor issues 'on the fly', below more significant notes. Most of this doesn't relate to specific Wikipedia guidelines, but is strictly just suggestions—implement what fits your own editorial tastes only.

    • First a general observation on article size. The Wikipedia Page size tool says that the readable prose size of the article (without footnotes) is currently 55 kB (9223 words). According to Wikipedia:Article size, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." That makes the article slightly more than ideal on kB but within the margin on word count. There is no fixed rule to keep here, WP:SIZERULE is a relative scale with "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" applying above 40kB and up to 60 kB. Personally, I don't think that it would make sense to split anything from the article, nor do the potentials for brevity I see add up to much, so there is no problem.
      I guess that the "middle of the road" approach might be to trim a bit here and there when the material or level of detail is borderline for inclusion. Including those that you noted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Another general note: this is again not critical, but cleaning up the full citation code would be for the benefit of readability to different editors and for some wikicode economics (I did some of it on the fly). Spaces before/after the | and = signs and parameter names are haphazard, there are unfilled parameters which should be removed, "|author=Surname, Name" would be better converted into |first= and |last= for uniformity. There was one kind of omission that's serious: some citations with links lack filled-in |accessdate= parameters.
      I added access dates and converted citations to "|author=Surname, Name" except if there were multiple authors. I tried to make the the spacing uniform in the citations and changed the case in book titles. I hope I caught most of the problems.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Legal settlement: the second para consists of two comparisons of the Bradley and Fitzgerald cases. It starts and ends with the Bradley one, so to me the last sentence reads as an aside. I'd change the order of the last two sentences, with a slight re-wording, to put back the emphasis on the Fitzgerald with an answering structure (Bradley case was like this—Fitz case wasn't like that—Bradley case was also like this—Fitz case again wasn't like that).
      Revised. Does it work?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      I see you found another solution, which also works with me. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Underwater surveys: giving the technical details on CURV-III is probably unnecessary; full mission goals list of the Michigan Sea Grant Program probably off focus too.
      Revised as recommended.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Underwater surveys, details on the donation of the ship bell: maybe better placed in the Memorials section? If moved, consider merging the remaining paragraph on MacInnis 1995 dive with the one on the Tysall-Zee 1995 dive.
      I moved the bell details to the memorial section. I didn't merge the MacInnis 1995 and Tysall-Zee sentences as one paragraph. Please do so if you think that would be better.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      The remaining paragraph is short but two sentences, so its no problem; I thought they could be connected because they describe events in the same year and both involve special diving methods. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Underwater surveys: maybe the last para would be better placed under the next sub-section?
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      I moved one sentence around (the one declaring that there is a license requirement) for a logical order.
    • Theories on the cause of sinking: why is the citation mark where it is in the middle of the sentence?
      Moved it to the end of the sentence. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Cargo hold flooding: second para, "Almost from the beginning": could you specify from when? Or maybe this sentence start could be dropped?
      Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Cargo hold flooding: "If weather permitted" - warranted, necessitated, compelled, demanded?
      Revised with direct quote.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Cargo hold flooding: "U.S.C.G. vice admiral" - maybe without dots? Elsewhere in the article, given that Canada was involved, too, and also to rhyme with the practice for the NTSB, maybe it's better to write out "U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)" on first occurrence and USCG everywhere else? (The "Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice" section already uses it.)
      Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      I wrote "U.S. Coast Guard" for the long form without checking what's the actual title of the Wikipedia article; now I made the first occurrence "United States Coast Guard (USCG)" but revise if it was your choice. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Shoaling, image caption: I'm unfamiliar with the expressions used. I guess "upbound" means going upriver, as for "in ballast", does it mean without payload and only with ballast water? If this is specialised shipping vernacular, maybe it would be better to use more general words for a general audience.
      My experience with upbound is with the upper great lakes, but I checked it out further. It looks like it is pervasively used shorthand for indicating direction on non-ocean inland waterways. Even when flow is miniscule (like Lake Superior, which moves on average about .00004 MPH "downstream", the term is used to indicate direction. Probably not official jargon, and probably hard to precisely define. More like when you meet a fellow air traveler, there are those headed "headed home" and "leaving home".
      "In ballast" probably technically means that there is some water in the ballast tanks, but I think thqt the commonplace meaning is that the ship is empty.
      Great Lakes bulk shipping (mostly ore, grain) is a special case. In Lake Superior's case, these ships practically always head east downbound (east) full and upbound (west) empty.
