Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2011

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

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


Contents

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… considering how the last FAC nomination went and the summary execution, I'm curious to know how else I could improve this article.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Cool (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to nominate this article in the future to be a FA. It used to be one, but it was delisted. The article has the Category:Article Feedback Pilot and according to 4 people as today, the article is trustworthy and objetive, but is incomplete and is not very well-written. So I'd like to know what would improve it before I search its brown star. Thanks. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

  • Lead
    • "released to the United States radio" - "The United States radio" is a bit vague; can you be a bit more specific?
    • Problems with this sentence: "It was originally written by Austin basing himself on No Doubt's "Simple Kind of Life", but he did not finish the song." First, what do you mean by "basing himself"? Then, if he didn't finish the song, can you really say "It was originally written by Austin"?
    • "'80s" too informal. Write "1980s"
    • "in countries such as" is a non-encyclopedic formulation. Just name the countries: "in Denmark, Ireland, Norway..." etc
    • "flashbacks of when" → "flashbacks to when"
    • "..., and nowadays, both are "cool" about their friendship." "Nowadays" is inspecific and unsuitable; the statement that "both are 'cool' about their friendship" needs to be rewritten in more formal, encyclopedic language.
  • Writing and composition
    • "trying to do his version" → "trying to write his version"
    • "The lyrics "Cool" sums up the evolution..." Not grammatical. Perhaps "The lyrics of "Cool" sum up..."
    • "the synthesizer is lowered" Can you explain more precisely what this means?
      • I didn't write the article at first, so I don't have idea what exactly means. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "sotto voce", not "sotto voice". The sentence construction needs to change: "after which she sings more softly, almost sotto voce..."
    • The Commercial sheet music (ref. 6) appears to have been widely used in the writing of this section. Have you checked to ensure against close paraphrasing of the original wording?
  • Critical reception
    • "...while Stephen Thomas Erlewine from Allmusic wrote that the "high school anthem-in-waiting";" Some words seem missing here; the phrase is incomplete as written. Or perhaps "called it" in place of "wrote that"?
    • "While Eric Greenwood for Drawer B wrote about the song it is 'a retrofitted [song] with stale synths and chugging guitars' with 'dorkier lyrics than even Cyndi Lauper would dare';[12]" This doesn't work, as written. The "while" at the beginning doesn't lead anywhere; "wrote about the song it is 'a retrofitted [song]..." doesn't make sense. The whole sentence needs to be rethought.
    • There is a lot of direct quotation in this section. Some of these comments could be paraphrased into your own prose.
  • Chart performance
    • "Next week it raised to number sixty-four" → "Next week it rose to number sixty-four"
    • "within the next eight weeks it reached its peak position at number thirteen on September 3, 2005" You don't need "within the next eight weeks" when you have the exact date.
    • "moderately received" → "performed moderately"?
    • ""Cool" inaugurated the chart entering to it at number twelve" How did "Cool" inaugurate the chart? The word "to" in this phrase is redundant.
      • Because it inaugurated the chart, it was the twelfth song on the Czech chart when this was created. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "achieving to reach its peak position of number ten" The words "to reach" are redundant
    • "soaring to" is inappropriate language in a neutral encyclopedia.
    • Generally in this section, the language is over-repetitive. The word "debuted" occurs nine times, and "peak" or "peaked" occur eight times. Some variation of expression would be good. I also think you would do well to keep to the WP convention of writing numbers greater tan 10 numerically.
      • WP:NUMBERS: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words" not that they must be written out. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • In a previous FAC someone commented me that a section was "very verbouse", so it has nonsense to search many synonyms and then have those comments. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Music video and promotion
    • Overlinking: brunette
    • "modern day" → "present day"
    • 2nd paragraph: ""Cool" premiered on MTV's top ten chart program..." You need to clarify that this refers to the video.
  • Charts section: The "Chart procession and succession" information doesn't seem to justify a separate table.
  • References: some of the retrieval dates are 5 or 6 years old. It might be a good idea to check these out.
    • I checked them when I cleaned-up the article, so that's why they still here. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope these points are useful. As I am unable to watch individual peer review pages, please ping my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues with me, or if you want me to look at the article again. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Brian. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for a while and I'd like some feedback; hopefully it can become a Good Article eventually. I have neglected the grammar section somewhat, so treat it as a work in progress.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I will take a look at the article through the lens of the GA Criteria. Keep in mind that I am not a linguist so I can't speak to the details of the content. I will look at the writing with the understanding that the grammar of the article is a work in progress. This is a massive article so it will take some time to go through.

