Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.


Contents

Slicker Than Your Average[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see the improvements and expansions that need to be made before submitting the article for GA.

Thanks, 03md 09:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments A fair amount of work is still needed to bring this article up to standard. Here are a few suggestions.

  • Infobox
    • The professional reviews information should be given in the body of the article, not as unexplained rows of stars in the infobox.
    • Bare links to external websites should be properly formatted as references.
    • Year ranges should be given in the form "2001–02", not "2001/2002"
  • Lead
    • There are at present aspects of the article, e.g. the Reception section, not covered in the lead, which should be extended to become a complete summary of the article's content.
    • "As of 2007..." We are now in mid-2009. Why are you quoting figures which are up to two years out of date?
    • The second paragraph says the album was released "in a number of different versions". Only two (the original and an Asian version) are then mentioned.
  • Background and writing
    • Opening sentence: "After Craig David managed to crack the American music industry with his debut album his musical style began to alter to appeal to the worldwide market on his second album." When was this debut album released? Dubious encyclopedic language ("managed to crack the American music industry"); comma required after "alter"; the last phrase should be reworded, e.g. "to increase the appeal of his forthcoming second album to the worldwide market"
    • The main content of this section seems to be about the writing of just one of the thirteen songs – what about the other 12? What is their background?
    • No indication is given as to the reason for the album's title, which is not even mentioned in the section.
    • The quotation: ""On the one hand, it's coming across like I'm arrogant. On the other hand, it's saying I have a lot more composure on the album" needds to e cited to a source.
    • More non-encyclopedic language: '...David was not too bothered as he feels it "spreads the word".'
  • Track listing, and timings, need a source'
  • Charts: what is the purpose of the empty "Shipments" column?

I hope these comments are helpful to you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Wildfire[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've come to a block on what to add further to the article. Thanks to all involved, the article was recently promoted to GA, but I think it may have what it takes to go further. Plus, it's such an important topic that I think it merits the work. I'd welcome any and all suggestions on rearranging, adding info/pics, removing info/pics, the references used and their quality, and anything else. Be my guest, tear it apart.

Thanks, MrBell (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The reference quality looks good and without knowing the subject well I couldn't say if there is anything you should add. The best thing to do would be to survey your sources and try to see what they prioritize. A perfect article would give the most space to the most important aspects of the topic with less for less important aspects and so on. That would help you find the ideal structure for your article.
  • On that note the modeling section for example appears out of place. It's not really large enough for it's own section, but probably not central enough to the topic to be expanded (though I could be wrong, your sources would be the best judge of that). Perhaps it would be better placed in the fire suppression section, since that's where/why wildfire modeling is carried out.  Done
    • Better, but it still sticks out a lot though in that it doesn't seem smoothly related to the topics around it in a well thought out topic structure from most important/general on down to the details. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment though. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Similar for the fossil record section. It seems really important, but somehow out of place. Perhaps there is a better way or place to present that material.  Done -- Better in ecology section?
    • Yes, I think that's the best place for it, unless you can think of a better way to integrate it. It does fit there better. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The Extremes sub-section of the Characteristics section doesn't really cover the topic of extremes much. Either it should be renamed, or refocused on extremes if that is important. Done -- Better as part of physical characteristics?
    • Probably, if that was what you were going for as the topic. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Also the ecology section mentions plants have adapted to fire and in a round about way describes some plants as benefiting from them, but could probably use a bit more of a clear summary statement that some species/habitats or whatever actually benefit from wildfires and some are harmed. Also it could use a note that the idea that wildfires could offer any benefit at all is fairly recent in Western science and was actually a surprising conclusion. I can't recall where I read that, perhaps National Geographic.  Done
    • You are correct; it was a recent idea. I wasn't sure to include that in the ecology section or the prevention and suppression sections, but the majority of that story is in the prevention section and Wildfire suppression#History. Should I link there from the ecology section?
      • Good point, it's probably best covered primarily in the suppression history article, though just the part that gives a better understanding of the ecological aspects should still be mentioned a bit in the ecology section of the main article I'd think. Noting how/why the ecological aspects changed firefighting perhaps. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally the lead does not do a good job of properly summarizing the article. It should also cover the most important material in the article, easing the reader into the topic, by clearly defining it and the most important information upfront, then proceeding into somewhat more information that summarizes each of the following most important topics covered in the rest of the article. As it stands the second lead section paragraph doesn't match with the material in the ecology section for example. See WP:LEAD for more on lead sections. ( Done) - Taxman Talk 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(My questions/comments are in italics, and the "done-t" and "not-done-t" tags are for organizing my thoughts. MrBell (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah I think you've done a good job. I adjusted the lead and tweeked the modeling section. I think just the visual difference in that section helps keep it from seeming so separate from the rest of the article. Sorry if the weather link was needed, but it helped to not have it be a top see also. It can of course go in the text though. For the lead I adjusted a bit to try to match up what the lead said about the ecology with what the rest of the article said. Please fix it if I have gone off the mark at all. I also merged the paragraphs to help make sure each was a more complete idea. It would be fine to go back out to 4 paragraphs if you thought it still needed significant expansion as long as each paragraph is fully developed. But I think it's ok now. - Taxman Talk 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks good. So what's next, FA review? I added most of the refs myself and made sure to get page numbers, but I'd like to know if there are some that aren't up to par with regard to verifiability. MrBell (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks pretty good on that front, but I'm not really up on the reference formatting fashions. Yeah WP:FAC is the place to send it to have it considered for a FA. List it there whenever you feel you have the time to deal with the suggestions you'll get there. It sometimes helps a bit to list it with a bit about the importance of the topic to draw in reviewers. - Taxman Talk 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PokerTracker[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhrfisch (talkcontribs) 03:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am rarely caught off guard by a GA fail. This one puzzles me, so I would appreciate some editorial advice.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It's interesting to read how computers have affected poker playing. I have no direct experience with this software, but I can make a few suggestions about prose and Manual of Style issues.

Images

  • The last image, at least on my computer monitor, overlaps two sections. MOS:IMAGES says "Images should be inside the section they belong to... ". It might be a case of one too many images.
    • If I am interpretting the section you refer to this picture which spans two sections would be a problem if the text referring to it were in the lower section with it starting in the section above. In this case, I think it is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • "PokerTracker is the name of a poker tool software company as well as the base name of several versions of its software programs." - "computer programs" rather than "software programs" to avoid repetition of "software"?
  • "PokerTracker software is a popular brand of poker tracking and analysis software." - Delete the whole sentence because it essentially repeats the first sentence?
    • It seems to me that the first sentence says the company makes software and the second says the software is popular. This is not redundant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The software has several facets that allow the user to monitor each poker session profit/loss, hands played, time played, and table style." - Replace "has several facets that allow" with one word, "allows"? Change "poker session" to "poker session's"?
  • "It also is able to calculate and graph various statistics... " - Tighten to "It calculates and graphs statistics... "?
  • "... each poker session profit/loss, hands played, time played, and table style. It also is able to calculate and graph various statistics such as hands/hour, dollars/hand, dollars/hour, cumulative profit/loss, and individual game profit/loss." - The use of the front slash is confusing because in the first instance it means "and", while in the other instances it stands for "per". Suggestion: replace each instance of the front slash with the word it stands for. Ditto for other places in the article that use the front slash.

Products

  • "The PokerTracker software company currently has analysis software... " - Delete "currently"?
  • "The PokerTracker software company currently has analysis software editions for Texas hold 'em, Omaha hold 'em and Stud poker named PokerTracker 3, PokerTracker Holdem v2, PokerTracker Omaha and PokerTracker Stud." - Which edition(s) match which games? If all four editions track all three games, it would be good to make this clear.

Summary

  • "computer which records the hand history (see example left)." - Rather than using the imperative "see example left", it would be better to say something declarative like "as shown in the 'Simple Hand History' example". Ditto for the other imperatives in the article. Also, saying "to the left" is risky because of the possibility that the layout might change.
  • "PT3 had not yet been "fully released" at the time of their testing." - "its testing" rather than "their testing"?
  • "The sofware is capable of analyzing cash ring games, sit and go tournaments and multi-table tournaments." - Many readers will not know what "cash ring games", "sit and go tournaments", and "multi-table tournaments" are. A brief explanation of each would be helpful. Also, "sofware" is missing a letter.
  • "The other sections summarize sititational statistics based on the level of the blinds and the starting hand.' - Situational.
  • "the level of the blinds" - "Blind" is another term that many readers will not understand.
  • "An app for the iPod Touch... " - Spell out as well as abbreviate "app" on first use?
  • "The PokerTracker company is well-known for their PokerAce HUD software... " - "its" rather than "their"?
  • "PokerTracker 3 includes the HUD, which overlays any of the player's opponent's statistics next to their avatars, as part of the basic program." - Should this be plural "opponents' statistics" or singular "his or her avatars"?
  • "PokerTracker is a tool that professionals are never without because it enables them to constantly calculate situational optima." - Do all professional players use PokerTracker? How does the source know this?

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


2009 swine flu outbreak in the Philippines[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems it has some grammar inconsistencies, etc.

Thanks, The Wandering TravelerWIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 08:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since this is about a current event the article is in a state of flux and cannot be considered to be stable. I am not sure what the purpose of this peer review is, as this seems a long way from GA or FA (which require an article to be stable anyway, regardless of other shortcomings). Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please see WP:LEAD and make the lead 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 I am not sure that is the case here.
  • The lead is also needlessly repetitive (we are told the dates of arrival and diagnosis of the initial patient twice each) and I am not sure what the quote adds to the lead (I would add it to the Confirmation section instead). I also note the lead is currently over a week out of date (lead is As of June 10, but right now it is June 18 on Wiki).
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • Define all abbreviations on first use - it took me a while to figure out what the RITM was, for example.
  • The maps do not have a date in the caption and so are unclear - when was the data represented in the maps obtained? What time frame do they represent?
  • Language is really unclear in places - I have almost no clue what this sentence means In line with this, the Manila Archbishop ordered the continuation of earlier commanded Oratio Imperata On H1N1, revisioning the obligatory prayer from its original version-centered on the virus-infected country of Mexico. I think it means the Catholic church decided to pray for other flu-infected countries in addition to Mexico?
  • Lots of places need to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which impede the flow of the text. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Part of this is due to the nature of the events covered in the article - as news occurrs, a sentence or two is added in a new paragraph or section.
  • Article needs more references, for example During the Mass for the 5th anniversary of Pondo ng Pinoy at the Xavier School gymnasium in Greenhills, San Juan, the directive was announced before the start of the celebration of the Eucharist. has no ref - and why is this notable / worth including here? 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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Earl Cain[edit]

Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there has been a lot of work done on this article and I wanted to know if there was anything else that needed to be fixed/tweaked/etc. I'm hoping to get this to an FA but maybe it's too soon? Please go through the article very carefully and be through. Any suggestions are very much appreciated! :) Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, well-organized, and highly readable. I have no expert knowledge of manga or of articles about this art form, but I enjoyed this one. I have suggestions mainly about prose and Manual of Style issues, as noted below.

Lead

  • Wikilink manga in the first sentence?
  • "Both were serialized in Hana to Yume, with Earl Cain Series 1 though 4 being published from 1992 to 1994 and Godchild released from 2001 to 2004." - The "with" connector seems a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Both appeared as serials in the Japanese magazine Hana to Yume. The Earl Cain series 1 though 4 ran between 1992 and 1994 and Godchild between 2001 and 2004."

Plot

  • "Named after the biblical Cain, his childhood is filled with abuse... " - His childhood isn't named after Cain. Suggestion: "Named after the biblical Cain, he is abused throughout his childhood... ".
  • "Cain returns home and poisons him." - It might be slightly stronger to say "Cain returns home and poisons his father."
  • "Before Alexis plunges into the sea, he curses his son to misery." - I'm not sure you can curse someone to misery. Perhaps "he curses his son, wishing him misery."
  • The "doctor" after Jizabel Disraeli links to a disambiguation page and probably doesn't need to be linked at all.
  • "After the woman Cain loves is revealed to be a "doll" - a resurrected corpse surviving on the fresh blood and organs of others - created by Delilah and dies, Cain vows to end Delilah's experiments with the dead." - This doesn't seem to be a sentence. Suggestion: "After the death of the woman that Cain loves, a Delilah "doll" or resurrected corpse surviving on the fresh blood and organs of others, he vows to end Delilah's experiments with the dead." Or something like that.

Godchild

  • "despite Jizabel's efforts to delay Riff's cruel personality from awakening" - It was a bit of a surprise to learn suddenly that he had a cruel personality. Perhaps something like "despite Jizabel's efforts to delay Riff's second, hidden, and cruel personality from awakening"?
  • "promises Mary that they will have a tea party" - Tea party is linked to a disambiguation page. Ditto for "personality" in the prior sentence. To check for other disambiguation problems, you can run a dab finder that lives here.
  • "Riff attacks Cain, but deliberately shoots himself, sparking a struggle between his personalities;" - Wouldn't the struggle precede the shooting?

Production

  • "or opening the chapter with an everyday scene to contrast the 'scary scenes' " - "to contrast with" rather than "to contrast"?
  • "Yuki's drawing style also changed since The Cain Saga; she believed that Cain looked older than seventeen in The Cain Saga." - "had changed" rather than "also changed"? Also, the second part of the sentence doesn't logically follow from the first. Does this mean that her former drawing style made all of her characters look too old?
  • "focuses on a mystery involving an "Alice in Wonderland inspired" serial killer nicknamed the "White Rabbit" - Suggestion: "focuses on a mystery inspired by Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It involves a serial killer nicknamed the 'White Rabbit' who chops off his victims' heads in the style of the Queen of Hearts."

Manga

  • "Both series were originally serialized in Hana to Yume, with the four Series of Earl Cain serialized between 1992 and 1994, and its sequel Godchild serialized from 2001 to 2004." - Five repetitions of "series" or "serialized" here is probably too many.

Drama CDs

  • ""The Twisted Fairy Tale" revolves around one of Cain's maids and relative believing that they murdered him." - Something is missing. Should it be "relatives"? Is the maid a relative? Who is "they"?
  • "Another drama CD was released by the same company on January 26, 2000 named Count Cain Series ~ Kafka (伯爵カインシリーズ~カフカ, Hakushaku Kain Shiriizu ~ Kafuka?)." - I think it would be slightly better to recast this as "Another drama CD, Count Cain Series ~ Kafka (伯爵カインシリーズ~カフカ, Hakushaku Kain Shiriizu ~ Kafuka?), was released by the same company on January 26, 2000."

Reception

  • "Courtney Kraft of The Book Report... " - Italics for "The Book Report"? I don't know if it's a company (no italics) or a periodical (italics).
  • "Critics felt The Cain Saga and its sequel Godchild could appeal to a broad audience, including its intended female shōjo readers, due to containing elements from the mystery and horror genres." - Perhaps "... readers, because it contained elements... "?
  • "He compared The Cain Saga to EC's 1950s horror stories... " - Should EC's be spelled out for readers unfamiliar with it? Also, in this same sentence, would it be better to include just a few more words explaining who Feldstein and Kamen were? Maybe "Al Feldstein, who drew and edited for EC Comics", for example. This would give a little more context for the reader.

References

  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. For example, in citation 1, pp. 189-190 should appear as pp. 189–190.

Images

  • I removed the terminal period from the caption of the image in the infobox because it was a fragment rather than a complete sentence. On second thought, maybe it would be better to say, "The first volume of Earl Cain was published in Japan by Hakusensha on July 17, 1992." Or perhaps "Cover of the first volume of Earl Cain, published in Japan by Hakusensha on July 17, 1992" since the image shows the cover rather than the volume.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful suggestions. If I have any time left over, I will definitely consider reviewing an article. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Any other suggestions? Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be able to get it to GA one day, and eventually to FA. I put a lot of work into it, but I understand that there are a lot of sourcing issues in some places. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This starts off very well done and then its quality goes downhill, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are a number of comic FAs, but many of them are older and no longer seem to meet the current FA standards (see WP:WIAFA. Watchmen is a comics FA that seems to me to be quite well done and probably a good model article.
  • There are 5 non-free images in the article, which may be a problem at WP:GAN or especially at WP:FAC. There are free images of Lee and Kirby and John Byrne (and probably some of the other artists associated with the book) that could be used. See WP:NFCC
  • The lead is very nicely done as a summary of the article as it exists. The main thing missing from the article is any sort of critical reception section. The article cannot become a FA without this.
  • The Origins section is great, well written, lots of refs. Early years is slightly less well done - the entire 1970s is glossed over in a few sentences. As you read further down the article, the sections become less well written and have fewer refs, and flow less well.
  • The low point is the Dark Raign section - three very short paragraphs (all one sentence I think) written very much from an in-universe perspective (see WP:IN-U) with no attempt to give issue numbers or dates, or provide any sort of context to the reader - see WP:PCR. If this is a spinoff why isn't in that section?
  • The spinoffs and series also seem somewhat random - the FF vs the X-Men is not mentioned (only four issues, but one of my favorites)
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • Article needs more references, for example the "In other media" section has almost no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The series is so long it has to be difficult to summarize - per WP:Summary style can be used and some sort of sub- article made (Timeline of the Fantastic Four perhaps with dates, issues, author, artist, inker, and major plot developments listed)?
  • I am not up on additional sources but Marvel has reprinted most of the first 100 issues as hardback books, which have some useful introductory material.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Scott Free comments:IMAO this is a pretty happenin' article on the FF - here are some things I'd like to see mentioned to make a good article even better:

  • Aunt Petunia
  • The Yancy Street Gang
  • 'Its Clobberin' Time!!!'
  • 'Flame On!'
  • The Fantasticar
  • 'Stretcho' aka Reed Richards

--Scott Free (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Hurricane Alma (1996)[edit]

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

Thanks, Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • As a significant contributor to this article, I can say this still needs quite a bit of work. For example, the discussions need to be incorporated into the met. history. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Since the article is undergoing a major revamping, I'll just make a few brief comments.

  • What you have reads well in most places.
  • You might want to express pressures in inches of mercury as well as millibars throughout the article.
  • I see typos here and there in the article and other proofing mistakes such as "Alma had serve impact in Mexico".
  • Some of the en dashes such as the one in "mid–level trough" should be hyphens.
  • WP:MOSNUM suggests that generally the main units of measurement should be spelled out and the secondary units abbreviated. Thus 19.09 in (485 mm) should be 19.09 inches (485 mm). I like using the {{convert}} template because it spells, abbreviates, and calculates automatically.
  • Abbreviations like GFDL should in most cases be spelled out and possibly linked on first use. GFDL often means the Gnu Free Documentation License but not here.
  • Why is the damage from the hurricane unknown?

I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Jack Kirby[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because Jack should be a GA, and has potential to go up to FA. I recently put it up for GAN, but I now accept that it still requires a lot of work to get it where it needs to be. Anything from the recent failed GAN you want to reiterate or anything you think the reviewer missed or got wrong? There are plenty of sourcing issues. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, especially the first half of the article, but it's a long way from GA. My impression is that the sourcing and the writing deteriorate from "Marvel Comics in the Silver Age (1958-1970)" to the end. I have quite a few specific suggestions, most of them related to prose or the Manual of Style, and many of these carry over in a general way to the second half. In addition, I have concerns about the lack of sourcing and related matters in the second half.

Lead

  • "During the 1940s, Kirby would create a number of comics for various publishers, often teamed with Simon." - "created" rather than "would create"?

Early life (1917-1935)

  • Date ranges get en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: 1917–1935. Ditto for all date ranges in the article.

Entry into comics (1936-1940

  • "Per his own sometimes-unreliable memory... " - "According to" rather than "per"?
  • "However, he took offense to those who suggested he changed his name... " - Suggestion: "took offense to suggestions that"?

Marriage and World War II (1943-1945)

  • "The pair hired writers, inkers, letters, and colorists in order to create a year's worth of material." - Wikilink inkers? Also, letterers (linked) rather than "letters"? Also, wikilink colorists?
  • "landed on Omaha Beach in Normandy on August 23... " - Word missing, maybe "He"?
  • "Kirby and his wife corresponded regularly by v-mail, with Roz sending "him a letter a day" while she worked in a lingerie shop and lived with her mother." - The "with" connector is questionable. Suggestion: "Kirby and his wife corresponded regularly by v-mail. Roz sent "him a letter a day" while she worked in a lingerie shop and lived with her mother."

Postwar career (1946-1955)

  • "After returning from the army, Kirby's first daughter, Susan, was born on December 6, 1945." - Susan didn't return from the army. Suggestion: "After Kirby returned from the army, his first daughter... "
  • "the kid-gang western Boys' Ranch " - To separate the two linked items, perhaps Boys' Ranch, a kid-gang Western? After the change, you might want to use some semicolon separators in the sentence to make it easily readable.
  • "Showing it to Crestwood general manager Maurice Rosenfeld, Simon asked for 50%... " - The Manual of Style suggests using "percent" rather than the symbol in simple constructions like this. Ditto for 92% shortly thereafter. I see that you've used "percent" in some places and not in others.
  • Initially published bimonthly, Young Romance quickly became a monthly title and produced the spin-off Young Love — together the two titles sold two million copies per month, according to Simon[33] — later joined by Young Brides and In Love, the latter "featuring full-length romance stories". - A bit too complicated. Suggestion: Initially published bimonthly, Young Romance quickly became a monthly title and produced the spin-off Young Love. Together the two titles sold two million copies per month, according to Simon, and were later joined by Young Brides and In Love, the latter "featuring full-length romance stories".
  • "Despite the glut, the Simon & Kirby... " - Generally "and" is preferred to the ampersand. Ditto in the image caption. Also, the phrase appears in the caption as Kirby & Simon but here as Simon & Kirby. Maybe Kirby and Simon would be best.
  • "had relaunched Captain America in a new series, in 1954, Kirby and Simon created Fighting American" - It's not clear from this whether 1954 refers to the re-launching or to the creation. If the latter, you could make this clear by removing the comma after 1954.

Marvel Comics in the Silver Age (1958-1970)

  • "The landmark series became a hit that revolutionized the industry with its comparative naturalism and, eventually, a cosmic purview informed by Kirby's seemingly boundless imagination — one coincidentally well-matched with the consciousness-expanding youth culture of the 1960s." - This sentence struck me as oddly polished, which led me to notice that it and the paragraph that includes it is not sourced and should be. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as any statistics, any direct quote, and any claim that might reasonably be questioned. Is this sentence by any chance a direct quote? Is it an instance of plagiarism; that is, an instance of copying someone else's work without giving credit?
  • Quotations of four lines or more should appear in blockquotes rather than fancy quotes. WP:MOSQUOTE has details. Ditto for the quotations in fancy quotes later in the article. Quotations of less than four lines should be embedded in the text in ordinary quotation marks.

Final years and death (1981-1994)

  • Orphan paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences should generally be merged with other paragraphs or expanded.

References

  • Quite a few of these are incomplete.
  • Page ranges, just like date ranges, get en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is well-sourced, very organized, and is well kept up to date. The article has had two previous peer reviews, which were quite a while ago, and the suggestions were followed. Please take a look at this article and feedback to help it make it to Featured List status would be greatly appreciated. Thank-You. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list but I think it needs some work before it is ready for FLC - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would look at some recent featured lists as they no longer start with "This is a list of...". A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - List of QI episodes seems to be the most recent TV episode list to make FL and may be a useful model (there are many other FLs on episodes, but the standards at FLC have gotten tighter lately and looking at WP:WIAFL would also be a good idea.
  • I would identify the characters in the lead image. It needs a fair use rationale for this article too. Many episode lists have pictures of the DVDs / their cover art.
  • The lead uses the word episode to refer to two things - an episode (made up of 1, 2 or 3 segments of varying length) or confusingly, to these same segments. The sentences As of June 5, 2009, a total of 121 episodes have aired. and this later one As of June 5, 2009, the total number of episodes individually is 236, with 8 revealed individual episodes unaired. seem to contradict each other. I have used the word segment to refer to the parts that make up episodes - I have no idea if this is an acceptable word or not, but there needs to be a better word - using episode to mean two different things is needlessly confusing and will not fly at FLC.
  • Avoid the use of the word currently as in currently in its sixth season. Since you use As of June 2009 later, could these be combined (so there is just one as of date sentence to update in the lead)? The lists indicate we are now in season seven though so this needs to be updated.
  • Prose is decent but a copyedit wouldn't hurt - for example, remove "all" in Five of the seasons are all available on DVD.[6]
  • Be consistent - the Overview table gives end dates for "Originally aired" but the section headers do not for seasons 5, 6 and 7. I think this is because there are unaired (at least in the US) episodes for each season (at least in the US), but to me it makes no sense to say we are currently still in three different seasons, even if one episode each from seasons 5 and 6 remain unaired.
  • I think the introductions to the Season sections should answer questions, not raise them. But in Season One, The pilot episode, "Help Wanted" was not included on the season one DVD, due to copyright issues. The aforementioned episode was included as a bonus feature on a future season's DVD. First off this needs a ref. Second it needs to say which future season this was released on. Third, I think a sentence explaining what the copyright problem was is needed (it is not here or in the Season One article). Finally, this is awkwardly written and could be some thing like The pilot episode, "Help Wanted" was not included on the season one DVD, due to copyright issues. It was included as a bonus feature on the season three DVD, after the copyright problem .... was resolved by ....
  • Similarly the unaired epsiodes in seasons 5 and 6 need to be mentioned in their section paragraphs and perhaps even in the lead. Why are they unreleased in the US?
  • General refs are from internet and need an access date.
  • Would it be possible to add the segment length in minutes to each entry, perhaps as a new column in the table?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Montevideo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, being Montevideo the capital city of a country, it's relevant enough to have a featured article.

Thanks, NicoBolso (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment The top of the Peer Review page makes it clear that the process is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This article in its present form does not qualify for such a review. Take a look at other capital city articles, specially those that have acquired featured status, and see how far away this one is from such a standard. There is no reason why it should not develop into a featured article in the future, but much work needs to be done. You could start by adding to the references and enabling the removal of the "unreferenced" banners. I would suggest bringing the article forward for peer review again only when significant development work has taken place. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agreed with the above. In fact, the PR page also says that "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners " but this has an additional citations needed banner. Anyway, here are some standard suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be expanded to more paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Mercer consulting is only in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the section headers are not in the current lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Much of the article is just lists (bullet points) and should be converted to text where possible.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


1956 Winter Olympics[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to move this up to FAC at some point but I need some input on MOS compliance, prose, credibility and format of references and any other issues that may cause problems for the article at FAC. Thanks, H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey H1nkles. I saw this PR request some days ago and was thinking about giving my contribution, but then other things got in the way and couldn't get back to it until now. I thought about placing a list of comments on what should be bettered in the article, but I think it would be quicker to do the changes myself. I hope you don't mind if I act this way. I'm perfectly fine if you decide to revert any of them if you believe theyr're not improving the article; in fact I hope you do that. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I pretty sure you don't have to ask for anyone's permission to edit an article. Jafeluv (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both the comments, I understand where each is coming from. I'm unexpectedly swamped with real life concerns so I would appreciate any help with the article. H1nkles (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, but my comment was addressed to Parutakupiu :) Jafeluv (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally clear but not yet of FA quality, in my opinion. I have a couple of general comments and then a list of specific suggestions about prose or Manual of Style issues.

  • It's often helpful to look at FA articles to see how other editors have handled similar subjects. A list of sports-related FAs lives at WP:FA#Sport and recreation. Several of these FAs are related to the Olympics, 1896 Summer Olympics for example. I see mistakes in the 1896 article, so I'm not suggesting a slavish imitation, but it could still be a source of excellent ideas. For example, it has lots of fetching illustrations. As a general rule of thumb, I'd suggest trying to include one image in each sufficiently large text section.

Lead

  • I can't find the guideline just now, but I'm pretty sure Winter Olympics shouldn't be linked in the first sentence; it creates a double bolding effect. It would be better linked later in the paragraph in "and these were the first televised Winter Olympics," methinks.
  • "The Games were held... " - Lowercase "games"? Ditto for other instances of "Games" throughout the article?

Since the "Games" here refers to a proper noun (Olympic Games) it's been decided to use upper case Games throughout. H1nkles (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "were held from January 26–February 5, 1956." - The usual en dash rule doesn't apply here because the leading and trailing terms have spaces in them. Thus, January 26 – February 5, 1956 would be the correct format, per WP:MOSDASH.
  • "A total of 32 nations participated in the Games... " - Tighten to "Thirty-two nations participated in the games... "?
  • WP:LEAD says the lead should be a summary or abstract of the entire article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections. This lead seems to include the top sections only but says nothing about events or venues.

 Done lead has been improved. H1nkles (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Host city selection

  • "Bornacossa, a member of the IOC since... " - Generally, abbreviations are spelled out and abbreviated on first use, then abbreviated on subsequent uses. The first instance explains the abbreviation to the reader. Thus, it would be International Olympic Committee (IOC), perhaps wikilinked as well.
  • "Bonacossa would die on January 30, 1953, before he... "died" rather than "would die"?
  • It might be good to include in this section something about Cortina's precise location, its elevation and climate.

 Done location and other information added.

Organizing

  • "Cortina did not have an Ice Stadium... " - Lowercase "ice stadium" since it's generic?
  • "The Italian government supplied ITL... " What is ITL? Better to spell this one out as well as linking to Italian lira.
  • "CONI was responsible for funding... " - What is CONI?

 Done all fixes to this section are done. H1nkles (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Politics

  • "The Olympic Movement was affected significantly by the Soviet suppression of the in the fall of 1956." - Something is missing. Hungarians?

 Done fixed missing wording. H1nkles (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening ceremonies'

  • "Thursday, January 26th, 1956" - January 26 rather than January 26th. Ditto for any other places in the article that use the "th" form.
  • "Fortunately he was not hurt and the torch's flame didn't go out." - It might sound odd, but "fortunately" is an interpretation. Better to just state the facts: "He was not hurt and the torch's flame did not go out."
  • "on 13 June, 1955" - Here the format is almost d-m-y, whereas above it is m-d-y. Probably since the games took place in Italy, all the dates should be in d-m-y format. Thus 13 June 1955 with no comma would be correct, and 26 January 1956 would be correct above. Ditto for all other dates in the article.
  • "The ceremony concluded at 12:27 pm" - Here pm has no points, but above a.m. has points. You should use the same format throughout. I think you'd be fine with a.m. and p.m.

 Done removed time and fixed rest of comments.

Bobsleigh

  • "The Italians dominated the two-man event, with only one of the eight runs made by its two sleds taking over one minute and twenty-three seconds; in comparison, no other team posted a single run under that time." - Suggestion: "The Italians dominated the two-man event. Only one of the eight runs made by its two sleds took more than one minute and twenty-three seconds; in comparison, no other team posted a single run under that time."
  • "Italy picked up the silver, with the United States earning the bronze." - Suggestion: "Italy picked up the silver, and the United States won the bronze.

 Done reworded sentences.

Figure skating

  • "The Cortina Games were the last Games to feature Figure Skating outdoors." - Lowercase "figure skating" as well as "games".
  • "resulted in two gold medals in the 1,500 metres (0.93 mi)" - Should this be converted to feet rather than miles? Should the other distances in the article be converted? I see quite a few others here and there.

 Done made conversions see above for issue on capitalization of Games. H1nkles (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Skiing

  • "The other three men's events were won by three different nations; with Norway taking the short course, Sweden the long course, and the Soviet Union the relay." -- Generally, using "with" as a conjunction is less effective than recasting the sentence to make it more forceful. Suggestion: The other three men's events were won by three different nations. Norway took the short course, Sweden the long course, and the Soviet Union the relay.

 Done fixed prose.

Venues

  • "The following venues hosted the various competitions during the Games:" - It would be slightly tidier to delete this sentence, remove the bullet points, and simply continue with straight text. Perhaps a transition sentence could be inserted at the beginning of the ice stadium paragraph, thus: Among the venues for the games, the Ice Stadium (Lo Stadio del ghiaccio) was intended to be the focal point." Ice Stadium here with capital letters is OK if it's a formal name (proper noun) rather than a generic name (common noun). In other words, when talking about ice stadiums in general, use lowercase; when talking about a specific building formally named Ice Stadium, use uppercase.

Not sure about this one. I'll probably get a second opinion. I removed the initial sentence but didn't put it all into straight text. H1nkles (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes

  • "Findling & Pelle" - The Manual of Style suggests replacing the ampersand with "and" unless the ampersand is part of a formal name such as a business name.

 Done

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth, your review is amazing and I sincerely appreciate the time it took to generate it. Being a GA reviewer myself I know that a lot of times our reviews go unappreciated so thank you. I will incorporate your suggestions in the hopes of pushing this article forward. I will take a look at another article from the PR backlog per your suggestion. H1nkles (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad to help and glad to hear from another reviewer. I see that the pile at GA is enormous, and I'm glad you're working hard to reduce it. We are like Sisyphus, perhaps, without the curse. Finetooth (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes aptly put, like Sisyphus without the curse in that we can walk away when ever we choose. Though for some reason we continue to come back, perhaps it is a curse :). At any rate keep up the good work. I do have a question, I am undertaking my first PR, prompted by this review, so I'm wondering what I do once I'm done? Do I have to update the WP:PR page? Do I update the article's history? Thanks again for your help. H1nkles (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In most cases, you don't have to do anything except add your review to the article's PR page (exactly like this page) and save. If you have reviewed something from the backlog, it's helpful to return to WP:PR and update the backlog list. The list appears in a rectangular box not too far from the top of the page. If you click on "update list"', you'll be switched to edit mode, and instructions will be visible there in all caps that say to remove the reviewed item from the backlog list and save the altered list. Your edit summary for the page save should include a wikilink to the review or to the article. For example, I entered "Reviewed 1956 Winter Olympics; backlog = 17" as my edit summary for my review of your article. (At least I think it was 17; I just count the remaining items in the list to get the total. If you forget any or all of that, it's OK; somebody will soon notice that the article has been reviewed and will do the update. The main thing is to review, and every review is appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Burger King franchises[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i need help improving it to GA status. I know it needs work but I need help from my peers to make it the best it can be.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blah) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I hope I can help you to reach your goal. So far I have only looked at the lead and the first half of the History section, but there is enough to be going on with.

  • Lead
    • The opening sentence should be rewritten closer to the requirements of WP:LEAD. In particular: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"
    • The phrases in bolded characters should be unbolded, in accordance with WP:MOSBOLD Fixed
    • Non-breaking spaces need to be introduced, per WP:NBSP, for 11,500 outlets, 71 countries etc
    • Second sentence of the lead needs repunctuating. The comma after "geographic territory" should be replaced by a semicolon. Or, better, split the sentence at this point. Fixed
    • I am confused by the figures at the start of paragraph 2. "11,550 outlets in 71 countries; 66% are in the United States and 90% are privately owned and operated." That I can understand; the company itself operates the other 10% of outlets, approx. 1,150. But: "The company has more than 37,000 employees serving approximately 11.4 million customers daily." Do these figures relate only to the outlets owned by the company? Both figures seem quite high for 1,150 outlets. Fixed Clarified statement - each store has about 30-40 employees, so 35k+ is right on target
    • You have included the description of master franchises in each of the lead's two paragraphs. The information only needs to be given once. Fixed

I have done a basic rewrite of the lead, it reads better but needs some work. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


  • History
    • You need to formally identify the initials BKC with the corporation Fixed Removed abbreviations
    • "the company...", "the corporation..." – best to use one or the other rather than both. Fixed settled on the company
    • Not "Mr Smith", just "Smith" Fixed
    • "...and prevented larger franchises from challenging Burger King Corporation as Chart House had." This won't mean anything to the general reader; therefore a sentence or two of explanation is necessary. Fixed Rewrote sentance
    • Awkward phrasing: "Smith also sought to have BKC be the primary owner of new locations..." This is one example of wording that needs attention. In this case, "Smith also required that BKC be the primary owner of new locations..." might do. But I think (as indeed would most Wikipedia articles, including my own!) Fixed Rewrote sentance
    • Sudden reference to "BKC parent Pillsbury". While the article is not about the ownership of the Burger King Corporation, some prior reference, preferably in the lead, should indicate that the corporation has been owned by a series of holding companies, otherwise the names don't mean anything to the reader. Fixed Added earlier reference

I will be happy to carry on with the review when you have addressed these points. As I can't watch all my peer reviews, please ping my talkpage when you are ready for me to continue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: you have struck my comment that "the article as a whole would benefit from a complete copyedit." Does this mwan that this copyedit has taken place? I will try and fnish the review today as I am away for most of the coming week. Brianboulton (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a pretty good copy edit of most of the edit, but it was not as thorough as it could have been. I mainly clarified some statements, removed duplicate wording and standardized some terminology. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the review

  • History, continued
    • Fifth paragraph: "store" should be "stores"
    • "three-quarters of a billion dollars", written out, looks cumbersome. Elsewhere you have used numeric amounts, so why not "$750 million"?
    • "which", rather than "who" were in financial distress
    • This description: "a program to address the financial issues facing BK's financially distressed franchisees" might be redundant, since you describe the function of the initiative in the next sentence.
    • "a bargain basement price of $16 million, or approximately 88% of their original value." Why is 88% of the original value described as a bargain basement price? It's a 12% discount, no big deal. Or do you actually mean that the original price was discounted by 88%?
    • What was "the new company"?
    • "completely" revamped - the adjective is unnecessary
    • Refer to "Cabrerra", not "Mr Cabrerra"
  • Relations
    • "put forth a plan" sounds archaic, almost biblcal. Try "announced a plan"
    • New York Stock Exchange should be written out in full, at first mention
    • Very clumsy wording: "would not be put into helping bolster the then flagging BK," Possibly "would not be used to help bolster the then flagging BK"
    • "In a 2005 dispute with its the NFA..." Something wrong here?
    • "in regard to" not "in regards to" (occurs twice)
    • Wrong use of italics (many instances..." etc). If this is a quote it should be in quote marks; it should not be italicised. The information needs to be cited to a source. (Same italics issue later in the paragraph)
    • No need to specify USD
    • "In a response, the NFA chairman Daniel Fitzpatrick responded..." Obvious redundancy here.
  • Australia
    • Overlong sentence: "From the 1980s onwards, Burger King had increased its interest in the operations of Hungry Jack's, leading to a number of disputes which prompted alterations to the franchise agreements in 1986, 1989, and again late in 1990 with the completion of four new agreements relating to different aspects of Hungry Jack's activities." This tendency towards long, winding sentences needs checking through the article.
    • "attempted" might be a better word than the old-fashioned "purported"

Sorry I don't have time to continue with this very detailed review into the final sections. In summary, there are grammar, prose and punctuation issues in the article which need to be sorted out; You really need to find an independent editor with a good feel for prose to go through the entire article. I have done my best on the sections I've examined, but I don't think I've picked up everything. Away from prose, the reliability of some of your sources may be questioned, e.g. Answers and Hoovers. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Central Troy Historic District[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of the best pieces of work I've ever done here. Everything has just fallen into place for this. It's everything I'd want this article to have and be. I ran it by the city's planning department; they love it and said there's nothing wrong. Wadester16 has improved on the original pictures I took considerably; he deserves some credit. I really feel like this could be an FA, and I'd like to start that process now.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because at some future point, I'm contemplating a FAC nomation for the article. This would be the first article on a business loop to go to FAC, and part of a future Feature Topic/Good Topic based on M-28. I'm looking for copy editing and other suggestions from a wider audience at this point.