      Not sure where that leaves us, just thought I'd say all of that. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      Upbound is an official term. I believe that "in ballast" is a commonly used term in Great Lakes shipping. I added links to the image caption. If that doesn't work, we can change the caption.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      Thanks for the explanations. I knew what ballast is, "in ballast" is what got me wondering. Then again, English is not my first language. I think "westbound with no cargo" would be the wording best understood by a general audience, but the present wikilinked version would have worked for me as first-time reader, too. I say let's leave this for the FAC reviewers. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      Rontombontom, it is astounding to hear that English is not your first language, seeing how good you are at it! North8000 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Shoaling: the first sentence repeats what's discussed in more detail with the Paul Trimble quote in the previous section. I would put the LCA acronym def there, and start this section with something like "The LCA believed that instead of hatch cover leakage, the more probable cause was..."
      Revised as recommended.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Shoaling, "was challenged by Shannon's 1994 excellent quality of detailed photography of": a bit confusing and "excellent" may fall under WP:PEACOCK. I suggest a re-wording like "was challenged on the basis of Shannon's 1994 higher quality detail photographs of". Also, who made the challenge: Shannon himself?
      I revised as suggested and added some further information. As an aside, it was Stonehouse who said Shannon's photograhpy was excellent. I think he was comparing it to the very poor quality from the CURV-III.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Shoaling, "Divers searched the Six Fathom Shoal after the wreck": the connection to the prior sentence is unclear. Was this point made along with the Shannon photographs, or earlier?
      Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Shoaling, "Opponents of the shoaling theory": can they be named? (WP:WEASEL) Also, was this before or after Shannon? (For the text flow, putting this before Shannon may be better.)
      Revised paragraph so that it specified who presented arguments against the shoaling theory without using the word "opponent". Also moved text as suggested.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Shoaling, Hainault's theory: on one hand, mentioning the probable sinking of the minesweepers in 1918 is probably unnecessary detail. On the other hand, it's unclear to me from the text whether the hypothesised shoaling on Superior Shoal happened immediately before the sinking or a significant time earlier?
      I deleted the minesweeper sentence. I will look in another source for the date of Hainault's theory.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      For clarity: the time question regarding Hainault's theory I had as reader is whether he thought Superior Shoal damaged the ship immediately before the sinking, or hours-days earlier; not when Hainault presented his theory. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      Thank you for the clarification. I added the time of Hainult's shoaling theory and more information on the location. The Superior Shoal is many miles from the site of the wreck.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Structural failure, "39 inches (99 cm) lower in the water": I'd cut the numerical value here, because it is discussed and with a more precise value in the "Increased load lines, reduced freeboard" section.
      Thanks and done. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Structural failure, "contributed to the large waves causing a stress fracture in the hull": better "made it possible for the large waves to cause a stress fracture in the hull"?
      Good, thanks and done. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Topside damage, third sentence ("He theorized..."): dense, maybe better broken into two sentences.
      I tried, but ran into a content problem. The main statements involved flooding of ballast tanks or walking tunnel, but then it jumped to cargo hold flooding as if that was the statement of the sentence. Wpwatchdog, could you check what the source said? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      Copy edited.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Complacency: third para, first sentence second part: the unqualified "sea state" didn't seem to make sense, I checked the source. The source calls for determining a limiting sea state and a restriction of operation in sea states worse than that. So this part should be re-worded to be faithful to the source.
      Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice point 1: vessels 1,600 tons and over: are tons GRT?
      Revised. Stonehouse said it was gross tons.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      Note: gross tons is not mass measured in long tons, but a volumetric measure. I fixed this with a wikilink to GRT. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Memorials, "more than 6,000 lives lost on the Great Lakes": I wondered, since when? The source didn't say, but checking, I find this must have been a corrupted reference to this: "The Great Lakes Mariners Memorial Project has commenced to remember the more than 6,000 ships and 30,000 lives lost on the Great Lakes since the foundering of LaSalle's Griffin in 1679." I suggest a re-phrase without a specific number for casualties or period of time.
      This was also cut along with the following point. I felt however that stating that the Fitz service ended in 2006 gives the impression that people got 'tired' of remembering, hence I put back a half-sentence to imply that the service continued in another form. But revert it if you think it's unnecessary. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Memorials: I think the pattern of bell tolls after the service was broadened beyond the Fitzgerald could be left off.
      Thanks and done. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Memorials: do I read right that the replica bell was placed in the sunken ship? Maybe a slight re-wording could make that clear. (The passages I suggested to move from the Underwater surveys section would be pest placed after this.)
      Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Memorials: I'd add the year to date the uproar over the bell refurbishing controversy.
      Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