Lead

  • See WP:LEAD for lead requirements. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with all the points in the body of the article summarized. I would expect to see a 3 to 4 paragraph lead for an article of this length. The lead will need to be expanded to meet this requirement of the Manual of Style.
done Mo-Al (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there a Free Use image that can be put into the lead? Perhaps one of the images in the body of the article. This helps catch the eye of the reader.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Abbreviations like VSO need to be spelled out initially. Linking isn't enough, spelling them out with the abbreviation in parentheses is important.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's something that seems ticky tack but could be brought up at GA candidacy, and will certainly be brought up at FA candidacy (if you choose to go that far; you need to add non breaking spaces to every date follwed by BCE/CE. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Non-breaking spaces for reasons why. Given the size of this article it will take some work but if you have high aspirations for this article you will need to do it at some point.
done Mo-Al (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

  • Regarding Biblical references you're going to need to spell out the first use of the specific book. We can't expect novice readers to know that Is 19:18 is Isaiah 19:18, or that 2 Kgs is 2 Kings. This isn't a hard and fast rule but I think we need to be sensitive to those readers who are not readily familiar with abbreviations of Biblical books.
done Mo-Al (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think references to Medieval need to be capitalized. Check me on this but I know it's a proper noun.
'Capitalization. "Middle Ages" is capitalized, but "medieval" is not.' see [1] Mo-Al (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Your writing in this section, especially the last paragraph, is very vague. Use of terms like "may" and "sometimes" gives the sense that either there is more to the story or there is a scholarly debate on the issue or you as the editor aren't confident in the information. If it is either of the first two then the issues should be spelled out in summary style here. If it is the last issue then the information should be confirmed or removed.
done Mo-Al (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The image in this section refers to Apiru Hieroglyphs yet in the section there is no reference to Apiru. There is Ḫapiru, is this the same thing? If so I'd change Apiru into Ḫapiru in the image.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

History

  • One sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Consider expanding or combining with other paras.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Watch duplicative linking. See WP:LINK for thoughts on linking. Link a word or term once in the lead and once, perhaps twice in an article, that's fine. You link Tiberian vocalization twice in two successive sections. I removed the link in this section. Look out for this throughout the article.
  • Consider explaining some of the more technical linguistic terms. Some of the writing thus far relies on jargon, which is to be avoided when possible. Defining terms like "consonantal" and "cantillation" will help the non-experts (like myself) who read the article.
  • Here is a prose issue: "The Biblical Hebrew language evolved into Roman Era Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew, which was influenced by Greek, Persian and Aramaic, which was the Lingua franca of the area at the time." Two "which"es is not good prose as it creates a sentence with two subjects. Consider ending the sentence after "Aramaic". The portion about lingua franca needs to be better defined. What was the lingua franca of the time? The context of the sentence isn't clear, is it Aramaic, Greek or Persian? I thought Latin was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, though again I'm no expert here.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "...even though Modern Hebrew would have been unintelligible to Biblical Hebrew speakers." This isn't really a necessary piece of information.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Your history deals focuses solely on Judah, what about Israel and the Assyrian exile? Did this play a part in the history? Is there archeological evidence of Biblical Hebrew in the old Assyrian empire?
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Classification

  • Consider using {{main}} and {{see also}} templates to direct readers to more thorough articles on the various sections in your article.
doneMo-Al (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't say much more here as the section is pretty technical. You may want to seek review comments on the more technical portions of the article from the Language WikiProject. Someone there would be better able to wade through the information and give you good feedback on your writing, clarity, and comprehensiveness.