Thanks, Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: Any chance of changing the name to something a bit less tortuous - and which signifies what the article is actually about? Like, for example, "M28 Business Route (Michigan)"? Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm open to suggestions... but the city names must remain... there is an article for the former BUS M-28 in Newberry, Michigan. The naming convention for Michigan highways is M-## (Michigan highway), and the one for other business loops is like U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) or Interstate 75 Business (St. Ignace, Michigan). All suggestions are welcome. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-written and interesting, but I have a couple of suggestions for possible expansion. The details about the high school and the pedestrian refuge area are good. More of this sort of thing would be good too, if available. Readers tend to remember details that distinguish one bit of pavement from the next. I have a few suggestions about prose and Manual of Style issues as well.

Lead

  • "It is one of three business loops for M-numbered highways in the state of Michigan." - Delete "the state of"? Also, what are the other numbering conventions for business highways in Michigan besides M? BUS US, yes. Anything else? Could a business loop be something else such as a BUS Z or a BUS C? How many business loops of all sorts does Michigan have? Are they ranked by length? If so, how does this one rank? What is the purpose of a business loop? Working some material about this into the "Route description" section is a possibility for expansion that might help meet the "comprehensive" requirement for an FA.

Route description

  • "In Negaunee, the routing uses County Road east from the city line." - Does County Road have a number?
  • "On Lakeshore Drive in Ishpeming, MDOT... " - Spell out and abbreviate on first use, thus: Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and wikilink? It's done this way on second use in the "History" section, but the extra stuff just needs to be moved up to the first instance.

History

  • "The business loop would not be designated BUS M-28 permanently until 1958." - "was" rather than "would be"?
  • "This routing was moved to bypass the city in 1964 when mining activity... " - What kind of mining? Mining for what?
  • "Previously, it ran along Greenwood Street and North Lake Road meeting US 41/M-28 in the West Ishpeming neighborhood of Ishpeming Township." - "and met" rather than "meeting"?
  • "The project budgeted $120,200 with $24,200 from the City of Negaunee (equivalent to $134,444 and $27,068 respectively in 2009)." - I'd suggest rounding the equivalents to the nearest hundred to match the precision level of the original figures. Since these sorts of conversions tend to be squishy because they depend on how the government or central bank calculates inflation, it might be safer to use "about $120,000 with about $24,000 from the City of Negaunee... " and then round to the nearest thousand.

Images and captions

  • Both images overlap multiple sections. MOS:IMAGES says "Images should be inside the section they belong to... ".
  • Does the highway go by city hall? If so, I'd suggest adding that to the main text. If not, how does the city hall photo help the reader understand the article? This leads to another suggestion for possible expansion. What are the main buildings along the route? You mention the high school, streetscaping, and a "pedestrian refuge area". Would a photo of any those be more illustrative of the text than the city hall photo?
  • The photo of the unusual sign shows a residential area in the background. Is much of BUS M-28 residential? It might be useful to include more detail about what surrounds the highway.
  • "This is a rare sign assembly for a county road used on a state highway. In this case, it points the way to CR 480 from BUS M-28 using a city truck route in Negaunee." - I found this a bit confusing at first. Suggestion: "A rare sign assembly with information about a county road and a state highway points the way from BUS M-28 to CR 480 via a city truck route in Negaunee." Or something like that.
  • Is this county road in the caption the same as the one identified earlier in the text as County Road?

References

  • "1 in:15 mi/1 cm:9 km" - I'm not sure what the map conventions are, but the WP#MOSNUM convention is generally to spell out the primary units. My inclination is to spell them all in this situation and replace the colon with an equal sign; thus: 1 inch = 15 miles; 1 centimeter = 9 kilometers. That's just my hunch. I can't point to a guideline that says to do it this way, although there might be one somewhere in the catacombs.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Some replies to questions.
County Road is the name. It's actually either a state highway (BUS M-28) or a city street. Odd name, but that's what it is called. County Road 480 is a separate, county-maintained roadway.
The other names for business loops in Michigan are Business Loop Interstate # (BL I-#) and the matching Business Spur Interstate # (BS I-#). For US Highways, US # Business Route (BUS US #) and for other state trunklines, M-# Business Route (BUS M-#). MDOT will use alternate forms on internal documents that look like I-#BL, I-#,BS, US-#BR and M-#BR. The difference between a business loop and a business spur is that a loop connects to the "parent highway" on both ends and a spur connects on only one end.
There are currently 58 signed business routes in Michigan. I could compile a chart quickly to compare their lengths.
Other suggestions are appreciated. I'll work on the suggested copy edits, and seek out some of the research along the expansion suggestions provided. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Kisnorbo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel I need a bit of advice as I've never managed to get a GA before.

Thanks, Spiderone (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. 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 his International experience is not in the lead that I saw.
     DoneSpiderone (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but his ancestry and passport seem to only be in the lead.
     DoneSpiderone (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid language which is unspecific about time. So in the lead I would say something like as of June 2009 he is unattached, having been released by Leicester City on DATE.
     DoneSpiderone (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Spell out abbreviations on first use, like NSL in which was competing in the now defunct NSL.[6]
     DoneSpiderone (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC) for SPL too
  • Also per WP:OVERLINK do not link the same thing twice in two paragraphs - so the following section Hearts has Following the collapse of the Australian national league, he made his move with a link to the dab NSL for the league.
     DoneSpiderone (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Article is generally well cited, but statements like He returned just in time to help Leicester secure their promotion as League One champions. and much of the International section need more refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
     DoneSpiderone (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 40 is incomplete - 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
     DoneSpiderone (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Model articles are helpful for ideas and examples to follow. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Assessment_department has a bunch of GAs of football players listed which seems like they would be good model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this article be better than a Start? Spiderone (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not normally write or assess sports articles, but I would rank this as a B class article. I think if the points raised above are ddressed it would probably pass GAN with some tweaks there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

David Schwimmer[edit]

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

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment – The awards section needs to be referenced with reliable sources, and it would be nice if it was turned into a table, like this or this. TheLeftorium 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Added table. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some unencyclopedic tone in the lead: "several years later" is unspecific; "For much of the late-1980s, he lived in Los Angeles as a struggling, unemployed actor." isn't particularly notable; "landed the role"
    • I removed "landed the role".
  • "Schwimmer moved to Chicago to attend Northwestern University", technically Northwestern's theater program is in Evanston
  • "After graduating in 1988, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in theater and speech, Schwimmer co-founded the Lookingglass Theatre Company.[3] After graduating, he returned to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career." Which is it: he founded Lookingglass in Chicago or moved to Los Angeles after graduating?
    • He co-founded the theatre in Chicago and moved to LA after graduating from Northwestern.
  • More specific details about roles in Early work?
    • I'll try to work on this.
  • "The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was complimentary of Schwimmer, calling him "terrific"." Is there a reason to privilege this one review over others besides the fact it's really positive?
    • I added another review.
  • The quoted review in Break-through seem to go on too long as to become tangential
    • Do you have a suggestion on how to "break" them down?
  • "He later described the directing experience as "intellectually engaged"." Unclear what this means or why it's important
    • I removed this.
  • Friends and after reads like a prosified laundry list of reviews and quotes rather than a cohesive narrative.
    • Suggestion?
  • The awards and nominations should merit more mention in the prose than in a list at the end.

Otherwise a solid read and a lot of potential! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Economy of the Empire of Brazil[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has very good sourced information on this particular subject (Economy of the Empire of Brazil) and I would like to receive anyone´s contribution to improve it or suggest that it should become a featured article if good enough.

Thanks, Lecen (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Peer review rules clearly state that editors are limited to one nomination per day. This is a second nomination for 15 June. Please bear this rule in mind when making future nomnations; PR s a pretty crowded place at the moment. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I've never done a peer review before; hopefully this helps at least a little! Obviously, feel completely free to completely disregard my suggestions. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Lead

  • "independent" could be linked to Brazilian Declaration of Independence
  • Empire of Brazil should definitely be linked to somewhere in the intro too
  • [1] [2] --> [1][2]. No spaces between footnotes
  • "imperial State" - should imperial be capitalized? I doubt it, but just throwing it out there
  • "memorable system of ports" - memorable?
  • "after-Independence period" - post-Independence?
  • I don't know how you could fit this in the lead, but I think it would help me at least to say when the Empire of Brazil was replaced by the current Republic of Brazil, especially because you start discussing the República Velha later in the overview section

Economy Currency

  • Currency section doesn't have a reference, probably doesn't need one, but just making sure you know
  • "The unit of currency under the empire (and until 1942)" - 'empire' should be capitalized to maintain consistency with the rest of the article

Overview

  • With all the numbers presented, you could consider a 'table if you believe that would improve the article and present the information more easily. Some of the other Economic history articles have tables if you want to look at them for examples
  • "The first railroad with only 15 kilometers was opened in April, 30, 1854[15] when many European coutries did not have one."
  • Not very clear.
  • "In 1868 there were 718 kilometers" --> there were 718 kilometers of railroad tracks?
  • "The first republican Government disastrous financial policy"
  • If 'Government' is capitalized, should 'republican' be as well?
  • Government's disastrous
  • The paragraph on the economy under the republican government - unsure about this, but maybe you should put that under a new heading at the end or something? Because it really isn't about the

economy of the Empire of Brazil, right?

Agriculture

  • "agriculture was carried through" --> produce was transported by?
  • "The great distances that raised the cost of the transport" --> that
  • "In the southeastern region, the coffee production that at the beginning of independent Brazil amounted to only 3% of exports, started to become" - no need for a comma I believe
  • "more and more important" --> more important
  • "At the coffee plantation regions, the producers had carried through the transition of the enslaved man power for the paid one" - awkward
  • "The province of São Paulo was the one that better reached success at this field" --> The province of Sao Paulo had the most success in this field?
  • "when the Rio Branco cabinet fixed in 40% the custom house tax" --> fixed at 40%
  • "of which would come to stimulate" --> of
  • "One could cite the birth" - awkward
  • "The extinction of the traffic in Negro slaves" --> African slaves

Overall

  • Don't put spaces between consecutive footnotes
  • Cities and towns could be linked more
  • Side note: you could incorporate some of the info from this article into History of the Empire of Brazil
  • I would really recommend a table for all those figures if you can figure out a way to organize the info
  • Fantastic job overall! (PS: Get yourself a userpage!) Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer to first review[edit]

*"independent" could be linked to Brazilian Declaration of Independence

Done!

*Empire of Brazil should definitely be linked to somewhere in the intro too

Done!

*[1] [2] --> [1][2]. No spaces between footnotes

Done!

*"imperial State" - should imperial be capitalized? I doubt it, but just throwing it out there

Done!

*"memorable system of ports" - memorable?

Removed "memorable".

*"after-Independence period" - post-Independence?

Done!

*I don't know how you could fit this in the lead, but I think it would help me at least to say when the Empire of Brazil was replaced by the current Republic of Brazil, especially because you start discussing the República Velha later in the overview section

I added the line "[that began at the end of 1889]" later, when the Republic is first mentioned.

*Currency section doesn't have a reference, probably doesn't need one, but just making sure you know

This section exists only to explain how Brazilian currency worked. It´s uncommon to see a 100$000 instead of $100,000.

*"The unit of currency under the empire (and until 1942)" - 'empire' should be capitalized to maintain consistency with the rest of the article

Done!

*With all the numbers presented, you could consider a table if you believe that would improve the article and present the information more easily. Some of the other Economic history articles have tables if you want to look at them for examples

Done!

The first railroad with only 15 kilometers was opened in April, 30, 1854[15] when many European coutries did not have one." Not very clear.

Changed to: "The first railroad line with only 15 kilometers was opened in April, 30, 1854[15] when many European coutries did not have one"

"In 1868 there were 718 kilometers" --> there were 718 kilometers of railroad tracks?

Changed to: "In 1868 there were 718 kilometers in railroads lines[17] and by the end of the Empire in 1889 it grew to 9,200 kilometers while another 9,000 kilometers were under construction"

If 'Government' is capitalized, should 'republican' be as well?

Done!

Government's disastrous

Done!

The paragraph on the economy under the republican government - unsure about this, but maybe you should put that under a new heading at the end or something? Because it really isn't about the economy of the Empire of Brazil, right?

Because it is no really getting into the Republican Economy. It is like a "Conclusion". It is just to mention that the anarchy during the First Republic hampered Brazil´s growth and to understand why the country would only become once again an international player much later during the 1970s.

"agriculture was carried through" --> produce was transported by?

Changed to "agriculture was done by the producers themselves".

"The great distances that raised the cost of the transport" --> that

Removed "that".

"In the southeastern region, the coffee production that at the beginning of independent Brazil amounted to only 3% of exports, started to become" - no need for a comma I believe

Removed both commas.

"more and more important" --> more important

Done!

"At the coffee plantation regions, the producers had carried through the transition of the enslaved man power for the paid one" - awkward

Changed to: "At the coffee plantation regions the producers made the transition from the enslaved man power to the paid one"

"The province of São Paulo was the one that better reached success at this field" --> The province of Sao Paulo had the most success in this field?

Changed to: "The province of São Paulo was the one that better reached success as it went from the old slavery economic system to the modern capitalist economic system"

"when the Rio Branco cabinet fixed in 40% the custom house tax" --> fixed at 40%

Done!

"of which would come to stimulate" --> of

Removed "of".

"One could cite the birth" - awkward

Changed to: "One of the main establishments created at this period was the metallurgical factory "Ponta da Areia" ("Sand Tip"), in the city of Niterói"

"The extinction of the traffic in Negro slaves" --> African slaves

Done!


Starvin' Marvin (South Park)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in response to a fail FAC nomination which indicated several flaws in the prose and grammar. I've fixed the specific problems pointed out, as well as a few others during a copy edit, but any more help before I nominate it again would be very welcome.

Thanks, — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Review from Resident Mario

Lead
  • Meanwhile, genetically engineered turkeys attack South Park residents while Chef rallies the residents to fight back, in a parody of the film Braveheart. The current form of the sentance is very cluttery. As this seems to a be a sidestory, I would write In an accomplying subplot, genetically engineered turkeys attack South Park residents and Chef rallies the residents to fight back, in a parody of the film Braveheart.
  • during its original broadcast, which was then... --> which at the time
Plot
  • send money to Sally Struthers' charity organization What is the name of the organization?
  • sports watch should be linked.
  • To me, who believes him to be crazy is a bit redundant. You already described him as a "mad scientist."
  • where Sally Struthers is hording and eating all the food meant for charity. --> where Sally Struthers is hording all the food meant for charity.
  • A fight breaks out, and eventually the Ethiopians take control of the food supply. What happened during the fight?
Production
  • Good
Themes
  • rampage of the turkeys provides an additional provided.
Cultural impact and references
  • In addition to the Starvin' Marvin character, "Starvin' Marvin" included the first appearances of regular characters Kyle's father Gerald Broflovski, as well as Stuart, Carol and Kevin McCormick, the mother, father and brother (respectively) of Kenny, who were portrayed as incredibly poor and unhygienic.

Better:

In addition to Starvin' Marvin, the episode included the first appearances of several regular characters: Kyle's father Gerald Broflovski, as well as Stuart, Carol, and Kevin McCormick, mother, father and brother (respectively) of Kenny, who were portrayed as incredibly poor and unhygienic.

The part at the end about his personal hygine seems latched-on. Should be removed.

  • Actress Sally Struthers should have a "," at the end - Actress Sally Struthers,
Reception
  • Looks good.

You may want to consider reviewing an article in the peer review backlog, which is how I found this article. Actually, I have a favor to ask. A Peer review of mine, Kohala (mountain), is also backlogged. Could go over that? ResMar 20:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Welles declaration[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to bring this article to the GA status one day, therefore I would like to receive a feedback on areas, which are in the need of the improvement. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye towards the WP:MOS and WP:WIAGA.

  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD. The first sentence does not really summarize the article. I think combining the first two sentences might work better - imagine trying to summarize what this was in one sentence: The Welles declaration was issued on July 23, 1940 by United States Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, acting as Secretary of State, which condemned what the U.S. saw as the USSR’s forcible incorporation of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and initiated its refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Soviet control of the three states.[1]:3 I might even just call him Acting Secretary of State in the lead (which is true) and explain the rest in the text. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Background does not seem to be in the lead, for example.
  • Per WP:OVERLINK common terms like United States do not need to be linked.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Also do not sandwich text between two images
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • Refs look good and this is well cited.
  • Impact seems like it could be expanded - what did the citiziens of the Baltic states think of the declaration? What role if any did it play in their eventual resumption of full independence?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the comments will try to address them in the near future. M.K. (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Second the thanks. I've ordered a book from interlibrary loan and would like to do some more research over the next week or two while waiting for it. One comment - how did the citizenry perceive it (as opposed to emigres) - that would be, um, a serious challenge under the circumstances. There are probably some regional news items from the time, but I fear they would be hard to find - do you think this lack would impede the article's progress? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Glad to be of help. If you can say "we have looked at all the major sources and there is nothing (or very little) on this topic", then I think most people understand. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Karen Handel[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to have been maliciously edited by a user to insert a claim that the Secretary of State dropped out of high school and obtained a GED. The claim is not true and the editor who made the comment appears to support one of Karen Handel's opponent's in the Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary.

Thanks, Ewerickson (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is not for dispute resolution and from the article talk page, this has been reverted and an eye or two is being kept on the article. The nominator has made two edits total on WP (other was in Sept. 2006). I am inclined to think this is not a serious PR request. If anyone wants this to have feedback, pelase say so here. Otherwise I will close this PR in 48 hours or so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I am archiving this per the talk page response Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

John Benbow[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to improve the article - and up its rating. Prior to my edits it was a start, and I want to check my progress thus far.

Thanks, SGGH ping! 22:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment: You have cited the "Brave Benbow" ditty to Trevelyan's book. Does he not give the first verse, whch you have omitted? Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns out there was a bit of it omitted. I was not aware, having not added the original content to the article and not checked it. I have added the entire song and cited it to a more approriate source, a book on social music in England. Now I just need to work out how to have it two verses abrest so it is not so long and does not occupy as much space. Anyone know how? Got it now. SGGH ping! 10:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Any other thoughts from anyone? SGGH ping! 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There are 19 articles in the PR backlog, including this one. 17 have been there longer. Someone will get to it within a few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I only briefly looked at the article and it seems to be under-linked at time. "a fleet in the Downs" - The Downs? Revd. Joseph Nightingale - the Joseph Nightingale ? etc. NVO (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have linked Nightingale, and the Downs was already linked. Thanks for the spot, I shall look out for others. SGGH ping! 20:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ruhrfisch, I shall try to PR a few myself when I get some free time tomorrow. SGGH ping! 11:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks to be about GA already, and not that far from FA. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD, probably to three paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to include all section headers in the lead in some way, but the word admiral does not seem to be in the lead, nor does the Merchant period in his life (to mane two examples).
  • This seems to be very nicely referenced, but this needs a ref - for example in the Return to the Navy section Benbow was highly regarded as a specialist in both navigation and pilotage and his evidence given in July 1690 to the preliminary investigation strongly favoured his old patron, Torrington. He did not however testify in the Earl's court-martial in December that year. seems like it needs a ref.
  • There are also several places that need to provide context to the reader better. Here are some examples (not an exhaustive list):
    • I would add the year of publication to A biography of The Gentleman's Magazine, however, records in a short biography entitled Life and Exploits of Admiral Benbow by D. Parkes that he was born in 1650,[8]... as is done in the rest of this section with sources.
    • It would probably be worth adding something to clarify why the family's association with Charles I was a problem for the young Benbow, a sentence or phrase or link to English Interregnum somehow?
    • Is it worth mentioning he was 15 years old when he entered the Navy?
    • In the Merchant trading section, I think it would be useful to include a sentence or two on how the Navy used to operate (readers unfamiliar with naval history or more familiar with the career navies of today may be confused here by being "paid off")
    • Is there a link for master attendant - maybe Wiktionary? I also think I would link master of the fleet on first use.
    • I would also make it clearer who the enemy was when he returned to the Navy - assume it was France as the attacked St Malo.
    • I would explain what the various colors mean (admiral of the red or white or whatever)
    • The marriage section needs to be expanded if possible - there is an earlier passing reference to a son John whom I assume is their first child, but it does not even say the name of the first child.
    • The 'Brave Benbow' section needs to make clearer which engagement is meant in Controversy slowly began to develop over the events of the engagement. It is also a bit odd as the first sentence is on controversy, the second on efforts to rehabilitate the disgraced captains, and then we skip 141 years later and have a memorial erected (which should probably say explicitly it was made for Benbow). Were there no other memorials between his death and burial and this?
  • A few rough spots in the language - Unclear sentence She had been engaged by HMS Adventure, under the command of Captain William Booth, and when the Nonsuch arrived on the scene the Golden Horse surrendered.[14]... I think I would replace She here with a more specific reference to the Algerine warship as the antecedent for she is initially unclear.
  • Is the repetition of "in silver" a mistake in A Moorish skull-cap, "coated with varnish and set in silver in silver" and bearing the inscription...? I had to read this a few times to understand it, but am not sure if it would read better the first time throug if the "in silver" were not repeated.
  • I agree that the song would look better as two columns, if possible

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall address those in due course. SGGH ping! 16:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101 Hi, I think this is a very nice article and certainly not far from GA standard.

  • I don't think the reference to Saint-Malo as being an anti-piracy operation is correct - It seems to have been an operation as part of the Nine Years War and therefore it was privateers rather than pirates (which is an important distinction). There is also no need to link "siege" in the article at all, it is a common enough word not to require it.
    • Done
  • I've noticed an issue with ranks: when part of a persons title they should be capitalised (Admiral John Benbow), when in text they should not (John Benbow was an admiral). You also need consistency in introductions, either always give the rank or don't (e.g. you have "Captain Edward Acton" but "HMS Ruby under George Walton". I would prefer the ranks are always given when a new person is introduced but either way it must be consistent). Its also better not to link the rank either individually or as part of the person's name (unless it is something unusual like Lieutenant-Admiral) but it is usual to link the "Sir" as part of the name for people knighted (provided they used the knighthood at the time period under question). These are both a matter of preference, but you must always be internally consistent.
    • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
  • Related to the above, ships must always be introduced consistently: sometimes they have HMS and sometimes they don't. I recommend that whenever a new ship is introduced they be given the prefix, but it is not needed on subsequent occassions.
    • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
  • "Not to be confused with John Bercow." - is this really an issue? The names are similar, but it would be hard to confuse them.
    • I never thought so, some one else added it and I haven't moved it away yet. SGGH ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Meanwhile, his uncle, Thomas, was executed by Charles I" - why? Seems like there is an interesting story behind this.
  • "Benbow's lack of possessions" - unless this is a direct quote (in which case it should have quote marks) this is a very odd way of phrasing it - people rarely join the Navy to get more possessions (at least not directly).
  • From the Early Years section on the sentence structure is very oversimplified, with one clause sentences following one another. This disrupts the narrative flow and prevents complex ideas developing. Try to expand or merge the sentences to form longer ones with more context and connection.
  • "as an HMS Tiger Prize" - what do you means "as an"?
    • Fixed.
  • "Benbow distinguished himself well in a number of actions, and won Herbert's approval" - How and what actions?
  • "which soon proved the offence true" - "at which Benbow was found guilty"? The sentence also repeats "Booth" too much.
    • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
  • Don't link dates.
    • I don't, I have been removing them. SGGH ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "He did not however testify in the Earl's court-martial" - You haven't mentioned an Earl previously (I know you mean Torrington, but others might not).
    • Fixed.
  • "Despite his wounds he was determined to continue the chase. Captain Kirkby then came aboard, and tried to persuade him to abandon the chase" - repetition of chase
    • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
  • "and the other captains agreed" - all of them?
  • "two more sons named Richard" - both of them?
    • It appears to be not unusual at the time, but I can't confirm whether one of them perhaps died. SGGH ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The entire paragraph that follows "Brave Benbow" is what I call a prose list. You see these a lot in TV episode articles and similar, less so in historical ones. Effectively, the information there is disconnected - it is just a selection of random facts that need to be joined but placing similar information in sentences together and joining them up. At the moment it reads like a bullet point list that has been collapsed into a paragraph.
    • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
Thanks for the comments, I shall address in due course. SGGH ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And that is all - a very nice article and not far to go until it is at GA standard, although the prose needs quite a lot of work before it can become FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season 2008–09[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into the article and just wanted to know the quality of it and how to take it forward.

Just a small note, in the season description section, when talking about matches, sometimes there isn't a different reference because every one of the matches is referenced as part of the score in the results section and I felt it might be a bit redundant if I just repeated the reference.

Thanks a lot, Prem4eva (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

A few comments:

  • The lead is too short, should be a couple of paragraphs at least. (per WP:LEAD)
  • Seasons and scores use the en dash rather than the standard hyphen, e.g. 2008–09 and 2–1, not 2008-09 and 2-1. (per WP:DASH)
  • When writing in prose about numbers less than ten, you should normally write them as words, e.g. two points from eight games, not 2 points from 8 games. (per WP:MOSNUM)
  • The Pre-season Transfers section is possibly a bit too long and could be made more interesting to read. Try to avoid proseline, where every sentence starts "On such and such a date, x happened". Also, the dates of the summer transfers, while a useful reference when listed in the table further down are not that critical in the article text. Does it matter whether Keane moved on the 28th of July as opposed to the 27th or 29th?
  • Try to reduce the use of statements such as "news broke" or "it was announced", since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of actual events, backed up by sources, as opposed to an encyclopedia of news bulletins covering those events.
  • Some of the inline citations are in the wrong place. The inline citation goes immediately after punctuation, with no space inbetween.
  • Considering the article is about Tottenham Hotspur's season, it is surprising that ten other teams are highlighted in colour in the Premier League table, but Spurs are not. My eyes should be drawn towards Spurs as I am interested in where they finished.
  • Date format should be 28 March, not 28th March, even in prose. (per WP:DATE)
  • Premier League should always be capitalised (not premier league)
  • Be careful not to add your own commentary or analysis, e.g. "The match was a disaster". Also don't add peacock terms such as "amazing" in "grabbed an amazing point" (see WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK)
  • Although there are a lot of references in the article, some of the "month" sections are completely unreferenced. Regarding your above comment about references, you can re-use the same reference in the article by using named references. (see WP:REFNAME)

Hope this is useful and good luck with improving the article. Let me know if you have any further questions. cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Comments from PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
  • Infobox
    • There should be no bold text other than the field titles. Done Govvy (talk)
    • "Runners-up" is hyphenated.
    • "Last 32" should be "Round of 32", as that is what the round is called in the UEFA Cup 2008–09 article.
    • I'd prefer it if the top scorers had full names.
  • Lead
    • The lead is way too short.
    • Don't bold "Tottenham Hotspur" per WP:BOLDTITLE.
    • "season" should not start with a capital letter.
  • Season 2008–2009
    • The prose still needs massive referencing. No point citing specific examples since it's pretty much the whole thing that needs it.
  • Team kits
    • The infobox has parameters that allow kits to be shown there. Do we need to know what colour the goalkeeper kits are?
  • Premier League table
    • Is it really necessary to have the entire Premier League table in the article. I suggest showing Spurs' position with one or two teams either side.
I think it looks better with the full table and you get a better whole picture of the league then. Govvy (talk)
  • Transfers
    • This is a comment that applies to most of the article, but I really despise the unorthodoxly coloured table headers, and I'm sure they go against WP:ACCESS. Stick to standard table header colours.
    • Don't use a non-black text colour in the dates column as it makes it look like the dates are linked. At first glance, I was going to say don't link dates, but then I realised I'd been deceived by the text colour.
    • Can't you merge the "Loaned out" and "Completed Loan departures" tables? Apart from the fact that Pekhart's loan is still in effect, I can't see any reason to split them, since people aren't stupid enough to think that January 2010 is part of the 2008-09 season. You could then remove the word "Completed" from both the loan arrivals and departures titles.
  • Squad list
    • This section is completely redundant to the "Player statistics" section and could easily be deleted.
  • Starting 11
    • This section is tantamount to original research and should probably be deleted.
  • Match results
    • There is a massive over-use of the {{goal}} template in this section. All instances of the template should be removed.
    • Spurs' website seems to have given the "own goal" against CD Denia to Townsend. Perhaps you should reflect this in the table.
    • Typically, own goals are denoted by "o.g.", not "OG", and penalties should be denoted by "pen.", not "pen".
    • Where the attendance is not known, leave the cell blank. "N/A" usually stands for "not applicable", which is not applicable in this case.
    • The comparison of the Premier League finish with the previous season is original research and not appropriate. That whole section is also redundant to the Premier League table above (which should be condensed, as I noted earlier)
    • That Spurs were eliminated from the FA Cup by Man Utd should be obvious from the results table. Therefore, the "FA Cup Result" section is redundant. In fact, so are the "League Cup Result" and "UEFA Cup Result" sections. Delete them.
  • Manager statistics
    • These aren't actually manager statistics. They're just club statistics conveniently split into the two managers' reigns. Personally, I don't think that it's particularly encyclopaedic, and might even constitute OR.
  • Player statistics
    • What's with the small font here? Make the font 100% size.
    • There's also no need for the "As of" lines any more, since the season is over.
    • Couldn't you make the stats section similar to the one at Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09, and split both goals and appearances by competition in a single table?
  • External links
    • What is Spurs Odyssey? Looks like a fansite, and probably shouldn't be linked to.
    • Actually, none of the other links in the section look that useful. Unless there is an official Spurs page with data about the 2008-09 season, there's no need for an external links section in this article.
Have removed the external links. Govvy (talk)

Hope my comments help. Send me a note when you've dealt with them and I'll get back to you. – PeeJay 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


reply from Prem4eva (talk · contribs)

Thanks for a having a look Peejay -

  • All the infobox notes are done,
  • With the lead, it will be expanded ASAP and with the bold, Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 maintained bold in the lead and has achieved GA status
Pretty sure Peejay is correct, see WP:BOLDTITLE. I've now corrected the Bradford City article. GA articles may still have a few minor style issues. --Jameboy (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Season 2008-09 will have refs added ASAP
  • Yes, I do think the goalkeeper kit is needed, the goalkeeper is part of the team and his kit differs
  • Agree with Govvy
  • I see your point about table heading colours but I don't believe it to a huge defining factor on the quality of article that the header colours correspond to the team colours, if it truly makes or breaks it then of course, I don't think it's that big a deal, date colours removed in transfer sections, loan sections merged,
  • Squad list and starting 11 deleted
  • I saw the {goal} debate on wikiproject football and no consensus was clearly reached, I personally prefer the template having not used in the 2007-08 season article, so the {goal} remains but multiple goals are changed to reflect the changes to the template, N/A blanked, result section deleted
    • The {{goal}} template is intended only for use with {{footballbox}}. In these tables, it is used in a column entitled "Scorers", making the images unnecessary decoration. They should be deleted. – PeeJay 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree on the manager statistics, they are statistics and they offer an insight into the performances of the two managers, and important/encyclopedic considering the amount of emphasis put on Tottenham Hotspur's management this season and as for OR, but that logic then the image of bradford's position by round which features on the bradford page, which again achieved GA, should surely be thought of as Original research
  • The font isn't in the <-small-> template, that is the restrictions of the template the information is in, (UPDATE - Goals section has been seperated)
  • Again Govvy

The remaining points will be sorted, as well of course the points made by Jameboy

Thanks again everyone

Prem4eva (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Westland Interceptor[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how to improve the article. Positive and negative comments are welcome.

Thanks, LouriePieterse (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a good start, it needs a lot of work to be a fully developed article. Here are some suggestions for improvement - I am also reviewing the other Westland aircraft article so some of the comments will be the same for both.

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. For example, the lead does not clearly identify the time frame of the airplane, and it is not clear to me from the lead (or the rest of the article) if this was a monoplane or biplane - the references to monoplanes outside the lead are unclear - are they about the rise of such aircraft in general or this one in particular?
  • 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 and also make sure that important information from the infobox (like the fact that only one was built) are in the lead too.
  • The article also does not have enough references - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. The journal cited could use {{cite journal}} to provide more complete information. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The word "sadly" here is very POV However, sadly the overall performance and handling during the test flights shown that the aircraft designers failed in reaching the project goal. See WP:NPOV
  • Is there any chance for an image? I think this would qualify under WP:FAIR USE or perhaps the image would be free now since enough years have passed.
  • I would look at some of the similar fighter articles to see ideas for expansion. The details of the specification could be given. Who designed it? Who was the test pilot? What happened to the only model produced?
  • Per WP:See also most links which are already in the article should not be repeated in the See also section.
  • A model article is good for ideas and examples to follow. There are many aircraft Featured Articles at Category:FA-Class aviation articles that seem like they may be good model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Westland Yeovil[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how to improve it. Any comments are welcome, positive and negative.

Thanks, LouriePieterse (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a good start, it needs a fair amount of work to be a fully developed article. Here are some suggestions for improvement - I also reviewed the Westland Interceptor article so some of the comments will be the same for both. This is a better article though.

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. For example, the lead does not clearly identify the country of manufacture.
  • 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 and also make sure that important information from the infobox (like the fact that only three were built) are in the lead too.
  • References are OK here, but the web page in Russian needs to identify the fact that it is in that language. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. The journal cited could use {{cite journal}} to provide more complete information. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Watch for unencylcopedic language - for example "One will notice" in One will notice that the wing section on each side of the centre section is different from the remainder of the wing, it is somewhat thicker
  • The verb tenses are also odd and seem like they may be copyvios from the journal - why else would an aircraft that was built in the 1920s and does not exist be described in the present tense?
  • The image File:WestlandYeovil 2.jpg does not have a license. I think this would qualify under WP:FAIR USE or perhaps the image would be free now since enough years have passed.
  • I would look at some of the similar fighter articles to see ideas for expansion. The details of the specification could be given. Who designed it? What happened to the three versions produced?
  • Per WP:See also most links which are already in the article should not be repeated in the See also section.
  • A model article is good for ideas and examples to follow. There are many aircraft Featured Articles at Category:FA-Class aviation articles that seem like they may be good model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Alan Moore[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can be brought back up to GA, and eventually make it to FA. It was delisted after a GA reassessment; anythin there you want to reiterate or anything you think the reviewer missed or got wrong? There are plenty of sourcing issues (see all the CN templates). Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While I knew some about his disputes over creator's rights, I learned a lot from the is article and found it very interesting. To make it to GA and FA it needs some work, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and per WP:LEAD should probably be 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article this long. 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 - as one example, Jack Kirby being an influence is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the current sections do not seem to be in the lead.
  • Biggest problem as I see it with this making GA or FA is a lack of references. The lead does not have to have refs except for direct quotes or extraordinary claims, but most of the rest of the articles needs refs. Personal life and Early work seem to be OK as far as refs go, but even there some refs could be at the end of sentences or have a space betwen them and the punctuation (should be no space). 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
  • Watchmen is an FA, so it may be a source of refs on Moore
  • There are three fair use images in the article and none of them are by Moore himself (since he is the writer and not the illustrator). This might be a problem under WP:NFCC at FAC. Of the three the Watchmen characters seem most likely to be OK as they were created by Moore based on old DC characters.
  • I think it would help to provide more context to the reader in several places. For example, could years be added to the section headers (so "American mainstream (1983–1989)"). Some places have dates already, but others need them - when did he first write V for Vendetta for example? Or when did his first wife and their lover leave him? See WP:PCR
  • The Recent work section header will become out of date and should be changed. Perhaps "2008 to present" or something like that?
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others where possible, or in a few cases expanded
  • The emphasis given to some of his other work at the end seems to raise possible WP:WEIGHT issues. For example, the section on his Simpsons appearance (which includes an uncited direct quotation that needs a ref) is nearly as long as the paragraph on Watchmen, which is probably his best known work. I would put that Watchmen is the only comic to have won a Hugo award in the lead, by the way.
  • As an artist, I think there should be some sort of critical reception section.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


  • "Messi was the top scorer, with six goals, including two in the final game of the 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship.Shortly thereafter,he became an established member of Argentina's senior international team.
  • In Beijing 2008,he won his first senior international honours, winning an Olympic gold medal with the Argentina Olympic football team.

Early life

  • "Messi was born on 24 June 1987.
  • He also has two older brothers named Rodrigo and Matías.
  • Messi started playing football for Grandoli football club
  • "offering to pay for the medical bills if he was willing to move to Spain"

2005–06 season

  • His composure on the ball and teamwork with Ronaldinho and others had paid dividends for Barcelona of which he netted six goals in seventeen league appearrance.

2008–09 season

  • "A match was billed as a friendly between Messi and good friends, as Barçelona went on to win the match by 6 goals to 1.

Another impressive goal against Sevilla,allowing Barcelona to maintain their six point lead at the top of the league with a beautifully placed goal.

International career

  • "Messi wore the coveted number 10 Argentine senior national jersey for the first time in the 2005 under 20 fifa world cup.The final match against Nigeria was indeed a crucial one of which Argentina lifted the trophy.Also another great encounter against Nigeria in the 2008 Beijing olympics final,of which Nigeria was coached by the same Samson Siasia.

Copa America 2007

  • "When Copa started,Messi was the youngest player in the tournament,and he performed so greatly in the tournament.

List of music releases from Fame Academy contestants[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what improvements should be made before nominating it for Featured List. Can people comment upon references, quality of prose and the general format of the list.

Thanks, 03md 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems generally well done, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly minor points.