    An additional note on wind speeds again. The USCG report contains several wind speed reports, which seem to have a tendency to be lower than those from other sources in the article. In particular, on page 27 (pdf page 39), I find: "ANDERSON logged winds of 58 knots from 304°T, the highest winds recorded during the voyage." Meanwhile, the 69 knots max seems suspiciously close to the simulation results discussed in "Waves and weather". Could you give a verbatim quote of the source for the 69 knots maximum, as well as for the 75 knot wind gust hitting the Anderson?

    A quick pre-emptive clarification if you are working on this right now: I meant to give the verbatim quote here, to discuss it; not as quote added to the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    Wolff, page 226:

    As his vessel, Arthur M. Anderson, passed through the same area, although somewhat north of the Fitzgerald's track, he observed winds blowing at 69 mph, but gusting to more than 100 mph, and waves generally running 16 to 26 feet.

    Wolff, page 218:

    In later testimony, Captain Cooper noted considerable change in wave conditions as his vessel cleared Caribou Island and wind gusts increased to 70 to 75 knots.

    I think the 75 knot figure was also in another source but I will have to look some more. Please feel free to edit the wind speeds. I think that the reported wind speeds vary in different sources like we encountered with the ship dimensions.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    I couldn't find another source that used the 75 knot wind speed in relation to the Anderson. More quotes on the wind speeds reported by the Anderson:
    Schumacher, page 70:

    The wind, Cooper noted, was blowing steady between 65 and 70 mile per hour, with gusts hitting 100, and quartering seas were breaking over the Anderson's starboard side.

    MacInnis, page 50, directly quoting Captain Cooper:

    I think we had gusts of wind at over 100 miles an hour on a few occasions but it was a constant 60 knots...

    Thompson (2000), page 323:

    At 4:20 the Anderson logged wind speeds of sixty-seven miles an hour out of the northwest, the highest sustained winds they recorded during the voyage.

    (End of unsigned addition by Wpwatchdog)
    So 69 mph (equals 60 knots), not knots! That puts it in the right ballpark, I made preliminary corrections to fit the presently used source. From your above quotes, it is clear that the source for the gusts is a post-disaster testimony by Captain Cooper, the 60 knot sustained ditto, while the USCG report's 58 knots sustained (and Thompson's paraphrased-converted 67 mph sustained) comes from the actual telegrams. Based on Captain Cooper's indefinite language, I think it's better to change to the 58 knots and the USCG sourcing. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    I agree that USCG sourcing is best because they got their figures from the recorded speeds.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    I checked the NTSB report, too. Wind speeds are listed on pages 10-11. I wrote them up as a timeline, also for wave heights:
    0100 FITZGERALD 52 kn 10 ft
    (0300 ANDERSON 42 kn)
    0700 FITZGERALD 35 kn 10 ft
    (1152 ANDERSON 30 kn 10-12 ft)
    1300 ANDERSON 20 kn 12 ft
    1300 M/V SIMCOE 44 kn 7 ft
    1300 Stannard Rock 50 kn gust 59 kn
    1350 ANDERSON 5 kn
    1445 ANDERSON 42 kn
    1520 ANDERSON 43 kn 12-16 ft
    1652 ANDERSON 52 kn (typo?) 12-18 ft
    (1652: ANDERSON 58 kn 12-18 ft)
    1700 Stannard Rock 56 kn (gust 66 kn)
    ???? ANDERSON (gust 70-75 kn)
    (1800) ANDERSON 18-25 ft
    1900 ANDERSON 50 kn 16 ft
    1900 Stannard Rock 40 kn gust 65 kn
    (2059 ANDERSON 48 kn)
    There you have the second source for 70 to 75 knots. Technically, 70 to 75 knots is "over 100 mph", maybe it was another testimony where he was more precise. At any rate, I'd trust NTSB even if they don't give a verbatim quote from Captain Cooper, and I'd add it as sourcing for the 70-75 mph gusts.
    I'll check the USCG report again, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    (added later) Not correct that 70-75 knots = over 100 mph. 75 knots = about 86 mph North8000 (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    The USCG report contains all the same wind speeds and wave heights as the NTSB report, except for the 70 to 75 knot gust, and some additional readings from the Anderson, which I added to the list above in Italics. Also highligghted some maximums in bold.
    I suspected this from reading the article already, but now it's clear that there was a first period of strong winds in the early hours and a temporary lull around midday, which could probably warrant the addition of 1 am Fitz and 1:50 pm Anderson measured wind speeds to the article, and moving the maximum speeds into the right timeline. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    After looking at those wave heights, I ask: can you check the 35-feet maximum sources again, too? Not because I'd doubt them, but for the context (who observed it, when). --Rontombontom (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I forgot that the 35-foot wave is discussed in detail in the rouge wave theory section. So here I only suggest to move into the right timeline, too.
    In the lede, the 100 mph maximum wind gust speed should be replaced with the 70 to 75 knot max to be in sync with the article body. Alternatively, both sustained and gust wind speed details in the lede could be replaced by an indefinite "hurricane-force" (I would do it like that but it's your editorial choice). --Rontombontom (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    Revised lead to say "hurricane-force" winds.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    (added later) So, now the only wind speed info in the lead is the near hurricane force winds. Done (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