Era

  • Another one-sentence paragraph please expand or combine.
done Mo-Al (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You need a close parentheses in the second paragraph.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is "Writings" capitalized in the second paragraph?
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Watch out for redundant information. You date Archaic Biblical Hebrew twice in this section, once is sufficient.
done Mo-Al (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for consistency in your useage of BC vs BCE, I found a BC in the third paragraph in this section.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You linked artifacts to documents. It isn't necessary to link words in common English usage. If artifacts refers to something specific that has an article in WP, then link to that specific article. I removed the link.
  • There is a prose issue with this sentence, "The oldest known artifacts of Archaic Biblical Hebrew are various biblical accounts from the Hebrew Bible Tanakh, including the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5)." "...various biblical accounts from the Hebrew Bible..." Duplicative wording, remove the first biblical and you're good to go.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You discuss both Archaic Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew in some detail but leave out Standard Biblical Hebrew. Is there a reason for this?
done Mo-Al (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph in this section should be better sourced.

Dialects

  • Another one-sentence paragraph.
done Mo-Al (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sourcing towards the end of this section is also light and should be augmented.
done Mo-Al (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Formatting of in-line citation 34 is not right, I'm not sure what is wrong but the bracket seems misplaced.
  • When talking about Northern and Southern dialects make sure to identify what you're talking about, in that I think you're referring to the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah). For clarity sake it would be good to specify that in this section.
done Mo-Al (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Orthography

  • See WP:LIST. Embedded lists within an article are ok as long as they are used very sparingly. I count 7 lists (including the list in the Syntax subsection) in this article. Check out the Manual of Style (MOS) on this subject and see if you can trim down the number of lists in the article.
  • The list in this section has a column called "Phonetic Value (Tiberian)", which is blank. Does it need to be included? If so what is its purpose? Same question for the Samaritan column.
done. But the Samaritan column is not blank; it contains the letters in the Samaritan Hebrew alphabet. Mo-Al (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Measurements should be in both metric and imperial forms (cm and inch). You can use the {{convert}} template if you like.
done Mo-Al (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Israelite tribes who settled in the land of Israel adopted the Phoenician script script..." Two "scripts" in a row.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "a curving to the left of the dowstrokes in the 'long-legged' letter-signs... the consistent use of a Waw with a concave top[, and a] x-shaped Taw." The brakets seems misplaced in this quote.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Watch for consistency with capitalizing the various words for Bible. Sometimes they're capitalized other times they're not. They should all be capitalized.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This section seems quite long, can some of the information be summarized or split off into a separate article?
done Mo-Al (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Right around in-line citation 60 the formatting becomes garbled. Lines are broken, spacing is off, Hebrew symbols are floating with no connection to the sentence. I'm sure this has to do with the large use of Hebrew characters. This could be my browser and if it is then so be it, but you may want to take a look at this portion of the section.
  • There's another one sentence paragraph in this section.
done Mo-Al (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You link Samson in this section, which leads to the article on the Hebrew Judge, which doesn't seem to fit in the context of the section.
done Mo-Al (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Cantillation is linked here but not linked earlier. The first mention of the term should be linked and other times the term is used should not be linked.