  • I know this is in the lists (tables) already, but I would add the dates (month and year, or at least year) when the debut singles peaked in the charts to provide context for the reader
    • Added dates
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so change as one example The runner-up from the first series, Sinead Quinn, signed a record deal with Mercury Records[7], the same company as Sneddon, ...
    • Done
  • I would add the rank / finish position of each contestant to the table. This is given for some artists (Lemar, winners), but not all. I think this is interesting enough to include.
    • Done
  • The notes are confusing because there is not a direct link from the place they refer to, to the note. There is a system used in several articles such as El Greco that would work here. {{Ref_label}} and {{Note_label}}
    • Done
  • Fame Academy is the link (and first two words in the article). WP:See also says Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also", ...
    • Removed see also link
  • Prose looks decent - I made minor comma edits. May want to not look at the article for a few days, print it out and then read it out loud and see how it sounds as a way to polish the prose.
  • Would it make sense to list the tracks and artists for the three Fame Academy albums? None of them has its own article, so this might be the place to do it.
  • I have wikilinked to the tracklisting on the main Fame Academy article. At least the first album would be notable for its own page as it reached number 2 in the album chart so I may create an individual page

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Thanks for all your comments. They have been extremely useful. 03md 09:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Glad to be of help, thanks for your work on articles Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Scream/Childhood[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to seen it to FAC at some point and could do with some advise, especially in regard to prose.

Thanks, — R2 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review as requested: The fair use rationale on the image page should explain why the image is used to illustrate something that words cannot fully explain. As such, a good rationale should not be simply "to show a concept", but should also explain why the concept could not be explained in words or significant.

  • File:SCREAMjacket.jpg: explain why it is used to identify the article
  • File:Michael Jackson Scream.ogg: explain why this must be there for the article's commentary (hint:"The music has polarized; it's either clipped, choppy and electronic or glossy and sumptuous, only occasionally trying to combine the two. Most of the time, Jackson sounds as if he's singing through clenched teeth, spitting out words in defiance of any and all persecutors"." does this clip have that?)
  • File:Michaeljanetscream.jpg: explain why this is needed to convey something words cannot explain. (hint: "Janet Jackson takes on a darker persona, previously unseen in her music videos. Jim Farber of the New York Daily News described her as "Sporting a thick thatch of wig hair, and eyes darkened by coal-black makeup...sullen and arty...Janet, however, never looked tougher. Or more in control"," would likely be of help...)
  • File:Michael Jackson - Childhood.ogg: what kind of difficult hard to express with words alone effect is this sample illustrating? This whole chunk of emotive reception, "Jon Pareles described it as a "defense show...Over tinkling keyboards and strings that could be sweeping across a cinemascope panorama, he croons [the lyrics]". He described it as "creepy" yet "lushest". In the song, Jackson states, "No one understands me...They view it as such strange eccentricities, 'cause I keep kidding around". He invokes "the painful youth I've had" and asks the public to, "Try hard to love me" and, with a breaking voice, asks, "Have you seen my childhood?". James Hunter believed, "uncut Hollywood fluff like "Childhood"...has zero point of view on itself; its blend of rampaging ego and static orchestral pop is a Streisand-size mistake". Chris Willman of the Los Angeles Times described it as "dynamically enunciated reading and maudlin string arrangement directly invoke Streisand". Tim Molloy, of the Associated Press, called it a sweet sounding pleading song. Patrick Macdonald of The Seattle Times described "Childhood" as "a sad, self-pitying song, but quite moving and beautiful". Taraborrelli observed that the song was not purely about his bad childhood years, but was also a plea for compassion and understanding.", should be what this clip's rationale should state what it is attempting to clarify.
  • File:Michael Jackson Childhood screenshot.JPG: the media in the article most qualified to be violating free use. Jackson, sitting on a stump with a child-like persona, can be fairly easy to visualize. I do not think there is anything real significant in this video worthy of illustration. "A Chris Van Allsburg-style vision of children in flying airships, crusading through a forest at night" might perhaps require illustration, but is it that significant of the music video? Most likely not, possibly this section should be bare of images.

I recommend looking at a few recent FAs (films most likely) to see how their copyrighted images are handled on their rationale. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, replied on your talk page to. :) — R2 13:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, all done and removed the music video to Childhood. — R2 01:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments by — Σxplicit
  • I noticed in the lead that it mentions that "Childhood" is on the B-side twice (first and third paragraph).
  • Jackson played many of the instruments. Since we're speaking of "Scream" here, it's unclear which Jackson we're talking about.
  • I'm assuming $7 million dollars is in American currency; try linking the dollar sign as [[United States dollar|$]].
  • I'm seeing a few tense problems. For example, It would become the main theme song… should be It became the main theme song…, etc. Also, isn't main theme song a bit irrelevant? Theme songs are usually the main song to anything.
  • …37 year history of Billboard. Was it the 37th year when it debuted at number five, or the 37th year as Billboard stands today? Omitting '37 year' wouldn't hurt. This also occurs in the 'Commercial reception of "Scream/Childhood"' section.
  • …Jackson and the press had a difficult relationship. As stated above, it is unclear which Jackson we're talking about. Also, this sentence is somewhat odd. Perhaps you should describe the problems tabloids wrote about Jackson as opposed to calling it a relationship.
  • The video shows Jackson poking fun not only at the press but also the situation he was in. What situation was he in at the time of this song?
  • In 1993, the relationship between Jackson and the press soured entirely when he was accused of child sexual abuse. Again, this really shouldn't be considered a relationship.
  • "Scream" was written, composed and produced by the Jackson siblings… This reads as if all the Jackson siblings wrote the song.
  • Jackson was credited for playing instruments such as… Michael or Janet?
  • In the section 'Leaking of "Scream"', it doesn't seem to explain how the radio stations obtained the song. Any info on that?
  • The 4:46 minute music video for "Scream" was choreographed by Jackson… Michael or Janet?

Will get to the other half of the article a bit later. — Σxplicit 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Childhood" is in part, a biographical reference to Jackson's difficult years as a youngster, such as the relationship with his father and the pressures of being world famous from such a young age—as the lead member of The Jackson 5. This paragraph is not only short, but not cited.
  • Joseph would often trip up… What does trip up mean?
  • In the HIStory album booklet there is a drawing of Jackson as a child. He is huddled in corner of the room and looks scared; The electric cord of his microphone has snapped. On one corner wall are the lyrics to "Childhood", the other wall shows Jackson's signature. This paragraph is too short to merit its own section. It should probably be merged with another.
  • Jason James Richter play's a minor role in the video. This should be cited.
  • By the end of August 1995 it was certified Gold and Platinum by the RIAA for shipment's of a million copies in the U.S. It can't be certified both Gold and Platinum at the same time. I suggest removing the former.

Σxplicit 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the advise, I'll start cutting through these shortly. — Please comment R2 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MaJic's comments[edit]

  • RE artwork: could multiple artwork be fair here? i have art for the remix release, just the song itself (says simply scream) and a separate childhood cover. MaJic (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TechOutsider's comments[edit]


Shivaji[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article deserves a better rating than the one it currently has. The article seems to be well structured and covers the entire life of Shivaji. It no more seems to have the problem of NPOV and peacock terms. Thanks Kesangh (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Sources: Thjat star tv series needs episode numberor name everywhere in article. Hometech (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but still needs a lot of work. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please see WP:LEAD which says the lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs.
  • Article needs many more references - for example the whole Foundation of empire section is one of many sections that has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books need more info on publisher, date etc. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Some of the images appear to be of relatively modern works of art - not sure what the copyright laws are like in India, but I suspect some of these may be have questionable copyright status and definitely need more source information.
  • Do you really think language like And young Shivaji Maharaj, energetic and enthusiastic as he was, wasted no time in setting off on a path of freedom and glory. is really NPOV?
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow of the article and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The article has lots of lists / bullet points that should be converted to text in most cases.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Charles Lindbergh[edit]

Comprehensiveness, weighting, sourcing[edit]

Prose, copyediting[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article has all of the major aspects need to be a featured article but I could use some help with looking for things that I am not seeing. Specifically if anyone has suggestions for prose, expansion or structure but all comments are welcome.Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Per the script I reviewed the images and made sure they all had captions, rmv'ed a couple that where not meaninful to the article and realigned some so they would flow better.
  • I fixed a couple of categories.--Kumioko (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored long standing images which are significant, relate directly to, and illustrate material in the text of the article. Relocated images that had been moved away from the text relating to them. Deleted redundant caption which simply repeats text plainly visible in the image (kidnapping poster). (Centpacrr (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

    • I removed some images bacause I think this article has too many images already than it needs and I removed a few that where less pertinanet to the overall rendering of the article. Also, the MOS states that an image should not be placed in a section so that the section starts with an image or causes another section to start in the middle of an image (can't remember where I say it though) so I shofted some images around wihin sections. I understand some where long standing but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are needed for the article. --Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I have been researching and working (approaching 600 edits) on the aviation (including Air Mail), kidnapping, awards, and media sections of this article for 15 months including the creation and contribution of 17 images of unique items of Lindberghiana from my large collection of original materials. They were carefully selected and are designed to specifically illustrate many important aspects of Lindbergh's life in these areas. While the placements that have evolved through consensus for some of them may not fall completely within one or more MOS guidelines, they were carefully considered and decided upon for contextual reasons. This is permitted (and even encouraged) as guidelines are advisory in nature as opposed to "hard and fast rules." I will, however, go over them again and see if any tweaks in size or placement might improve their usage. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
        • I know you have spent a lot of time on the article and please don't take offense, Charles Lindbergh had a lot of things going on in his life and theres a lot of info out there. More than we can shoehorn into this one article. I just think that we should trim some images thats all, just my opinion.--Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I have deleted a few images and modified a few others for the time being but may restore some later depending on how this review goes. I may at some time in the future do a separate article on Lindbergh and the Air Mail which would take some of this information to a new page. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
            • Sounds good in fact I can see several articles that could or should be created or expanded including his trans-atlantic flight, the kidnapping, his arctic exploits, his military service, his work with the air mail as you mention, etc.--Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
          • There is, in fact, an entire field of study and collecting relating to Lindbergh and the Air Mail called "Lindberghiana" which is my particular interest. Most of the images that I have contributed to this article (such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]) are of such items in my own Linberghiana collection. (This collection also contains a great many items relating to CAL's survey flights in Central and South America for Pan Am.) Although relatively short, this portion of his early career probably does indeed deserve an article of its own, although in the meantime I'll leave these images with the text in the current CAL article so that they will be available to Wikipedia readers. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

(undent) I just noticed that there is no link on the article to say this article is in peer review. Is there something wrong woth the template or was this article cast out of the peer review process and it hasn't caught up yet?--Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Virtual camera system[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm quite knowledgeable on the topic but I'm not sure how I could improve the article any further. Any suggestion would be appreciated.

Thanks, Laurent (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article that illuminates something all computer game players notice but do not necessarily understand. As I read, I noticed quite a few mostly small prose and Manual of Style issues. I fixed a few of them, and below is a list of other suggestions.

Lead

  • "where their purpose is to show the action under the best possible angle" - "at" rather than "under"?
  • "more generally, they are also used in 3D virtual worlds when a third person view is required" - Delete "also"?
  • "Tracking cameras, on the other hand, follow the character as he moves." - To avoid using "he" to mean "he", "she", and possibly "it", perhaps this could be recast. Suggestion: "Tracking cameras, on the other hand, follow the character's movements."
  • Since MOS:IMAGES suggests starting an article with an infobox or lead image in the upper right, it might be better to move one of the two images in the article to the upper-right position or to find a suitable third image.

Contents

  • MOS:HEAD says "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." Thus "camera systems" which appears in the title should not be used in the section heads, and those heads should be unique. Perhaps "Third-person view" and then "Fixed", "Tracking", and "Interactive" would be OK for the first set, then "Implementations" for the head of the next big section.

Third person view games

  • "rendered from a fixed distance behind the player character, and slightly above them" - "Character" is singular, but "them" is plural. This is probably meant as a way to avoid the awkward "he, she, it" business, but there's another way. Suggestion: "rendered from a fixed distance behind and slightly above the player character"
  • "This viewpoint allows players to see a more strongly characterized avatar" - Wikilink avatar?
  • "Games with this perspective often make use of positional audio, where the volume of ambient sounds varies depending on the position of the avatar." - "Where" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Suggestion: "Games with this perspective often make use of positional audio, which varies the ambient sound volume to match the avatar's position."
  • "There are primarily three types of third-person camera systems: the "fixed camera systems" where the camera positions are set during the game creation; the "tracking camera systems" where the camera simply follows the player's character; and the "interactive camera systems" which are under the player's control." - Ditto here for the two "where"s. Suggestion: "There are primarily three types of third-person camera systems: the "fixed camera systems" in which the camera positions are set during the game creation; the "tracking camera systems" in which the camera simply follows the player's character; and the "interactive camera systems" that are under the player's control."

Fixed camera systems

  • MOS:TITLE says to italicize the titles of computer games. Thus Alone in the Dark and all the other game titles in the article need italics. You can look at this page in edit mode to see how the italics are placed outside the wikilink.
  • The second paragraph ends with "The early Resident Evil games are also notable for their use of fixed cameras." Who says so? Since no source is given for this claim or for any of the claims in the paragraph, it might be seen to violate WP:NOR. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every statistic, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation.
  • "One advantage of this camera system is that it offers a rhetorical control to the game designer." - Is "rhetorical" the right word? Rhetoric concerns speaking and writing rather than anything else, I would say.
  • "Indeed, as a filmmaker, they... " - "Filmmaker is singular", but "they" is plural.
  • "For example, Capcom use this technique in Resident Evil 2 where have they introduced the encounter between a monster and Leon by a careful selection of views that aim at creating tension." - "uses" rather than "use"? Capcom is singular, but "they" is plural. "in which" rather than "where"?

Tracking camera systems

  • More "player" "he" pairs that should be recast to include other genders.

Interactive camera systems

  • Explain or link "analogic stick"? Wikilink mouse?
  • "This is for example the case in games such as Super Mario Sunshine... " - Delete "for example?
  • "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker was more successful at it; IGN calling the camera system... " - "IGN called"?

Camera system implementations

  • The first paragraph is not sourced and has a citation tag.
  • If you can figure out how to do it, it would be best not to have an image that overlaps two sections. MOS:IMAGE deprecates the practice. One way to possibly make it fit would be to use the "upright" parameter (used to reduce the size of large vertical images) instead of the fixed pixel (150) width in the image template and then to shorten the caption.
  • WP:MOS suggests using "percent" rather than % in simple cases.

Constraint solver

  • "The role of a constraint solver..." - Perhaps a reminder to the reader here that a constraint solver is software, not a gadget or a person?

Autonomous agents

  • He devised a system where the camera... " - "in which" rather than "where"?

References

  • Books refs should include ISBN numbers, if available.
  • Page ranges take unspaced en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Joseph Cheesman Thompson[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…after adding a photo and considerable data about Commander Thompson, I really like this article and want to know whether it needs more work or could be assessed as a good or featured article.

Thanks, S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What article is this review request for (note redlink)? Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is a long way from being ready for WP:GAN, let along WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please see WP:WIAGA for the Good Article criteria and WP:WIAFA for the Featured Article criteria. GA articles must be braod in coverage, and ref 1 (the most cited in the article) is called " "The Psychoanalytic Roots of Scientology" but this article does not mention that. FA articles must be comprehensive, which is even more difficult.
  • Articles also have to meet the WP:Five pillars including WP:NPOV - not mentioning the connection to Scientology seems very POV
  • The talk page makes serious accusations of plagiarism, so here is your text from the last section:
After retiring from the Navy in 1929, Dr. Thompson moved to San Francisco, where he was one of very few psychoanalysts. On March 7, 1943, Joseph Cheesman Thompson died of a heart attack in San Francisco, at the age of 68. His obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle mentioned his widow, Mrs. Hilda Thompson, and a very special Siamese cat, known as Pak Kwai Mau, or 'White Devil Cat.' (He left $10,000 in the bank in Pak Kwai Mau's name.)[1]
Joseph C. Thompson died in San Francisco of a heart attack on March 7, 1943, at the age of 68. His obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle speaks of his having left his wife Mrs. Hilda Thompson, as well as his very special Siamese cat known as "Pak Kwai Mau," ("White Devil Cat"). Thompson left in the bank some $10,000 in his cat's name.
  • While some changes have been mbetween the original text and the current article, I agree that it seems close to plagiarism - see [[7]]
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, date published, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Finally there is very little narrative thread here. This seems to be a series on incidents cobbled together with little connection. We do not learn much about his parents and his wife is mentioned but once (as his widow). When did they meet and marry? While a fair amount of work has gone into the article, it needs a lot more to get up to GA let alone FA.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are over 600 Biography FAs at Category:FA-Class biography articles and the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography#Tips_for_writing_biographies are also good advice.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, Thanks for your comments. I was unable to find any data about Dr. Thompson's parents or his widow. The Scientology connection is really a connection to L. Ron Hubbard, as Dr. Thompson died before Scientology had ever been thought of.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but it still seems that if a reliable source says that part of Thompson's legacy was his influence on Hubbard, and by extension Scientology, then that should be mentioned in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Military of the Empire of Brazil[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has very good sourced information on this particular subject (Military of the Empire of Brazil) and I would like to receive anyone´s contribution to improve it or suggest that it should become a featured article if good enough.

Thanks, Lecen (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SGGH

  • The opening sentence seems a bit abrupt, and delves into the workings of the military rather than being a general introduction. The lead should summarize, not go into the organisation, there is nothing about the history of the armed forces other than its administration in the lead - this should be fixed so it provides a summary of the whole article.
  • Opening image caption, "dressed as an Admiral", perhaps a re-word? "in the uniform of a Brazilian Admiral"? Was he actually an Admiral?
  • no comma after "Armada" is needed.
  • A long quote in the lead, again belongs in a section on its organisation.
  • Second lead paragraph is again information more suited to a relevant section, I feel.
  • "The National Armada (later known as the Brazilian Navy), informally known as Imperial Armada," why is one comment on its name in brackets, and the other not?
  • "it appeared"? Perhaps a better word, organisations don't really appear.
  • "It was formed almost in its totality" is clumsy wording.
  • "Some of its members were born Brazilians (until then almost all were forbidden to serve), Portuguese whom had opted to adhere the cause of the separation and foreign mercenaries." doesn't make sense, are we talking about two groups here, or one who were both Brazilian and Portuguese?
  • Article on the whole needs a thorough copy-edit. There are prose and grammar issues.
  • try to avoid multiple uses of sentences beginning with "Also..."
  • "The fleet was composed then by one ship of the line" composed of
  • "created a national subscription to congregate capital and thus increase the fleet" what is a national subscription? A financial thing? Or conscription?
  • "After the suppression of the revolt in Pernambuco in 1824 and prior to the Argentina-Brazil War, the navy increased significantly in size and strength" perhaps "between" the two.
  • Quelling rebellions image, are the others not named also important figures?
  • "When Emperor Pedro II was declared of legal age and assumed its constitutional prerogatives in 1840".... what? Its? What are constitutional perogatives?
  • "ports administration were better equipped" either 'port administrations were' or 'port administration was'
  • "At least 9,177 navy military fought in the five years' conflict." another obvious mistake, the article needs a good copy edit, I suggest the CE league, it reads as if some of it was once originally translated into English by google.
  • "naval constructors" is a strange way of putting it.
  • "over Paraguay´s future became quite real.", quite real needs elaborating on, or qualifying.
  • "Arsenal of Navy of Rio de Janeiro" the english translation of that needs another pronoun.
  • "monarchic regimen" another odd phrase. I'm not going to carry on listing grammar and prose problems, just take it as given that the article has a lot of them.
  • many of these images are good, though they could stand to have their captions expanded in places.
  • try to avoid having images and tables at the same height in the text, as with some resolutions it can squash the text into nothingness inbetween.
  • I would rename "references" as "notes", "bibliography" as "references" and then swap the two around so "notes" comes first. "External links" should be at the very bottom above the categories.

"doule up the reflist with a "reflist|2"

All in all, a huge copy-edit needed, and the lead at the moment is more of a section in itself which doesn't summarise the article. Hope this helps. SGGH ping! 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Bsimmons666

  • Dom Pedro I choose nine military as Senators and five (out of fourteen) to the State Council. --> I believe you mean to say here that he chose nine military personnel (?). Same with final two sentences of the paragraph. Done!
  • Some of its members were born Brazilians (until then almost all were forbidden to serve) --> unclear. I'd recommend changing it to something like Some of its members were native-born Brazilians, who under Portugal had been forbidden to serve. Or something like that. Done!
  • I added two links in there for ship of the line and frigate Done!
  • The navy fought at the north --> in the north Done!
  • hidering --> hindering Done!
  • The long reign of fifty eight years of Dom Pedro II would represent the ending of the growth, and at the same time, the pinnacle of the Brazilian Navy - awkward Done!
  • if so they desired to --> either if they desired to or if they so desired, I think. Done!
  • In 1882 a journalist who made critics to the behavior of the military was assassinated by Army officers in broad day light and kept unpunished --> Unclear - you mean the officers went unpunished, correct? Needs clarification - Changed to: "The murder of a journalist in 1882 that had criticized the behavior of the Army personnel by military officers in broad day light was kept unpunished".
  • Make sure there's no spaces between references again Done!
  • Like SGGH says above, make sure the external links section goes last Done!
  • Fantastic job as usual - Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try to make SGGH´s changes later, as they will require more work on it. But thank you ---Lecen (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Volcano (South Park)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm wondering what its chances at FAC are. Hunter Kahn and I have recently expanded this article to GA status, and I think this might have potential.

Thanks, --Music26/11 13:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Links to IMDb and TV.com in the external links section would be nice. :) TheLeftorium 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I find I don't have a lot to say here, partly because I've never seen an episode of South Park. I've made a few specific suggestions about the prose through the middle of the "Plot" section to give you some examples of the kinds of prose problems that need attention. The writing seems generally more carefully done in the lower sections, although I see things like the "Untied" States in the second sentence of "Production". I also find the lower sections more interesting. Sorry I can't of much more to say. You might ask someone at WP:TV to take a look.

Lead

  • "In the episode, the boys go on a hunting trip with Stan's uncle Jimbo and his war buddy Ned, where Stan is frustrated by his inability to shoot a living creature and Cartman tries scare the hunting party with tales of a creature named Scuzzlebutt." - It might be good here to include a clause elaborating on "the boys". A reader who has never seen an episode won't know who they are or how many or how important they are to the series. Also, "during which" rather than "where"? Also, a word seems to be missing between "tries" and "scare".
  • "they were particularly pleased with the lava" - Wikilink lava?
  • "which was made on a computer to resemble orange construction paper" - Wikilink construction paper?
  • "The episode marked the first appearances of recurring characters Ned Gerblansky and Randy Marsh, who is identified as the town geologist, and is established as Stan's father in later episodes." - Suggestion: "The episode marked the first appearances of recurring characters Ned Gerblansky and Randy Marsh. The latter, the town geologist, is established as Stan's father in later episodes.

Plot

  • "As they arrive, Jimbo explains the boys how they should hunt." - "explains to" rather than "explains"?
  • "Stan proves to not have the proper temperament to enjoy hunting" - "does not have" rather than "proves to not have"?
  • "and finds himself unable to shoot a living target when provided the opportunity" - Delete "when provided the opportunity"?
  • "Jimbo is impressed with Kenny, who, opposite to Stan, is able to shoot animals." - "unlike Stan" rather than "opposite to Stan"?
  • "who directs one of her aides to make appropriate calls about the crisis" - "Calls" might be misunderstood to mean telephone calls. "Decisions"?
  • "The boys then see Cartman in disguised as Scuzzlebutt" - "in disguise"?

Images

  • The licensing for Image:Bert2.png is incomplete and doubtful. The dot.com site that says the image is in the public domain is not a reliable source for this information. Furthermore, the source link provided on the license description page is dead. Thus the public domain claim is not verifiable from the information provided.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I believe I have taken care of them all. There is an external link at the bottom of the page that links to the official website where you can watch the episode online if you want to. That's all.--Music26/11 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Detzner[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on how to improve it. I'd like to bring up to a B rating or GA status.

Thanks, Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Firestorm

  • The lede needs to be redone to conform to WP:LEDE. In particular, it should be two or three paragraphs for an article of its size. The information there is fine, but you can break it up a bit so it looks nicer. The language can also be changed to make it more consice and give the same information in a more efficient way. In particular, pay close attention to the first sentence and how it should be structured.
  • Grammar could be improved. Most of it is fine, but it has some awkward phrases that could be tightened up. Things like "In the interim between these trips" could be trimmed to "Between these trips."
  • In the section entitled "Adventures in New Guinea", you have a For more information on this topic and a see also. In general, you only want to have one of these in a section. I would suggest keeping the World War 1 one and turning the expeditionary force link into a wikilink somewhere in the article.
  • The article says that he was "well into the interior and refused to surrender." Yet, later on you say that he received news of the war's end and then offered his surrender. Could you clarify this point?
  • Scandal is a word you should probably avoid. Please see WP:WTA for more information on which words you should stay away from.
  • Criticism sections, while not against policy, are frowned upon. You could probably keep most of the information in the article, but just give it a better name. Something along the lines of "Falsification controversy" or another title.
  • For clarity, I would suggest calling the section with your reflist References, and the section with the book names Bibliography. In addition, your External Links section should be reformatted. The current convention is to have the link with a brief (only a few words) description following it.
  • I think the non-free use rationale for File:Postcard from New Guinea.jpg is probably not strong enough. It doesn't add anything to the article that words can't, except a bit of colour. I'm not an expert on images, but chances are it'll have to go.

Assessment: Your biggest problem is going to be grammar. As is often the case when articles are translated from another language, the language needs to be tightened up so that it is less awkward. Most of the other concerns are just superficial. It seems to be verifiable, sufficiently broad, neutral, stable, and has images that work for the article. Good luck! Firestorm Talk 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Hostage Rescue Team (FBI)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to know if there is any major problems I have put a lot of research and work into it.


Thanks for all the hard work, Aaron Aaron mcd (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Quick comment here - clean up those references. Check out WP:REF for how to cite them - never use bare links. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone cleaned them up for me already. Any other tips would be appreciated. Aaron mcd (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

These still need cleaned up. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and clear that a lot of work has been put into it, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem I see with the article is a lack of references - for example the History section has six paragraphs and only two refs (four paragraphs are completley unreferenced). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs that are used 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 would try to add some more free images - there is one of William H. Webster for example
  • The lead seems a bit sparse - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article is very list-y, especially towards the end - many of the lists could be converted to prose to improve the flow of the article
  • Similarly there are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that also impede flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
  • Article needs a copyedit in a few places I noticed typos like "the than FBI director" when "then" is meant

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Choral symphony[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after its previous peer review, it has gone through a substantial copyedit and a thorough reorganization. It therefore would benefit from additional feedback and subsequent refinement before proceeding to FAC.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

  • Article structure: In an earlier peer review I said that insufficient attention had been paid to more modern composers of choral symphonies. You have obviously remedied this in this revised extended version, but I am a bit puzzled by the structure of the article.
After the "Key features" section, on which I have commented below, there follows a series of descriptive sections, but there is no sense of chronological development. Some indication of chronolgy is provided by the lead: Beethoven, then Berlioz and Mendelssohn, then later Mahler, Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams, Britten etc., then late 20th century figures such as Glass and Henze. I expected the article to be structured in a way that reflected this. But in the substantial text the first composers we encounter in any detail are Bantock, Roy Harris, Vaughan Williams (briefly) and Malcolm Williamson, all 20th century figures. We are suddenly discussing symphonies for unaccompanied voices, surely a minor part of the choral symphony genre - why is this the first subgenre that we encounter? And is there a rationale for the order of the following subsections? I am generally most impressed by the text, but I would like to have your comments about structure before continuing the review - though I have a couple of general observations on the Key features section.
The article was not arranged chronologically but by theme, with examples from different choral symphonies used to show how their composers used these themes in their work. I was assured this would be a sound method of organization back in GA review and again when the article was copyedited. In the previous peer review, it was suggested that there were three main areas covered by the article—what is a choral symphony, the relation of words and music, and programmatic intent—and that the article might be better served is the article were reorganized along these three areas. "Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus" was suggested to become a subsection of "Key Features" because that section defined what a choral symphony actually was, which was the intent of "Key features." Likewise, four areas were covered under "Relation of words and music"&mdaash;"Musical treatment of text", "Music and words as equals", "Words determining symphonic form" and "Words expanding symphonic form". "Words changing programmatic intent" became a subsection of "Programmatic intent". Was this a mistake? What can or should be done to clarify the intent or structure further? Should the article be continued along the lines it is currently following, or should be overhauled along different lines yet again? I am glad you are impressed by the text, but if the organization of this article is faulty, what is the point of having something well-written but ultimately confusing? Jonyungk (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comments implied there was a more serious problem with the structure than is in fact the case. To use a structure based on themes rather than chronology is perfectly OK if this is clear to the reader. The problem I have is the current positioning of the "Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus" section. To me it seems obvious that an unacompanied chorus is an exceptional, not a key or general feature of the choral symphony; indeed, you start your "General features" section by defining the choral symphony as a work for "orchestra, choir and (often) solo voices". To follow this almost immediately with a section about symphonies without orchestral accompaniment (by relatively minor composers) is the main source of my confusion.
My suggestions:-
  • Add the following words to the first sentence of the "General features" section: "...although a few have been written for unaccompanied voices."
  • Transfer the "Symphonies for unaccompanied voice" subsection as a main section, to after the "Relation of words and music" section, immediately before "Programmatic intent".
These changes would, in my view, remove confusion and provide a more logical sequence of sections. The opening of the "Relation of words and music" section follows naturally from the General features section and acts as a good introduction to what follows. Would you at any rate try my suggestion? If you are unhappy with it, then we can try something else; this is peer review, not FAC, so experimentation is fully in order. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've acted on both suggestions. How do things look now? Jonyungk (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally think the change makes good sense – how do you feel? I will continue to review the remaining sections. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree—the change makes good sense and the article reads better in the order the sections are currently in. Thanks for the suggestion—and for asking how I felt about it. I appreciate the consideration. Jonyungk (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Key features
    • Section title - who has decided that what follows are the "key", i.e. the most important features? Likewise the text begins: "There are several key features..." etc. To avoid accusations of editorial opinion and POV it might be as well to make the title "General features", and delete the word "key" in the introductory sentence.
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You say: "This usually means a choral symphony employs a four-movement scheme of a fast opening movement, slow movement, scherzo and finale.[1] Like an instrumental symphony, a choral symphony could also conceivably be in three or five movements, but these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule." I'm not sure that the above statements are warranted, at least not in its present form. Off-hand, most of the choral symphonies that come immediately to my mind (Mahler's Second and Eighth, Berlioz's Romeo et Juliette, Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, Vaughan Williams's Sinfonia Antartica, Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony) do not follow the traditional four-movement format. Aren't there too many of these to be classed as "exceptions"? I think the wording should be a little less dogmatic on this point?
Agreed. I'll work on an alternative wording.
    • Last sentence should not begin "Finally..." It is the last point you wish to raise, but not perhaps the final word on the subject.
Yes.
    • Why is "Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus" a subsection of "Key features"?
See above re structure of article.

I will post more comments after your response to the structure issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

More comments: here are some comments/thoughts on the next three sections. Sorry if the review is a bit piecemeal, but I am juggling a few balls in the air at the moment.

  • Musical treatment of text
    • "In the third movement in particular, because the text is loosely descriptive, lines of text could follow the demands of the music in being detached, cobbled together and repeated." The meaning is obscure - can it be clarified?
What about this: "In the third movement in particular, the text is loosely descriptive and can be "pushed about by the music", with some lines repeated, some not consecutive in the written text immediately following one another in the music, and some left out entirely." Jonyungk (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph: first sentence ends with the words "as well". Are these necessary? As well as what?
Done. "As well" is removed. Jonyungk (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Re Philip Glass: As "Toltec" is part of a title (A Toltec Symphony) the word should not be linked. While on the subject of Glass's work, would it be worth mentioning a much earlier wordless choral symphony – Vaughan Williams's Sinfonia Antartica (1948)? This is the earliest example I can find of a wordless chorus. Do any of your sources mention it?
I'll check Ottoway and see what he says about this, as it should be mentioned. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ottaway makes a brief mention, which I have included. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I find the use of quotations in the second part of the third paragraph a bit overdone, especially as you have quotes within the quote and it is not always immediately clear who is saying what. Perhaps some of this information could be paraphrased rather than directly quoted.
Perhaps. I have been very concerned about copyvios, so I have had a tendency to overuse quote rather than incorporate them. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Music and words as equals
    • "To facilitate doing so he chose to use "a choral and instrumental ensemble in which the two elements should be on an equal footing, neither of them outweighing the other." Two problems: first, "To facilitate doing so" is a bit clumsy. "To facilitate this..." would be better. But... it's not obvious to me why choosing this arrangement of choral and instrumental ensemble would facilitate the employment of counterpoint.
I've tried explaining this to some degree in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Your comment about the origin of the subtitle "Symphony of a Thousand" requires a citation. Also, on the subject of Mahler's Eighth, the impression could be given that this was Mahler's first or only attempt in the choral symphony genre. His Second Symphony ("Resurrection") and Third are choral symphonies, though in the latter the choir is limited to women's and children's voices. These earlier works from the 1890s are entirely different in form and structure from his Eighth; is there anything to be said about why he so radically revised the form for this later work?
Mainly it was because of his decision to set the last scene of "Faust" as Part 2 of the work; until then it was going to be a purely instrumental work. The Second became a choral symphony only after the first three movements had been written, but it should be included in "Words expanding symphonic form." Same with the Third. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've re-added mentions of the Mahler Second and Third in sections where it seemed appropriate. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Clarify the symphony to which Vaughan Williams's programme note relates
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Words determining symphonic form
    • The quote beginning "At the Store..." is too short for blockquote format, and should be absorbed into the text
Shoiuld it be absorbed as a quote or rewritten into text. I'm concerned about a possible copyvio if the text follows the info curve of the quote too closely. Jonyungk (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It can stay a quote, but should be treated in the same way you have have dealt with other quotes. MOS suggests blockquotes should be reserved for longer quotes - around 4+ lines of text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Whose definition of ternary form is this: "(often notated A-B-A, with the first and third parts (A) being musically identical, or very nearly so, while the second part (B) contrasts sharply with it)"? Does it need a citation?
I took it from the Wiki article on ternary form, but if necessary, I can go to the New Grove or Oxford Dictionary of Music. Should this be cited?
Yes, cite to New Grove. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

  • Words expanding symphonic form: No particular comments
  • Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus
    • "His Atalanta, "the most important [work] alike in technical experiment and in inspiration",[37] - you should attribute this opinion in the text.
Do you mean inside the quote mark? Not sure what you mean.
    • "a 20-part work" is a little ambiguous; does this mean a work with 20 separate vocal parts, or to a work consisting of 20 consecutive movements, or sections, of music? (Clarified later, but should be clear here)
Now clarified.
    • This may be a stupid question, but if with Atlanta Bantock made no attempt at symphonic forms, and did not call the work a "symphony", why is it appropriate to discuss it here?
Actually, Bantock did call the work a symphony. I've clarified this in the text.
    • "...for eight-part a capella choir" - something wrong with word order here, or a missing word?
    • Are the quotations in the latter part of the Roy Harris paragraph from Profitt? This should be made clear.
    • The last (Malcolm Williamson) paragraph is almost entirely verbatim quotation. Although attributed, this sort of thing is frowned on at FAC. You would be expected to use your own paraphrase for most of this, saving the quote marks for a few key words or phrases.
  • Programmatic intent
    • Third sentence: "Likewise..." is a slightly weak opening here. It would read better as "More than a century later,..."
Done.
    • "compsed as occasional works" - ambiguous. I take it you mean "works for special occasions"
Yes.
    • The blockquote should be attributed in the text.
Not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?
    • Likewise the quotations relating to the Penderecki symphony. Watch for this as a general problem.
    • "Ordinary", in this sense, requires a link. I suggest you also link "Roman Catholic Mass".
Done.

I will attempt to finish this review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Final review comments: This is the last part of my review which may or may not have a bearing on your Mahler comments below. The issue is, really, in a fairly densely-packed article, how much more detail should you try to cram in?

  • Programmatic intent (continued)
    • "As mentioned earlier, Schnittke wrote his Second Symphony in six movements, following the Ordinary of the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church.[33] Within these movements, the symphony works programmatically on two levels simultaneously." This is quite ponderous wording. Why not reduce it: "Schnittke's six-movement Second Symphony, following the Ordinary of the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church,[33] works programmatically on two levels simultaneously."
    • "Schnittke does all this..." Delete the all for greater neutrality
    • General comment on this section: overall, it's a bit dense and hard to read. It may be worth reducing the content a little; even a 30 or 40% reduction in content would still illustarate programmatic intent quite adequately.
  • Words changing programmatic intent
    • "Liszt's later inclusion of a choral..." - "choral" is an adjective not a noun. Should this be "choral element"?
Yes.
    • "son in law" needs hyphens: "son-in-law"
done.
    • I have slightly reduced the image size, so that your list of the Mahler 8th abortive movements is not compromised.
    • This is not the best phrasing: "What the sketches for these movements did not have were words, though the opening theme..." I would suggest: "The sketches for these movements did not have words, though the opening theme..."
    • Suggest "Hymn to Love" or "hymn to love", but not "hymn to Love"
    • "through the eternal womanhood" Suggest drop "the"
Done.
    • "blatantly agitprop" - these words need to be in quotes, and attributed.
    • Clumsy wording: "...Shostakovich reportedly intended with the Seventh to set a text from the Ninth Psalm on vengeance for innocent blood shed." Suggest: "Shostakovich reportedly intended to set a text for the Seventh from the Ninth Psalm, on the theme of vengeance for the shedding of innocent blood."
Done.
    • "He also may have been right..." Whose opinion is this? Needs to be attributed
This has been removed.
  • A few general comments
    • The article is very comprehensive. There is, however, a possible readability problem arising from over-exemplification. As I said with regard to the "Programmatic intent" section, the argument would be complete even with a significant reduction in the number of examples. This is possibly true also of other sections.
Thank you for this observation. My concern had been that I was not being comprehensive enough. I have cut down the number of examples per your suggestion.
    • There is a tendency to use too many quotes, when paraphrases would do just as well. Also, when you do use quotes it is important that the text makes clear whose words these are; citing to their source is not enough. I have highlighted some instances of this, but it is rather a general fault.
Thank you. I was concerned about avoiding copyvios, hence the use of quotes. Many of these sections have been either rewriten or eliminated.
    • Lastly, having read through the whole article, and being clear that it presents the subject in a thematic rather than a chronological manner, I still think it needs a short introductory "History" section immediately after the lead, tracing the chronology of the choral symphony from Beethoven, through Berlioz, Mendelssohn, the Romantics, Mahler and the 20th century to the present day. These need not be in any great detail (perhaps 400 words?), but would provide a context for what follows, and would in my view improve readability.
A History section has been included.