    Overall, I'm pretty impressed with the work the editors have done on the article and the level to which they have followed up my poring of minutiae. The article certainly succeeded in making me interested in its subject (and it's rather far from me, I mostly edit articles on railways). --Rontombontom (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

    Wow. That looks like lots of good suggestions we can work on. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you much for your work and expertise here. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

    Overall, I think that this completes addressing the 2nd review items. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

    Indeed you followed up on all of my bullet point sugestions, even the more tentative ones! I also see that you saved some more text—in case you don't have it installed, the readable prose size (which excludes stuff like footnotes, tables, image captions, infoboxes, section titles) is now down to 53 kB (8891 words).
    But the wind speed stuff remains (changing sourcing to the USCG report, 69 mph->58 kn for max sustained wind observed, correct timeline). Methinks this is too elaborate an edit for a reviewer to do on his own, but, since I looked at the source last and remember where to look for the data in it, if you consent, it may be simplest if I do this myself.
    When do you plan going for FAC? So that I won't miss the vote :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    You and Wp have done so much work recently on wind speeds that you are far beyond me in understanding where it's at. I did not even realize that we have an open item. If you have an idea (including a big one) and wish to edit, don't hesitate to edit! My one thought is the that NOAA/NWS simulationn findings still be be kept as such, albeit presented as such, and I don't think that there is any proposal to remove them.
    Answering your second question: as soon as possible! Our ultimate goal is to be FA of the day on November 10th, hopefully 2011. I think that these are our next steps:
    1. learn when it is proper to consider the peer review completed
    2. wait until then
    3. a few days on a final self-review, and deciding that we're ready to roll
    4. submit for FA consideration
    Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    Rontombontom, please do fix the wind speeds.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    Rontombontom, if I understand it properly, we have implemented your specific wind speed change recommendations. But feel free to make whatever changes that you think would be good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    It's all done now: I have re-edited the Final voyage & wreck section in line with the above discussed points (58 knots, correct timeline, USCG sourcing), and placed detailed edit notes into the Discussion page of the article. I note that my edits increased the readable prose size slightly, to 53 kB (9025 words).
    I also did some last-minute stylistic changes: there were a lot of non-straight apostrophes (maybe the result of using Winword as editor?), two "p.m," in place of "p.m.," and a "p.m.." rather than "p.m." at the end of a sentence. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    Cool. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

    Peer Review Completed?[edit]

    Shall we consider the peer review to have been completed? North8000 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

    The applicable rule is, "nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed". --Rontombontom (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    We listed some specific areas plus requested review for "anything that we may have missed", and our concerns will have been addressed when it looks like the last item has run it's course. We put it up for peer review on January 24th, after asking for and receiving a thorough review when achieving GA. What a large amount of additional expert review and help we have received ! ! Thank you everybody! ! It looks like we have had about 600 edits on the article itself since January 24th. I think that the last new action item was put up on February 19, and it looks like all items from those have been completed, with subsequent feedback and help on those during their completion. Speaking for myself, I think that we have arrived at that point. WPwatchdog, what do you think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    After all the excellent help and suggestions we got during the peer reviews, I think we are ready now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    OK, so here goes (closing the peer review)North8000 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brigham Young, Jr.[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I am not a great proof-reader. I am looking for input in general to improve the article. Anything missing, prose to rewrite, etc. Thanks, --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments: I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of peer reviews. The WP:PR pages stipulates that the peer review process "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." In its present form, this article cannot be described as "high quality", nor has it had any recent extensive work. You have not, yourself, contributed to the text. The main problems with the article can be summarised:-