Phonology

  • Use colors carefully in articles. Per WP:ACCESS we need to consider our color blind readers who may not be able to differentiate between colors.
  • Can any of these short paragraphs be combined? The flow seems choppy and inconsistent with the rest of the article. I can't speak to the content so I don't know if they can.
  • I see a [citation needed] template in the Vowels subsection, this needs to be addressed.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

  • In-line citation 137 is listed twice in a row, why?
  • There's a paragraph in this section with no citations, I've added a [citation needed] template to identify it.
done Mo-Al (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This section and the Phonology section could use expert review for content and flow. I'm just not qualified to speak on those terms.
  • Watch placement of in-line citations. Try to put them at the end of the sentences wherever possible. See "The plain, jussive, and cohortative verb prefix-endings were distinguished by short vowels before ca. 1350 BCE;[142] in Biblical Hebrew traces are left." as an example.
done Mo-Al (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

References

  • Consistency is critical in your citations. I see a few times in the Notes section where you have the reference (Blau 2010:81-83) and then other places it says "see" (Blau 2010:81-83). Either use the word "see" all the time or none of the time.
  • Note 18 in the Notes section has a [citation needed] template, this should be fixed.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that each note should have a references. That's up for debate but if I were reviewing this for GA or FA I would question why most do but some don't?
  • Consistency is broken in Ref 5, it seems like a note to me.
done Mo-Al (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of refs (43, 46 and 155) are just hyperlinks. Any reference to a website should include publisher, title and accessdate. Use {{cite web}} as a good template.
done Mo-Al (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 53 seems like a note.
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 83 "Dolgopolsky" is misspelled. Why is it not linked here or in Ref 84, or 24?
done Mo-Al (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 121 seems to be a note as well.
done Mo-Al (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Refs 149-153 break consistency as well. Why are they formatted differently from the rest?
done Mo-Al (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 154 is missing page number.
done Mo-Al (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Page numbers in the Bibliography section don't seem to fit as the specific page number references are in the References section. Also several books are missing ISBN numbers. This should be rectified.

Overall

  • This article is very comprehensive and well done. It is scholarly and covers a very important topic.
  • Make sure you are not plagiarizing portions of your sources. I have no evidence of this I'm just including it as a good point for all editors to keep in mind.
  • Consider what's been said above and not all of what I've said needs to be done for the article to pass GA. But the article does need work before it meets the GA Criteria.
  • This concludes my review, please contact me on my talk page if you have specific questions as I do not watch review pages. Best of luck. Shalom. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Finnish parliamentary election, 2011[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the most comprehensive election articles of any non-english speakiing country on wikipedia. its very extensive in its background, campagning issues (which usually lags, but not with this), and the post-election results, reaction, aftermath. i think this is as comprehensive an article were gonna get on the subject (in fact evern better than the finnish article)

Thanks, Lihaas (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: It looks impressively informative. I'll do my best, but the article's length means review by instalments, I'm afraid. First comments in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

cool, thanks.Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

First comments: I've had a chance to look over the article. Here are a few impressions:-

Lead

The lead section is a little confusing to readers who are not familiar with Finnish politics, which probably means the great majority of readers on English Wikipedia. The lead should offer a broad summary of the whole article, rather than pitching in straight away with detailed percentages and other figures. For example, it would be useful to know the context of the election. Why was it called? How many seats did the ruling coalition have in the outgoing government? Which were the main opposition parties? What were the principal issues in the campaign? Having clarified these points you should summarize the outcome of the election in broad terms; the detailed figures of seats won and loss between the parties can be given later. What we need in the lead is, I emphasise, summary information that puts us in the general picture.

Organisation
  • The organisation at the top of the article is, well, messy. We have an enormous infox vying for space with the electoral districts map, with the "Politics of Finland" template tucked in, too. I appreciate the necessity of this information, but had you considered an alternative positioning for the map? It could, for example, appear at the end of the article rather than the beginning; that would stop the text from being crowded out. Likewise, the "Retiring incumbents" section and table is very intrusively placed at present, and could easily appear as an appendix at the end.
  • Another organisational problem is that you have a main section entitled "Parties" which contains a subsection also called "Parties".
  • There seems to be rather too much detailed information on peripheral issues, such as the party conferences. To keep the focus of this article on the election itself, I think much of this information could be trimmed.
  • I also think that the information on the parties should be given before the campaign information.