You have obviously invested a great deal of time in this article. I saw it in its much earlier stages and can vouch for how much has been done. I feel it is really worth the effort of making these final adjustments, to get a first class article as a result.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Question: There has been very little mention of the Mahler Second and Third Symphonies so far. The following was included in a previous version of the article and, while rough and sketchy, could be amended to fit in the "Programmatic intent" section of the article between the works written for sopecia; occasions and recent examples of programmatic intent in choral symphonies. I am concerned, however, that doing so might unbalance the article unduly. In any case, here is the copy in question:

Mahler

Not only was there no schism or discrepancy between programmatic and symphonic concerns when it came to Mahler's Second Symphony, but it became a programmatic impetus that allowed him to complete it.[1] It had begun as a huge single-movement tone poem, Totenfeier (Funeral Rite)[2], remaining one of the composer's most imposing symphonic structures, unorthodox in tonal organization but unambiguously and even classically articulated. It also left him stuck with the challenge of how to follow such a movement.[1] While there was a time lag between its composition and that of the finale, with its setting of Klopstock's "Resurrection Ode", there is no discontinuity. On the contrary, the final movement complements the opening one.[3]

In Mahler's Third Symphony, the progress of movements make sense only in a programmatic context,[1] in this case one of evolution.[4] The original titles of the movements were as follows:

  1. Introduction: Pan awakes—Summer marches in
  2. What the flowers in the meadow tell me
  3. What the animals in the forest tell me
  4. What man tells me
  5. What the angels tell me
  6. What love tells me[4]

Both the first and final movements are huge, flanking what are essentially intermezzi.[5] According to musicologist Peter Franklin, these intermezzi, which follow the symphony's program, "accommodate historically successive forms of the minuet and trio and the Beethovenian scherzo" before arriving at a vocal movement followed by a choral one.[4] The vocal movement, a setting of the "Mitternachtslied" from Friedrich Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra, "proclaims the work's mid-1890's modernity" in a tone of "restrained solemnity.... The subsequent, celebratory setting of 'Es sungen drei Engel einen susses Gesang,' with children imitating bell sounds, provides an effective foil for the extended orchestral Adagio" which follows.[4] With the finale, originally titled "What Love Tells Me", (and in this case he was talking about agape or godly love,) some might think Mahler took a hint from Berlioz about instruments sometimes being more eloquent than voices.[6]

As for Mahler's Eighth Symphony, the dramatic and intellectual plan for that work would affect both its content and its overall musical structure—affirming Goethe's symbolic vision of the redemptive power of human love, eros, while linking it in "Veni, Creator Spiritus" to both the creative spirit who inspires the artist and God the Creator who endows the artist with creativity.[7][8] As Mahler wrote to his wife Alma,

The essence ... is really Goethe's idea that all love is generate, creative, and that there is a physical and spiritual generation which is the emanation of this "Eros." You have it in the last scene of Faust, presented symbolically. The wonderful discussion between Diotima and Socrates ... gives the core of Plato's thought, his whole outlook on the world... The comparison between [Socrates] and Christ is obvious and has arisen spontaneously in all ages ... In each case Eros as Creator of the world.[9]

Jonyungk (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the History section

  • This gives a much better structure to the article.
  • I have copyedited the section quite heavily, to remove some verbosity and repetition, and to clarify some statements.
  • I was defeated by the following sentence: "Liszt wrote two choral symphonies along his own lines, combining purely musical elements that made up the overall form of the symphony with the extra-musical ability inherent in the symphonic poem to inspire listeners to imagine scenes, images, or moods." I don't know what "along his own lines" implies, and the whole sentence is otherwise impossibly convoluted. Greater clarity essential.
What about this: "Liszt wrote two choral symphonies, in both cases following the same compositional practices and programmatic goals he had established in the symphonic poem in the multi-movement form of the symphony"?

Otherwise, excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


{{|page=WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/2009|date=2009-07-10T20:01:10Z }}


Fortumo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that it's not perceived as an ad, as it's concerning a company on the global market. I will be glad to receive comments about possible improvements, if you think that it is not neutral enough etc.

Thanks, Branev (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is very short so I think it would rate as a start or stub class article, but seems to meet notability - see WP:NN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Much of the article is not referenced - the whole COverage section with its list of countries where it operates for example. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation with no space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix things like Fortumo is an international mobile payment portal [1][2], offering...
  • 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 country names are both in bold face and wikilinked, but per WP:ITALIC should not be bolded.
  • There is some information in the infobox that is not in the article and seems like a way of expanding it somewhat - for example the CEO's name or the HQ being in Estonia.
  • I am also not really clear what the company does - what is a premium SMS payment service? How does it work? Who are the customers?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to Featured List status.

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Good start, but it seems to me that this needs some work before it is ready for WP:FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There does not seem to be an article about the anime series itself, so I would add a background section briefly explaining who the major characters are and the basic situation at the beginning of the series. This would provide context for the reader and make the plot summaries much easier to follow.

*Avoid overlinking per WP:OVERLINK and needless repetition - the lead says twice that the series was broadcast on Tokyo Broadcasting System starting on January 8, 2009 and links TBS both times too.

Removed repeated section.
  • Some of the sources used are of doubtful reliability - Amazon.com is not usually seen as a good source for a book, so the shopping website sources used for the theme music seem doubtful too - see WP:RS
  • Would changing the reference to the anime's TBS song info page be better than CDJapan? I used CDJapan because the anime's TBS anime site is a primary source and should be used sparringly(IMO).
  • I agree it is good not to rely solely on primary sources - why not add that but keep CDJapan and see what they think when this gets to FLC? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

*Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over.

Set image to thumb
  • Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and especially WP:IN-U
  • Biggest problem as I see it is that this needs a copyedit to clean up the language. There are places where the verb tense switches in mid paragraph or where the subject is plural and the verb is singular (or vice versa). Combined with the lack of a background section and lots of use of pronouns without clear antecedents (who is referred to when using he/him/his or she/her/hers) the plot summaries are fairly confusing.
  • Can I call on LOCE to help?
  • LOCE is (sadly) defunct, although you might try asking some of the poeple listed as members. There are also people willing to do copyedits listed at the bottom of WP:PR/V Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you pick out instances of incorrect grammar/syntax and list them here? Extremepro (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Extremepro (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of prose that need to be fixed / polished (not a complete list, just examples):

  • tense change mid-sentence here (is could just be removed) - The episodes were directed by Rion Kujo[2] and is produced by Anime International Company.[3]
  • "Plot" is singular so it should be "follows", missing article The plot of the episodes follow[s] the adventures of [a] teenage samurai named Yoichi Karasuma as he lives in with the Ikaruga family after being ordered, by his father, to live with them in order to learn martial arts. The last part of the sentence is really awkward and could be rewritten as something like The plot follows the adventures of a teenage samurai named Yoichi Karasuma, who is ordered by his father to live with the Ikaruga family to learn [more? new?] martial arts. I might add more or new as we are told he already is a samurai and already knows some martial arts
  • Another awkward sentence After 17 years of learning Ukiha Divine Wind Style Swordplay in the mountains, Yoichi Karusuma is ordered to experience life in the city with the Ikarugas by his father, as he has nothing more to teach him. could be something like these two sentences Yoichi Karusuma has spent 17 years learning [the?] Ukiha Divine Wind Style [of?] swordplay from his father in the mountains. His father has nothing more to teach Yoichi and orders him to experience life in the city with the Ikarugas, who can teach Yoichi new martial arts. or perhaps something like Yoichi Karusuma has spent 17 years in the mountains learning [the?] Ukiha Divine Wind Style [of?] swordplay from his father, who has nothing more to teach him. His father orders him to experience life in the city with the Ikarugas, who can teach Yoichi new martial arts.
  • Unclear antecedent - who is defeated Y or W? After he arrives in the city, Yoichi is ridiculed by Washizu for his samurai clothes and easily defeats him.
  • Plural subject but singular verb, plus two short sentences that could be combined: Ibuki and Ayame takes [take] Yoichi to Yokko Private High School. Coincidentally, [where] he is in the same class as Washizu and Ibuki.

OK there's a start from the lead and Episode 1. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Used suggestions from above. Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaguya-chan comments:
Episode 1

  • "Outside the shopping centre, Ibuki asks Yoichi if he is Yoichi. He agrees." I don't think you can agree to being yourself.
  • Any idea how to reword it?
  • Maybe "Outside the shopping centre, Ibuki asks Yoichi if he is Yoichi. He acknowelges that he is Yoichi." That's still kind of an awkward sentence though... Kaguya-chan (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The police arrest Yoichi for causing mayhem but releases him afterwards."
  • wikilink dojo

Episode 2

  • "When Ibuki noticed Yoichi being asked questions by female students she takes him out in the hall and beats him once again." Add a comma between students and she

Episode 3:

  • "It is revealed that Tsubame used...." You mean Tsubasa?
  • "Later, Yoichi and Ibuki apologise to each other for their actions earlier in the day, to which Ayame's dismay."
  • "When Yoichi comments on Tsusaba's cuteness..." Tsubasa is mispelled
  • "After school, Angela strips [off] Tsubasa's clothes in front of Ibuki and..."

Episode 4

  • "She takes Yoichi into her room, shows him her manga and starts...." Comma between manga and and
  • "Yoichi overhears three boys talking about Chihaya behind her back and hints at ruining her work" How about "and are hinting at having ruined her work"

Episode 5

  • "She takes him to a toy shop, where she shows keen interest in a plushie"
  • "After bowling, Ibuki attempts to take Yoichi's hand[,] but he turns around and she trips over a stone[,] making [causing] them both [to] fall into a fountain."
  • "Ibuki realizes that this" You mean remembers, right?

Episode 6:

  • "Washizuis [is] hit by Ibuki while she chases after Yoichi"
  • "Washizu day dreams" Daydreams is one word
  • "Washizu performs the mission. The letter ends up in Yoichi's hand because Washizu put the letter into the wrong locker." "Washizu acts on his daydream; however, because he put the letter into the wrong locker, the letter ends up in Yoichi's hand."
  • "After they both collapse at a thousand push ups, Kagome and Chiyaya arrive with food for dinner[,] and they all eat together."
  • " Ibuki feeds Washizu[,] and Ayame does the same with Yoichi."

I'll finish looking over this soon. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode 7

  • "One of the brothers release[s] a trained bird to attack the gang, which causes Yoichi to embarrass everyone."
  • "Kagome falls down a cave and breaks her fall by landing on top of Masashi."
  • "Meanwhile, Masashi and Kagome rushes out an exit to the cave only to find out that it leads to a ledge on a cliff face
  • "The gang catches up to Kagome[,] and Yoichi dives into the water to save Masashi."
  • "Kagome dives in the water to save Mashashi-kun and throw[s] the bokken to land in Yoichi's hand"

Episode 8

  • "Washizu is determined to confess to Ibuki using a [about the] love letter."
  • "Washizu walks into a shop to buy something to [a] drink, only to see Ayame choosing the same bottle."

Episode 9

  • "Torigaya mixed up the draw and the resulting groups are: Ayame and Washizu, Yoichi and Ibuki, with Chihaya, Kagome and Washizu are in the final group"
  • "Yoichi runs to a shooting gallery, a store run by the Saginomiya clan, and futilely tries to shoot a prize." Er, win a prize?
  • "It is revealed that the reason why the Saginomiya clan tricks Ibuki into winning the hot springs trip is [that] because of Ukyo [has a]'s crush on Ibuki."

Episode 10

  • "Yoichi and the gang go to a hot springs for free due to Ibuki winning a prize at the festival last episode"
  • "Yoichi and the gang eat dinner with their host, who says that ghosts in the cave behind the inn is the reason why there are no other guest[s] in the inn."
  • "Yoichi and Ibuki volunteer to exorcise the ghost[s?]"
  • "Arriving at entrance to the cave, Yoichi and Ibuki fall into a hole and both gets knocked uncon[s]cious."
  • "Ayame saves Yoichi and helps defeats all the remaining opponents"
  • "Yoichi wakes up and [to] finds Ayame next to him, and she who starts seducing him."

Episode 11

  • "Due to the Saginomiya siblings' medicine, Ibuki's mind has reverted to when she was four." I wouldn't call that medicine. Maybe sleeping gas?
  • "At the same time, Ibuki is kidnapped and Washizu is stunned by the Saginomiya". Reword to "Meanwhile, the Saginomiya stun Washizu and kidnap Ibuki."
  • "A short [brief] search around the house leads [them] to Kagome's room"

Episode 12

  • "Yoichi, Kagome, Chihaya and Ayame arrive at the Saginomiya['s] residence"
  • "She reveals Ukyou's plans to marry Ibuki, then her maids attack the party, to which Yoichi successfully blocks." Not sure what this sentence is about.
  • Well Sakon confronts Yoichi and gang. She says that Ukyou is going to marry Ibuki today and suggests that they should leave. When the gang refuse to leave, Sakon orders her maids to fire at them with guns. Yoichi protects the gang by blocking all the bullets with his bokken. (It sound ridiculous but that's what happened in the anime)
  • Okay, "Sakon reveals her brother's plan to marry Ibuki to Yoichi's group. When the group refuses to leave, Sakon orders her maids to shoot at them. Yoichi protects his groupg by blocking all the bullets with his bokken." Kaguya-chan (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Yoichi pleads [with] Sakon to return Ibuki.[; however,] Sakon slaps Yoichi [him] and dissap[p]ears"
  • "Luckily, Washizu, Tsubame, Angela and Torigaya intervene." You mean Tsubasa?
  • "Yoichi, Kagome, Chihaya and Ayame chase Sakon into the chapel, where Ukyou is preparing his wedding. [; however,] Ukyou and Ibuki escapes through a hidden platform."
  • "Ibuki recovers her memory[,] but falls off the roof."
  • "Both Yoichi's group and Ukyou attempt to follow[,] but Ukyou is held back by Sakon hugging his legs [Sakon holds Ukyou back while Yoichi's group falls into the river]. Yoichi's group falls into a river"
  • "Yoichi sent a letter to his father stating his wishes to stay at the Ikaruga dojo." Sends?

Hope the comments are helpful. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments above used. Thank you. Extremepro (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ram Narayan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hi, I've listed this this musician's biography for peer review because I want to improve the article further and find out whether it has any FAC potential. Thank you very much. Hekerui (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good article, and it is most interesting. It is neutral, verifiable, stable, and generally well-written. It might not be comprehensive, although I'm hardly in a position to say for sure. I've made a couple of suggestions below for possible expansion. I'm not sure what to say about the images except that I like them, and I think that they fit the text, but I'm unsure about the licensing questions. I have a few suggestions related to prose and Manual of Style issues.

Lead

  • Since the article is India-centric, shouldn't the dates be in d-m-y format; e.g. 25 December 1927 instead of December 25, 1927?
  • Changed.
  • "Narayan was born in Udaipur, Rajasthan... " - For readers who live far from India, it might be better to say "Narayan was born in Udaipur in the Indian state of Rajasthan... ".
  • Done.

Early life

  • "despite his father's initial worries due to the low status of the sarangi" - "about" rather than "due to"?
  • Agreed.
  • "After a year, Biyavat asked for his son to learn under sarangi player Mehboob Khan of Jaipur, but Khan required Narayan to change his technique, which his father refused." - Suggestion: "After a year, Biyavat sought lessons for his son from sarangi player Mehboob Khan of Jaipur, but he changed his mind when Khan said that Narayan would have to change his technique."
  • Modified.
  • "Prasad later visited Narayan and convinced him to vacate his position to improve as a musician, but the decision to give up a secure existence... " - "the idea of giving up" rather than "the decision to give up" since the decision was not to vacate his position?
  • Clarified.

Career

  • "but the station's music producer noticed grooves in Narayan's fingernails" - I assume that was a clear sign that Narayan played the sarangi, but it would be good to explain how this works. Readers unfamiliar with the sarangi might want to know where the grooves come from exactly? How many strings does a sarangi have? Why do they produce nail grooves rather than skin calluses?
  • Added explanation.
  • "Narayan learnt only through singing" - "learned" rather than "learnt"?
  • Oy! Changed.
  • "He accompanied Amir Khan in 1948, when Khan sang for the first time at AIR Delhi following the Indian partition." - "after partition" rather than "following the Indian partition" since "Indian partition" appears in the preceding sentence?
  • Right.
  • "As an accompanist for vocalists, Narayan refused to stay in the background of a performance to imitate the singer, but instead showed his own skill." - I'm not sure what "to imitate the singer" means in this context. Would it be more clear simply to delete these four words? Or perhaps here is a place for minor expansion of the article to provide a little more background for the reader unfamiliar with this music genre. Does the accompanist always echo the notes of the singer? Do they take turns playing solo, or do they play a kind of duet? Are more than two musicians ever involved?
  • Expanded.
  • "Narayan frequently taught and gave concert outside of India since the 1960s." - Suggestion: "Beginning in the 1960s, Narayan often taught and gave concerts outside of India."
  • That's better.
  • "Some vocalists complained he was not a consistent accompanist and assertive... " - "and that he was too assertive" rather than "and assertive"?
  • Agreed.
  • "*"He resides in Mumbai, is of Hindu faith, and continues to perform in 2009." - This sentence suggests another possibility for expansion of the article. "Early life" gives biographical details through 1944, but what about his life after that? Could the material about his faith, his wife, his children, the struggle with alcohol, his dwelling places, other relationships and other interests be moved to a separate section, "Adulthood" or "Family" or something like that?
  • Made extra section.

Style

  • Yeah, I linked them.
  • "He created a few original compositions and varies those he learnt in performance." - "learned" rather than "learnt"?

Contributions and recognition

  • "Aruna Narayan Kalle, the first female sarangi player to play a solo concert" - Suggestion: "the first woman to give a solo sarangi concert"
  • That's better.
  • "The Pt Ram Narayan Foundation in Mumbai... " - What does the Pt in this name mean? Is it an abbreviation?
  • Explained.

References

  • Newspaper titles should appear in italics in the citations. The odd trick of the {{cite news}} template here is to use the |work = parameter for the newspaper rather than the |publisher = parameter.
  • What if the AP authors something and it is published in the Washington Post? :) I improved the cites.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Hekerui (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • A section about "Personal life" like wife, children, marriage etc. Name of mother missing. The Biography is a good place to look for these things

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I added family information, but there is nothing about his mother of wife anywhere (at least in Englisch, I think). Funny, his great-great-grandmother is mentioned in Sorrell, but she's not relevant. Hekerui (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised: The Biography should have something about the two women. Things like when he was married, when the children were born must be in the biography or any where. It's strange the children are mentioned, but the mother. For FA completeness criterion, the two women, the marriage and birth-yrs of children have to be mentioned.
I just combed through Qureshi again and found two tiny mentions of Narayan's wife, but without a name. I added birthyears of his daughter and Brij Narayan, as well as Charanjit Lal. I added more other family info as well.
  • Also, as you may know, Pandit is a title, NOT an alias name. The Pandit title must be acknowledged in the lead. Few men and women earn titles like Pandit, Ustad and Vidushi
I looked at the MOS:BIO and it's not spelled out clearly. However, I think it's okay to put it back into the lead.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, what else do you think is left to improve? --Hekerui (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There must be a mention of the two women in some Hindi (non-English) sources. "She later died." has no value without a yr. "Later" is a vague term. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In the book Aruna Narayan is quoted as saying "Yes, we miss her just like my mother." about the death of another female sarangi player, and this statement is dated to November 2001, so I'll write that her mother died prior to 2001. This is not precise, but a little better. Hekerui (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am still worried about the comprehensiveness thing: there is too less detail in the article. More needed about the solo performances and international tours. To which cities has he travelled etc.
    I will add some more info.
  • The references section does not follow WP:Layout: Notes and References need to be different.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    There are no "explanatory notes that would be awkward in the body text", only "citations that verify the information in the article". No need to seperate. Hekerui (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Washington State Route 532[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I feel that this article may be the next Washington GA. I hope to get this to GAN by the end of the summer and get pictures later this month. This article may need copyediting, as my grammar isn't quite polished. Thanks! –CG 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Looks pretty good to me. I made a few minor c/e fixes, and I have a short list of suggestions, all minor.

Infobox

  • The link from the infobox to an external site, RCW 47.17.760, should be changed to an inline citation, I believe, giving the title, publisher, url, and access date. If you use RCW in the infobox text, it should be written out as well as abbreviated. Readers might guess at a general meaning but probably won't know what the letters stand for.
    • It is part of the infobox, so I cannot fix it, also it is already referenced as citation 2. –CG 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • You might add "in the United States" to the first sentence for readers who may not know that Washington is a U.S. state.
  • "and ends at an interchange with I-5" - Perhaps spell out Interstate 5 (I-5) on first use?
  • "The road first appeared on a map in 1911 and was designated Secondary State Highway 1Y (SSH 1Y) in 1945, which later became SR 532 in 1964." - Delete "later" since 1964 is later. Also,put modifier next to modified? Suggestion: "The road first appeared on a map in 1911 and in 1945 was designated Secondary State Highway 1Y (SSH 1Y), which became SR 532 in 1964."
  • "Currently, the Washington State Department of Transportation... " - "As of 2009" rather than "currently"?
    • All done. –CG 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Route description

  • "After its western terminus and the Stillaguamish River bridge, a daily average of 20,000 motorists used these sections of SR 532 in 2007, higher than the 3,500 that used the same stretch of road in 1970." - Something seems to be missing. "After the western terminus and the Stillaguamish River bridge were finished... "? Or, "were opened"? Or maybe "After its western terminus and the Stillaguamish River bridge were completed in 2007, a daily average... ". Should something about the bridge construction go into the "History" section? Was the western terminus built after most of the rest of the roadway? What did it consist of? I am confused.
    • The sentence refers to the location and the fact that it is the busiest section of the highway. –CG 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

History"

  • "WSDOT began seeking contractors in August 2008 and found four by September." - "Hired four" or "signed contracts with four" rather than "found four"?
    • Donce. –CG 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

References

  • I changed citation 30 so that the newspaper name appears in italics. The trick with {{cite news}} to accomplish this is to use the |work parameter for the newspaper name rather than the |publisher parameter. The other citations with newspaper names should be changed too. It looks like there's about a half-dozen more altogether.
    • Done. –CG 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Images"

  • The train station sounds like a good possibility for an additional interesting photo.
    • Eventually I will go there (I live just south of the area) and take pictures of the road and later the train station. –CG 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


2008 Summer Olympics[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Olympics wikiproject is working on improving this article for eventual GA and FA noms. All comments are useful, as it's a large and diverse article. One question in particular - should the list of participating NOC's be split off into a separate article?

Thanks, Geraldk (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I really can't think of much to offer for a comprehensive review. It's well done and referenced overall. The lead section paragraphs are each a bit too long perhaps, but it's hard to summarize that much. I do think the list of NOC's should go to a separate article and be linked to. There's not much lost that way and the article will be more readable. The calendar is similar. Finally, the statement "although some media outlets claimed that organizers ultimately failed to live up to this commitment." seems pretty watered down given the situation and the coverage of it. From what I recall there was fairly widespread coverage of China's censorship of international media despite the promise they made to the IOC. - Taxman Talk 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks very good - Iam going to read it through and make some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree the NOC list should be a separate article.
  • In Costs (and throughout) I would make sure there are no spaces between punctuation and refs, so fix ...that surplus revenues from the Olympic Games would exceed the original target of $16 million. [6] I owuld also identify the other sources by name in Other sources, however, estimated that approximately $40 billion had been spent on the Games, ...
  • The two images in the Torch relay section sandwish the text, which is a no-no per MOS:IMAGES - I think one could be moved down a bit and still be OK.
  • There are so many great images in the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article that I would include one in the Opening ceremony section - perhaps File:BeijingOlimpicGames2008-08-08.jpg as it shows many of the elements used
  • In the Sports section, this paragraph needs a ref The program for the Beijing 2008 Games was quite similar to that of the 2004 Summer Olympics held in Athens. The 2008 Olympics saw the return of 28 sports (some of which, such as aquatics, gymnastics and cycling, were divided into multiple disciplines), and held 302 events (165 men's events, 127 women's events, and 10 mixed events), one event more in total than in Athens. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Closing ceremony also needs aref or two - I would make it all one paragraph and would avoid short paragraphs (one or two sentences) throughout
  • The TPE flag image should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over, per WP:MOS#Images. It also needs a more descriptive caption.
  • Notes a and b need refs\

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Baichung Bhutia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how far it can go. I hope it can be at least a B-class article. It must also be noted that reliable sources are hard to find since Baichung isn't a particularly famous footballer outside India.

Thanks, Spiderone (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

COMMENTS FROM Ankitbhatt

What do you exactly mean by "find it hard to get references"? As far as I can see, there are a substantial number of references already.

Most of the reliable references are the ones about recent events. Spiderone (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead section of this article is short and uninformative. It also lacks a freshness and liveliness, and reads more monotonously than you can think. Try improvising on that. Put up the Jhalak Dikhlajaa controversy in the lead.

Speaking of contoversy, the paragraph on the controversy should be longer. Considering it was a near scandal, it has little information. Expansion is necessary.

It is also mentioned in depth in the "Return to India" section of his club career where it mentions his suspension. Spiderone (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than this, the article seems fine to me. For comparision, try checking out the David Beckham article.

Cheers.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Golden Sun (series)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to bring this article through the GAN process. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but seems like it needs some work to get to GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are over 320 GA video game articles, so there has to be a decent model article there for ideas and examples to follow. See Category:GA-Class video game articles - Metroid (series) may be a useful model.
  • The language needs a fair amount of work - for example jut in the lead, in It later focuses on the decedents of the original heroes. I think "descendants" is meant, or In Golden Sun, the player plays as Isaac and his friends as they set off into the world of Weyard to prevent a group of anti-heroes from releasing alchemy to the world. I think antagonists is meant, not antiheroes
    • Spelling fixed; yes, they are anti-heroes. Explained in the characters list. --haha169 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The article has several short (one or two sentences) paragraphs that should be combined with others, or in a few cases perhaps expanded.
    • Done. (Except Golden Sun DS mentions, which do merit its own one-sentence paragraph)--haha169 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems like it needs a ref Once a Djinni on Standby has been used for a Summon Sequence, it must rest a number of turns before it restores itself to Set position on a character. There are sixteen Summon Sequences in Golden Sun, four for each element, and each summon sequence takes between one and four Djinn of the same element on Standby.
  • The refs seem to be overwhelmingly from the game itself - any chance for more independent third-party sources?
    • Not much. We're hoping Golden Sun DS will generate more interest from independent third-party sources. But the original two games haven't seemed to get too much attention. --haha169 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Look at WP:IN-U and see if some of the plot summaries etc. could be written from more of an out of universe perspective.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --haha169 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of ATP number 1 ranked players[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try and give the Tennis WikiProject its first featured article. I have added references to the page and added a little bit more prose. Please can comments be made on the number and quality of references and the scope of information.

Thanks, 03md 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some initial comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Check WP:MOSFLAG for the use of those flags without country names.
    • I have changed the first instance of the icon to the country initials and flag e.g.  GBR while leaving repetitions of nationality as flagicons, per MOS. 03md 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, repetition is less of an issue in sortable table.—Chris! ct 04:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Check WP:MOS for placement of references. No spaces between them and no between a ref and punctuation.
  • Done
  • Find an image for the lead.
    • Added an image of Pete Sampras to lead 03md 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge the paragraphs in the lead and then bulk them out.
  • Number 1 vs. No. 1 vs. number 1 - be consistent.
    • Changed all cases of no. 1 to Number 1 03md 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Things in just bold should be avoided for accessibility reasons. Colours and symbols work well here.
  • Done 03md 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, colour on its own is not enough. Symbols too.
  • Done - I hope that is OK 03md 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Year-end section is odd looking. Not tabulated, and repeats not in parentheses.
    • Tabulated the year-end section and numbers now in parentheses 92.0.249.49 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No. of years ended at #1 is odd too. A small infobox on the side of the Year-end section.
    • Should that be tabulated? I personally feel it works well as an infobox alongside the tablulated year-end section 92.0.249.49 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Players who were ranked World No. 1 without having won a Grand Slam tournament" section doesn't need a table (or even its own section) - it could be subsumed into the lead.
    • Subsumed into lead 03md 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Other records is borderline list of trivia. Can we make this part of the lead?
    • Made into part of lead - probably enough info in lead now 03md 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid contractions per WP:MOS e.g. "haven't"
  • Do we really need "Tennis" in the See also section? Really focus that section into pertinent articles. I wouldn't expect more than two See also's here.
    • Done 03md 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty to do, but a good foundation for WP:TENNIS' first FL. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An observation or two from Maedin (talk · contribs)
  • Why are there figures in parentheses after only some player names?
    • Figures in parentheses now added for all players
  • After the first table, you have tiny comments in italics. Before the second table, you have tiny comments that aren't italicised. Can we choose just one format, please?
  • Italicised both
  • I can't see the significance of the Rafael Nadal information in the lead? 24th? 15th? Why is this mentioned? I assume that, as the most recent addition, it could give some indication of "turnover" or "activity" in the list overall, but I don't think the average reader would gain much from it. It would be more beneficial, perhaps, if it were compared to another dataset of some description—say, female WTA rankings, or another association's No. 1 rankings.
  • I will leave this for now but will bear it in mind and may change it
  • In making these comments, I have just finally realised that the numbers in parentheses is the actual number of unqiue players on the list. I really think that can be integrated into the table in a more professional way. I think it's far too unclear (then again, I could just be an idiot).
  • Done
  • Seeing as there are tables dedicated to "year-end" statistics, it might be worth mentioning the significance of this. It would mean nothing to the average reader.
  • Done
  • In one section heading, you mention "players" and in another, you mention "men". Working logically, player is more specific than men, and should probably be used for preference.
  • Changed
  • In the Weeks at number 1 section, it's very easy to miss the difference in the last column . . . total and consecutive. Could these have a clearer heading/explanation/introduction? Plus, it seems rather arbitrary to have two tables of different sizes side by side, especially without introduction.
  • Added intro and made it clear the purpose of the tables
  • Tables are used throughout, except for the Complete calendar year-number ones section. Couldn't this be tabled?
    • Done

I've never done a peer review before, and I'm rather dim, so I apologise if my comments are just wasting your time! I hope at least a thing or two was useful, though, :-) Maedin\talk 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments which I have now addressed.

  • Quick comment from rst20xx - would it be worth adding a column to the first table to say the number of the err reign (?) that it is? So for example Borg had 6 reigns because he was number 1 for 6 non-consecutive periods and hence the column should indicate numbers 1 to 6. Simply provides another bit of information - rst20xx (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring this article to FA status and would appreciate feedback that would help bring the quality of this article to that level.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article - I knew Tchaikovsky had to deal with various issues in his life, but never realized there was anything like peer pressure to be somehow more Russian. I am obviously not an expert on this topic, and unfortunatley found the lead and parts of the article confusing / hard to follow. With an eye to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • As noted above, the lead confused me. There are some more minor issues with it (Tchaikovsky should not be both bold and linked per WP:LEAD, I think that all of the names of the members of the Five should be clearly listed in the lead, the article on The Five uses a different two word Russian name for them (I think the Russian word for Mighty is missing and it is just the word for handful, there is not a clear idea of the time period involved (especially in the first paragraph), and two members of the Five are not mentioned by name in the lead (Borodin and Mussorgsky )) but I think the real problem is that the article needs to make clearer in the lead just what the article is about, and do a better job of providing context for the reader who does not already know a great deal about the topic.
See below. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead of the article on "The Five" does a decent job of identifying the members and their philosophy and it seems to me that the first paragraph here could start with some sort of topic sentence defining the article (In late 19th century Russia, Pyotr Illych Tchaikovsky and a group of composers known as The Five had differing opinions on the nature of classical Russian music, specifically if it should follow Western or Russian themes) Then explain who Tchaikovsky and the five were and their programs, then summarize their history in the other two or three paragraphs.
I've incorporated your opening sentence in the current first paragraph of the lead for now. Meanwhile, I'll play with the lead in my sandbox and come up with something different for a opening paragraph. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I find this murkiness continues in the rest of the article - for example the first subsection in the "Before Tchaikovsky" section starts with the word Tchaikovsky and end with a quote talking about dedications to his memory! I find it is usually better to work chronologically.
I think a mini-lead/summary immediately after the heading "Before Tchaikovsky" could help clarify things. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The article on the Five says they met from 1856 to 1870 so shouldn't there be a section on them and their history? The article's history seems to start with Rubinstein and his return in 1858, but apparently the Five were already two years old as a group then.
There is an entire article on The Five and their history, but yes, there should be something included in this article, as well. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Similarly, there is very little background on Tchaikovsky - we are simply told he matriculated in 1866.
Likewise, there is an entire article on Tchaikovsky, but yes, there should be something included in this article, as well. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The images are very nice and the references seem fine.
  • Sorry this is not more specific - to be honest, I was a bit put off by the article. The writing is decent but I felt like I had landed in the midst of a long Russian novel with no idea who all the characters were or what the plot was in the 250 pages I had missed.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ricardiana

Doing....

Prose

  • The opening sentence is a little hard to follow, not because there's anything wrong with it per se, but b/c I expected to know by the first sentence what "Tchaikovsky and the Five" was, and it took longer than the first sentence to set that up. Could you sum up the relationship in a new intro. sentence? Maybe something like "Tchaikovsky's relationship with a group known as 'The Five' centered on issues of ..." (that's not very good, but some kind of summation of the issues at hand would be nice).
Done. See above regarding Ruhrfisch's sugggested opening. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I should have read Ruhrfisch more carefully. Looks good. Ricardiana (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As Tchaikovsky became Rubinstein's best-known student, he was initially - change in verb tense. Should be "had become".
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • especially as fodder for César Cui's criticism - this clause introduces yet another new player whom general readers won't know. Maybe some re-casting of the lead is in order to introduce people, or perhaps you could leave some names out - this might be one.
Done. Cui is now introdiced in the opening paragraph, along with the other names in The Five. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • He remained friendly - I think it's better to start paragraphs with the proper name and use the pronouns for subsequent sentences.
Good point.
  • it was to Tchaikovsky that he turned - "he turned"
Not sure what you mean—get rid of "that"? Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry - I meant "he turned to Tchaikovsky" - ever since my dissertation chair told me that her first journal article came back as "revise and resubmit", with the comment "never begin a sentence with 'it is' or 'there are'!!!!", I jump to change those. Ricardiana (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • were all thoroughly Russian in their sentiments - does this mean they were patriotic, or that their ideas partook of Essential Russian-ness, or what? I wasn't sure. (Note: as I read on, this became clearer. Maybe it would be better to start this section with the problem of Russianness, and then assert the Russianness of T's sentiments.)
  • however much they may have tried, it was impossible for Russians such as these to suppress either part of their identity sounds POV. Citation?
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • act like and have the same manners and attitudes as Europeans This seems redundant to me.
Changed to "act like Europeans." Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • to actually define Russianness in classical music and how it should actually - I'm not sure you need both, or either, of the "actually"s.
  • which was novel in that it was the first --> "which was the first"
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Russian opera in the Russian repertoire Is there a distinction here - were Russian operas spurned in Russia? I'm just curious.
French and Italian operas were preferred by the aristocracy before Tchaikovsky and the Five. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • He also came to realize the essentiality Neologisms have their place, but I'm not sure that "essentiality"'s is here. Could you say "importance" or "necessity"?
  • One thing that should be stressed Sounds POV.
This has now been cited. Jonyungk (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Liszt and Wagner were not included. No need to wikilink their names again.
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The campaign became petty, ugly and Anti-Semitic I don't doubt any of these statements, but I think they should be cited; otherwise, they sound POV.
It was cited—the parenthetical that follows, which has the citation, was supposed to be part of this sentence. The period between the two sentences has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

...more coming. Ricardiana (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Just because Rubinstein did not join combat, did not mean that Cui did not stop attacking - sounds a little casual. Could be something like "Although R ... C ..."
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The review's effect on the sensitive composer was devastating. Should have a citation (although really, what didn't devastate poor Tchaikovsky?)
Done. The passage is now cited. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It can be easy to imagine Tchaikovsky's reaction - the "it" issue again. Basically, starting this way is often just a little wordy. "T's reaction can easily be imagined" is a little shorter - although now, come to think, it sounds a little POV.
Done. Reworked this sentence and the following one into one sentence and removed the POV elements. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • wishing to remove themselves from what they now saw as Balakirev's stifling influence I think (this could just be me) this might read a little better with a visual parenthetical - something like "wishing to remove themselves from Balakirev's influence, which they now saw as stifling, and go..."
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In 1869 Tchaikovsky - I had to look back up to see that T sent the letter in 1867, and thus to figure out that you had jumped to the end of the two years you mention in the previous sentence. It might be helpful to give a little reminder here - "at the end of that period" or something.
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The para. starting Balakirev's entrance into his creative life was extremely well-timed seems to jump back in time. Could it be placed earlier?
It doesn't seem that strong a paragraph and, despite the in-line cites, seems close to POV. I've removed it entirely for right now but can always bring it back later. Jonyungk (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The first part of "Writing Romeo" seems to cover some of the same ground as the end of the last section. Maybe amalgamate?
Taken care of with the removal pf the previous paragraph. Jonyungk (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • than in the music he was conducting I think another verb here is needed - "listening" probably
Where was this? I can't seem to find it. Jonyungk (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - it's in the "learning from failure" section. Do you have a PC? You can find it by doing control + F. Ricardiana (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • offering as proof that Tchaikovsky did not write - normally, I think it's better to avoid "the fact that", but here I think it might be helpful - the sentence sounds a little abrupt
Done. Jonyungk (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Finishing ....

  • writing later, "I was a dilettante and knew nothing,..." -- punctuation at the end could just be a period, or ellipses.
  • Before Rimsky-Korsakov went to the Conservatory, in March 1868, Tchaikovsky wrote - does the date refer to R-K's going to the Conservatory, or to Tchaikovsky's words/
  • Tchaikovsky's notice, worded in precisely a way to find favour within the Balakirev circle - sounds awkward to me. Could be "worded in such a way" or something like that.
  • The comparison of Mussorgsky to T seems a little off-topic to me.
  • Berlioz had claimed old age and ill health when the program was suggested to him I think this needs a little more explanation - he claimed this to get out of doing the program?

Some general comments -

  • I noticed a lot of dashes, not including the ones in quotations. Each individual one was fine, but the overall number seemed unusually high.
  • Some of the block quotations are quite long and could be shortened. Also, there's a lot of white space when they are next to a picture - that doesn't look quite right. Maybe removing the frames around the quotations would help.
  • Terms are sometimes linked repeatedly - the Manfred Symphony was one example.

Timeline of the 1974 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to get a successful FLC at some point in the future.