    • Overall, this does not appear to be an in-depth, comprehensive study of its subject.
    • The prose is sketchy, poorly organised, with many very short paragraphs. Facts appear to have been added in indiscriminately, without any attempt at logical sequences or prose flow.
    • There are numerous uncited statements
    • There are undevloped sections, e.g. Politics
    • The infobox is far too big for a relatively short article, Detail should be in the prose; the box is for brief summary information.
    • Overlinking; it is not necessary to wikilink continents or major countries (United States, France, Germany etc)

    I have amended the class to "start" as I don't think it warrants more than this. If you wish to improve/expand the article, it might be worth working with other editors with interest in and knowledge of this subject. A considerable amount of work needs to be done, but it could be a worthwhile project. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

    Chandra Levy[edit]

    Previous peer review

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I am listing this article for a second peer review. The previous review helped improve this article considerably, but I would like to request an additional pair of eyes for further improvement towards FA standards, with a focus towards latter sections summarizing the case.

    Thanks, KimChee (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you very much for looking at this article. I have added some images and would like to request a review of their appropriateness to the article; they have been the subject of some past contention and would like a previously uninvolved party to check them. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Finetooth comments: This is very good, close to FA quality. I made couple of minor proofing changes, and I have a short list of other suggestions.

    • I see no problems with the images or their licenses. I came to this conclusion before reading some of the discussions on the article's talk page, and reading them did not change my mind.
      • Thank you again. KimChee (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Identification of the prime suspect

    • "Lanier replaced the lead detective on the case with a team of "a fresh set of eyes" who had more homicide experience." - Pairing "team" with "a fresh set of eyes" is a bit odd since "team" implies multiple detectives with multiple sets of eyes. Would "Lanier replaced the lead detective on the case with a team with more homicide experience" be better?
      •  Done. I also rephrased the sentence to be more specific as the word "team" is repeated in the next sentence. KimChee (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "However, after errors in processing contaminated some of the gathered evidence with DNA from employees of the prosecution," - Would it be helpful to link "DNA" to DNA profiling? You have linked it later, but maybe it should be linked here on first use. Or, perhaps a link to DNA would be useful here, and the "DNA profiling" link could be left as is.
      •  Done. KimChee (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Trial of Grandique

    • "The motion also alleged that one juror, who did not take notes, had breached instructions "not be influenced by another juror's notes." - This is not a complete sentence as written. Here's a possible fix: "The motion also alleged that one juror, who did not take notes, had breached instructions "not [to] be influenced by another juror's notes." It's OK to insert [to] in brackets indicating that the word is not part of the direct quotation but is an editorial insertion. I assume these were the judge's instructions; if so, maybe that could be added; i.e., ""The motion also alleged that one juror, who did not take notes, had breached the judge's instructions "not [to] be influenced by another juror's notes."
      •  Done. KimChee (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Media coverage

    • "In 2002, D.C. newspaper Roll Call first reported about the possible connection of Ingmar Guandique to the case" - Tighten by one word by deleting "about"?
      •  Done. KimChee (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "Levy's disappearance came after a number of other high-profile cases which created resources for missing young adults." - The cases didn't create resources directly. Perhaps this could be re-worded for clarity? Maybe something like "cases that led to the creation of resources"?
      •  Done, though I may look at further reorganising or streamlining this section. KimChee (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "those efforts to locate Chandra Levy or find her killer were quickly distracted by the speculation" - Would "diluted" be better than "distracted"?
      • Ambox notice.png How about "overshadowed"?
    • "Police have learned from that mistake." - This assertion, which is apt to be questioned, needs a source. If it can be sourced, I would consider adding a tag line like, "According to X, police have learned from that mistake."
      •  Done. I rewrote the sentences around this to replace the nebulous statement with a hindsight remark attributed to one of the former police officials. KimChee (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Morales, who was serving a sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and crack cocaine" - Link methamphetamine and crack cocaine?
      •  Done. KimChee (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Further reading

    • Daugherty belongs before Higham in the "Further reading" section if you want them to be arranged in alphabetical order.
      •  Done. KimChee (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