I will add more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Made some changes to the lead and organisation (moved the Finland politics template lower and cut the result parties from the main infobox). The 2 sections mentioned above ahve been renamed, though the content of the camopaign wasnt cahnged as int he past we had an iassue abot it being pov to mention just some parties (the TF being the notable one which was accused of giving WP:UNDUE weight to their issues.) Is it better now?
Also per party info before the campaign section, its generally following format on other election articles. but per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS we can change that. the overarching party bit is first, only the detailed election specific issues follows as a subsection of campaign.Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Just dropping off a quick comment prior to reading the article. I have to mirror Brian's comments on the lead, as I find it to be a bit short in length and confusing, especially when in comparison to the size of the article. When you remove the large photograph, you'll barely have two paragraphs there. Not only for its size, but I don't feel its content fully surmises the content of the article's main points. Additionally, there are several small and choppy sentences, that are only tell-tale signs of weak prose. I would advice to enlarge and detail the lead some more, and expand and remove the small and choppy sentences such as "All 200 seats of the parliament were open for election." "Total turnout rose to 70.5% from 67.9% in the previous election." "Corruption scandals also resulted in an anti-incumbency vote." "Incumbent Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen was then tasked to form a new government." Hope this helps.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 22:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

too short? he said its too long. so i shortened and clarified some things. What should it add? The calling of relection, main issues, and results? (also the main parties). will remove/reword those sentences though.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
merged or cut sentences but not usre what else to add. perhaps update government formation?Lihaas (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Also done now, althoguh peerreview automated tool says its too long. but human oversight is better (no?).Lihaas (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: Per your request I've looked at the article again. You have taken some steps to remove the clutter of boxes and images in the article, but at the same time you have created some fresh problems. For example, in its present form the infobox is almost completely useless. The purpose of the box is to encapsualte the election as a whole, but in its present form it only shows three parties, who together won 125 out of 200 seats, with no indication of what happened to the other 75 seats. It makes no mention of the dozen or so other parties who fought the election. Why do you need the infobox photographs? Why do you need "leader since..." information? Since all the details of votes and percentages are contained in the body of the article, all you need in the infobox is the date of the election and a listing of the parties that won seats, with their numbers of seats and a plus/minus figure gains and losses. That way you'll save a lot of duplication of facts and figures.

I still think a basic fault in the article is too much detailed information. For example, all that opinion poll data could be summarised in a paragraph of prose. Far too much reaction information. The "government formation" details probably belong in a different article, and should have no more than a brief summary here. An encyclopedia article should be in summary form; it isn't supposed to contain every detail on its topic. This article contains over 9,000 words, not counting the information contained in tables. Half that length could probably do adequate justice to the topic. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Both govt formation and polls split off with summation here. Per infobox someone said to cut down the clutter so i put the main parties. NO qualms with adding all. Its per WP projects elections that we add these in. though remving "leader since" is plausible.Lihaas (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gerard (archbishop of York)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this article to FAC at some point, and am looking for comments pertaining to prose, polish, comprehensiveness, and the ability of it to be understood by non-specialists.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I always find your articles interesting even though I come at them with next to no background (except what I've gleaned from reading your other work). Here are a few thoughts and suggestions.

  • The dab checker sees a couple of dabs.
  • I'm not sure about this, but should "archbishop" in the title be "Archibishop" with a big "A"? It seems to me that it would be parallel to titles like "Walkelin, Bishop of Winchester" that appear in the main text of the article.
  • I'd consider moving File:Death of William Rufus.JPG down also so that all of it is in the "Archbishop" section rather than overlapping two sections. Also, would it be better positioned on the right so that the horse looks into the page instead of out?

Lead

  • "... Gerard worked towards securing a compromise between the claims of the king and the claims of Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, which was finally agreed in 1107." - Would "agreed to" or "achieved" be better than "agreed"?

Early life and chancellor

  • The terms "early life" and "chancellor" aren't quite parallel. Would just "Early life" be better?