Thank you all very much, Anhamirak 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why the timeline exists in the first place. The season wasn't that outstanding, meteorologically speaking, save the two retired storms. The season article handles the exact same content, but the season article is much clearer. I see multiple instances in the timeline where it is confusing. For example, Tropical Depression One is mentioned forming in the GoM, but the next item is Subtropical Depression One forming in the GoM. If I didn't know any better, I'd think there was an error, or that TD 1 became SD 1. Likewise with TD and SD 2. I really think the season article handles it better. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Should this timeline survive, I have a couple notes:

  • "The 1974 Atlantic hurricane season is one of the deadliest Atlantic hurricane seasons with 6000+ dead" was the deadliest. We shouldn't be using phrases such as "6000+" in prose; suggest "more than 6000 dead".
  • Spaced en dashes, not hyphens, should be used to separate listed items:
    • "1200 UTC (7 a.m. CDT) - Tropical Depression One forms in the Gulf of Mexico."-->1200 UTC (7 a.m. CDT) – Tropical Depression One forms in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • "extratropical east ofNewfoundland, Canada" Typo.
  • Galveston, Texas is overlinked. And why make readers click on the link to find out that Galveston is in the United States?
  • Sentence fragments in the image captions should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Thigpen[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is fully developed into a biography of Thigpen's (so far short) NFL career. In-depth, detailed, promoted to GA status in December 2008.

Thanks, conman33 (. . .talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and lots of facts and references. I assume this meant to get to FA eventually, so here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • The lead seems a bit sketchy to me - it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but his 2007 season is not mentioned, nor is the Chiefs' record with him as QB in 2008. The whole future QB for the 2009 season part also seems a bit too emphasized in the lead - see WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT] (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball).
  • Most early life sections at least mention parents and birthplace and siblings
  • The writing is a little choppy - many of the paragraphs are short (only one or two sentences) and should probably be combined with others to improve flow, or perhaps expanded
  • I would also say his college team was NCAA Division I (which the link used redirects to anyway). I think more people who know a bit about college football will know Division I than will know "the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision."
  • A lot of times there will be a Personal life section in athlete biography articles - does he have any hobbies, date anyone or is married, active for any charities, that sort of thing?
  • Three of the pictures are of large numbers of people on a football field - could some of them be cropped to show more of Thigpen? Even the one where it is him vs Phillips, it might help to identify Thigpen by the color of his uniform or left.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Jim Thorpe and Tyrone Wheatley are both FAs on football players, though Thorpe is an older FA and might not be the best model

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


BBC Sports Personality of the Year[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got all the individual award pages to individual award pages to FL I'm looking to get this to GA for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. All comments are much appreciated.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Since the first ceremony several new awards have been introduced, and as of 2008, eight awards are presented. The oldest of these are the Team of the Year and Overseas Personality awards, which were both introduced in 1960." Seems like it could logically be combined into two sentences, maybe with a semicolon: "Since the first ceremony several new awards have been introduced, and as of 2008, eight awards are presented; The oldest of these are the Team of the Year and Overseas Personality awards, both of which were introduced in 1960.  Done
  • "public vote to find a special Golden Sports Personality of the Year" I like "determine" better than "find" (just me though).  Done
  • "50 year history"-->50-year history  Done
  • Do you think it would be possible to put a bulleted list of the awards in the awards section? Seems kind of bare right now.  Done
  • "who had the idea while he was editor of the magazine show Sportsview." "had" is rather weak, suggestions: "who [conceived of / came up with / thought of] the idea while he was editor of the magazine show Sportsview."  Done -> Came up with
  • "Taking place from the Savoy Hotel on 30 December 1954" at the Savoy Hotel  Done
  • "Radio Times" Should be italicized.  Done
  • "14,517 votes were cast and Christopher Chataway beat Roger Bannister to win the innaguaral BBC Sportsperson of the Year award." Per WP:MOSNUM, we can't begin sentences with numbers.  Done
  • "In 1960 Dimmock presented the show, and introduced two new awards;[7] the Team of the Year award and the Overseas Personality award, which were won by the Cooper Car Company and Herb Elliott respectively."-->In 1960 Dimmock presented the show, and introduced two new awards:[7] the Team of the Year award and the Overseas Personality award, won by the Cooper Car Company and Herb Elliott respectively.  Done
  • "Anita Lonsbrough became the first female recipient of the main award in 1962, with the following two years also having female winners."-->Anita Lonsbrough became the first female recipient of the main award in 1962; females won it in the following two years as well.  Done
  • "Don Revie's achievements with Leeds United F.C. in 1969 saw him presented with a new Manager of the Year award—the only time it was ever presented." Very weak, and unclear in parts. Maybe (you'll probably have to reword some): In 1969, the new Manager of the Year award was presented to Don Revie for his achievements with Leeds United F.C; it was the only time that the award was ever presented.  Done
  • "Frank Bough took over as presenter in 1964 and presented Sports Review for eighteen years." "18 years".  Done
  • "The following year saw Henry Cooper become the first person to win the main award twice, having previously won in 1967."-->In the following year, Henry Cooper became the first person to win the main award twice, having previously won in 1967.  Done
  • It would be much clearer if you presented the history in chronological order; you talk about presenters right up to the 70s and 80s, then revert back to Don Revie in the late 60s.
  • "4 x 400 m relay team." Include "relay" in the piped link as well.  Done
  • "The 1980s saw Steve Davis finish in the top three on five occasions, his only win coming in 1988."-->In the 1980s, Steve Davis finished in the top three on five occasions, including one win in 1988.  Done

That should be enough for now. I'll probably do some copy-editing later. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the comments. Let me know if there is anything else, or there are changes you don't like. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Oldelpaso
  • The fact that this article is about the ceremony confused me. I expected an article with this title to be about the main award, since the winner is the "Sports Personality of the Year". This article this is quite short, and talks about the awards quite a lot anyway. I can't help thinking that the article could be merged with List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards to provide a summary style overview for the full topic.
    • I'll start a merger discussion but it'll supervision because List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards being a FL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the sporting context is obvious, Leeds United F.C. can be piped to Leeds United.  Done
  • It isn't mentioned anywhere that the event is primarily concerned with British sporting achievements.
    • This would be sorted by a merge, so I'll wait the outcome of that first. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "On 1 November 2003, BBC Books published "BBC Sports Personality of the Year 50th Anniversary" (ISBN 056348747X), which was a 224 page illustrated book written by Steve Rider and Martyn Smith to celebrate the golden anniversary of the show." - almost sounds like an advert.
    •  Done, removed which was a 224 page illustrated book.
  • Regional Awards is a sea of blue. It might be neater to simply put "the twelve local BBC English Regions also have their own award ceremonies", and remove the sentence listing the regions.  Done
  • "For the 2007 ceremony the capacity of the NEC was increased by 3,000 to a total of 8,000 as part of a two-year sponsorship deal with Britvic's brand Robinsons." - it is puzzling how a sponsorship deal can change the capacity of an arena. Yes, it has a reference, but since it is a press release promoting the tie-up, its reliability is suspect.
    •  Done, I've modified this sentence into two separate two parts: capacity increased, and new sponsorship deal
  • As much as the BBC has a reputation for neutrality, the proportion of references from BBC sources is higher than might be expected.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get it to G/FA, and I'm looking for some reviews of its current status and suggested tweaks. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Review by Ruslik.

  1. As a result of this and similar controversies, Alf Dubs introduced a private member's bill Can the date be specified when the bill was introduced.
  2. The paper (Legal Services: A Framework for the Future) was published in July 1989,[19] and had a different tone to that of the Green Papers, referring more to the requirement of legal services to be responsive to the needs of the client rather than the discipline of the market and problems with competition between branches of the legal profession. This sentence is too long and difficult to understand and should be split.
  3. The monopoly on starting and conducting litigation would also be removed, allowing any recognised legal authority to certify its members as fit to work as an advocate. Who had had this monopoly before? It is not clear (solicitors, barristers ?).
  4. From subsections 'Conveyancing' and 'Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board' is not clear if solicitors are required to obtain authorization from the above board or not? What is the role of the Legal Society in the regulation of solicitors who act as conveyancers?
  5. What is the difference between an authorised conveyancing practitioner and a licensed conveyancer? This whole section is confusing. For instance: The Practitioners board assumes that banks, insurance companies and building societies are by definition fit to undertake such work, while other individuals and bodies undergo a more detailed vetting process. Does this mean that everbody including solicitors and licensed conveyancers must obtain additional permission from this board?
  6. The Act also modifies the functions of the Director General of Fair Trading by requiring any applications from a body to be allowed to certify advocates and any rules and regulations proposed by the Lord Chancellor in relation to conveyancing to be submitted to the Director, who then advises the Lord Chancellor as to the viability of the documents. This sentence is very difficult to understand.
  7. Among other things this opens up judicial offices in the Supreme Court of England and Wales to solicitors rather than just barristers. What judical offices? The jugges had been appointed by invitation until 2005.
    Indeed, but previously judges had only been barristers. By publishing a series of requirements for each post that didn't include a call to the Bar, the field was opened for solicitors as well. I'll do the rest later on (I'm at work, in a firm of solicitors appropriately). Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. The Act inserts a new clause into the Solicitors Act 1974 which expands the definition of what a solicitor requiring a practising certificate is to include any solicitor who works for a firm in a way related to legal services and is employed by: I do not understand what this means. The sentence is too complicated.
  9. This can be in relation to on what terms the pupillage/tenancy is offered, the arrangements made for who should be offered the pupillage/tenancy or the benefits, services and facilities which are "afforded or denied". This sentence is also difficult to understand.
  10. Section 101 of the Act amends the Arbitration Act 1950 to allow the High Court to appoint arbitrators to panels of 3 arbitrators where one has not been selected within a reasonable time. Please, clarify what 'the panel of 3 arbitrators' is. By the way numbers less then 10 should be spelled out.
  11. The last sentence is the article reads At the same time the clause on recovery of costs in civil cases came into force with the SI ", and is obviously incomplete.
  12. I think that short subsections near the end of the article (especially in 'Part IV: solicitors' section) should be consolidated.
  13. I also noticed that 'also' is used too often in the article.
  14. In 'References'. I think LEGAL UPDATE (and other such titles) should not be written in capital letters.

Ruslik_Zero 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Optics[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Previously a start-class article recently expanded ninefold. Interested in GA/FA. Suggestions welcomed. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 04:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • For FA (and perhaps GA - depends on reviewer) you'll have to reformat all refs into {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc., templates. You'll also have to provide "accessdate" and "publisher" for weblinks and news and page number(s) for books. In my personal experience, I first opposed that, but now format all my refs within those lines and am happy about it :). Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Many of the pagenumbers for books are included as chapters since we're doing a lot of summarizing of material. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the benefit of {{Refbegin}} tag? On my PC it only eats some space on the left, which is a drawback for this long article.Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You will have to cut material from this overly long article. I am hesitant to do that myself and will only suggest:
    "Societies" - every country has one. No way to keep the web-link list here.
    Replace "degrees" by °
     Done. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have started tweaking what I find incorrect. Please comment if I missed something. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What is the current thinking on article length at Wikipedia? The last article I got to GA status was Force which is of a comparable length. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Look at the readable prose - there are tools for doing this (used to be on FAC, I think may be on the DYK pages somewhere now). Articles often seem much bigger than they are because the refs and Wikicode take up a lot of space. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: Nice job of exapnsion and generally well done. With an eye to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead seems sparse to me for an article of this length. While it is the maximum number of paragraphs allowed (four), the paragraphs are fairly short and there seem to be at least some topics that are not in the lead but are section headers (like the sections on the human eye) My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • I also think the third paragraph of the lead goes about the things the wrong way. Current physics understands all electromagnetic radiation in terms of quantum mechanics, it just happens that much of optics can also be expalined in terms of classical physics (Newton's Opticks and all that).
  • While this is well-cited in amny polaces, there are still some parts that need more references, for example the Reflections section has several places. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Agree that the references need to be more complete before any sort of serious effort at FAC can be undertaken. 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
  • Also not sure that all of the refs cited are Reliable sources - for example Ref 18 is to this http://cnx.org/content/m11932/latest/ which seems to be an "anyone can edit" site - not sure this is a RS (there have to be lots of good books on Galileo and his telescope)
  • Very nice images, but per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. Things like File:Wave group.gif are OK set wider, but I fail to see the usefulness of the huge triple figure with all the white space beside it in the Polarization section.
  • Per WP:HEAD, section headers should try to avoid repeating the name of the article, but at least five headers contain the word optics. This may be a case for WP:IAR, but I would see if the number of such header could be reduced if at all possible.
  • There are several places that have short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which impede the flow of the article. These should be combined with other paragraphs where possible, or perhaps expanded.
  • In Geometrical optics the second paragraph on Fermat's principle appears to use italics to indicate a direct quotation which violates WP:ITALIC and MOS:QUOTE. There are a lot of places that use italics that may be against WP:ITALIC
  • Writing is generally decent. There needs to be a bit more flow within sections, if possible (seems like a collection of cool facts at times)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


List of Dead Like Me episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on how to improve the article (what to change/remove/add) if needed to get on the featured articles list.

Thanks, Dmarex (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments from Cryptic C62:
    • What's going on with the numbering system in the tables? The series/season # thing is really confusing. The two terms are synonymous in British English.
    • The episode summaries are written with an WP:INUNIVERSE style, which is bad.
    • The third paragraph of the lead is difficult to read due to the massive number of wikilinks. I suggest cutting out the bit that lists all of the characters/actors.
  • Not watchlisting. Talk me if you have questions. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of The Inbetweeners episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because myself and a number of other editors have spent time on this article and it would be great to see how far away FL status is for it, and what needs to be done in order to get it to the status.

Thank you,
Wisijane 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting and funny series, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would add who the characters are in the image caption, which currently reads The Inbetweeners Series 1 DVD. This contains the 6 episodes from the first series that was broadcast. and change it to something like The Inbetweeners Series 1 DVD cover showing (left to right) Will, Simon, Jay, and Neil (or whatever the real order is)
  • The last paragraph of the lead is only three short sentences and could perhaps either be combined with one of the other paragraphs or perhaps expanded. I would try to be consistent in information given - in the last two sentences why not give the number of episodes in season two? I am also not sure of the use of "between" - how would "during" or even "in" sound?The first series consisted of six episodes and ran until 29 May 2008. The second series ran between April and May 2009.[2]
  • Watch overlinking and needless repetition - just in the lead we are twice told "Will (Simon Bird)" with a link to the actor's name each time. E4 is linked twice in the lead. Or there is an internal wikilink to the first episode, which seems odd to me (I assumed the episode was notable enough to have its own article - readers know to scroll down otherwise in a list of episodes to read about each one). See WP:OVERLINK
  • Language is awkward in places and needs a copyedit - for example In order to impress his new-found friends, Will attempts to, illegally (because he is underage) purchase alcohol. could just be something like Trying to impress his new-found friends, the underage Will attempts to illegally purchase alcohol.
  • There are a number of jargon terms which I was not familiar with - bunk off for one, or briefcase mong. I would link bunk off to truancy. Not sure about the other. See WP:JARGON
  • There are also places where the language is not very encyclopedic - "winds up" in winds up Neil's dad about being gay for one. I would read WP:IN-U especially and the whole Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
  • Current refs 3 and 4 are jusr bare links and need much 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
  • Current refs 1 and 5 are the same and should be combined with the ref name = feature (ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this)
  • Refs 3 and 4 are to amazon.com - is this a reliable source?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, Ruhrfisch; it is highly appreciated. Managed to get a lot of the items done, and only need to go over the prose to work on the encyclopediac language and jargon terms. Thanks again, Wisijane 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

List of United States district and territorial courts[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because MZM and I have worked on it for a bit and think it is nearly ready for FL, but need more feedback.

Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A helpful article. It may be even more helpful to list the districts alphabetically by state, as you have done, but with the state name first, e.g.: Alabama, Northern District of, etc.. This would assist the sorting process in the table. Comments by Sctechlaw (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hint: You can use {{sort}} to alphabetize the entries by state. For example: {{sort | Alabama, Northern District | [[Northern District of Alabama]]}} Jafeluv (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Jafeluv

Lead:

  • The formal naming convention for the courts to precede them with "United States District Court for." – There's something wrong with the grammar here.
  • Article III or Article Three? Be consistent.
  • The largest court courts by number of judges is a tie between are Central District of California and the Southern District of New York, each with 28 judgeships. – It's not a competition, and "each with x judgeships" already makes it clear that they have the same number of judges, so "tie between..." is redundant. (This also applies to the following sentence.)
  • The lead should not contain more than four paragraphs (see here). Many of the paragraphs are very short and could be merged together.

Images:

  • The image captions should be wikilinked where appropriate.

Active courts:

  • Court of appeals doesn't sort right (10th before the 1st, etc). See my hint above. The chief judges could also be sorted by surname, but that's not a big deal really.

Notes:

  • This doesn't need its own section. It could well be under Defunct courts, where it belongs.

In general I think the article is very informative and without any major issues. I like the placement of images, and it looks all images are free use, as they should be. The lead is the part that requires the most work for FL in my opinion. I think it has too many short sentences and too short paragraphs, which breaks the flow. It might require some rewriting. This guide might help with that, if you aren't familiar with it yet. You may also want to make stubs for the redlinks if their targets are notable, or if not remove the links. Good luck with the article. Jafeluv (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Melbourne Airport[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it will become a FAC in the next few months. Fresh ideas on improvement are needed.

Thanks, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 11:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jafeluv

Lead:

  • Melbourne is the most common destination for the airports of five of Australia's seven capital cities. – Kind of misleading, since there are actually eight capital cities, Melbourne itself being one.
  • The airport comprises of four terminals, one international terminal, two domestic terminals and one budget domestic terminal. – Replace first comma with a colon.

History:

  • Wikilink Essendon Airport.
  • Melbourne Airport has been the recipient of received numerous awards.

Awards and accolades:

Route developments:

  • Perth—Kalgoorlie—Melbourne service – Use en dash here. See WP:ENDASH.
  • Wikilink Auckland.
  • The last paragraph uses future tense for October 2008. (There are several instances of this)

Airbus A380:

  • References needed for the first two sentences (at least).
  • The improvements included the construction of dual airbridges (Gates 9 and 11) with the ability to board both decks simultaneously to reduce turnaround times, the widening of the North—South runway and remote stands and taxiways by 15 metres (49 ft), the extension of the international terminal building by 20 metres (66 ft) to include new penthouse airline lounges, and the construction of an additional baggage carousel in the arrivals hall. – Long sentence.
  • North—South runway – Incorrect use of the em dash. See WP:EMDASH. By the way, "North-South" etc. are written several times with a hyphen. Pick either en dash or hyphen and be consistent.
  • Linfox's – Should be Linfox's. By the way, it might be a good idea to add a couple of words describing what "Linfox" is. Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed.

Avalon Airport:

  • When Jetstar was established – "Jetstar Airlines" would be clearer.

Runways:

  • ...by the end of 2008. This system will be the first of its kind in Australia. – Future tense for 2008 again.

Traffic and statistics:

  • Table sorting gives weird results for the % Change columns.

Access:

  • This seems a rather long section considering that we're not Wikitravel. Just my opinion.

Public transport:

  • A daily return service from the states north – What does this mean?

Terminal 3:

  • Terminal 3 - Originally the Ansett Australia terminal is now owned by Melbourne Airport. – Hyphen used instead of a dash; capitalisation.
  • following the Tesna group's widthdrawl withdrawal of the purchase
  • ... under ownership of Tesna — however... – Em dash should be unspaced like in the following section, per WP:EMDASH.
  • as a result, Melbourne Airport undertook... – Sentence should start with a capital letter.

Terminal 4:

  • If approved, the development is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars – Remove hyperbole with a more neutral wording (several hundred million dollars?)

Accidents and incidents:

  • The hijacker, a passenger named David Robinson – Is the name of the person really necessary?
  • The incident began at 7:10 am when a female woman collapsed in the terminal building.
  • failed to become airborne – Awkward wording.

I hope some of this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jafeluv, I'm a bit busy tonight so I'll probably start fixing issues tomorrow. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Crayola[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on this article. I did name it as GA candidate, but that seems very backlogged now, so I'd like to try here.

Thanks, Dougie WII (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

Sourcing: The sourcing in this article tends to rely on unreliable sources such as the following:

  • This source does not look reliable since it is for-profit website promoting family travel.
  • This source does not look reliable since it is a for-profit website selling art supplies. Can you find a complete list of Crayola products somewhere?
  • Comment -- these sources are being used merely to show that the products exist and are being sold in the stated quantities. Since Crayola sells through third party distributors, it was difficult to find a source documenting available products that wasn't actually selling them. In this case, I think these distributors are reliable sources since they are actively selling the products mentioned.. -- Dougie WII (talk)

Also, much of the article relies on the Crayola website itself. It is best to look for third-party sources that are more objective. Crayola is, of course, interested in presenting itself in the best possible light. For-profit websites, also used a lot in the article, are interested in selling their products. We want to look for sources that are primarily interested in conveying information. Here are some examples I found on Google Books:

There are two helpful dispatches on sourcing that will help you in the researching process here and here.

Lead: The lead needs to be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. So, for example, some of the history needs to be included as well as the cultural impact.

Content:

  • The "History" section jumps from 1903 to 1984 - what happened in the meantime?
  • There is a section on crayons, but the lead says that company also makes markers, chalk, paints, modeling clay and colored pencils - the article should discuss these in some depth.
  • There should also be a section describing the company, its structure, and its finances.
  • Comment -- I'll try to find more on this, but as a privately held company, it is not required to release its financial information -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Images:

  • File:Company.gif - The fair use rationale for this image is not sufficient. The purpose of use does not explain why the reader needs to see the image. See the end of this dispatch for advice on writing purposes of use. (Personally, I'm not sure this image is needed, but I'm open to persuasion.)
  • The image of the postal stamp was successfully undeleted by the DRV process and I removed this image after trying to move it up to the history section, but it never looked right. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, I'll be working these issues you raised over the next few days. I'm kind of waiting for the result of a backlogged DRV (that should hopefully be resolved at any moment now) before I make any major structural changes though. Thanks again for your time, I hope you can review it again after some of these problems have been addressed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with previous comments that the article is too reliant on the website, especially since the colors taken from it seem to be more pastel than the actual crayons itself Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment As discussed I've replaced the color value table with a table of actual self-made images of the crayon marks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian heraldry[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to FAC. I've never done so before, and I think this would be the best way to head off possible problems before running the gauntlet.

Thanks, roux   19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Shojo Beat[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on what else needs to be done to the article to prepare it for a Featured Article candidacy. It is currently a good article and I believe it pulls together all currently available reliable sources regarding the magazine's inception, run, demise, and reception.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly see why it's currently GA, and I don't think it needs much work. I did notice a few grammatical issues, and also some confusion over tense, which I imagine came from the cancellation being quite recent. I'm of the school that prefers such things are done rather then spend longer writing them up, so I've made the changes to the article itself. I don't claim to be a copyeditor, so you may not agree with it all! i think the article is ready to be a FAC. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching those (and doing :) ) and good to hear. It also reminded me to update the editor-in-chief after checking to see if they ever did name a new one :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do the series that were running in the magazine as of its closing need to be highlighted? --Malkinann (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. That's a hold over from when it was still running, but it could just as easily be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is good but still not FA quality. Perhaps the most difficult of the FA criteria involves the quality of the prose. I made a small number of minor copyedits to the article, and most of my comments below make specific suggestions about prose or issues related to the Manual of Style. In addition, the reference section needs a bit of repair, as noted below.

Lead

  • "becoming the first English anthology to use the two-color tone pages" - Suggestion: "becoming the first English anthology to use the two color tones common to Japanese manga anthologies... "
  • "Half of its circulation comes from subscriptions... " - "came" rather than "comes"?
  • "In May 2009, the magazine was discontinued, with the July 2009 issue being its last." - "With" is a relatively weak connector in a construction like this. Suggestion: "In May 2009, the magazine was discontinued, and the July 2009 issue was its last."
  • "Fans were disappointed, though many also noted they were not subscribers." - "many of them noted that" rather than "many also noted" since "many" might otherwise mean "observers" or some other group.

History

  • "The first issue was released in June 2005, featuring Nana Komatsu of NANA on its July-dated cover." - Suggestion: tighten slightly to "The first issue, released in June 2005, featured Nana Komatsu of NANA on its July-dated cover."
  • "In the June 2009 issue, publisher Hyoe Narita began being listed as having the dual role of publisher and editor-in-chief." - Suggestion: "Starting with the June 2009 issue, Hyoe Narita, the publisher, was listed as editor-in-chief."
  • "The magazine's panda mascot, Moko... " Wikilink panda?
  • "Shojo Beat switched to using cyan and magenta ink tones for the manga pages" - Wikilink cyan and magenta? What colors did it use in the earlier issues?
  • "The new design included more vivid color schemes and fonts... " - Wikilink font?
  • "The new design included more vivid color schemes and fonts and a new "Girl Hero" column to spotlight women Viz felt were charitable and selfless to inspire the readers." - Suggestion: "The new design included more vivid color schemes and fonts and a new "Girl Hero" column to spotlight women Viz felt were charitable and selfless and who would inspire the readers."
  • "In the March 2008 issue, a third mascot, a star named Hoshiko, was introduced as a friend for Moko." - It's not clear whether this means a star in the sky or a star in the sense of famous person or creature.
  • "In May 2009, the magazine stopped accepting new subscriptions and ceased publication with the release of the July 2009 issue." - Delete the second "2009"?
  • "Subscribers will reportedly receive a copy of the August 2009 issue of Shonen Jump, with options to transfer their subscription or request a refund for the remaining portion." - If publication ceased with the July issue, how can there be an August issue? I think this needs to be explained more clearly. Also, to avoid having to fix the verb tenses in September, you might say something like "Viz offered subscribers a copy of the August 2009 issue of Shonen Jump and the option of transferring their subscriptions or requesting partial refunds."

Features

  • "a preview chapter from another Viz manga title being published under their "Shojo Beat" label" - Maybe "the" rather than "their" to avoid calling Viz a "their" rather than an "it".
  • "The end of the magazine featured fan related sections" - Maybe instead of "end", which is a bit ambiguous in this context, this might be better: "Sections toward the back of the magazine featured fan-related material, including... "

Series

  • "During its run, the magazine featured fourteen series total, with seven ending their runs to be replaced with other series." - Suggestion: "During its run, the magazine featured fourteen series, of which seven ended their runs and were replaced by other series."
  • "Only four of those remained in the magazine until all of their chapters had been published." - Does this mean four of the seven replacements? If so, maybe "Only four of those replacement series remained... "?
  • "Viz noted that they periodically removed series... " - "it" rather than "they"?
  • "removed series from the magazine that have not been completed yet... " - "that had not been completed"? Also, delete "yet"? These are actions that took place in the past.
  • "It does not include single chapter previews of titles." - I'm not sure what "previews" means in this context. Would it be better to say, "It does not include titles of single chapters"?

Imprints

  • With the launch of the Shojo Beat magazine, Viz Media also created new imprints for its manga and fiction lines, with the "Shojo Beat" label including both series featured in the magazine and other shōjo manga titles licensed by Viz since the magazine's conception." - Suggestion: "With the launch of the Shojo Beat magazine, Viz Media created new imprints for its manga and fiction lines. The "Shojo Beat" label included series featured in the magazine as well as other shōjo manga titles licensed by Viz after the magazine's conception."
  • "Published under the "Shojo Beat Fiction" imprint, Viz began releasing a few Japanese light novels that relate to its "Shojo Beat" manga titles." - Viz wasn't published. Suggestion: "Viz began releasing a few Japanese light novels under a "Shojo Beat Fiction" imprint related to its "Shojo Beat" manga titles."
  • "In February 2006, Viz launched the "Shojo Beat Home Video" line to release anime titles targeted towards the female audience." - "anime titles for young women"?
  • "the same titled manga already being released by Viz Media... " - Delete "being"?

Circulation and audience

  • "In 2006, its average circulation had increased to 35,000, with 41% of copies distributed through subscriptions, and the rest sold in newsstands and stores." - "With" doesn't work well as a conjunction. Suggestion: "In 2006, its average circulation had increased to 35,000 copies, of which 41% were distributed through subscriptions and the rest sold in newsstands and stores."
  • "In 2007, the circulation grew to 38,000, with subscription distribution growing to 51% of copies." - Suggestion: "In 2007, the circulation grew to 38,000, and subscriptions increased to 51%."
  • "Targeted towards "young women", over half of the Shojo Beat audience was between the ages of 13 and 19, and over 84% of readers were at least 16 years old." - Suggestion: "More than half of the Shojo Beat audience, which was targeted towards "young women", was between the ages of 13 and 19, and more than 84% of readers were at least 16 years old."
  • "After its cancellation, Publishers Weekly's Heidi MacDonald reported that the common response that they saw among fans was that "everyone liked it but nobody paid for it", due to many fans expressing sorrow over the magazine's demise, but also noting they were not subscribers to it." - It's unclear who "they" refers to in this sentence. MacDonald is a "she", and Publishers Weekly is an "it". Also, the sentence might be a bit too complicated and would work better as two sentences. The second might say, "She noted that many fans who expressed sorrow over the magazine's demise were not subscribers."
  • "Katherine Dacey, the former Senior Manga Editor... " - Lowercase "senior manga editor"?
  • "Staff member Brigid Alverson felt Shojo Beat was a great overall package that "featured intelligent articles that allowed the reader to be enthusiastic about Japanese pop culture without being geeky" making it distinct from other magazines for girls that were normally "filled with brainless celebrity stories or service articles tied to commercial products". - Since this includes direct quotes, it needs an inline citation.

References

  • Citation 2 is incomplete and its url is dead.
  • Citation 3 has a dead link.
  • Citation 19 is incomplete and dead.
  • I don't have time to check all of the citations. I just picked these three because they looked suspicious. You should check the whole set. A link checker tool can be run on any article.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! I will get to work on addressing all of these issues and fix those refs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Intro all fixed. History fixed. The August issue is for the other publication, Shonen Jump, which will be continuing. I reworded that to attempt to clarify things more. I didn't change it to "offered" though because Viz has yet to actually follow through with it, so don't want to presume they really will. Should find out in a few more days, though, if Shonen Jump ships on the same schedule as Shojo Beat. :) Features fix. Series fixed (for the last question, it was referring to the preview chapters noted in the features, I reworded to try to make clearer). Imprints, circulation, and reception also all fixed. I've also fixed all the references (they were broken when I was fixing the date formats as my script falsely changed the ANN links too because they use ISO dates *doh*). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I've not updated the Shonen Jump subscription transfer section as I got the copy (with the letter) today confirming it was done. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has been expanded from Start-class into something much more comprehensive. General review comments welcome. It's a great opera, and I hope the article will make people want to hear or watch it. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Number-one albums of 2008 (Australia)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article, with intention of getting it to featured list status, and would like feedback on how to get this article closer to FL.

Thanks, Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just failed FAC; it needs a couple pairs of fresh eyes to copyedit. I'll resubmit afterwards. Thanks; this article's really close to the finish line! ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Please read the peer review directions more carefully. Articles that have had an unsuccessful FAC have to wait two weeks (14 days) before they are submitted to Peer Review. The thought is that the FAC should have many comments for improvement and these should all be thoroughly addressed BEFORE submitting to peer review. Since the FAC is a very detailed review (I checked), it is a waste of scarce PR resources to peer review this in its curent state. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Tour de France winners[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of good work was done on it about a year ago and then it was left. I'd like to push it to be a featured list so I'm requesting some comments from the community to see what needs to be done.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Comments by Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • There isn't room for the images to the right of the table I'm afraid. You have to widen the browser to around 1489 pixels before the images stop overlapping the table, which is unreasonable as many people will view at a lower resolution than that (I tested on Chrome and Firefox btw). The images would have to be moved (or removed) or the table narrowed considerably.
  • "held since 1903 over a current period of three weeks" sounds quite clunky, needs rephrasing. Also needs the word "annually" or "annual" adding here.
  • The jerseys listed in the table are not definitive, for example there used to be a red jersey for the rider who won the most in-stage sprints and a multi-coloured jersey for the rider who was most consistent in all the other jersey competitions. While I wouldn't advocate adding these lesser jerseys to the table (which is already wide enough) perhaps add a footnote or some text in the lead so that it is clear that there are/were other jerseys besides those four.
  • "He would have won the young rider title as well had it existed at the time." - woulda coulda shoulda? It didn't, so he didn't. Do we really need to say this?
  • I'm not entirely convinced about numbering the rows - is the Tour de France numbered like the Super Bowl? I'd have thought people are far more likely to refer to the 2008 Tour de France than the 95th Tour de France, though I could be wrong and I wouldn't object if this was kept.
  • There is a Tour de France navbox at the bottom of the page but this list does not appear within it as far as I can see. It is part of the topic so I think it should be added.
  • This only occurred to me at the end, but regarding the list criteria... doesn't "List of Tour de France winners" strongly suggest that the list is all about the yellow jersey and not the other jerseys? You could scrap the other jerseys entirely (not to say that couldn't have their own lists of course) and just add information pertinent to the race winner. How many stages did he win that year? What team did he ride for? What was his margin of victory over the second-placed rider? Maybe include the second and third placed riders if there is room. Just a few thoughts.

--Jameboy (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


List of music releases from Pop Idol contestants[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get the opinion of editors on improvements before the list is submitted for FL. Please can I be notified if I have missed out any releases from the table or prose.

Thanks, 03md 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

  • General Point: most (probably all) featured pop song lists have numerous illustrations; this has none. Have you thought about how to obtain images?
  • Text: since this is a list, not an article, there may be questions about the extent of text. In some lists I have seen a "Notes" column used to record additional information, rather than having a lengthy prose section.
    • It is common to have a lengthy lead section in discographies and other similar lists, so I will leave it at that level and get the opinion of other editors.

Some specific points in the prose:-

    • Should "top 5" be "top five" per MOS, or is there a dispensation for music chart entries? I honestly don't know.
      • Changed to top five"
    • Why is album of the same name in italics
      • Changed
    • For the sake of those uneducated in the language of pop, can you explain or link "double-A side"?
      • Wikilinked double-A side
    • "After "What My Heart Wants to Say" broke this run of successful singles..." Was it unsuccessful, or did it just not reach No. 1?
      • Clarified
    • "earned", not "earnt"
      • Changed
  • Tables: These seem generally OK. One point of presentation you might consider is the centralisation of the numeric information, in the "Series" and "peak chart position" columns. This is boring to do - it means repetitively writing "align= center", but in terms of appearance it is well worth doing.

That's really all I can think of. It might be worth your while getting the opinion of an editor with direct experience of preparing pop lists. Good luck with the list, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. 03md 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Strangers (thirtysomething)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's IMHO close to GA status and I'd like some eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A short, somewhat slight article. Since the main notability of this episode was the controversy over two gay men in bed together, I would have expected the "Controversy" section to have rather more detail. For example, ABC withdrew the episode from the summer rerun schedule. But this was 1990: has the episode been aired since (I imagine it has)? If so, with what effect? Also, perhaps a bit more plot detail on the Peter and Russell story would be helpful. For instance, was the meeting at the advertising agency their first meeting? Are Peter and Russell in any way connected with the other circle of friends you describe in the plot summary?

Here are a few more specific points. I have also done a little punctuation and general tidying.

  • WP:LEAD says: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Your first sentence fulfils the first of these requirements, but not the second. Indeed, it is not until the second paragraph of the lead that we learn why this episode was notable. I suggest some redrafting of the lead section.
  • I suggest you delete the second "together" in the second paragraph, as too close a repetition
  • "originally including hugging and kissing..." - "-ing", "-ing" and "-ing". Suggest reword as: "...and originally included hugging and kissing..."
  • "There was no public outcry about the episode before it aired." Well, how could there be, before it was shown?
  • "fear of", rather than "fear for", is the normal idiom.

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Albert Einstein[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently brought to FAC with an unsuccessful result - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Einstein/archive1. I hope this can be conducted in stages. first, some experts can weigh in with comprehensiveness issues, and weighting, and help with sourcing. Then we can work on prose and copyediting. Please help if you can, as it would be great to get this fairly vital bi back up to FA status. I am listing it as I am no expert on Einstein. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness, weighting, sourcing[edit]

As the nominator requested! Physchim62 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Running through the article in a "box-checking" mode, I don't find any major omissions. More could be said on Einstein's relation with Mileva Marić, as most accounts paint him as something of a misogynist, which is probably not quite accurate. I prefer the quote from Einstein himself later in the article: that he had "neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings."

However, the weighting of the various sections is appalling. Straight away, I must take issue with the FA reviewer who commented on Einstein's religiousness. Einstein was no more religious than any other middle-class Central European of his time, and probably rather less religious than most South German Jews of that period. His religious beliefs and habits deserves no more than a single paragraph, yet they are currently discussed at greater length that his annus mirabilis papers, with the section placed above the discussion of his politics!

As for the annus mirabilis papers (be they four or five, that depends how you count his PhD thesis), they should each have their own subsection to discuss their impact (all of them had incredible impact): to place them in a bulleted list is almost an insult ;) We could also mention that he found time to write 21 book reviews for Annalen der Physik in the same year.