    • I'm sure you will update the article on Friday or as soon as possible after the scheduled sentencing and that further updates may be necessary.
    • I couldn't help but wonder if Condit's marriage survived. I think I would mention it in the article, though, only if he and his wife divorced as a result of the Levy case. Otherwise, keeping silent on the matter, as you have, seems best.
      • Ambox notice.png I found a source stating that they were still together as of his 2009 relocation to Arizona. I have added this in a low-key manner into the article. KimChee (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    • "Overshadowed" is just right. The subtle mention of Condit's wife is just right. The revised "Sentencing and appeals" section looks fine with one possible exception: Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." before being reminded by Judge Gerald Fisher to address the court and not Guandique directly. The double terminal-period problem arises here because of the nested complete sentences. When this sort of thing pops up in my writing, I usually opt for a work-around. Maybe: Before Judge Gerald Fisher reminded her to address the court and not Grandique directly, Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." Please let me know when you take this to FAC. I think it's ready. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done. Thank you again! KimChee (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

    Indestructible (Robyn song)[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it peer reviewed before nominating it for GA status.

    Thanks, Pancake (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton comments: Looks promising GA material. A few prose issues, mainly minor:-

    • In the lead, "becoming her ninth top ten hit in her native country": Grammatically, the first "her" needs to be "Robyn's"
    • Numbers above 10 ("thirteen", "twenty-one") are generally better presented as numerics
    I don't know about this, I've seen many good articles with "thirteen", "twenty-one"... Tik Tok (song) for instance.
    • The "Composition and critical reception" section contains nothing about the composition of the piece. This has really been covered in the section you have called "Background" . You might consider renaming the Background section "Composition", and calling the other "Critical reception". The Background section could be resurrected if you have any genuine backgound material to incorporate.
    I merged "Composition" with "Background".
    • In the critical receptions, the various opinions ("sweeping and symphonic", "devastatingly beautiful", "a racing string section with relentless bass and pulsing synthesized chords", etc., need to be attributed as well as cited.
    • "On the chart issue dated 17 September 2010 of the Swedish Sverigetopplistan chart..." Awkward repetition of "chart" - suggest rephrase. Also, suggest "fifty-four" should be numeric per earlier comment (applies also to other numbers in this section).
    • What does "having sex in reverse" mean? (the mind boggles)
    Reworded to "The video begins with a reversed scene of a young couple having sex". Better?
    • In the short "Live performances" section the word "performed occurs four times, plus one perfprmance. You need to vary the phrasing a little.
     Not done Don't know what else to write than "perform". And I'll try to expand the section. Pancake (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you for your comments! I'll start working on the issues right away. Pancake (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Instead of writing the Swedish Sverigetopplistan chart it might sound better writing the Swedish chart "Sverigetopplistan"--Esoderberg (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment. I changed it to just Sverigetopplistan. :) Pancake (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    London Underground[edit]

    Previous peer review

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This is a former Featured Article which I'd like to see upgraded back to GA and then FA. I took a look at the automated suggestions and acted upon some of them although some are not relevant. I'd really appreciate hearing what you think is needed to make this article better.

    Thanks, Hugahoody (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


    Some first quick comments:

    • This will be a lot of work, but it is also the biggest deficiency to address: the sourcing should be completed, several complete paragraphs are unsourced.
    • There are several single-sentence paragraphs. Where possible, merge or expand them (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Paragraphs).
    • The styling of large numbers is inconsistent. Either write "x million" throughout, with a non-breaking space between the number and million, or write that on first occasion and "xM" everywhere else, without space and capping the M (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Large numbers). The same applies to billions.
    • Abbreviate units (|abbr=on parameter in the convert template) in the infobox.
    • Move the Commons linkbox from the "See also" section to the "External links" section (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#External links).
    • The first reference contains a Note which (1) is unsourced, (2) would be better placed in a separate Notes section (unless a passage can be found that can be quoted verbatim in a |quote= parameter of a citation). --Rontombontom (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've made a start. Hugahoody (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    Taiwan High Speed Rail[edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    During the road of the article to its recently awarded GA status, two reviewers suggested that it could become a FAC with a little polishing. The article is currently thoroughly sourced; copyedited according to MoS guidelines for layout, linking, citation formats, conversions, capitalisation and some other grammar issues; and the wording of some sections has been pored over in minute detail. Please help identify what still needs work before a FAC nomination. Thanks, Rontombontom (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