Bishop of Hereford

  • "... a diplomatic mission to Pope Urban II regarding Archbishop Anselm... " - Would it be helpful to mention here that Anselm was Archbishop of Canterbury? This is explained in the lead, but it might not hurt to repeat it here in the main text.
  • "Rufus offered to recognise Urban as pope rather than Antipope Clement III in return for delivering Anselm's pallium... " - Could "antipope" be briefly explained, perhaps in a note, since it would awkward to link it here? Generally, what is the meaning of "antipope"?
  • "He may have been present with the hunting party in the New Forest on the day of Rufus' death... " - Although the image shows the king with an arrow in his chest, the text doesn't say how William II died. Would it be helpful to add a bit about this? Was it an accident? An assassination?

Archbishop

  • "Gerard had also secured from the pope a recognition that York was the metropolitan see for the Scots." - Would it be helpful to link "metropolitan see" to Metropolitan bishop? "Metropolitan" in contemporary use refers to a city, but Scotland is not a city, hence the term might seem a bit puzzling.
  • "Gerard attempted to reform his cathedral clergy by forcing them to give up their wives and concubines, and become ordained priests." - Contemporary readers might find this statement surprising. Would it be helpful to provide a bit of background, perhaps in a note? Were many of the clergy not priests? If not priests, then what were they called? Was it common to avoid becoming a priest in order to avoid a vow of celibacy?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


Anna of East Anglia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to make sure that there's nothing glaringly obvious that I've missed out, and although I feel the article is close to FA status, or even there, I'd like some feedback before it's nominated, particularly with how accessible it is to someone less familiar with the topic, and how much more background information should be supplied.

Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Protein moonlighting[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so eventually it will become a featured article.

Thanks, Swmmr1928 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  • There are two links that lead to disambiguation pages: moonlighting and cell structure. There does not appear to be an alternate page for either of these. The cell structure page does briefly define cell structure but the moonlighting page appears to be better defined on this page so would suggest removing that link or creating a stub page for it.
  • Fixed dictionary link provided for moonlighting (see below).
  • "moonlighting proteins are of particular interest in protein engineering, the study of proteins," Surely the study of proteins is proteomics? I'm not entirely sure that protein engineering and the study of proteins are treated synonymously in this sentence, but if they are not supposed to be then this is unclear.
  • Fixed This statement has been deleted from the article since we cannot find a reliable source to support it.
  • "Some examples of functions of protein..." if this is about moonlighting proteins then that should be mentioned, and if it is about proteins in general then presumabely it is irrelevant.
  • Fixed
  • Should link to evolution
  • Fixed
  • Active site does not need to be linked to twice on the same line
  • Fixed
  • Junk DNA should probably not be mentioned in such a definitive way as it is a pretty outdated concept
  • Fixed
  • Of the well documented examples of moonlighting proteins causing disease, there is only one example provided and it is without citation
Italienmoose (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented these very good suggestions. Sorry, I am new to this review process. What happens next? I want more suggestions to improve the article and try to go for a good article nomination :) Swmmr1928 talk 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to think of more suggestions when I have time. I haven't done much editing on here for a while so I'm a bit behind on protocol but presumabely just keep reviewing it and then try to get it nominated. This seems to be an interesting topic so I'll keep a watch on the article page for a while. Italienmoose (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Great Swmmr1928 talk 23:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Glad to see there are some comments here already. Thanks for your work on this and here are some more suggestions for improvement, with an eye to WP:FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 26 WP:FAs in Category:FA-Class MCB articles, some of which should be good models for this article.
  • The article could use some images - I would look at the proteins listed. Aconitase has a decent image at File:7ACN.jpg, for example. It should at least have one image in the lead if at all possible.
  • Fixed Per your suggestion, I have added the aconitase figure and I have added an appropriate graphic to the lead.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • Fixed The lead has been expanded to provide a more complete summary of the article. We need to add a section protein engineering however since it is mentioned in the lead but no where else. The relationship of moonlighting proteins to protein engineering has been removed since no reliable source can be found to support this statement.
  • The current lead is only one paragraph and seems like it is not a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of techniques or mass spec. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Fixed lead has been expanded significantly and all sections of the article are now mentioned in the lead including techniques
  • For the remaining disambiguation link, perhaps link to the wiktionary entry? So the code [[wikt:moonlight#verb|moonlighting]] looks like this in the article: moonlighting
  • Fixed
  • Article needs more references, for example the second and third paragraphs of Techniques used to determine function have no refs, and there are citation needed tags in the article too.
  • Fixed
  • 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
  • References that are there are oddly punctuated - shouldn't Jeffery CJ be Jeffery, C.J.? Or why not punctuate Gancedo C, Flores CL as Gancedo, C.; Flores, C.L.?
  • The format of the author names in the citations follows the commonly used Vancouver system.
  • Fixed
  • Or why do some journal abbreviations have periods and others do not?
  • Fixed
  • The two criteria for FAs that are most difficult for articles to meet in general are comprehnsiveness and prose. This is fairly short (there is no length requirement for FAs) but that makes me wonder if it is comprehensive. For example aconitase has three different functions in the table, but this is not discussed that I can see. See WP:WIAFA
  • In general for FAs every i has to be dotted and every t crossed, so lots of attention to detail and a copyedit would help
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful comments. I have made an initial attempt at implementing some of your suggestions and will address the rest as I find time. Boghog (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