I'll leave it there for the moement, as there are editors who are more qulified to comment on things like GR than myself. Physchim62 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Just as a suggestion but the sheer volume of references should be pruned down. There are over 100 and many of them are just websites with limited info, I think we could get this down around 40 or 50 solid references realistically.--Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not really an expert, but I second the view that the article seems to spend too much time on the Einstein's religious views. Moreover, there are virtually no reliable secondary sources presented. Instead, the section consists mostly of Einstein quotes. I think the way to proceed is to move this section out to another article Religious views of Albert Einstein, presenting it here more concisely in summary style with appropriate secondary sourcing. Also, I second Kumioko's suggestion, although with a slightly different emphasis. Many of the sources in the article are of dubious quality or origin. At a minimum, I suggest that the sources should be clearly identified in the References, not just by a website address, but including publisher and author information if possible. This should also help to weed out the sources that are clearly unacceptable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The subarticle on Einstein's religion would probably be useful; that would leave room, both in the main article and in the subarticle, for the influence of Einstein's views on his politics, and on his physics. Schilpp should have much; where is "subtle but not malicious"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Good points all - (a) strongly agree that the notability of his religion is its impact on his sicentific views (b) weed out nonreliable refs, fix and embellish current ones, and find better ones (does anyone have a biography as that would help immensely here) (c) need a physicist or someone famuilair with phyisics to really do justice to his theories methinks. (d) thanks Psychim for setting up these sections, I realised after I went to bed I had meant to do this to map it out properly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I can only reiterate more strongly the view I outlined above, that Einstein's religious views are all but irrelevant. His religious statements could have been made by virtually any European scientist of his era, Jewish or Christian (atheism wasn't really fashionable at the time!). This only possibly connection is his well known espousal of determinism: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." He was culturally and ethnically Jewish, yes, and that is important for parts of his life story, but he wasn't particularly "spiritual".
        • I've got a short biography of Einstein (and, interestingly, also a short biography of his mother Pauline) which might help to improve the referencing a bit. I can tackle some of the physics, or at least clean it up, but some of it would be beyond me: Relativity was about the only physics course I passed at university, although I've had to learn more since then! Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Really? How many European scientists would have said "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh, quite a number, probably at least a plurality. For how many of them would such words have been recorded? Very few! Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
                • In the journals of the day, perhaps not. But the correspondence of many of Einstein's contemporaries has been published - as have their recollections of each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Science and scientific career[edit]

Although he became a public figure later in life, Einstein was primarily a scientist. I'm sorry to say this, but IMO, the article is nowhere near FA-class on his scientific work. The lead gives an OK sketch, but the coverage in the main article is a disaster, perhaps low B-class or high C-class. Whole sectors of his solo and collaborative work are not covered (see List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein for more details) and what is covered is done poorly. The science is not made accessible to lay-people, it's poorly organized, and it's generally poorly written, e.g., Albert Einstein#Paper on Brownian motion. There is little discussion of (1) the historical context and importance of the problems he addressed, (2) the originality and impacts of his solutions, (3) the reception by the scientific community, and (for most of his work) (4) the experimental confirmations of his theoretical predictions. The article doesn't convey why Einstein was considered by Lev Landau and many other experts to be the most productive physicist of the 20th century by far. If you choose to discuss his scientific contributions, then I expect that bringing this article to FA-class will be a huge undertaking, one needing the help of someone versed in theoretical physics. You could jettison Einstein's science and restrict the article to biographical details, but I fear the article would lose much of its appeal for readers.

One suggestion: separate the science from the scientific career. Under scientific career, you could track his various positions, honors, awards, etc. That should be easy enough to write up and reference. For his contributions to science, I recommend not covering them chronologically, but rather organizing them topically.

Minor points: The lead doesn't summarize the article, but I expect you know that. "Further reading" or a new "Bibliography" section should list the major biographies of Albert Einstein. Such a list might make for briefer, more scholarly references, similar to the approach used at William Shakespeare. The "See also" section has trivial elements, such as "List of coupled cousins".

I'm sorry to give such a grim diagnosis, but highlighting problems may lead to their resolution. Proteins (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with you: with the referencing and copyediting problems as well, GA-class might be a more realistic immediate objective than FA-class. Still, at least we have a sensible classification of Einstein's work in List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, which we can use to construct explanations for this article. Given the vast range of topics to cover, Summary style will be a necessity. Physchim62 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Based on comments here I added the Expand section template to some of the sketchy scientific points in the hopes someone will happen by and see. Its much more obvious that the little peer review link at the top of the page that most editors and readers don't notice. I understand if someone removes them though since I am new to the peer reviewing process and associated etiquette I am not sure if they are appropriate.--Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I removed the expand section templates and the headers for the separate Annus Mirabilis papers. A whole Annus Mirabilis Papers subarticle was split out of the biography (which despite the removal is still over-long) - the text in this article is quite properly just a brief summary. —teb728 t c 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

====Prose, copyediting====


Overman Committee[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because since it was rated as a Good Article I have only improved it further, reorganizing it, adding more info, and adding more references. General improvements overall would be great, but one thing in particular that would be good to know is if the images of the article are used properly (i.e. are their licensings right). Warning: the subject is kind of (extremely) obscure; it's just a random article I created from the requested articles page.

Thanks, Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I had never heard of this committee before. This is interesting, but assuming the next step is WP:FAC, it needs a fair amount of work and expansion to be ready for FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • The images seem to be free with one possible exception. If something was published before 1923 it is free, or if it is the work of the US Government. This covers all but the Russian Revolution image. The license there is murky, but it seems like it is the easiest image to swap out if needed.
  • The refs used look reliable and my guess is that there is a lot more information on the subject in the books cited. One of the FA criteria is that the article be comprehensive about its subject - see WP:WIAFA. I think this needs some work to get to that point - specifics on places that need more information follow.
  • There really isn't a lot of info more than the stuff that is already in there. I mined Google Books for every single source I could get, and from those sources I picked out as much info as was possible.
    • A caption identifies three of the members of the committee, but the names of all five should be early in the article (five signers of the report are listed but not identified as all of the committee members). Why were they chosen?
  • Clarified, but also they were not 'chosen' for the committee, I do not believe. They chose themselves to be on it for, likely, unknown reasons.
    • More background on why the committee (or is it a subcommittee as described later) was formed is also needed (why brewers?). We are told when it began hearings, but not when it was formed.
  • This perplexed me as well. I believe the committee was not very notable until it began investigations into Bolshevism. I have not seen a single source that listed the date of formation. jk I found a source after some intensive googling. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

**Why was it named the Overman committee? Why was Overman chair?

  • The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and short sections as well. These should be combined with others or expanded where possible to improve the flow.
  • Article has some typos - I read for comprehension, but noticed "an" where "any" was meant.
  • I think the See also links in the Background section are a bit much - probably would only link the first red scare article (they are all linked in the section itself).
  • Watch for WP:OVERLINK Senator Overman is linked three times (once in the lead, twice in captions).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Already did two :). Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Col. William Munroe[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it and I know it is in major need of help. It hasn't gone through the NPP because I started it on a user page, and I just want to make sure it is up to snuff for prime time. Feel free to ask questions on my user talk page, linked below.

Thanks, Gosox5555 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is for questions and comments on articles, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the article name is incorrect and that this should be moved to something like William Munroe (American soldier) - see the dab at William Munroe, as well as William Munroe (pencil maker) (my guess is he is the son of this man) and William Munroe (Scottish soldier), an ancestor of this man.
  • This needs many more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • This needs to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. The lead does not make it clear when he lived, can birth and death dates be added? Or the state and country for those not familiar with Lexington and Concord.
  • Any chance for an image of him? Is there a statue of him or portrait somewhere?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - the article on the pencil maker is adecent model to follow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on how to improve the page. Is there any important information that you can't find? Can you think of any better way to organize the page? How about the references: do you think they should be formatted differently? Should I include more information about the judgement?

Do you agree with my decision to include the intro's from Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, and English Libel Law? Do you agree with my decision to link the footnotes to the articles rather than reproducing them in full? Personally, I feel that a certain amount of knowledge of the above three topics (with the possible exception of the last) are crucial to understanding the case. Should the sections be rewritten to better suit the article?

Do I have a shot at getting this to FA? The topic seems rich enough to be able to make a featured article of it. What would I have to do to get it there?

Are there any WikiProjects which would be interested in this article?


And: if you can think of a better hook, or if you just want to support my DYK nomination, here is a link (you may have to scroll down)

Thanks, TachyonJack (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an important and interesting subject, well worth an article of its own. I have so far looked at the article in a fairly general way, and have attempted to answer some of the questions you have asked above:-

  • The subsections entitled "The Holocaust", "Holocaust denial" and "English Libel Law" are word-for-word transpositions from other Wikipedia articles. There are questions of plagiarism here - you were not the author of any of the articles in question, and do not seem to have attributed these sections, as required in Copying within Wikipedia. In any event I believe that whole sections should not be transposed in this way. You should redraft each of these sections in your own words.
  • The references in these sections are simply links to other Wikipedia articles. This does not satisfy the requirements of WP:CITE
  • The "English Libel Law" subsection is completely without citations. Some other sections are very light on citations, with a number of unreferenced paragraphs
  • Infobox: What is the reason for including so much case opinion in the infobox rather than in the article itself? Are these quotations from Mr Justice Gray's judgement? This should be made plain, as should the meaning of the numbers, e.g. (13.98) that begin each paragraph, but I do not believe that infoboxes are the place for such details.
  • Please look at the MOS requirements relating to the style of section and subsection headings, in particular relating to the use of capitals. Thus "English Libel Law" should be "English libel law", "Libel Suit" should be "Libel suit", etc.
  • Bolding should not be used in text for emphasis (another MOS point)

Aside for these principal issues, I have looked at the lead section in some detail:-

  • "David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a significant case in English law, noted for its ruling that the claim that Holocaust denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libelous." This opening sentence is rather long, and tortuously expressed. I suggest a few changes:-
    • Delete "significant", as this rather undermines neutrality.
    • Split the sentence for clarity.
    • Thus: "David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a case in English law, relating to Holocaust denial. It ruled that a claim that such denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libelous."
  • Second paragraph, second line. The close repetition of "Irving" could be avoided by referring to him as "the writer", second time.
  • It is inappropriate to spell out the word "Mister" as part of a judge's title. English judges are known as "Mr Justice ...", an honorific similar, in the USA, to "Mr President", "Mr Ambassador", etc.

I think you should deal with the major issues I have mentioned, before I make a general review of the main text. As I cannot watch all my peer reviews, please leave a note on my talkpage when you think that these matters have been addressed.


List of Airwolf episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have people review the article and let me know what we could improve, change or remove in order to possibly have it considered for Featured List status.

Thanks, Dmarex (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a show I saw a few times. I think it needs a fair amount of work before it is ready for FLC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. The second paragraph is too short (one sentence) and the lead does not mention that the fourth season aired on the USA network.
  • The lead also switches tense between past and present - I would pick one (probably past since the series is over) and stick with it
  • Could the caption for the image identify the characters / actors shown too?
  • Biggest problem I see are references - the article needs many more refs for FLC. For example none of the season intro sections has any refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. For example, this ref is published by airwolf.tv-series.com, but the ref says it is from USA network (USA seems to be the original author - how do we know this is an accurate copy / reliable source)?
  • Why is Amazon.com a reliable source?
  • Be consistent - is it "the F.I.R.M" or "The F.I.R.M." or "the FIRM" or "The FIRM" (all seem to be used).
  • Episode summaries vary considerably in length, from less than a full line (end of season four) to five or six lines in places. Per WP:WEIGHT I think they should be close to the same length, though the pilot or special episodes like the first for season 4 could be longer.
  • The Series # / Season # is confusing in Season 1 (the pilot is episode zero??)
  • Prose is decent but could use a copyedit in places to polish rough spots / tighten things up.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


List of House episodes[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to get it to featured list status. i have reviewed previous peer reviews and feature list nomanations to see why it failed. i have since with others work updated and fixes what was the problems at the time. I would like to know if there is anything else that could be done or would be needed to get it to feature list status.

Thanks, Andy Chat c 12:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The season entries should definitely have a paragraph on the plot of each season. Nergaal (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've been working on this article for a few weeks now. The sandbox is here. The only reason I haven't been able to finish is because I haven't seen the entire fifth season yet, and I am therefore unable to write a section introduction. If you would like to help out, be my guest.--Music26/11 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If the article is unfinished, it is premature to bring it to peer review. The article's talkpage is the appropriate place for discussions while the article is incomplete. Peer Review is very congested at the moment, and reviewer resources are currently stretched to the limit. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough but the article is consider mostly complete but there was talk on thing to do but no consesus could be made on them. So the best thing would be a indentpent reviewing the article and suggesting thing to fix it. So then other editors know that this needs to be done before it can even be nomatied for Feature List rather than go on what one or another editor might thinks needs done--Andy (talk - contrib) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Massive source overhaul needed: http://www.housemd-guide.com is an unoffcial fansite. As such, it is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference. Try using other sites, like IGN for example, instead. NW (Talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I just brought this problem up on the article's talk page (along with some other issues) since I didn't notice this peer review until just now. This article still needs work, and Music's workpage needs to be merged with the current article. I'm not sure this peer review will accomplish much as there is still a good amount of work to be done before it should be nominated for featured list anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • please add back the diagnostics column! Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Royal coat of arms of Canada[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to FAC. I've never done so before, and I think this would be the best way to head off possible problems before running the gauntlet.

Thanks, roux   19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, someone else will have to implement any suggestions you make. I have had to leave the article due to involvement by a tendentious editor who causes me an enormous amount of stress. → ROUX  18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that. It's always a shame to see good contributors driven away from articles that interest them due to unnecessary wikidrama. But I totally understand if you want to step out of it for a while. Wikipedia's something that people do on their free time, and it should be something you enjoy. It's just not worth all the stress, and taking an article to FAC the first time isn't exactly likely to lower the stress level. I do hope you come back and take this to FA after your break, but on the other hand I understand if you don't. I don't know you all that much, but from what I've seen I think you're a very valuable asset to the encyclopaedia. Jafeluv (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone still cares, some comments:

Lead:

  • also known as the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada[1][2] – What's the correct capitalisation? Source 2 has "royal coat of arms of Canada" and source 1 is in all caps.
  • ... the official coat of arms of the Canadian monarch and thus also of Canada.
  • ... with distinctive Canadian elements replacing or added to those derived from the British – "With + -ing" is ungrammatical. I suggest "... and has distinctive Canadian elements replacing or added to..."

History:

  • References [5], [8] and [9] are broken.
  • arms were granted by Royal Warrant on 6 May to Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia (whose arms were changed in 1929) and New Brunswick. Nova Scotia's arms were changed in 1929. – I think it flows better without the brackets. Just a suggestion.
  • Nine quarterings on a shield is too complex for a national symbol – This is presented as a fact, although the source says "a shield made of nine quarterings was impossibly complex as a national symbol", and most likely means "... was considered impossibly complex as a national symbol". I'd suggest a slight rewording. Just remember that the people at FAC love questions like "considered by whom?"
  • the new arms of Canada were eventually formally requested by an Order-in-Council on 30 April 1921, and adopted in November of the same year by proclamation of King George V as the "Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada," on 21 November. – No need to specify the date twice.
  • the arms were redrawn by Alan Beddoe so as to have red leaves...
  • The new layout closely reflected the arms of the United Kingdom,[14] with the addition of maple leaves in the base, and the a reference to the French royal arms in the fourth quarter.
  • Wikilink Tudor dynasty and St. Edward's Crown .
  • ... which had added to it an annulus behind the shield with the motto... → "which had an annulus added to it behind the shield with the motto..."

Motto:

  • {{See also}} should be used at the beginning of sections, not in the end.

Supporters:

Compartment:

  • The Tudor rose is the floral badge of England (and Wales) – I don't think the brackets are needed here.

Hope this helps, Jafeluv (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Abismo Negro[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on getting it ready for Feature Article nomination. I've put it up for Peer Review before and had a lot of really really helpful comments, but I had to close the Review prematurely as I went on vacation. Now I am back, I've worked in the last comments from the last Peer Review and now I'm ready to bring it all the way home. I also listed it again because there is an overabundance of professional wrestling GACs and I don't want to overload the process, I figured I could work on improvements while the backlog clears up a bit.

Thanks in advance for everyone who's kind enough to help out, MPJ-DK (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NiciVampireHeart's comments[edit]

I reviewed it the first time around, so I'm not sure how much help I'll bre, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

  • Lead
    • Is there any source for his real name?
      • Loads of articles after his death confirmed it, so yes it's an easy addition :) MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You have his ring name Winners in quotation marks as "Winners", but not his others. Consistency is key.
      • I've dropped the quotation marks in general, I hope I did not miss any. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • In the second paragraph I don't see the point of saying Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA), when you've already explained the abbreviation in the previous paragraph.
      • Fixed
    • You say he worked for WWF first, and then say AAA had a talent exchange program with WWE. Which is right or did he work for both the WWF and WWE?
      • Only WWF, force of habit and fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Change "found dead, in a river near El Rosario, Sinaloa, the official cause of death was listed as drowning." --> "found dead, in a river near El Rosario, Sinaloa, and the official cause of death was listed as drowning."
  • Professional wrestling career
    • Again "El Noruego" is quotation marks, but Alex Dinamo isn't. Any resaon for this?
  • Winners
    • "a fan favorite (called a "Técnico" in Mexico) wrestler who's almost entirely silver outfit made him visibly very striking." seems very awkward to me. Could you reword it slightly?
      • Is what I put better?MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "Winners participated in Relevos Suicidas tag team match" --> "Winners participated in a Relevos Suicidas tag team match"
  • Abismo Negro
    • In the Winners section ,you have Técnico is quotation marks, but you don't have Rudo in quotation marks in this section. Again consistency is needed.
      • Indeed, I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, you have linked Rudo to Heel (professional wrestling) in this section, but you linked fan favorite to Face (professional wrestling) in the previous section, not Técnico. Either link rudo and técnico or link fan favorite and bad guy.
      • Linked "bad guy". MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "preshow for 1997 Royal Rumble." --> "preshow for the 1997 Royal Rumble."
    • "Negro became one the driving forces in" --> "Negro became one of the driving forces in"
    • Don't need to use his full name Abismo Negro, when you've just been saying Negro ("caused storyline problems between LLL's leader Cibernético and Abismo Negro").
      • I think my tendency to use the full name comes from the fact that it's not a "first name, last name" kinda name but a title, but you're right it breaks up the pattern a bit. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Return to AAA
    • Is the correct spelling technico (as in this section) or técnico (as in Winners section)? Again, consistency needed.
      • Técnico!! I should be slapped for the anglization. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "Later in the year, he finally turned face" - no mention of face before this point. You say either fan favorite or tecnico. Change Face to one of the other two.
      • Good catch, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Black Abyss
    • "the "Martinete"(Tombstone piledriver)" - should be a space between "the "Martinete"" and the parentheses (i.e. "the "Martinete" (Tombstone piledriver)").
  • Death
    • "memorial was held in Mexico City on March 24 for friends and family of Palomeque, many of whom showed up without their masks on, to keep the focus of the event on González". Eh, who is González? Do you mean Palomeque?
      • I do indeed, I originally used González as I thought that was his proper last name but was told that Palomeque is more appropriate and didn't catch that one on the change. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In wrestling
    • Have you a source for the managers? And why aren't they mentioned in the main text?
      • Removed them, Roldan was nothing permanent and Peña was for Team Mexico in AAA which I added to the text instead, removing the entry makes the section less "listy". MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Championships and accomplishments'
    • Source for his PWI ranking?
      • Found one, used one that was acceptable in a Featured Article, should work here too. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's it, I think. Good job! Much improved from the last one. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • And thank you for your input, everything caught now makes the GA review that much better so I do appreciate you taking the time to do this. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a problem. Ok, my last few comments:
Lead
  • You use "Gonzalez" instead of Palomeque.
  • No need to say "Andrés Palomeque", just Palmeque will do.
Winners
  • "a fan favorite (called a Técnico in Mexico) characters who wore a silver bodysuit and mask that gave him a very unique look.."
    • a) yes, makes a lot more sense now.
    • b) should be character, not characters
    • c) you have two full stops at the end of the sentence.
Abismo Negro
  • "a group inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order intent on taking over AAA" change this to "a group inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order, which was intent on taking over AAA" for clarofocation and ease of reading.
  • "but only held on to the title for two months before losing them" - you use both singular and plural here (italics mine), only one should be used.
  • "Negro feuded with the top Technicós" - spelled with a "h". Assuming that's a mis-spelling.
Return to AAA
  • "técnico" - in all the previous sections, you've spelt both Técnico and Rudo with capital letters at the start. Consistency needed.
Black Abysee
  • "called Black Abyss, the gimmick featured" --> "called Black Abyss; the gimmick featured" - i.e. change the comma (,) to a semi-colon (;)
Championships and accomplishments
  • I fixed a ref for you [8]

That's it. Looks good. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 03:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I fixed all that and thank you for the assist. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. Happy to help. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 04:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan's comments[edit]

The article is looking very good. I went through and made some minor changes (mostly punctuation). There were a few things that stood out that could use some attention:

[edit] GaryColemanFan's comments The article is looking very good. I went through and made some minor changes (mostly punctuation). There were a few things that stood out that could use some attention:

  • Thank you for the copyedit, much appriciated. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Palomeque was one of the young guys who took a chance..." - "guys" is pretty informal. Perhaps "competitors" or something similar? ~

"in which the losing team would have to face each other with their mask on the line" - I found this confusing. Perhaps "in which the members of the losing team would later face each other in a singles match and the loser would be forced to remove his mask"? (a little wordy, but I think makes the stipulation a little more clear)

  • Reworded, I think what I came up with works.

"as he lost his mask to Super Caló and was forced to unmask after the match was over" - this seems repetitive. Did you mean to say that he lost his match to Super Caló?

  • Yes I did, Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"a group inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order, which was intent on taking over AAA" - this implies that the NWO was intent on taking over AAA. Perhaps "a group intent on taking over AAA that was inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order"?

  • You're right that was not very clear, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"the team of Hator and the Pather" - the online reference gives the spellings as "Haytor" and "The Panther" - the next time they are referred to in the prose, the names are spelled "Hator" and "The Panther", so I am assuming that at least "The Pather" needs to be changed.

  • Haytor is the most common spelling i could find and Panther natch. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"backburner" - I believe that this is two separate words.

  • I believe you, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"In 2000, Negro was one of the AAA wrestlers that participated in an AAA tour of Japan and participated in TripleMania VIII" - repetition of "participated in"; could one be changed to "competed at"?

"In the following weeks, Negro went undefeated in matches against Elix Skipper, the team of Jerry Lynn and Sonjay Dutt and finally all of Team USA." - Did he defeat them all by himself? Did he face them individually or all at once?

  • Clarified it - Negro was undefeated but team AAA was not so I made a subtle change. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Los Vipers left La Legión due to their "Anti-Mexican" philosophy and began fighting La Legión and their imports." - the "their" is fairly ambiguous. I assume it refers to La Legion, but it really isn't clear. In addition, "imports" could use some clarification.

  • "and La Legión's imported wrestlers" MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

almost panicked" - it sounds to me like he did panic.

  • I think it qualifies as panicked yes. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also left with a couple of overall questions. The first is why he is referred to as Palomeque instead of Gonzalez if his full name is Andrés Alejandro Palomeque González.

  • I was informed that in Mexico people have both their father's and mother's last name but is generally only referred to by one of them, the "second to last" name, I originally had González, but was informed that was inproper. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also curious because of the infobox picture. It states that he had a trademark flamethrower display, but this isn't mentioned in the article.

  • Yes I need to mention that around the start of the "Abismo Negro" section I think. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's all that I can see for now. Great job expanding this article. I think it's definitely ready for a GA nomination. If you ever have a chance to find some of those page numbers in your Wrestling Title Histories book that I mentioned on your talk page, I would really appreciate it. Best wishes with this article's GA review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Holy s#£@ I totally forgot, I'll get the book out after dinner tonight. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All addressed but the flamethrower, thank you for your input - hopefully GA will be smooth sailing. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of College of William and Mary people[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to make this page into a Featured list and would like to have a peer review performed before submitting it as an FL Candidate. I've adhered to all FL criteria to the best of my knowledge but it can never hurt to get other opinions.

Thanks, Jrcla2 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


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

Joel Selwood[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to help take this article to FAC.

Thanks, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

An interesting article. I have been through the lead and Early life sections, and have identified numerous mainly minor points that need attention. I think it would save time if the rest of the article was copyedited before being reviewed. I am happy to do this copyedit over the next day or two, if you are agreeable (if you'd rather someone with more knowledge of Rules football did it, I won't be offended!) Anyway, here are my comments thus far:-

  • Lead
    • "A midfielder at 1.82 metres (6 ft 0 in) and 86 kilograms (190 lb)..." His height and weight are independent from his being a midfielder, so I would rephrase: "A midfielder, 1.82 metres (6 ft 0 in) tall and weighing 86 kilograms (190 lb),..."
    • "As" not required at start of second paragraph. I would also delete "from Bendigo", as this has no bearing on his athletic or footballing abilities. Suggested rephrase: "A standout junior track and field athlete and footballer, Selwood entered..."
    • Awkward phrasing: "Selwood was selected with Geelong's first selection," - I don't know enough about the sport to suggest a rewording, but the repetition jars.
    • "...awarded the Michael Tuck Medal during Geelong's 2009 NAB Cup victory" - he was awarded a medal during the match? Or am I misunderstanding?
    • "Selwood currently holds the highest winning percentage record of any player in VFL/AFL history, a period during which he has helped the club reach successive AFL Grand Finals." What does "a period during which" refer to in this sentence?
  • Early life
    • Third sentence: "while" should be "and"
    Does it matter there's already "and" earlier in the sentence? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The next sentence doesn't need to begin with "However". Also, 2-year-old" should be "two-year-old". (MOS)
    • "...in one year" - why not give the year? (MOS)
    • "record at" rather "record of"?
    • "eight years old" not "8-years old""
    • "...he had played his first competitive game of football, against children four years his senior, and proceeded to kick three goals as a half forward." There is a disjunction of tenses with "he had played" and "proceeded to kick". Suggest rephrase: "he had played his first competitive game of football, against children four years his senior, and had kicked three goals as a half forward"
    • "until he was chosen to play for the Bendigo Pioneers in the TAC Cup competition at age 17." It would help if you gave the year or season in which this happened, particulaly as you say later "during the year"."
    • "under-18s", not "under 18s"
    • "recognised by the AFL Player's Association early," better as "recognised early by the AFL Player's Association,"
    • "However, a knee injury caused only six rounds into the competition..." - "caused" is the wrong word here. Suggest "However, a knee injury, incurred only six rounds into the competition..."

Let me know what you decide. As I can't watch all my peer reviews, a note on my talkpage is the quickest way of getting my intention. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: can you look at the following points, arising from my copyediting:-

  • It would help non-Rules people, e.g. me, if you could explain the significance of some of the trophies you mention. Examples: the Brownlow Medal, the Norm Smith Medal, the Carji Greeves Medal."
  • In the 2009 section you refer to the "player adjudged best afield". Is there a way in which this can be made more generally comprehensible?
  • In the 2009 section you say: "During the season, Selwood made his 50th senior appearance and set a new VFL/AFL record in the process." Can you clarify what was the record he set?"
  • I notice some inconsistency in using no-break spaces. I suggest that when the copyedit is over you go through and pick up the missing ones.

I should finish the remaining sections tonight or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

'Later still: I have finished my copyediting, although I have not touched the final two short paragraphs in the "Personal" section. Most of this information seems to border on trivia and I wonder how much is necessary. Anyway, I think the prose is a bit tidier now. When you have finished responding to the points I've raised, give my talkpage a buzz and I'll do a final redathrough. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


Arthur Eve[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has now failed at WP:GAC twice. I could use any some assistance in getting it over the hump.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I've never heard of this guy before. Sounds as if he is quite a character.

  • Lead
    • It might be worth engineering a link on "Deputy Speaker" to illustrate the relative importance of this office.
      • It is not such an important position that it should be linked. I don't think any of the other 49 states have articles for such an office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The long redlink is a bit obtrusive - how necessary is it here?
    • Might it be possible to summarise Eve's advocacies in a succinct phrase, rather than listing them all?
  • Personal: It is surely usual in biographical articles to give some indication where the subject came from. All we have here is: "Eve arrived in Buffalo in February 1953 following his graduation from West Virginia State College." Why did he "arrive" in Buffalo?
  • Political career: we require information about how this political career began. When/how was he elected, etc. I can't believe that this information is not in the public domain. It is unacceptable to jump straight to his activities as an assemblyman without any indication of how he got to be one.
  • Assemblyman: the fourth paragraph should be under a subsection heading, since it deals with his shot at the Buffalo mayoralty, not his activities as an assemblyman.
  • Deputy Speaker
    • "an important year for the Black and Puerto Rican Legislative Caucus..." is a personal comment. Reword to remove POV.
    • This sentence: "The Democratic majority had fallen from 90–60 to 86–64 while the caucus' Assembly membership had grown from 15 to 16, which meant that for the first time the caucus had more than enough votes to withhold legislation, resulting in a shift in the balance of power." Too long, too much information, needs splitting. Thus: "The Democratic majority had fallen from 90–60 to 86–64, while the caucus' Assembly membership had grown from 15 to 16. This meant that for the first time the caucus had enough votes to withhold legislation, which brought about a shift in the balance of power."
    • Clarify that Griffin and Koch were considering running together for Governor and Lieutenant Governor
    • "Following Cuomo's election victory..." what election did he win?
    • Third and fourth paragraphs: so many names, so many elections, so much confusion. Seriously, it is very hard for someone who doesn't have an ear for New York state politics to have any clear idea of what is going on.
    • Who was Harriet Tubman? I know I could use the link, but such information should be available in the article, via a brief description.
  • Retirement
    • "By 2004, Eve's foundation was approved to provide afterschool tutoring" Approved by whom?
    • "He became an evangelist." Too curt; more information should be provided.
      • I don't have any additional sourcing. As stated in the GAC nom, I could mention my personal knowledge of his involvement in helping to get a new church financed. I think I recall him mention having helped his new church finance a new building. I have gone to church with him since his retirement. However, this is all WP:OR. The text barely mentions his evangelism and we have no other sourcing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think "runningmate" is a single word, even in Am Eng.
  • Images: While there may be no PD photographs of Eve, would it be possible to enliven the text with a few related pics?

I hope these points give you some ideas about the further development of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


British Birds Rarities Committee[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a preliminary step prior to submitting it as a Features Article candidate.

Thanks, SP-KP (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments I'm in a bit of a rush, so just a couple of things for now, I'll look again when I get time
  • In addition to reviewing records of rare birds on an annual basis, the committee has also conducted a number of re-reviews... - bit clunky, would In addition to assessing records of rare birds on an annual basis, the committee has also conducted a number of reviews of... be better?
Done
  • Species removed from list. I just wondered if a table would be neater than the long lists?
I don't mind either - let's see what consensus emerges. SP-KP (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • www.scarce-migrants.org.uk I don't think a bare url in the text is acceptable - what about Data for these species is also published with the url in a proper citeweb reference?
Done
  • Why isn't the bibliography alphabetical, which is standard? (It's not chronological either)
Done
  • The Chalice is a boat (I remember it well) and should be italicised, I would have thought, in the text and ref 103
Done

jimfbleak (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Around 250 bird species in Britain have either a breeding or wintering population or migrate through in large numbers, and a further 50 are "scarce migrants"; the remaining 250 species... remaining from what? How about Around 550 bird species have been recorded in Britain; 250 have regular breeding or wintering populations, or are common migrants, and a further 50 are "scarce migrants". The remaining 250 species are those which the BBRC assesses...
Done
  • I've tweaked the scarce migrant para to reduce repetition, please check
Looks good
jimfbleak (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Good - thank you.
  • Does the article need updating? in particular although as of 2007, the results had not been published. and As of 2007, the following reviews... either need updating to 2009 or correcting if new information
Good point, I'll try to find out the latest. SP-KP (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know little about British birding politics, but is there any connection with the Hastings Rarities case and the rise of this committee ? Shyamal (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point, I'm sure that the doubts about the Hastings rarities must have been in the minds of the founders, since the formation of the BBRC in 1958 just pre-dated British Birds unveiling of the fraud in 1962. Whether it's possible to produce any documentation to show that to be the case is another matter. jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
For now, I've added this as a "See Also". If I come across anything linking the two subjects more firmly, I'll add this to the main text instead. SP-KP (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have looked through Stephen Moss' "A bird in the bush" and there are a couple of comments on the two but no clear relation mentioned. Shyamal (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Left Movement (Lebanon)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to further advance its standing, receive much-needed feedback, and fix any errors.

Really, any and all feedback would be much appreciated. As I am quite new to Wikipedia, and this is the first article I wrote, I'm not entirely sure how to concretely interpret the article guidelines. I've sourced everything in the article thoroughly but would like to know if I've done so correctly. Bottom Line: I'd like to see an example of a correct Lebanese Political Party article so I can go on and write some of the others, which all suffer criminally from POV, unencyclopedic tone, and unsourced claims.

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A few initial comments

  • First, apologies for the delay in reaching your article, but the Peer Review process is currently suffering from a heavy backlog arising from a chronic shortage of reviewers. I have only skimmed the article up to now, but thought I would leave these initial comments in the hope that they will prove helpful.
  • There are numerous Wikipedia articles on political parties, none of which are currently featured articles. This could be due to the point you raise above about POV. There are 14 Good Articles on political parties and movements, among which is Hezbollah, a long article which you have presumably looked at. I haven't read it, but its GA status was reconfirmed after review in June 2008, so it must be in reasonably neutral. Is it in any way a helpful model? You could look at the other 13 GAs - go to WP:GA and scroll through until you reach the "Politics" subheading.
  • In your own article, you need a better understanding of the function of the lead section, which is to act as a general summary of the whole article, not just an outline of the subject. All significant information in the article must at least be touched on in the lead. In this case important events, such as the assassinations, are not mentioned in the lead. Take a look at WP:LEAD, a MoS article which has useful information about how to construct a lead.

That's all I can do at the moment. I will try and come back with a more detailed review in a few days, but I am a bit occupied at the moment, what with the backlog and my own work so I can't say exactly when this will be. Feel free to leave a reminder on my talkpage if I leave it too long. Good luck, Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll be sure include in the lead an overview of all content mentioned. While the Hezbollah article is helpful to an extent, it is limited by the reality that Hezbollah is much more than just a political party. It is as much a socioreligious organization, a charity, a paramilitary force, and effectively a quasi-state as it is a political institution. Mnation2 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Food waste in the United Kingdom[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to shortly submit it for FAC. In the recent weeks I have added substantial content, much of which has not received the same rigorous prose treatment as some of the older stuff. Mostly the article requires some minor copyediting, but I'm looking also for some advice on where to include major sources (WRAPs report on food waste) since I have already notes and references.

Thanks in advance! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article, this seems fairly close to ready for FAC, but does need some wotrk. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead image needs a fair use rational for this article (it has one, but for another article).
I found finding images for the lead to this article to be a big problem. Currently I wish to use the Love Food, Hate Waste logo for both its own article and this, although the template seems to only allow for one fair-use rationale.
Use the template twice (once per article the image is used in) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
 Done
  • Please read MOS:QUOTE and WP:ITALIC - the quotation marks used should all be double quotes " but the article mixes these with single quotes ' (single quotes are used for a quote within a quote). It seems to me that the number of things in quotation marks could be cut down considerably. Do terms like sell by and best before really need to be in quotes, for example?
No I entirely agree on consideration. Done
  • The direct quote in the lead does need a ref, and I do not think it needs the ellipses (...)
 Done
  • I also felt the lead did not really summarize the whole article - it seemed to mostly summarize the first part (History). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
I tried to do that as well, but my speciality is certainly not leads! I'll try to balance the information from each header in the coming days.
 Done
  • When abbreviations like WI for Women's Institutes are used, they have to appear after the first use of the full name in parentheses
Oh yes, I had done this for other cases but appeared to miss this one.  Done
  • The direct quote at the end of the History section repeats some things needlessly (the name and organization). MOSQUOTE says block quotes should be at least 4 lines long - this is 1.5 on my monitor. Also the first sentence of the blockquote about cutting edge technology has already been quoted before and seems repetitive in both places.
Didn't know the policy on block quotes specifically, so that has been changed. Done
  • Per the MOS, % should be spelled out "per cent"
Agreed. However as per the same style I have kept % for tables and images. Done
  • When making comparisons of statistics it is useful to give the actual number - for example I am really not sure what this sentence means exactly Families with children (under the age of 16) on a per individual per week basis, are shown to waste the least food by weight, but the most per capita.[17] If the amount wasted by weight and per capita were given in the text of the sentence, I think it would make it clearer.
That statement was particularly confusing I agree. In fact its information did not make sense, so it has been entirey changed. Done
  • Refs seem OK but there are a few places without refs that need then for FAC. For example, it has been featured in almost every major UK newspaper, invariably discussed alongside other prominent issues such as Climate change and famine in African nations. As a way of reducing the impact of the aforementioned, food waste is among the primary topics of discussion at International Summits. Food waste was debated at length during the 34th G8 summit in Hokkaidō, Japan, as part of the discussion on the 2007–2008 world food price crisis. needs a ref or two. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
The statement has been referenced and I will try to cover every uncited statement as per your rule of thumb. Done
  • Several of the notes also seem to need refs.
I assume this is directed at the first couple? I'm not so sure; by referencing them I would simply be directing them to the same source that appears alongside the notes themselves (in the table).
Yes - if you think the source us clear then this is probably ok Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs should be in numerical order
Is that not the case? I can't find anywhere this isn't the case (without multi-use sources of course).
Here's one Consumers can reduce food wastage during purchasing and at home by several methods:[33][25] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done
  • Both metric and English system untis should be used throughout (I assume metric first since they are official in the UK). This is done in some places, but needs to be done consistently - {{convert}} helps.
{{convert}} has been used a number of times, but if there are any omissions (that aren't tonnes (myself and OhanaUnited had a discussion over this)) I will apply this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Your comments were very useful and I would be happy to peer review another article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, after making the final changes as you suggest I will probably do a few more of my own and then submit for FAC and the next phase of editorial torture! But it's all for a good cause, thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Habay[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded tenfold (2,410 to 27,662 bytes). This is a difficult subject, with a complex litigation history spread over two administrative hearings and two trials. I would also like to make sure that WP:BLP is being followed. I am prepared to do what it takes to make this a GA and FA. Thanks, Blargh29 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting and seems fairly close to GA to me, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead needs to be expanded, probably to about three paragraphs for the article length (at least two). The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but being 28 when first elected seems to only be in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the two trials are not explicitly in the lead.
  • Since the title of the article is "Jeff Habay" I would have the first sentence read something like "Jeffrey Earl Habay (commonly known as Jeff Habay) is a former Republican member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, ..." Done
  • I would add Allegheny County and some reference to the greater Pittsburgh area to the lead as well - I know Pennsylvania pretty well and had to click on the link to make sure where Shaler Tonwship is - see WP:PCR
  • I would also link "deputy whip" to Whip (politics) in the lead (it is linked later in the body of the article) Done
  • In Early life... I would add his father and mother's names if known and also mention any siblings early on. Also when did he meet / marry his wife and when was their son born?
  • Archives of Habay's profile show his listed as "Single" as of November 2002 and "Married to Nubia" on February 2003. That implies that they were married at some time between those two dates, but it is possible that the profile was simply updated for the new legislative session that time, so I don't think that's a rock-solid assumption. I found a 1998 Post Gazette reference to a Habay volunteer named "Nubia Hager," but that doesn't mean that they met because she was volunteering for him. It also doesn't mean that they were even in a relationship at that time.
  • I assumed their wedding announcement would be in the papers, but if is not, then it is not. Could you add that she worked as a volunteer for his campaign in 1998, and that his official biography listed him as single in 2002, but as married to Nubia in 2003 (with refs)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Language is generally decent but could use a copyedit to polish things. Try printing this out and reading it out loud slowly. One example: He then returned to the Western Pennsylvania and to work as a career and admissions counselor for the Pittsburgh Technical Institute.[3] (and "western" should not be capitalized) Done
  • I would make clearer that his brother was elected a twonship supervisor, and that this was also in Allegheny County. Also be consistent on capitalization - "supervisor" is not capitalized, but "Treasurer" is?{[done}}
  • Watch out for unclear antecedents for pronouns - the subject of the sentence before In 1991, he ran for his first elective office, winning a position as Treasurer of O'Hara Township, Pennsylvania.[3] is his brother, so the he seems to refer to the brother and not Jeff Habay.
  • I would make clear he failed to defeat the sherriff in the general election
Is there a better way to note this than "he unsuccessfully tried to unseat..."?
Hmmm. The original is In 1993, he unsuccessfully tried to unseat long-time Allegheny County Sheriff Eugene Coon, a well-known Democrat.[3] How about something like In 1993 he ran for Sherriff og Allegheny County, but lost in the general election to long-time incumbent Eugene Coon, a well-known Democrat.[3] ? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Expanded. Done}
  • The WP:MOS says to spell out numbers ten and less, so spot the problem in ...thereby helping his party secure a 1 seat majority in House for the first time in 12 years.[8][9]
  • I would mention any re-election campaigns he had for the PA House before the trial
  • I would also mention Santorum (and link him) before Habay's statement blaming Santorum
I'm not sure how to work that in. I can't find any previous reference to any Habay/Santroum rivalry or dispute. Maybe a footnote noting that Santorum was a fellow Pittsburgh-area Republican politician?
  • Was the first trial a jury trial or was it decided by a judge?
  • In the first trial identify the jusge by name early on and do not capitalize "the Judge"
  • In the second trial I would make it clearer that Habay was accused of planting the white powder and apparently found guilty of doing so.
  • Last paragraph of second trial needs dates for context - when did he do these appeals
  • The article just ends very abruptly - is he still in jail? Has he been released? If there is an editorial or commentary on him from a local paper, a quote from it might make a nice closing sentence or two.
  • How about an image of the PA state house, perhaps File:PAState Capitol Back a Bit.JPG

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I will work to incorporate them.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tornado warning[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it seems to be well written, and gives a basic overview of the topic. The only major thing I notice that it lacks is references, but I'm sure there is more that can be done to improve it. Comments as to how it can be improved other than by adding references would be greatly appreciated, and a reassessment would be nice if possible, seeing as I think it has progressed beyond Start-class.