    • The "Construction" section needs more information, otherwise it should be combined with the "Project Organization" section above it. This article also needs an updated Tickets and Fares chart from 2011. --Rfewer (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      "Construction" is a second-level section that includes two long third-level sub-sections. What's short is the general part before the sub-sections. I noted during the GA review that this short intro part doesn't belong into either sub-sections, and we couldn't find more general info to expand it so far; but will try again. I note that another editor working on the article plans to expand the single sentence on station construction in the "Civil works" subsection, which may ultimately become a third third-level sub-section under Construction.
      I'm not sure what you mean by "Tickets and fares": that section includes no chart, only a table, which is up to date (the same ticket prices are still valid). If you mean the chart in the "Frequency" section, later today I'll update it with the current timetable (valid from December 1, 2010) and an additional quarter or two on the time axis. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      I got an idea what to expand the general part of the "Construction" section with: some words on the subdivision of contracts, which can also act as a bridge to the two subsections. Done.
      Checking the current timetable, I see neither ticket prices nor train frequencies changed (and it went under my radar because there was no connected press release). I have now updated the timetable reference and the table subtitles. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


    Finetooth comments: This looks very good. The prose is generally excellent; the article seems comprehensive; the images look good, and I see no problem with the image licenses. There are no dabs or dead urls. The article is well-sourced. I made a small number of punctuation changes, and I have a short list of specific suggestions related to minor prose issues and the Manual of Style.

    • "It is approximately 345 km (214 mi) long" - As a general rule, primary units are spelled out and secondary units are abbreviated, as in MOS:CONVERSIONS. However, it may be that in a technical article such as this one that this is a matter of editor choice. The article is internally consistent in using abbreviations for both throughout. I only mention this as a possible low-level style issue, in case you are not already aware of it.
      Yes, this was an editorial decision I took at one time. I'm aware of the recommendation to use the spelled out form on first occurrence. If it would have been km/h and km only, I would have left it. However, with the many different units used in the Construction section, I felt that the back and forth between abbrevations and spelled out forms (and the extra length of the spelled out forms) would mess up the text real bad. In addition, in the English-language technical publications I read, with SI units (which are the primary units here) it is more common to use the symbols in prose anyway. If there are reviewers who object to it I won't insist, I just spelled out my rationale. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      Your rationale makes sense, and I'm fine with it. Along the same lines, I had noticed your choice of % as opposed to "percent" or "per cent" throughout the article. For technical articles, MOS:PERCENT makes an exception to the general rule. Finetooth (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "The project had a total cost of US$18 billion and is one of the largest privately-managed and funded transport schemes to date." - I wonder if "privately-managed and funded transport schemes" includes airlines? Does it include transport schemes in other countries? Does it include all transport schemes throughout history? Perhaps just ending the sentence after "US$18billion" would be best.
      No, yes, yes, I think; but will look into that. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      After looking into it:
      • The source actually says "largest privately managed and funded BOT Project in the world at the time and perhaps even today". I remembered that I saw this but didn't want to define "BOT" in the lede.
      • The source is THSRC's own about page, not independent or editorially reviewed. So I sought alternative reliable sourcing. Unfortunately most just ascribed the claim to THSRC. One source already used in the article made a slightly different claim, now the article reflects that. (If I find something better, I change it again.)
      • I'm pretty sure that THSRC is, in fact, the largest-ever privately financed transport scheme involving infrastructure: airport projects bigger than THSR (Al Maktoum International Airport, Hong Kong International Airport, Kansai International Airport) were all government-funded, toll roads are in the single-digit billions, and the (admittedly incomplete) List of world's most expensive transport infrastructure contains no privately-funded projects that exceed it either. Of course, adding this to the article would be WP:OR, but maybe a source can be found. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "forty thousand passengers a day in the first few months to over a hundred thousand" - Generally numbers bigger than nine appear as digits; i.e., 40,000 and 100,000 unless they start sentences.
      Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "The present Chairman of the Board and CEO of the company is Dr. Chin-der Ou (歐晉德)." - "Dr." and other academic titles are rarely used in Wikipedia articles. The Manual of Style suggests using a brief description instead of a title; in this case, I would suggest "Chin-der Ou (歐晉德), a civil engineer". Also, I'd lower-case "chairman of the board" and spell out and well as abbreviate "chief executive officer (CEO)".
      I felt spelling out CEO takes up too much space, so wikilinked instead, and adopted the other proposed changes. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