R v Horncastle[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article about an extraordinarily significant UK legal case, very well covered in specialist publications but little/no mainstream coverage (perhaps because there were no celebrities involved and it concerned the relatively dull/impenetrable subject of hearsay evidence). Comments/improvements/suggestions welcome with a view towards (my first) GAN. Wanting a PR because the fairly obscure subject matter has meant few contributors or discussion.

Thanks, Bob House 884 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting case, and I find the writing to be clear. Here are some thoughts and suggestions that might be helpful.

  • The external links (EL)s to the PDF case file embedded in the infobox and the first sentence of the lede should be turned into inline citations. Per WP:MOS#External links, ELs do not normally appear in the text.
  • What makes the UKSC blog a reliable source? Blogs usually do not meet the WP:RS guidelines, though this one might. I'm not sure.
  • Citation 1 and some of the other citations are incomplete. Citations to web sources should include the author, title, publisher, date of publications, URL, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found.
  • I'm not sure that citing a case number by itself, as you do in many of the citations, is sufficient. This method suggests that some of the claims made in the article may be supported by original research rather than by reliable secondary sources such as articles in law journals or perhaps other specialist publications you mention above. To avoid violating the WP:NOR guidelines, I'd suggest relying on secondary sources as much as possible so that anything that looks like interpretation or analysis is attributed to a particular person or entity rather than to a bare case name and number.
  • I almost always find it helpful to look at featured articles in my areas of interest to see how other editors have handled things. WP:FA#Law includes a few "X v Y" cases that might be of interest.
  • Instead of using single quotation marks, the Manual of Style recommends double quotation marks. Single quotation marks normally would be reserved for cases of nested quotes. Thus 'solely or to a decisive extent' in the lede should be "solely or to a decisive extent". Ditto for the several other instances in the article.
  • "Al-Khawaja is currently being appealed by the United Kingdom and a Grand Chamber decision is expected at some stage." - Would it be helpful to briefly explain what "Grand Chamber" refers to?
  • "Judgement" appears in the first sentence of the lede, but a later subhead spells it "Judgment". Either spelling is considered correct, but you should choose one or the other and stick with it throughout.
  • "The court also noted that the rule would create practical difficulties in the criminal system [33],... " - The punctuation should precede the reference number here and elsewhere in the article.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


Wishology[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after substantial expansion of the article so it covers all material comprehensively (at least to my knowledge), I believe this article is close to ready for a FAC nomination, even though this article never went through GA.