Thanks, Ks0stm (TC) 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, the reason that I have requested a peer review rather than a request for feedback is that I am going to find references, and once I add them the article should be well-developed (unless I am misunderstanding what well-developed means, which is quite possible. If I am, or if I should have requested feedback rather than a peer review, feel free to correct me on my talk page). --Ks0stm (TC) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a good beginning, it is not anything more than start class. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for the basic definitions of the various assessment classes. This has one reference and is a start class at best.
  • The article seems to be almost exclusively about the US (there is one senctence on Canada). The lead and title do not make this clear. Presumably there are such warnings in other countires too - I think the article should either be renamed to something like "Tornado warning (United States)" or else expanded to be more inclusive. See WP:WEIGHT
  • As you noted, the biggest probelm with this is a lack of references (though it has other problems too). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The cut and paste warning especially needs a ref, but so does almost everything else.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article has mostly very short (one or two sentnce) paragraphs which impede the flow - these should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded.
  • Per WP:HEAD the name of the article should not be repeated in section headers, so "Example of a Tornado Warning" could just be "Examples" (there are two - print and an audio file)
  • Prose is very uneven - places are good, others need a copyedit

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have completed second to last suggestion and the referencing of the cut and paste warning. As for the US-centric nature of the article, other countries that warn for tornadoes (mainly in Europe and Australia) seem to do so with their version of a severe thunderstorm warning listing one of the threats as tornadoes. I will continue to look for references for the rest of the article, and any more information I can find. --Ks0stm (TC) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Walter Rhodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need help from fellow editors to review the content of the article to ensure that it is suitable for Wikipedia publishing. I would like to ensure that the article does not sound like an advertisement, but as an article to inform readers about the shared services and outsourcing development in Perak, Malaysia as well as the parties involved in it.

Thanks, Cistine (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment: First, an apology for the delay in reaching the article, due to the Peer Review backlog arising from a chronic shortage of reviewers.

I note that the article has an underconstruction banner. At present the article is only 544 words long, which suggests that it is still in an early stage of construction; peer review is meant for "articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Basic article-building needs to be carried out on the talk-page, among editors who can make knowledgeable contributions to the subject. I think, therefore, that this nomination to PR is somewhat premature. My suggestion would be to withdraw it and renominate when it is in a more developed state. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree with the above comments, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (but Dr Ng is only in the lead and infobox).
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There are numerous uses of abbreviations which are undefined (ICT for one). The usual method is to spell out the full name the first time, follwoed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Article needs more references, my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Four of the ten refs given are either the company website or that of their partner firm - try to get more independent third party sources - is there press coverage of the firm?
  • Any chance for a free image - a building or employee?
  • Per WP:HEAD, the names of sections should not repeat the name of the article
  • Why is it named "Walter Rhodes"? Seems an odd name for a Malaysian firm

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


York[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it was previously (prematurely) listed for GA and failed. Substantial improvements have now been made and the editors would like further guidance, please.

Thanks, Harkey (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: I think the history section is far too detailed for a summary style section. The article is over 90 kilobytes long, and moving some of the content to History of York seems appropriate. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is getting close to GA quality. It's broad in its coverage, well-illustrated, stable, seems factually accurate and verifiable, seems neutral, and is generally well-written. I have a fair number of suggestions related to prose and Manual of Style issues, but dealing with them should not be too onerous. I think the gallery is unnecessary, and the reference section needs a bit of work on formatting and adding missing bits of data.

Lead

  • Since the lead is to provide a summary of the main text of the article, a good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections. This lead gives short shrift to the later sections.
  • "In recent decades the economy of York has moved from being dominated by its confectionary and railway related industries to being a provider of services, with the University of York and health services being major employers." - The "with" connector is weak. Suggestion: "In recent decades the economy of York has moved from one dominated by confectioners and railway-related industries to one that provides services. The University of York and and health-service agencies have become major employers." Or something like that.  Done

Toponymy

  • "When conquered by a Danish army in 866, the name came to be rendered as 'Jórvík'." - Since the name wasn't conquered, perhaps something like this would be better: "When the Danish army conquered the city in 866, its name became rendered as 'Jórvík'."  Done
  • "Many present day names of companies and places, such as Ebor taxis and the Ebor race meeting, refer back to the Roman name." - Delete "back"?  Done

Early history

  • "There is archaeological evidence that Mesolithic people settled in the region where York now is from 8000/7000 BC, although it is not known whether these settlements were permanent or temporary." - Suggestion: "Archeological evidence suggests that Mesolithic people settled in the region of York between 8000 and 7000 BC, although... ".  Done
  • "The site of the Roman fortress now lies under the foundations of York Minster... " - Delete "now"?  Done
  • "The first Minster church was built in York... " - Perhaps wikilink minster?  Done

Post conquest

Tudor and Stuart times

  • "Guy Fawkes who was born and educated in York was a member of a group of Roman Catholic restorationists that planned the Gunpowder Plot] whose aim was to displace Protestant rule by blowing up the Houses of Parliament while King James I and the entire Protestant and even most of the Catholic aristocracy and nobility were inside." - This sentence may have a few too many clauses. You could break it in half after "Gunpowder Plot" and start the next sentence with "Its aim was... ".  Done
  • "the city was again dominated by the local gentry and merchants, with the clergy still important" - "although the clergy was still important"?  Done - re-jigged.

Parliamentary constituencies

  • "though the outer parts of the city and local authority area presently fall within the Selby" - Delete "presently"?  Done
  • "Following their review of parliamentary representation in North Yorkshire, the Boundary Commission for England has recommended the creation of two new seats for the City of York." - It would be good to include the year of the review and the recommended year the two seats would be added.  Done
  • "York’s current Lord Mayor is Councillor Brian Watson... " - Rather than "current", it might be better to say something like "As of 2009, York's Lord Mayor is... ".  Done - also updated to latest information with reference Keith D (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Climate

  • Generally, it's a good idea to round the metric and imperial numbers to the same decimal place. In the chart, for example the rainfall in millimetres is rounded to the nearest tenth, but the inches are rounded to the nearest hundredth. The nearest tenth would be better. Ditto for the temperatures. It's doubtful that the measurements are accurate to the nearest hundredth.  Done - also corrected highest rainfall in day as per reference. Keith D (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion

  • Lowercase "mosque" in the next-to-last sentence.  Done

Economy

  • "York's economy is based on the service industry with 88.7% of employment in the city in 200 being in this area." - The "with" connector is doubtful here. Suggestion: "York's economy is based on the service industry, which in 2000 was responsible for 88.7% of employment in the city."  Done
  • "The service industries in York include public sector employment, health, education, finance, IT and... " - Spell out and link IT on first use, thus: information technology (IT).  Done
  • "as well as a number of different railway companies" - Delete "different"?  Done
  • "known as ABB at the time of closure" - Spell out ABB on first use if it stands for words.
  • "It was announced on the 20 September, 2006 that Nestlé.... " - Delete "the" and the comma: 20 September 2006  Done
  • "one of which was a Self-build project" - Lowercase self-build?  Done
  • "York's economy has been developing in the areas of science, technology and the creative industries with the creation of a science park near the University of York and the city becoming a founding National Science City" - Another "with" that's doubtful as a connector. Suggestion: "York's economy has been developing in the areas of science, technology and the creative industries. The city has become a founding National Science City with a science park near the University of York."  Done
  • "Between 1998 and 2008 York has gained 80 new technology companies... " - Delete "has"?  Done
  • "Regional gross value figures added for York... " - I think this needs to be explained. It's not clear what "regional gross value figures" are. Gross value of what? How are they added and to what?

Transport

  • "York has been a major railway centre since the beginning of the railway age, with the first line arriving in 1839." - Suggestion: "York has been a major railway centre since the first line arrived in 1839 at the beginning of the railway age."  Done

Local Transport Plan 2006

  • One-sentence paragraphs are generally deprecated. I'd suggest merging the two paragraphs in this short section.  Done
  • Park & Ride should be lowercase, and the ampersand should be an "and".  Done - also changed previous "and" to "including" to stop difficult read when & changed to "and". Keith D (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Education

  • "The University of York's main campus is on the southern edge of the city at Heslington, with Archaeology and Medieval Studies located in the King's Manor in the city centre." - Suggestion: "The University of York's main campus is on the southern edge of the city at Heslington, while the archeology and medieval studies departments are housed in the King's Manor in the city centre."  Done
  • "and range from school leavers and sixth formers" - Those two terms should be explained or linked for readers from outside the U.K.  Done - wikilinked, hopefully the first one is to a suitable article as best I could find. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Primary schools cover education from ages 5–11, with some offering early years education from age three. From 11–16 education is provided by 10 secondary schools, four of which offer additional education up to the age of 18." - Generally numbers through nine are written as words and whole numbers with two digits or more as digits. However, the Manual of Style suggests not mixing the two formats in the same sentence. If you use ages 5–11, then you should use 3 later in the sentence. If you want to stick with 3, you should change the other numbers to "ages five through eleven".  Done - changed to figure rather than switch to words. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sites of interest

  • Wikilink moat?  Done
  • Should Chantry be explained?  Done - added wikilink Keith D (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "are former dwelling places of the canons" - Wikilink canon?  Done

Sport

  • The last two paragraphs lack sources.

Photo gallery

  • MOS:IMAGES generally deprecates galleries unless some special reason exists to include one. I don't believe a gallery is needed here. You have many excellent images embedded in the text as well as a link to a gallery on the Commons.

References

  • The dates in the citations should all be in the same format. You can choose to use 5 November 2007 or 2007-11-05, but you need to stick to one or the other and not mix them in the reference section.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for web-based sources is to include author, title, publisher, publication date, url, and access date, if all of these are known. Citation 68, for example lacks the publisher, Office of National Statistics, and the correct title, "Labour Market Profile: York".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Mumbai[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this was delisted in the FAR process. Comments to elevate this article to FA status again will be helpful. Thanks, KensplanetTC 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When this goes to FAC, Ealdgyth will ask you about the ancient sources used in the history. While da Cunha was labelled 1993, it is re-scan of a really old book. Are newer ones available? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Still a few pp 7-8 with hyphens not ndash
  • I couldn't find the 25% of industrial output in the main body. The lead is not supposed to introduce new information. If it isn't already, add it in the main body. Does Mumbai really make 25% of factory goods in all of India???
  • Might get more questions about Green and Fairclough as it is a "juvenile non-fiction" book targeted at younger children.
  • The FA reviewers will probably ask for a copyedit. I could find some oddities in there.
  • "largest" can be ambiguous. Is this the population or the size of the official city boundary?
  • In the lead "7" is used. Single digit numbers are supposed to be spelled out

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Muni Metro[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested to bring this to GAN. I would like some feedbacks on prose in general.

Thanks, —Chris! ct 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The article looks pretty good. There's a few minor issues I have:
    • It says in the lead that there are six lines while seven are listed under 1.1
    • It says in 1.2 that all the stations other than Stonestown and SF State are located in the eastern part of the city. What about the stations marked on the map on the N Judah and L Taraval Lines?
    • In 1.2 when it says the N and J enter at a third portal, do you mean second? It's only the second one listed.
    • Perhaps the meaning of Owl service should be explained in 1.4 in that sentence.
    • Maybe you can eliminate one of the things that says that the Sunset Tunnel opened in 1928 in 2.1.
    • Good luck! Alexseattle (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania–Reading Seashore Lines[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I like to know if I did it right.

Thanks, N2icv (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: You've collected a lot of interesting data about this railroad, and that is a good start. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • MOS:INTRO says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead should be expanded to become a true summary rather than an introductory sentence.
  • Generally, measurements in Wikipedia articles are expressed in both imperial and metric units. Thus, "... the trains were in sight of each other for 11 miles between... " should appear as "... the trains were in sight of each other for 11 miles (18 km) between... ". It's tedious to convert a lot of these by hand. Fortunately, the {{convert}} template will do the math and the spellings, abbreviations, and formatting if you plug in the right values in the right places.
  • It's a good idea to render as many lists as possible as straight prose. The Manual of Style says in one place, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The existing article has a lot of lists.
  • Bolding is used sparingly, usually just for the repetition of the article title in the first line of the lead and then, automatically, in section heads. MOS:BOLD advises against using bold letters for emphasis elsewhere. All the bolding should be removed from the "Further reading" section, for example. Ditto for "BUT NOT THE P-RSL" in the "History" section. It also should not be in all caps, which is also not used for emphasis in Wikipedia.
  • The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections. You can either expand the orphans or merge them with other paragraphs or sections. This would apply, for example, to the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end of the "History" section and to the two-item list in the orphan section, "Timeline".
  • It's not clear what "ETT No. 8-A In effect 27 Oct, 1963" refers to. Readers will want to know what ETT means.
  • Some of the material lacks sourcing. A good rule of thumb is to cite every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. An example of a paragraph with no sources is the first paragraph of the "Diesel locomotives" section. The names of the train colors are not common knowledge and must have come from a source.
  • MOS:HEAD says in part, "The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in very rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence". Thus, "Atlantic City Railroad" is correct, but "Passenger Trains" should be "Passenger trains".
  • To get more ideas about how to improve an article, it's often useful to look at articles that have been promoted to GA or FA status. You can find lists of high-quality railroad articles at WP:RR.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Tom Swift[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, although it recently passed GA, I think it still needs to be improved. I would appreciate any feedback.

Many thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

List of bridges in Montreal[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what still needs to be done to get this listed as a Featured List. Pictures of the three east-end bridges and the tunnel will be added as soon as the weather allows me to take good pictures.

Thanks,  Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Avoid stating the obvious, i.e. the very first sentence re-states the title of the page
    • Avoid bolded links, i.e. Bridge
    • WP:LEAD section should be expanded. It's too short now.
    • Create a new section titled Key and list what the colors mean.
    • Also, WP:COLOR should not be the only indicator, try using symbols along with the colors.
    • A section heading should not be inside of the table, take all three out.
    • There should be no links in those section titles.
    • There should be a lot more references than what you have now.
    • References should be cited with complete info, i.e. publisher, date of publishing, access date.
    • All the comments in the table should be cited separately.

--Crzycheetah 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Roy of the Rovers[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was made an FA three years ago, but in that time standards have changed. There are plenty of sourcing issues which need to be fixed to avoid getting delisted if someone were to put it up for FAR. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In October 2007 Setanta Sports.com started to feature strips from the archive, beginning with the storyline that saw Steve Norman and Gary Kemp from pop group Spandau Ballet join Melchester Rovers. They plan to showcase other strips that appeared in the comic. -- This will need updating re the situation at Setanta. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this would not pass FAC as is, but do not have any specific sources. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • User:ChrisTheDude is still active here and seems to have been a major contributor and might be able to help get this up to speed.
  • Main problem as I see it is a lack of references throughout. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Many of the refs that are there are need to have more details. 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
  • Refs also may need to be combined - there are at least three that seem to be links the official website that seem to be the same. If they are not the same, this is yet more proof that not enough info is given in the refs as is
  • Another major concern is overuse of fair use images - see WP:NFCC. Many of the images seem more decorative than necessary
  • Time references need "As of date" rather than more vague terms

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH I don't think I was really a major contributor to the article, the vast majority was done by Seb Patrick and I just chipped in here and there. I'll have a look over the article and see what I can do, although most of the stuff I added was done from memory (back when I was comparatively new to WP and didn't understand the importance of sourcing) so I doubt I'd be able to bulk up the sourcing, which is clearly a major issue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Gold[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this article ready for an FAC in the not too distant future. I am looking for reviewers who can assess the scientific writing and/or the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

No Line on the Horizon[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually bring the article to FA. A lot of hard work was put into a promotion to GA, and I can't see any issues with the article after the GA concerns were addressed. However, a fresh pair of eyes would be very much welcomed. I think the Charts/certifications, Linear, and U2 360 sections are without worry, but if someone could look over the rest of the article it would be much appreciated!

Thanks, MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment: The purpose of the lead is to provide a summary of the whole article (per WP:LEAD. At present the lead makes no reference to the "Linear" film, which has a significant section in the article (although the section is not well integrated with the rest of the article). I suggest that the lead is extended to make reference to the film, and that the film section itself is given a better relationship with the album that is the article's principal subject. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on Linear to the lead, but I'm not sure how to better integrate the section with the rest of the article. Do you have any suggestions? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Brian on the Linear film - it needs to be i nthe lead, and it seems to be covered in a bit too much detail here - perhaps this is a WP:WEIGHT issue? Seems fairly close to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

Added, but as above I'm not sure how to edit the section so that it fits better with the rest of the article. Any thoughts on how to do it? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I also noticed that the article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow (in almost all cases).
Okay, some sentences and paragraphs have been merged with others to make them longer. Sections on the singles and the tour have been expanded a bit, and the Development heading in the Linear section has been moved to encompass the two lone sentences that were at the top . MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In some of the sentences the focus seems odd - for example In July 2006, the band's official website sent e-mails to subscribers confirming that U2 had begun work on... might read better with the focus on (subject as) the band itself, so something like In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers at (via?) their official website confirming that the band had begun work on... Presumably of the official website was authorized by the band...
  • The writing is decent but I think it could use another polish before FAC - there is a tendency to repeat words within sentences or in consecutive sentences that gets tiresome after a while, for example look for the words band and material in The band eventually decided to cease recording with Rubin and the material from these sessions was shelved, with the band expressing interest in revisiting the material in the future.[10] followed by another double band sentence band subsequently employed Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois as principal producers, who were also given the opportunity to write songs with the band. Fours uses of band in two sentences (and twice more in that paragraph).
  • There is also some repetition within sections - we are told Every breaking wave was cut from the album three times in the space of three paragraphs, for example.
  • The tentaitve original release date information and postponements thereof are also repeated in the Recording and Release sections.
  • Have you checked on Flickr to see if there are any free images of the band from this tour? Three fair use images may be seen as a bit much.
From the tour or from the recording sessions? There will undoubtedly be some from the tour (I know that a few are already on the U2 360 article), but I doubt there will be any from the recording sessions since so few people are privy to seeing them. I'll check though, and if that fails I'll remove an image in the hopes that two fair-use will be okay. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
From the tour - I would also make it clearer that the fair use Morocco piucture was taken during the recording of the album. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I can find some photos, preferably one of the stage. Commons might have something already. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
(Edit): Caption changed and stage image added. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can something that is recorded in one take really be "developed" over time? See Moment of Surrender", "White as Snow", "No Line on the Horizon" and "Unknown Caller" were developed over this time, all of them being recorded in just one take.[15]
Hmm, I think that's more of a bad word choice. Instead of "developed over" I think "created during" would be more appropriate. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Changed to ""Moment of Surrender", "White as Snow", "No Line on the Horizon" and "Unknown Caller" were written at this time, each track being recorded in one take. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The German name for Lake Constance is "Bodensee" - is "Boden Sea" a typo?
Not as far as I can tell; the source uses "Boden Sea" each time, and as far as I can tell it's just the title of the photograph. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the refs are incomplete - current 94 and 114 are just links and titles, but 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 think all of the refs have been checked and completed now. Author's are now included where known, as are dates of publication. U2.com references have been trimmed and replaced with other more suitable references where possible. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you for your reviews and comments (and my apologies for not getting back to you sooner; I was away for a week). I'll begin integrating your suggestions shortly (my comments have been indented below yours); your fresh pairs of eyes have certainly been useful! MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think what might help to integrate the Linear section better in the overall article is to put the focus more on U2. Since Linear is now in the lead, readers should know what it is. I would then perhaps start the section with something like The idea behind Linear, a silent film that is included with the albunm in several formates, stemmed from a U2 video shoot with Anton Corbijn in June 2007. During the shoot, Corbijn asked the band to remain still while he filmed them; this created a "photograph on film", in which U2 did not move but the objects around them did.[75] Make it clearer that this was a U2 project, relate it to the band. Does the Chapters subsection of the Linear section need to be included? The listing order is given in the previous section and the lengths are all a bit longer than the track lengths (given elsewhere).
I also would try to get someone to copyedit this before FAC - the language still is a bit rough in spots. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I think I can see how to work it better now. Now that you mention it, I'm not entirely sure that the Chapters subsection is necessary. I originally wrote it with the perspective that when more information and reviews were made it could be split into it's own article, but that seems highly unlikely now. Since the running order is mentioned in the plot summary, it could probably be removed. I haven't gotten around to fully editing the language yet, but I'm hoping to be able to polish it up soon. Thanks again for all your feedback! MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
(Edit): I've tried to solve the weight issue by reordering some parts and putting some more emphasis on the band. How does it seem now? MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It reads better and the section does not seem as disproportinately large with the Chapters subsection removed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent; I've done a bit more clean-up prose-wise and have asked a couple of people if they wouldn't mind doing a copyedit (one of whom has already done so), and when that's complete I think all of your points will have been addressed. Thank you so much for all your feedback and help! MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

32 Battalion (Book)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know where to improve it. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, LouriePieterse 11:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review
  • The first impression: The article is short.
  • Expand on: Search articles on similar books on wikipedia (search WP:FA and WP:GA first) for more.
    • Structure of the book: Chapters and summary
    • Sales
    • Reviews
  • The chapter headings of this book are very special. These are the names of songs traditionally sung by 32 Battalion, translated into English. These songs were sung on the eve of battle or on the parade ground. (reference needed)
  • People who made a contribution to this book: who are they? friends of the author, army colleagues: seniors or juniors --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this graphic novel was a major storyline for Batman and Frank Miller as well, and I believe it has potential for at least a GA. I understand the lead needs expansion, and the article is way undersourced at the moment. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz
  • The "Characters" has few opinions, then hard-core facts like "Superman is now simply a pawn for the US government.", "strongly suggested as a reaction to the death of the former Robin, Jason Todd.", "He is more sarcastic than ever" to name a few. These are interpretations (and border WP:OR), which need references.
  • "Character appearances in other series" needs references
    • In Countdown: Arena, the Superman from The Dark Knight Returns. How does one know, he is from the novel not Superman in general?
  • "a girl who resembles Carrie Kelly, called "Kelly",", "The Batman episode "Artifacts" is set in a possible future (2027) that resembles The Dark Knight Returns. " who says so? Borders OR. Needs references
  • "Much of the dialogue in the segment is lifted directly from the pages of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" reference needed
  • write about sales and include more reviews.
  • See GA Batman: Anarky for ideas to expand. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Finger[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the co-creator of Batman, he has an important place in comics history, and has GA plus potential. There are a few sourcing issues, but nothing tremendous. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz
concerns about GA status
  • Instead of File:Bill Finger by Jerry Robinson.jpg, can a photo of Finger be used?
  • Main aspects of life not covered:
    • His life starts abruptly with 1938, what about his birth, early education and life between 1914 to 1938
    • Something about his personal life (parents, wives, children), death (cause of, buried at) is needed
  • Something wrong with "Artist and credited Batman creator Bob Kane"
  • Answer these questions in the text: Finger was not given credit for the works, then which works he was part of? How is it known? Who first disclosed that Batman was co-created by Finger and when?
  • "Credit" needs references, as esaily can be challenged. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed FAC a couple of months ago, so I'd like to get some feedback on improvements before I renominate it. Thankies. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Looking at the FAC, the objections seemed to be mostly centered on images. I think this is pretty near FA, but the prose needs some polishing before another run at FA, so here are some minor suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead sentence is very short - per WP:LEAD The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] I am not sure the current sentence answers the notability question.
  • This might be my ignorance, but "Northern Irish" sounds odd - if it is the standard adjective, then it is fine, but could it be linked? Could it also be "...is an actor from Northern Ireland..."?
  • The lead seems to overuse he and his - the first paragraph has four sentences in a row that do not use his name (Nesbitt). I think alternating a bit more makes the prose more readable.
  • I also assume that readers will sometimes skip to the section they are interested in and try to have the first sentence of each section use the proper name of the subject (not a pronoun) but at least two sections use he instead of Nesbitt in their first sentence. Is there an antecedent to a first sentence?
  • I know it is difficult to refer to two different people with the same last name, but calling his father "Jim" seems a bit too familiar / folksy for an encyclopedia article. Could something like "his father" or "Nebitt's father" and "the senior Nesbitt" be used? Or could he be referred to as a teacher?
  • I know this is very picky but it is "The Troubles" once and "the Troubles" elsewhere. Or do sisters really hyphenate their names differently Sonia Forbes-Adam versus Victoria Forbes Adam?
  • In Personal life, should his charitable work be metnioned in the lead? it is half the section. Also should his affairs be mentioned in the lead?
  • I would be consistent on films, so his debut feature film, Hear My Song (Peter Chelsom, 1991) gives the director and year in parnetheses but other films just give the year
  • Quotations need to follow the logical quotation rules at MOS:QUOTE (punctuation outside the quote unless it is a full sentence being quoted)
  • Are there free images of any important people or places in his life that could be added?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for your comments, and none of them were too picky! I've fixed all of the little things like grammar, 'hes' and 'hims', hyphens, and adding "Nesbitt" to the head of each section.

  • Regarding using his father's first name: I can't find the exact page with the discussion, but a similar question came up at the FACs for Ronald and Nancy Reagan. In those, it was decided that if two people in the article had the same last name, the subject of the article should be referred to by their surname and the other person/people by there first name. As for it being too informal, the sources I've used indicate his father was always "Jim" and never "James".
  • I've added a short clause to the lead about his philanthropy but am hesitant to add anything about the affairs because a) it could be a BLP violation and b) it really is none of our business. The way I've structured the paragraph in the personal life section is to refer to the tabloid stories rather than their content. For some weird reason, the tabloid stories made their way in the actual news at the time, so they're too big not to mention, but I'd still rather keep it to a minimum.
  • As far as I can see, all the films that need to be are followed by director and year. Some aren't because the director is mentioned in the preceding text (e.g. "...his first appearance in a production directed by Michael Winterbottom; he later appeared in Go Now (1995), Jude (1996) and Welcome to Sarajevo (1997)." compared to "Also in 2004, he filmed the roles of Ronnie Cunningham in Millions (Danny Boyle, 2004), and Detective Banner in Match Point (Woody Allen, 2005).")
  • For the opening sentence, current consensus at WP:ACTOR is to avoid anything that might violate WP:NPOV ("James Nesbitt is a Northern Irish actor who has been nominated for a BAFTA award and four IFTA awards"/"John Smith is a film director whose films have grossed over $6bn worldwide") in favour of fleshing out who the person is in the lead itself.
  • For "Northern Irish actor" vs "Northern Ireland actor", I'm not really sure about this. I've always known people to describe themselves as or be described as "Northern Irish". Personally, I reserve "a person from Northern Ireland" for articles where it isn't clear whether the subject considers themself Northern Irish, Irish or British. In this case, Nesbitt has often said he is "Northern Irish". However, I'll raise the point at WP:NIR to see if there is a "correct" terminology.

Thanks again for your help. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Noah's Ark[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it used to be a Featured Article but is not any more. And I think we should work on it.

Thanks, Arlen22 (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review
  • Searches for Noah's Ark deserves a brief para
  • Historicity of Noah and the Deluge, should also be discussed in brief
  • A section on "Artistic depictions" can be created
  • Narrative should include
    • Dimensions of Ark as in the Bible
    • only Noah and those with him on the Ark. Who?
    • Building material as in the Bible
    • After the deluge, what did they do with the Ark?
  • "In Christian tradition" should include any retelling (if any) and difference with the Bible
  • "In Rabbinic tradition" needs more references for interpreattions like "Noah's failure to warn others of the coming flood was widely seen as casting doubt on his righteousness—was he perhaps only righteous by the lights of his own evil generation?"

--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Will Eisner[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the creator of the Spirit, Eisner's contributions to the comics industry are highly important, and this article could easily be a GA or higher with some work. There are plenty of sourcing issues (see all the CN templates). Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review
GA concerns
  • Write "fair use rationale"s for copyrighted images. IMO, an image of The Spirit, should be included with fair use rationale
  • Most facts and figures are uncited in this article. All years, dates (numeric facts) need references. Wikipedia:Good article criteria says "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Almost every sentence in "Awards and honors" needs a ref. "Early life and career" is already tagged
  • "He is considered one of the most important contributors to the development of the medium and is known for the cartooning studio he founded; for his highly influential series The Spirit" The language here can be considered flowery. Such claims of importance need a reference
  • In death, I see "Eisner was survived by his wife, Ann Weingarten Eisner, and their son, John." When did he marry? Have a son and a daughter
  • "the son of Jewish immigrants" - names please.
  • The main obstacle for a GA is lack of sufficient references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a year since its last PR and it has since failed at FAC. The last FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive3) has all kinds of arguments for and against the article and I would just like a review of the article in preparation for a new nomination.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – These are some thoughts on the prose etc., like would I would offer in an FAC.

  • Delink dates in the references.
  • Don't need a link to the U.S. dollar in the lead.
  • Concept and design: Grant Park doesn't need two links in as many sentences.
  • Artistic design: "The fountain is known for encouraging its visitors splash and slide in the reflecting pool". Should be "encouraging its visitors to...".
  • Video production: Remove comma from "Approximately, 20 SAIC students took part in what became an informal master's course in public art for the project."
  • Typo in here: "with a width far exceeding its heighth...".
  • "This was followed by the a section with the mouth open...". Another glitch.
  • "but now no additial videos are planned." "additial" → "additional".
  • Construction and engineering: Comma needed in parenthetical "now part of Phillips Solid-State Lighting Solutions now called Phillips Color Kinetics".
  • There's a new requirement for featured articles that images have alt text "where appropriate". It will take some time to include alt text for the many photos, but shouldn't be too difficult. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I recall doing some copyediting during a previous FAC - this looks better. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly about images.