    • I'd recommend making the two subheads more telegraphic; i.e., "Origins" and "Organization". It's clear that these words refer to the project.
      Hm. Maybe a better word than "project" could be found, but in both cases, it is meant to differentiate between the construction and the BOT franchising phases. That is: if I'd rename the section "Origins", it could be assumed to include everything before any earth was moved, that is the contents of the Project organisation section, too. Similarly, "Organisation" could be taken to mean the division of construction lots. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      On second thought: what about "Origins" followed by "Main contractors"? --Rontombontom (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      I like "Origins" because the section really does go back to, well, not the beginning of time but at least the 1970s. "Main contractors", I agree, is better than my "Organization", which is vague. Would "Contract negotiations" be any better? Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      "Contract negotiations" would again not distinguish the different levels of contracting (BOT franchise, core system supply, construction lots). On second thought, "Main contractors" doesn't feel broad enough. But after some searching, I found the term "project structure", which is used as a general term, of which BOT is a type. I'm going with that. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    Origins of the project

    • "Taiwan's rapid economic growth led to a saturation of its western transport corridor" - Would it be helpful to add here when that growth occurred? Many readers will know little about Taiwan's history.
      The problem is that it's not specified in the source, either, so I can't enter it without WP:OR. The first time reference is the 1970s for the start of the studies. However, the wikilink already went to Taiwan Miracle, it was just too indefinite, being only on "economic growth", I changed that. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "The study found that a high-speed rail line is the solution to traffic problems in the corridor with the highest transit volume, lowest land use, highest energy savings and lowest pollution." - The matching verb form here would be "would be" rather than "is". Also, there's a logical confusion created by tacking the "with" phrase to "corridor", which it seems to modify, when it is actually meant to modify "solution". Suggestion: "The study found that a high-speed rail line would solve the corridor's traffic problems by providing the highest transit volume, lowest land use, highest energy savings, and lowest pollution."
      Hm... your version excludes the implied comparison with other solutions, I think. I tried another version. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    Civil works

    • "251 km (156 mi) or 73% of the line runs on viaducts" - Sentences in Wikipedia article don't start with digits, per the Manual of Style. Often it's easier to re-arrange the sentence than to write out a long conversion like this one. Maybe something like "Of the line's total length, 251 kilometres (156 mi) or 73% of the line runs on viaducts"?
      There is a similar sentence on tunnels, which headed the length with "About"; I chose to put that here too, the number being given only in whole kilometres. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "The line was electrified with the 25 kV, 60 Hz system." - Should these terms be spelled out and linked to something?
      I'm not sure how I could spell it out, but wikilinked electrified and the specific system, also in the infobox. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Design and implementation

    • "leading to concerns on TRA's part that capacity will be limited during the construction period" - "Would be" rather than "will be"?
      Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Rail unions said that this arrangement will result in a reduction" - "Would" rather than "will"?
      Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "deeming them routine problems that have already been dealt with" - "Had" rather than "have".
      Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Rolling stock

    • "to avoid slip on powered bogies" - Link bogie?
      Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "Original estimates foresaw an initial daily ridership of 180,000, which would grow to 400,000 by 2036." - Maybe "which were projected to grow" rather than "which would grow"?
      Heh. Many months ago, on this spot or another, there was an objection to the use of "projected" and it was removed :-) But, I realise that the sentence is incoherent (the initial daily ridership doesn't grow just is), so there is a rephrase now. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


    • "The Shalun Line for Tainan opened on January 2, 2011;[151] the Liujia Line for Hsinchu is set to open in August 2011." - Would it be helpful to add the lengths of the branch lines to this sentence?
      I don't think that that's directly relevant, because it's not THSR infrastructure, and at least the trains using the Shalun Line travel a longer distance on existing tracks. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      I now realised that the text could be misunderstood to mean that the Liujia and Shalun lines are branches of THSR, so I edited it to spell out that they are branches of TRA's Western Line. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


    • Newspaper names like Taipei Times and "The China Post" should appear in italics.
      Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Publishers and web-site names are often not the same. I would say that the publisher for citation 24, for example, is Net Resources International rather than
      Moved website names to work parameter, added publishers for that and China Knowledge@Wharton and TV Fodder. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Citation 26 should indicate that the source document is in German.
      That was a bad dead link update -- changed the URL to link to the English version. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    I think I'm  Done with all your suggestions — and thanks, they were really helpful. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


    • Some information about the previous methods transportation in the region could be useful. As in, what is the High Speed Rail replacing or what need is it trying to fill?--Shreyans1989 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      I think the last paragraph of the Ridership section addresses just that. However, in the "Origins of the project" section, I now made the three transport modes that were implicitly included in the "western transport corridor" explicit (they are explicit in the source). --Rontombontom (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference britannica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).