  • I have some concerns about images, mostly based on the recent Cloud Gate FAC. There are currently six (or is it seven?) fair use images in the article, which seems like it will raise WP:NFCC concerns at FAC. Specifics on the fair use images follow:
    • The lead image File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG and the first image in the Construction and engineering section File:Crown fountain.jpg are both quite similar (face on the fountain puckering as it spews water). The lead image shows the water hitting someone (kids?) and thus seems to me to be slightly better in terms of illustrating what the article discusses. The Construction section image shows an African-American face and kids playing too, so it might be preferred in terms of illustrating the diversity of Chicagoans pictured. I just can't see both images in the article if it is to pass FAC.
      • File:Crown fountain.jpg is actually a rather recent addition to the article. Either way, one should definitely be removed. Any opinions on which one? --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • One or the other is fine and I defer selection to someone who knows photography better than me. A third consideration about the comparison is that I believe the one with the African American is sharper and higher quality, although the frolicking is not as well depticted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The image at night seems fine to me as fair use as it is the only one to show both towers in detail and the only one at night.
    • The three image sequence using the {{Multiple image}} template is nice, but adds three more fair use images which do not seem justifiabloe under NFCC. I think it could be argued that this does not really add much to our understanding - we already have images of the fountain faces smiling (at night) and puckerng and spouting. I suggested on Tony's talk page that a video might be useful as a replacement here (see Billie Jean, which is a recent FA and has a video of Micheal Jackson doing the moonwalk).
      • I can take a video of the fountain's video pre-pucker, then moving into a pucker, then spouting water. When the weather is finally warm again, I will take this video and replace the three images with it. --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • That will be great help in reducing FU images. That would combine three fair use contents into one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I hope that File:20070616 Crown Fountain (6).JPG does not need a fair use justification - there is no video displayed, so I guess it is OK (just shows structure, not art), but it might be a good idea to check with an image expert before any FAC.
    • The various close up images of the nozzle, drains, bricks with LEDs inside all seem to be OK and free (not fair use).
  • The last image concern I have is that in the Cloud Gate FAC, Jappalang pointed out that sculptures which are unique (as this one is) have not been published under US copyright law. This means that the fair use images had to have been published already prior to being used here. My guess is that the same concern applies here. The night time image is from Flickr, which I assume means it has been published. The others seem to be unique to Wikipedia and thus may be problematic. I do not know if opeing a Flickr account and posting the images there would qualify as publication or not. The video could perhaps be on You Tube? I would ask Jappalang or anohter image expert.
    • This could be a pretty big problem. I'll consult an image expert ASAP to see what we should do here. --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The prose could still be tightened / copy edited. For example on a quick read through, the section header "Commencement and ongoing operation" could just be "Commencement and operation" or perhaps even "Dedication and operation". Minimalists might even suggest just "Operation".
  • Another place I notice was the last paragraph on reception, which could better read as something like The fountain is featured on the cover of Philop Jodidio's 2005 book, Architecture: Art, which notes that although Plensa is considered a conceptual artist, he created a work whose architectural aspects are paramount. Crown Fountain's location juxtapposed with the Historic Michigan Boulevard District's skywall highlights these aspects. Jodidio considers the fountain to be a modernization of the gargoyle theme, and notes that the scale of the enlarged faces humanize the work and challenge the architecture. He also comments that the towers are an integral part of the skyline that have achieved rare permanence for contemporary art.[55] Unfortunately I do not have time to help copyedit with this one.
  • Could the Picasso image be made narrower with the "upright" code? As it is the other fountain images are timy and this is comparatively huge.
    • Actually, I have had some concerns about the images here. For example, does the Picasso image pass WP:NFCC? I feel like it doesn't for this article unless I'm missing something... Also, I think four images for this section is a bit excessive. It might be more productive to show just the Picasso (if possible) or just the fountains. Maybe even just one of the fountains? --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Pavel Bure[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because any feedback would be greatly appreciated before I submit it for FAC. A few things I've been wondering about the article are the citation style (two different styles are used: the citeweb template for internet sources and footnotes for a single book that is referenced throughout), whether the personal life section should be further divided into subsections and general grammar. Thanks, Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Lengthy, Detailed Comments Nice to see someone working on this article. I've been wanting to do it myself for as long as I can remember, but have neglected it. Anyways heres my review of the article:
  • I added EV Landshut to the infobox, seeing how he did play 1 game for them during the first lockout; HC Spartak Moscow was already listed, and he only played 1 game for them as well, and I would consider the DEL to be as professional as the RSL, so Landshut might as well be included.
  • Seeing how you are confused about how to include the book, I tried something for that: in the first citation to Banks' book, I included the full information about it (see [5]). The only problem is that there was no publication city listed, so I put Vancouver in as default. Obviously, change that if needed.
  • Images are going to need alt-text if submitted for FAC.
I've done this for both images, but am unsure if I've done it correctly for the templates of the infobox and medal box. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I've fixed it after looking at the Howie Morenz article. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • After some discussion, the consensus for ordering sections on hockey biography articles was to put records and awards after the career statistics.
  • "By age twelve, his parents separated and Bure remained with his mother." Change 'By' into 'At'
  • There is no citation included in the second paragraph of the "early life" section.
  • "In December 1986, he embarked on a tour of Canada with the Soviet national midget team that spanned from Ottawa to Vancouver." That sentence seems odd to me; it sounds as if the Soviet national team spanned from Ottawa to Vancouver. I would suggest something along the lines of "embarked on a tour of Canada, going from Ottawa to Vancouver," or something of that like.
  • It might be better to include the first two paragraphs of the "personal life" section into the "early life" section, as it gives more background into the early life of Bure.
  • "Playing on the fourth line in his senior club debut, he scored his first goal while on a 2-on-1." That is going to need some clearer wording for the non-hockey following readers. Explain what the fourth line is, and what a 2-on-1 is. I might even go far enough to omit the 2-on-1 reference, as it's not that notable, and frankly, a situation he should have scored in.
I've omitted the 2-on-1 reference, but am not able to come up with a sufficient explanation of the fourth line without disrupting the article.. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • He set a goal scoring record, but there needs to be more depth about it. It should mention it was the rookie scoring record, and what was the old record.
Elaborated, but am not sure if I'll be able to find a reference for the old record (or what it even was). Will try, though.. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think Bure helped CSKA win the 1999 European Championship.
Ha. Oops. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The term "countless future NHLers" sounds like a weasel word. Change to "several" or something similar.
  • Reference to Mogilny and Fedorov defections should be included.
  • I was under the impression that the Bure draft controversy stemmed over his lack of playing with the national team, not CSKA. However, this could just be a misunderstaning on my part.
I, too, was initially under that impression. I'm still not 100% sure of all the details as the whole situation seems extremely complex. From what I gathered from the book and sources on the internet, however, the extra games in question seemed more of a reference to CSKA. What I came across was that league policy was that a player had to have played in at least 2 seasons with a top-tier European club, with at least 11 games required to qualify as a season.
  • Are the dollars mentioned in US or Canadian dollars? Clarification required for that.
  • "Trevor Linden, who had just recently signed a four-year, $3.7 million contract himself." The "himself" seems redundant, as it is already stated that Linden had signed the contract.
  • "His first practice with the club on November 3, 1991, was attended by an approximate two thousand fans." Again for non-hockey folk: is it notable that 2000 fans attended a practise? Should be explained that indeed, it is.
  • Reference for first game?
  • More hockey jargon: "end-to-end rushes."
  • The second reference to him scoring 60 points (when tying Hlinka's rookie scoring record) seems redundant, as the previous sentence says how many points he scored.
  • While McLean was nominated for the Vezina, it doesn't say what the Vezina is an award for.
  • In reference to Quinn winning the Jack Adams Award, it needs to be explained what its for.
  • "Bure was curiously left off the NHL All-Rookie Team, making him the only Calder recipient to not be named to the lineup." I would say that the word "curiously" is another case of WP:WEASEL.
  • "Shortly following the All-Star break, Bure surpassed Tony Tanti's 44-goal franchise single-season mark on February 9, 1993, in a 5–1 win over the Quebec Nordiques." An awkward sentence. I suggest changing it to "Bure established a new franchise record for goals in a season, surpassing Tanti's 44 goals in a win over Quebec," though better sounding.
  • In note to Bure scoring his 50th goal, it seems unnecessary to say it was the first of 5 times. Leave that for later in the article.
  • Seems a little trivial to include him having a goal waved off. But this is more opinion, so can be disregarded. However, if left in, should clear up the wording in reference to hockey-related phrases.
  • "Bure eventually finished the season with 110 points in 82 games to become the first Canuck named to the NHL First All-Star Team." The word "to" should be "and."
  • Probably should link "groin" in the next paragraph.
  • I would drop reference to Cinderella run, as it sounds POV.
  • First reference of Dallas Stars should use full name.
  • "Just Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux." Remove "just."
  • The Province is called that, not the Vancouver Province. To show that it is a Vancouver-based paper, perhaps write "The Province of Vancouver."
  • The group of players Fetisov organised wouldn't be Soviet in 1995. Use either "Russian" or "former Soviet."
  • "being centred by Trevor Linden, rookie Michael Peca and Cliff Ronning." I would switch Ronning and Peca's name, just because it gives me the impression that Ronning and Peca are both rookies.
  • "He finished with a career total of 34 playoff goals with the Canucks, which remained the highest club total until Linden tied the mark in 2007,[52] to go with 66 points." The part "to go with 66 points" seems out of place after the mention of Linden.
  • I recall that he wanted to change his jersey to 96 because of the day he landed in North America (September 6, or 9/6). If that is indeed true, perhaps a mention.
You're right. Included. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "after having missed 62 games the previous season because of his knee injury." Don't need to mention the knee injury again; just write "after having missed 62 games the previous season."
  • "notching his third 50-goal campaign, as well as his first since 1993–94." Having "as well as his first" sounds like he scored another time. Removed the "as well as."
  • "behind just Peter Forsberg and Jaromír Jágr." Another use of "just" that is unnecessary.
  • Including that Linden and Naslund passed Smyl's goal record seems a little redundant in talking about Bure. Though they passed Smyl, its not relevant in an article about Bure. Also unlink Smyl's name; he's linked earlier in the article.
I originally had left that out myself, but it was later added by another editor. I personally kind of like having Bure's stats stack up to all the Canuck greats in that one sentence. Summarizes the timeline of significant Vancouver players in a way. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "the following month in August." After saying he had a meeting in July, its apparant that the following month is going to be August, so just say "the following month."
  • A little bit trivial, but Lukashenko's offer probably wouldn't have been tax-free; Eastern Europe tends to give salaries in terms after taxes, which this almost certainly was. But again, this is largely trivial.
  • "he was finally traded on January 17, 1999." Finally seems unnecessay, and the comma after 1999 seems out of place. It should probably be moved to after Florida Panthers.
Commas after years are a habit of mine dating back to grade eight grammar lol. I'm not completely sure if it's correct, but I'm almost certain it's proper grammar. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bure returned to appear in 5 more games. Before long, he was sidelined once more for the rest of the campaign with another knee injury, suffered on March 3, after a collision with defenceman Adam Foote in a game against the Colorado Avalanche." Could probably be combined into one sentence, removing the term "before long," seeing how it's already stated he only played 5 games.
  • "furthering his franchise single-season goal-scoring record." I would change "furthering" to "bettering" or something of that type.
  • "Panthers traded with the Calgary Flames." I don't think I've ever heard of a trade in the NHL referred to in this manner. Perhaps change to "aquired his brother Valeri from the Calgary Flames in a trade."
  • "Bure reached the 700-point mark, the final 100-point plateau of his career." Drop reference to final 100-point plateau, as it sounds like he scored 100 points in a season or something similar.
  • Reference to leading the Panthers in scoring in 2000–01.
  • "along with Florida's 2nd round pick in the 2002 draft (Lee Falardeau)." There should be a comma after "(Lee Falardeau)."
  • In the international play infobox, I would maybe consider removing the "then-" from the title "President of Russia," though I could be wrong in this regard.
  • "giving way to the republic's dissolution later that year." Another politcal note about the Soviet Union. It wasn't a republic; rather, the Soviet Union was a union of 15 seperate republics. Instead of republic, use union.
  • "Still prior to the dissolution." Drop "still."
  • In the "playing style" section, "breakaway" doesn't need to be linked, as it is previously in the article.
  • Another unnecessary use of "just," this time "behind just Mike Bossy and Mario Lemieux."
  • "whose lineage can be traced back to German descent" is an awkward phrase. Perhaps change to "Vladimir, who's lineage is of German ancestry." Also there is no reference to that claim.
  • "he narrowly lost the gold medal by half a second." The word "narrowly" is redundant; as he lost by 0.5 seconds, it was obviously a close lose.
  • "as such, they were granted noble status." Maybe change to "they were granted noble status as a reward;" the current structure sounds bad.
I don't want to say reward, because the way the book explained it, noble status was automatically granted given their position. I've changed the wording a little, but the sentence structure is actually still the same. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another trivial issue: the Bure's didn't make watches for the Russian "royal" family, but the Russian "imperial" family (Tsar/Czar=Emperor=Imperial). Also, another use of "then-President" which I would say is unnecessary.
  • A note on political accuracy: I would be compelled to refer to Fedorov as a former Russian teammate, as they did play on the Russian team as well, and were both Russians. But just another trivial issue from me.
  • "Despite making headlines in Russia, where they were both heavily followed in the media as celebrities, Bure and Kournikova both denied the story." This sentence doesn't make sense. Because they were followed in the Russian media, Bure and Kournikova denied the story? I don't quite understand.
  • If the article is going to include reference to Kournikova marrying Iglesias, a reference would be needed. But I'd be tempted to just remove it completly.
  • The continued reference to "Soviet NHL players" in a post-Soviet Union world seems wrong. A change of term should be in order.
  • Unlink Fetisov's name, and use consistency throughout the article for his name. Until this point in the article, he was "Slava Fetisov." Now he's "Vyacheslav Fetisov." Use one name, or start with Vyacheslav and then Slava.
  • "600,000-foot" should probably be "600,000-square-foot."
  • In "records" section, change "league" to "NHL."
  • A good article, very thorough and detailed, with plenty of citations for everything. Good work on it. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted a broader view on how this article can be improved. I've worked on it, trying to use the most reliable references and expanded it substantially. Now, I'm fresh out of ideas for this article. I just need to update it a bit once the final release comes out.

Thanks in advance TechOutsider (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Morro should be in italics consistently.
    • 'Microsoft is specfically targeting computer users without...' - could you explain briefly why they're targeting this specific market?
    • 'lacking ... non-anti-malware functionality' - I don't understand this - how does a combined anti-virus and anti-malware program lack non-anti-malware functionality? Perhaps a little rewording would clarify.

A quick review of h2g2 in return would be appreciated. Thanks. AlexAshman (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Quick clarification for you, and I will be sure to fix in the article, "non-anti-malware" functionality", I believe, the original editor, refers to everything but anti-malware capibilities. OneCare, for example, can backup files. Not malware related. I will look at h2g2. TechOutsider (talkcontribs) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Serial ATA[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is an important topic that can easily attain Good Article status.

Thanks, KelleyCook (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the wikilinking in the lead a bit confusing: AT Attachment and parallel ATA are both linked, but go to the same article. Something like 'SATA replaced the older standard, ATA (later redesignated parallel ATA)' would be clearer that these two terms refer to the same thing.
Four levels in the table of contents is a bit much; can those most deeply nested sections be merged? Alternatively, eliminate 'features' and promote the subheadings. Also, on my screen (1920x1200), there is a lot of white space in the connectors section due to the vertically oriented tables and small amounts of text.
I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on the eSATA article split, but the list in that section is unnecessary and contains information that would be better presented in a table. Also, the eSATA logo is a non-free image not being used to illustrate anything particularly relevant to the article (you're not commenting on the logo itself).
External links section needs pruning. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It has gone large changes since its last review, and because with some polishing it could be a good GA, or even FA.

Thanks, Oldag07 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Majoreditor's comments

For starters, the lead is under-developed. See WP:LEAD for details. With some work this can become a Good Article. Majoreditor (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai

  • Considering their is enough information to have an entire article on it, there is only a breif paragraph on the cancelled Star Trek Phase II. The paragraph doesn't even contain the most basic plot info, which is generally a minimum.
  • Also under parodies cultural impact, Star Ocean has been confirmed by its creators as heavily influenced by the series after commentary on their similarities.Jinnai 01:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This in an interesting article about a series I'm reasonably familiar with. I think it could become a good article with a little more work. Two places that need attention are the lead and the references. In addition, the lower sections contain some repetition of material in the upper sections and should probably be weeded a bit to eliminate redundancy. The prose is generally fine, but I noted a few exceptions and also many small deviations from guidelines in the Manual of Style (MOS). I doubt that I caught all of the MOS issues, but I fixed a few as I went, and I have listed others below.

Lead

  • The lead, according to MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead, though well-written, is a bit on the skimpy side. If you can imagine a reader having to make do with the lead by itself, I think you can see why it's not a true summary. It doesn't, for example, contain any information about the who, what, where, when of the fiction. Outer space? Inner space? Green monsters? All set on Mars? Ninety-fifth century? From just reading the lead, a reader would have no clue.

Conception and setting

  • Any reason for linking 1960? WP:UNLINKDATES advises against linking.
  • "Although he publicly marketed it as a Western in outer space... " - Wikilink Western to Western genre?
  • According to this universe's timeline, the first warp flight occurred on 5 April 2063." - Unlink the dates for consistency and to conform to WP:UNLINKDATES. Also, since this is (arguably) a U.S.-centric article, the format should be m-d-y; that is, April 5, 2063, unless the fiction itself consistently used d-m-y.

Beginnings

  • A good rule of thumb for sourcing is to cite every paragraph at least once and to cite every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that is not common knowledge or that might reasonably be questioned. The last paragraph of this subsection is unsourced even though it includes claims like "Marketing personnel of the network complained to management that the series' cancellation was premature."
  • "New techniques for profiling demographics of the viewing audience, would later find that the Star Trek audience was highly desirable for advertisers to the point where Star Trek was considered a highly profitable property." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "New techniques for profiling demographics of the viewing audience later showed that Star Trek had been highly profitable for advertisers."
  • "Unfortunately, that revelation came too late to resume production of the series." - Delete "unfortunately" since that is an editorial comment not attributed to a reliable source?

Rebirth

  • Three paragraphs are unsourced.
  • "The show was, unusually, broadcast in first-run syndication rather than running on a major network, with Paramount and the local stations splitting advertising time between them." - "With" doesn't work very well as a conjunction. Suggestion: "The show was unusual in that it was broadcast as first-run syndication rather than on a major network. Paramount and the local stations split the advertising time."

Post Roddenberry

  • "After" rather than "Post"? Alternatively "Post-Roddenberry"?
  • "In response to the TNG's success, Paramount began production of a spin off Star Trek series... " - "Spin-off" gets a hyphen. Also, would it be useful to wikilink it, thus: spin-off?
  • "Star Trek saturation hit a peak between 1994-1995." - Date ranges get en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: "1994–1995". This can be shortened to "1994–95", but my preference would be to say "between 1994 and 1995".
  • "UPN announced the cancellation of Enterprise at the end of its fourth season, and its final episode would air on May 13, 2005." - "aired" rather than "would air" since this is all in the past?

Rebooting

  • I shortened the subhead slightly to avoid the repetition of "franchise". Perhaps, though, it would be best to combine this short section with the "Franchise ownership" section under a single subhead, "Franchise" or something similar. The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections. Two options are possible: expand or merge.
  • The "citation needed" tag needs attention.

Franchise ownership

  • This section, in addition to being extremely short, lacks sources. It also might be helpful to include the year that Paramount acquired Desilu.

The Original Series (1966–1969)

  • The last two paragraphs lack sources.
  • I'd leave out the internal note, "(See also Awards below.)" Since "you" is implied, this addresses the reader directly with an imperative, which Wikipedia doesn't usually do except in "See also" sections

The Animated Series (1973–1974)

  • The first paragraph lacks a source.
  • "Although it was originally sanctioned by Paramount (who became the owners of the... " - "which became the owner" rather than "who became the owners"?
  • "Star Trek TAS briefly returned to television in the mid-1980s when it was rebroadcast on the children's cable network Nickelodeon per the request of Nickelodeon's Evan McGuire, who had greatly admired the show, even using its various creative components as inspiration for his short series called Piggly Wiggly Hears A Sound, which never aired (Nickelodeon parent Viacom would purchase Paramount in 1994)." - Too complex. Break into shorter sentences.

Feature films

  • "The 2009 film is the highest-earning and best-reviewed of the series so far, even in inflation adjusted numbers[citation needed]." - The tag caught my attention. This sentence repeats the tagged sentence in an earlier section. I noticed some other repetitions or near-repetitions (like the Desilu-Paramount merger claim) before getting to this one. I'd suggest trying to hunt them down and to remove all but the most essential one. They are probably artifacts from many re-writes.

Books"

  • Sources?

"Notes

  • WP:MOSNUM says that the date formatting in the citations should be consistent. You are free to choose yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y for a U.S.-centric article but not a mixture of the two formats.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. If possible, citation data for on-line sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date.
  • I'm not certain that all of the sources cited are reliable sources as described in WP:RS. The self-published essay in citation 3 is an example.
  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

References

  • The items in the list should be arranged alphabetically by author's last name.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


VSP Vision Care[edit]

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

Second attempt at creating entry for VSP Vision Care. Used feedback from previous reviewer who flagged for speedy deletion

Thanks, Elizba (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Elizba (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article contains important and interesting information on a very worthwhile organization. However, it does not at present correspond to Wikipedia article standards. Here are some areas requiring attention.

  • Lead is a brief introduction, rather than a summary of the complete article
  • The exaggerated logo in the infobox looks like advertising/promotional material rather than something appropriate to a neutral encyclopedia article.
  • References should be properly formatted, and listed in a "References" section. At present they are bare links to web pages. See WP:CITE/ES for information on how to format references.
  • The prose requires a more detached tone than is evident here. It reads as though from a promotional leaflet.
  • Prose style requires attention. In the first main section, four successive paragraphs begin with "VSP..." Some variety of expression is necessary.
  • Section titles cannot be the same as the article title.
  • See Manual of style (WP:MOS) for rules relating to capitalization in section titles. For example, Community Benefit should be Community benefit, Charity Programs should be Charity programs, etc.
  • The article requires categories.

I hope you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:Elizba/New article for earlier comments Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Vengeance (2009 film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it follows the producing and theatrical stages of the film. What is needed for this article is a full synopsis of the film.

Thanks, FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: First part of review. I have read the first sections of the article and have made some detailed comments, as listed below. The main weakness, as compared with other film articles, is the inadequacy of the Plot section.

  • Lead
    • Suggest link ensemble cast
    • The description "French" is meant to cover both Hallyday and Testud, but does not obviously do so. Is it possible to clarify this? I have tried a few rewordings, e.g. "...the French duo of musician Johnny Hallyday and actress Sylvie Testud..." but I don't know if that cuts the mustard.
    • The word "along" in the last line of first paragraph is unnecessary
    • "...and her family..." It's basically his family; how about "and the rest of his family..."?
    • "ARP co-founders and French producers Michèle and Laurent Pétin first came up with the idea of having Johnnie To produce an English-language film with actor Alain Delon in mind for the lead role." Shouldn't that be "direct" rather than "produce"? In any case this is a clumsily worded sentence which really needs completely rephrasing. I suggest: "The idea of Johnnie To directing an English-language film originated with the ARP co-founders and French producers Michèle and Laurent Pétin, who had Alain Delon in mind for the lead role."
    • Avoid "eventually" repeat in third line, second paragraph.
    • "...with the crew consisting mostly of a Hong Kong production team." This reads oddly. Don't "crew" and "production team" amount to the same thing? If so, why not say "with a crew mainly based in Hong Kong."?
    • "positive, critical reaction": I would make this "positive critical reception", without the comma (which you should drop even if you keep your original wording.
  • Plot: this very brief sketch does not amount to a summary of the plot. I would expect this to be expanded to around 400-500 words at least.
  • Cast and characters: Why is "George Fung" described as the film's protaganist, i.e. main character? From the very brief plot details this doesn't seem to be the case.
  • Production
    • First paragraph needs rewording. "...co-production, jointly produced" is saying the same thing twice. Later in the paragraph you go on to say that the film was "co-produced by Laurent and Michéle Pétin.", when you have just described it as a co-production of ARP and MilkyWay image.
    • "contributors to...", not "contributors of"
  • Development
    • "At the time" is a redundancy. In the same sentence, so is "already" and so is "such as"
    • Second paragraph, first sentence: Why "also", why "of sorts"? In fact, you could lose this whole first sentence.

Perhaps you would respond to these points. As I can't watch all my peer reviews, please ping my talkpage when you are ready for me to continue the review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Ásatrúarfélagið[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed my article about this neopagan group for peer review because I'd like to have feedback from people less close to the subject. I'm a member of the organization so a third party check for neutrality issues and navel-gazing would be most helpful. If you want any of the sources I used to write the article (some of them are in English or have English summaries) I may be able to help.

Thank you, Haukur (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review
  • IMO, this article is very close to WP:GA status, certainly not a stub any more.
  • I see many references are non-English. Specify the language of the reference. I could not check the RS value of references, due to the language barrier
    True enough. Still, four of the seven references in the bibliography are in English. One is in Icelandic, one is in German and one is in Swedish (with a summary in English). The minor sources are mostly newspaper articles in Icelandic. I'll see about identifying the language in each case. Haukur (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In certain places, I see bare reference links like http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?issId=189406&pageId=2477329&lang=en, http://www.asatru.is/PFD/vor_sidur_2tbl_2009.pdf : while others use {{cite web}}. I suggest use cite templates throughout for uniformity
    Agreed, I need to tidy this up.
  • "Pétur Pétursson. 1985. "Island" in Religiös förändring i Norden 1930-1980. Pp. 111-153. Page 147." why is p. 147 listed separately?
    Because the article as a whole is on pages 111-153 but the page with the relevant information is p. 147. What setup would you use?
Just state p. 147. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is Ásatrúarfélagið part of the Church? : "collect a share of the church tax." The priest wears a cross-like thing???
    Ah, glad you stumbled over that - some of this is so familiar to me that I forget to explain it. The cross-like pendant is a Mjöllnir symbol (actually, it's a copy of an old talisman the interpretation of which is not universally agreed upon - some think it actually was a Christian cross, others that it was a Thor's hammer, or perhaps that it was deliberately ambiguous). A better word for "church tax" might be "congregation tax", that corresponds more closely to the Icelandic word (sóknargjöld). Ásatrúarfélagið is not a part of the Church but you could regard it to a degree as a part of the state - there is a sort of integration of state and religion in Iceland.
  • "Ásatrúarfélagið (Icelandic The Ásatrú Association)": you mean to say that the literal translation of Ásatrúarfélagið is : "The Ásatrú Association", right? Instead I suggest: "Ásatrúarfélagið, (literally "The Ásatrú Association" in Icelandic), "
    That is indeed what I mean to say, let me think about how best to represent that. I also mean to add a sound file with a reading of the word.
  • "The pagan organization was formed on the First Day of Summer 1972" Calender date?
    Good point, I'll add it.
  • There is lot of jargon like allsherjargoði. To simplify that, I suggest: write the English of words in brackets: allsherjargoði (high priest). What is "Third Reic" ? "into goðorð, led by individual goðar"
    Yeah, maybe I should just switch to using "high priest" for allsherjargoði throughout - and maybe priest for "goði" as well - the Icelandic words can be included in brackets on first mention. That ought to make the article more readable.
If allsherjargoði is an important term, it must be stated at least once to tackle opposition from an expert. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Quotes need references. Tagged a few.
    I'll tidy up the references to those you tagged. I hope all others are adequately presented.
  • Too many blockquotes in "Beliefs and theology". Turn some into prose
    Hmm, maybe. I'll think about it - but I'm wary of WP:SYNTH.
See Wikipedia:Quotations too, When not to use quotations: the article (section) is beginning to look like Wikiquote. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Any specific deities "Ásatrúarfélagið"s worship? like Thor, Odin, Loki etc.
    Good point, another thing that seemed so obvious to me that I never mentioned it. Mostly Odin, Thor, Freyja, Freyr and the Earth. Not Loki. I should add a bit about this.
  • An image of a blot can be added in "Blót and other rituals"--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm working on obtaining some images from earlier times that should make a nice fit there.
An image of a painting of an original Norse Blót, may work.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That was a very helpful review in just the ways I was hoping for. Thank you very much indeed! Haukur (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the article, as I love to read about legend and religion. I have not checked the grammar as that is not my forte. Please ask someone else to check it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Computer Bismarck[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC) I recently expanded this article and would like an extra pair of eyes to catch mistakes I probably missed. Specifically in regard to the "Gameplay" section. I've never played the game and would appreciate it if someone who has gave it a look. I plan on nominating the article for DYK? very soon, and for GAN after the peer review. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, (Guyinblack25 talk 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, factually accurate and verifiable, generally well-written, stable, and neutral. I made a few minor proofing changes and copyedits, but I don't see much else to do. I have just a couple of suggestions or questions. I think it has a pretty good chance of making GA.

  • I altered this sentence because it had a weak "with" connector: "The game takes place on a map of the Atlantic Ocean on which letters from the English alphabet represent military units and facilities (airfields and ports)." After making my alteration, I thought maybe the sentence should say "Atlantic Ocean and some of its islands and coastlines" because airfields wouldn't be on the ocean itself. I leave this for you to decide.
  • One more image would be nice, possibly HMS Hood or one of the other British ships or even one of the British airplanes that helped sink the Bismarck. The image could perhaps go into one of the image-less lower sections.

I hope these few suggestions and minor tweaks prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edit. I've implemented some of the suggestions you made.
  • I didn't add the info about the "islands and coastlines" because I figured that sentence had enough detail already. Plus I think the image adequately conveys that. If you think the phrase would still benefit the sentence, then I won't object.
  • Wikilinked box art to Video game packaging#Box art.
  • Added mention of WWII.
  • Because the article focuses on the game, I felt any real photos from Last battle of the battleship Bismarck and the related articles should be kept to a minimum. Also, since the only section that discusses that content (Computer Bismarck#Synopsis) is so short, there isn't much room to place photos near the relevant text.
Thanks again for your help. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

2008 French Grand Prix[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have edited this article as part of Apterygial's Insane Idea userproject. The aim is to get this article to good article status. Fire away!

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 French Grand Prix/archive1.

Barryville–Shohola Bridge[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying for bridge Featured Article and I wanna have a good review. This got to GA in April and has been upgraded for good standards. Good review necessary :)

Thanks, Mitch/HC32 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: With an eye toward FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 13 FAs on Bridges at Category:FA-Class Bridge articles that seem like they would be good models. Some of the LOndon bridges have had multiple structures in one locatio and might be good models.
I disagree on this one, mind that 1) this isn't London, and 2) most of the Delaware River follow the same precedent.Mitch/HC32 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I know the difference between the Delaware River and the Thames ;-) . None of the Delaware River Bridges you are using as examples are FA, so not sure why you think they are better models to get this to FA. My point was that the London Bridge articles often deal with multiple structures at the same location over time, as this article does too. My assumption is that you can look at the relevant part of the article that is a model, and ignore the London aspects. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The hardest criteria for most articles to meet in FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This needs polish - there is a sentence fragment in the second paragraph of the lead, for example: In that disaster, the bridge was That year, the bridge collapsed during a windstorm, killing a man and a woman crossing the bridge.
Done (The fragment).Mitch/HC32 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Or two sentences chosen at random The bridge had an average daily traffic rate about 1,635 people a year who used the bridge between Barryville and Shohola in a 2004 study. The bridge, according to the United States Department of Transportation, it would cost about $5,628,000 (2006 USD).[2] The first sentence might read better as something like The bridge had an average daily traffic rate of 1,635 people in 2004. (is it a daily traffic number or a yearly one? Avoid repeating information already known like the communities at the ends). To be honest,I am not sure what the second sentence means - is it the replacement cost of a new bridge? If so then something like Replacing the fourth bridge, according to the United States Department of Transportation, would cost about $5,628,000 (2006 USD).[2] There are many more problem sentences - try printing this out and reading it out loud.
Done for the above comments. And as for a thing in whole, I find it easier to have everything listed because what sounds right to me sounds off to everyone else.Mitch/HC32 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to do that here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Seven sources seems very sparse for a FA. I googled the name of this article and found this column on the fourth bridge from a weekly newspaper's website. My guess is that there must be other sources out there - histories of Pike and Sullivan Counties for example. I checked my copy of "Indian Paths of Pennsylvania" and the Shohola Path is not in it, unfortunately.
You know that source is very unbeneficial - as it describes more of one person's life with the bridge?Mitch/HC32 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My point was I did a Google search on the article name and the top hit was this. It is mostly reminiscence true, but it mentions the condition of the fourth bridge in the 1950s and 1960s, a flood, who used the bridge (tourist trade, locals). It is not an engineering report, but there are useful nuggets if you read it carefully (and as a newspaper it is a reliable source). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would have the lead be in three paragraphs per WP:LEAD. I would also list the history of the bridges there in chronological order. It is easier for most readers to follow things from first to last (not reverse) and it is the way the article is written.
Done.Mitch/HC32 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not think the word "incarnation" is useful when referring to a bridge.
Done.Mitch/HC32 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to get a picture of the new 5th bridge from the side? The current photos do not really show the structure supporting the roadway.
All copyrighted stuff, even on Flickr.Mitch/HC32 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Watch POV language like "unfortunately" in Unfortunately, a common occurrence in the Upper Delaware River Valley were the strong windstorms.
Done.Mitch/HC32 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Also watch out for use of words like currently - it is better to either add something like "as of 2009" or "since the bridge's in 2007"
  • The {{inflation}} template might be useful for some of the prices.
I can't work, and I've tried. :( - Mitch/HC32 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I added one that works as a model Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Clara Elsene Peck[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I worked this article up to what I feel is a decent Wikipedia quality and would eventually like to see it get a GA rating. Any input and improvements to the article happily appreciated.--Scott Free (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely ignorant about this topic and once I clicked the link, figured I might as well give you some comments. As I looked further, though, I noticed a sourcing problem: the two sentences in the 'early life' section are essentially the same as those on the website http://www.ortakales.com/illustrators/Peck.html (note 1). If you are the maintainer of that site, then you need to properly document the GFDL release of the text; if you are not the maintainer, then you need to substantively reword the statements.

My two main sources are '200 years of American Illustration' and 'The Illustrator in America' - I reworded the first sentence, but I kept the Ortakales info, because it has bits of info that aren't in my main sources. They seem reliable.

In any case, the website does not look like a reliable source - particularly for the quote attributed to Peck. fixed CEP quote

Since the site gives what look like good book references, you'd avoid these problems and get more material for your article by tracking those down instead of trying to cite this potentially unreliable web intermediary.

An additional, minor point about citations - in the illustration section, the magazine examples given in the references support the statement that she illustrated for those magazines, but not necessarily that she 'specialized' in particular types of illustration.

I reworked this, sticking closer to sources.

On other points, the lead would be much improved with the addition of a general time period, for those who do not recognize the other names mentioned (I'm sure I'm not the only one who mentally blocks out infoboxes). Something like 'early twentieth century illustrator who later worked on....' would be sufficient.

I put in some stuff on this.

Wikilinks or additional information on her comic book work would be very helpful. A bit more was added.

The list of illustrations is, well, listy, and doesn't communicate (to the ignorant, at least) the importance of the works or of the style they reflected. This has been moved around

Adding a section on critical reception, either of Peck's work in particular or of her style/format in general, would help establish context, as would an explanation of how and when women illustrators became involved in comic books. Added some stuff on this

Lastly, there's a rather large image:text ratio in this article considering that some of the images are non-free, and in addition, some of them have bad or incomplete tags. For example, File:CEP-Aspen.jpg says public domain, but lists its date of publication as 1947;.

template glitch, fixed

I'm not convinced 'old ebay auction' qualifies as a valid source even for a public-domain image, much less a non-free one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, OR, much appreciated. All good points. I'll make sure to address them where possible; I have access to most of the necessary references or at least am aware of other relevant sources. --Scott Free (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Link Light Rail[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for months and would like to see it achieve GA status. I would love to know if there's anything else that can be done to make it better.

Thanks, Alexseattle (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and generally well-written. It seems factually accurate and verifiable. It's certainly broad in coverage, neutral, and stable. Two images licenses are suspect, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

  • The disambiguation links tool finds a half-dozen suspicious links in the article such as Beacon Hill. You can run this tool on any article to check the dabs. The tool lives here.
  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead can almost do that, but I'd recommend expanding it a bit to include something about the rolling stock, the Tacoma Link extensions, and a few more details. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the text sections.

Images

  • Image:Light Rail Train Testing.jpg is licensed as cc-sa-by-2.5, but when I check the source page at Flickr, the photographer has reserved all rights. It's likely that the uploader, who is not the photographer, didn't realize that not all Flickr photos have Creative Commons licenses. Unless you can convince the photographer to re-license it for free use, it can't be used legally on Wikipedia.
  • Image:Taclinkdome.JPG also has a license problem in that it doesn't clearly identify the source. It's not clear that the uploader is the same person as the photographer, and 57 kb is awfully small for a self-taken photo. So where does the image come from? How can a fact-checker be certain that it does not violate copyright?
  • If you have a digital camera or can borrow one, and if you live in or near Seattle, you can probably replace the two problem images with your own, quite possibly better, images.
  • WP:MOSNUM#Chronological items says, "12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm, which are spaced (2:30 p.m. or 2:30 pm, not 2:30p.m. or 2:30pm). A hard space (see above) is advisable: 2:30 pm." The Headway chart should be revised accordingly.
  • The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short paragraphs or sections. The solutions are to expand or merge. For example, the first paragraph of the existing "Headways" section is only one sentence long. It could easily be merged with the paragraph below it. For another example, the "Tacoma Link" subsection consists of a single sentence. It could be combined with "Central Link", and the head could be changed to "Fares".
  • MOS:HEAD says in part, "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." Thus, you need to find a way to avoid repeating "Tacoma Link" and "Central Link" in the subheads and to generally make the heads and subheads as distinct from one another as possible.
  • In the "Current Lines" section, you have quite a few quantities that are expressed in imperial units. MOS:CONVERSIONS says to convert these to metric as well. Thus, "Construction is under way on a new 14-mile Central Link light rail line" should say, "Construction is under way on a new 14-mile (23 km) Central Link light rail line". I like to use the {{convert}} template to do the math and the preferred spellings and abbreviations. The adj=on parameter is the one that adds the hyphen, where needed. Alternatively, you can do the conversions with a calculator and enter everything by hand.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


University Village, New York[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is rather comprehensive and covers an interesting topic.

Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some prominent redlinks here - sounds like Nesjar deserves a stub of his own, and betograve definitely needs either an article or an appositive description. (Googling it turns up mostly results pertaining to this same scuplture.) Do you know how Sylvette Davis was chosen as the model, if she had any particular relationship to NYU, etc.?
I added things on Sylvette, but I don't know enough about Nesjar or sculpting to write an article, maybe at some point down the road though.
Why did one tower become a co-op (still owned by NYU, it sounds like)? Was there some reason NYU as a landlord needed to place units into the Mitchell-Lama program?
Done
Similar question; why did the landmark designation - which seems to have encompassed a smaller area than was requested - prevent the construction of a fourth tower? You could also add more information about the specifics of the preservation group's argument in favor of preserving the larger area, and/or NYU's arguments in opposition, if applicable.
Done Nothing really interesting on their reasons.
If grad students live there, they have almost certainly complained about it in some public forum. Is there any information on the towers' current place in the NYU community?
It seems well liked, but I couldn't find any news on it. I think there was a murder in the building in the 70s, but that isn't really notable.
Footnote 12's title refers to the towers as 'controversial, but it's only used to reference a statement about apartment size. I don't have access to that old of an article from here, but information about controversy that existed when the towers were built would be a good addition to the article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that was more newspaper embellishment, there might have been some opposition, but it doesn't seem to have been significant.
Thanks for the comments. MBisanz talk 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Steel's in Town[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it nominated for FA. I am not sure what needs to be included or improved to the article in order to get it promoted, so any advice would be useful.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, but I doubt that it's comprehensive, and its only image is about to be deleted. These two problems alone make the idea of FA seem remote at the moment. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead image is tagged for removal on or after today (14 July 2009) on grounds that the license claim is unsupported. You'll either need to address the license question or find one or more new images.
  • Since the material is so thin here, I wonder if it would be possible to add a "Biography" section with information about Mark Steel. What else has he done? How old is he? Where does he live? How did he land a spot on BBC Radio 4? Is he involved in projects other than this particular show?
  • A bit of background for non-UK readers might be helpful. Where are these towns? What is their distance from London? How big are they exactly? Would it be possible to include a map?
  • Are more shows planned? If so, when and where?

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


North by North Quahog[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC. I just finished working on it, and I have decided not to take it to GAn, but directly to FAC. However, I would like to have some feedback first. Also, if anybody owns the DVD set, audio commentary might be helpful to expand the production section. If anybody can find some more negative reviews of the episode, that would be great too, since the final paragraph of the Reception section kinda sucks.

Thanks, --Music26/11 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


If you can find him, contact User:Qst, as he worked on the article.Mitch/HC32 12:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
He did some nice cleaning up and a little expansion before I started working on the article, but he has retired since, just read the note on his talk page. Thanks for the advice though.--Music26/11 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems good except for quite a few minor proofreading errors, typos, and prose glitches. I fixed a dozen or small things and added some no-break codes to hold digits and units together on line-break. Below is a list of other suggestions or questions, none of which will be complicated to deal with. You might want to do another proofreading sweep to hunt for things I might have missed.

Lead

  • "though it had premiered three days earlier at a special screening in the grounds of the University of Vermont, Burlington." - "at" rather than "in the grounds of"?
  • "The episode also contained a large amount of cultural references" - "many" rather than "a large amount of"? Also, shouldn't you stick with present tense, "contains"?
  • "Critics reacted mostly positive to the episode... " - "positively", not "positive"?
  • "Directing in an Animated Television Production" - Lowercase?

Plot

  • "However, when they leave hotel, however, they are spotted by two priests... " - Delete one of the "however"s.

Production

  • "2.2 million copies of the DVD set were sold" - The Manual of Style says to avoid starting a sentence with digits. Maybe recasting as "Sales of the DVD set reached 2.2 million copies... " would solve the problem.
  • "the DVD set became the number 1 selling television DVD of 2003[7] and the second most-selling television DVD... " - "highest-selling rather than "most-selling"?
  • "accompanied with an hour-long Q&A with MacFarlane" - Perhaps "questions-and-answers session"?

Cultural references

  • "The fictional sequel is a combination between... " - "of" rather than "between"?
  • "The episode contained a number of other cultural references; Pinocchio appears in a cutaway gag, in which Gepetto tells Pinocchio to "go ahead and tell lies", and attempts to have sex with him.[31][11]" - The preferred order is ascending; i.e., [11][31]. Ditto for any other places in the article with multiple refs side-by-side.
  • "actually hits his wife, something he would usually only threathen with" - "threaten to do" rather than "threathen with"?

Reception

  • "The episode was led in by the 350th episode of The Simpsons... " - "was preceded" rather than "was led in"?

Images

  • The license for the lead image has a problem. The source link is circular; it simply shows the image. The fix for this is to provide a source link that goes to the site and page the image came from at FOX. That way, a fact-checker will able to verify the source to make sure the information is accurate. This verification process is a facet of WP:V.
  • The Gibson image license looks fine.

Dabs

  • The disambiguation tool, which lives here, found several disambiguation problems in the article. If you run the checker on the article, you will see where they are.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Skunk Anansie discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated for FL status but was not successful. After taking all pointers made into account I would like to please renominate but make a peer review first.

Thanks, Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you have worked hard to incorporate the suggestions of the failed FL. I wish you'd have another look at the text; portions might be written more clearly. I had a go at one or 2 places. There seems to be no reason why Album names are italic and singles names aren't. I fear I've ventured into a content area where I am extremely stupid, but I enjoyed discovering a little about this band and its output. THanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: As far as I can tell, this is fine with the exception of a few fairly minor problems. I fixed one misspelling and changed one number from a word to digits for consistency. I hasten to add that I have never written a music article, and I'm not an expert on how the charts are to be done or exactly what's expected.

  • Noticing User:Nemonoman's comment about italics, I will confirm that album names should be in italics and singles' names in double quotes, and I believe you've got them right. This follows the general pattern of small things like short stories in quotes and big things like novels in italics. WP:MOS#Italics has a list of which gets which.
  • Should IFPI be spelled out as well as abbreviated in the lead?
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For internet sources, it's best to add author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date or as many of those as possible. For example, citation 1 lacks the date of publication, which is given as 20 September 2008 by the source. Citation 2, which cites a book, could include the publisher, Cidermill Books, and the place of publication, San Jose, Calif. It takes a while to hunt this stuff down, but the idea is to make it easy for fact-checkers and researchers to find the material. I find it very handy sometimes to look at other people's sources before spending a lot of time starting from scratch. In other words, you are doing a service by producing a bibliography.
  • <