Thanks, 89119 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - I have seen these episodes. There is no requirement that an article go through GAN or even PR before being noiminated at FAC. However, I do not think this is ready yet for FA; here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • I have five main concerns about the article if it were at FAC: the plot section is too long, the article does not have enough independent third-party sources, the article may not be comprehensive enough, the prose, while good, is not up to FA standards, and there are some MOS issues,. I will try to address each concern in turn.
  • WP:FILMPLOT and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary need to be followed more closely in the article. WP:FILMPLOT says in part "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." The plot section here (minus subheaders) is 1,869 words, and the three parts are 640, 597, and 622 words each. I realize it is a trilogy, but the plot is one arc through the three parts and the three parts together are only 1 hour 36 minutes total running time. The three parts together are as long as a feature film, but the plot section is about 2.5 times the maximum recommended length.
    • Yes check.svg Done (hopefully) - Condensed the "Plot" section by about 50% in terms of number of words. 89119 (talk)
      • I get about 950 words now, so it is much smaller than it was, though still somewhat above the recommended upper limit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To me the plot section contains a lot of needless detail. For example the sentences Mr. and Mrs. Turner have no recollection of having a son, and Chester, A.J., and Mr. Crocker all refer to him as the "new kid" at school. Timmy shows his completed homework assignment on the Big Dipper, which everyone refuses to acknowledge exists. could be pared down to something like Timmy finds his parents, teacher and classmates do not know him, and none of them has heard of the Big Dipper [on which he did a homework assignment]. I doubt that the part in brackets is needed and would only include the Big Dipper if the plot includes it disappearing later. This goes from 43 words to 21 (or 28 words if the homework part is included).
    • Yes check.svg Done (hopefully) - Needless detail removed as part of plot trim. 89119 (talk)
    • Please let me know of any more extraneous information still present in the plot section. 89119 (talk)
      • I saw this once a while ago, so it is a bit hard to decide what should be in and what is not needed. One idea is to ask "Is this plot point necessary to uderstand other parts of the plot or for critical or other commentary elsewhere in the article?". So the areticle should mention Timmy's trilogy wishes in Plot as there is later commentary on them. The Big Dipper was not needed and I see it is gone now. Other details may not ne required - does the reader really need to know that the fairies are hiding in Barstow? Explaining their absence in the beginning of part 1, yes. Saying they are in Barstow (which is not mentioned again in the article) probably not needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that the article does not have more references to independent third-party sources. There are 40 refs, but 21 (just over half) are either to the studio or the script. Of the 19 third-party refs left, several are for fairly limited pieces of information (things like ratings or the award won or KISS' website)
  • Google News finds several articles on the show - see here At least some of them do not appear to have been used in this article and may be useful sources.
    • Yes check.svg Done (?) - Added two sources I thought were most useful from the above link. 89119 (talk)
      • Article has 44 refs now, which is somewhat better. Not sure how FAC reviewers will see this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the FA Criteria is comprehensiveness and the relatively few number of independent third-party sources may also indicate a lack of comprehensiveness. I was surprised that there was no mention of Fairly Oddbaby (the preceding film special) and no comparisons to it or the following special - did this one do better or worse in the ratings, for example. There is also very little on the actual production (who wrote it and that it took 18 months), and not even a mention of Frederator (except in the credits).
    • Yes check.svg Done (with Fairly OddBaby part) - Added info on Fairly OddBaby in the ratings part of the "Reception" section. 89119 (talk)
      • I would think that some books on the series would have general information on how it is animated that might be included in this article, but do not know for sure (as I do not have those books myself). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I also worry that there is not much in the way of background - if someone comes to the article and has never seen the show and knows nothing about it, I think they would soon be lost. Part of this is that the material needs to be written from more of an out of universe perspective - for example, the reader is never really told who Jorgen is or who the Yugopotamians (sp?) are. See WP:IN-U
    • Yes check.svg Done - Provided brief description of Jorgen in the lead and the planet of Yugopotamia (home to Yugopotamians) in the plot. Also expanded more on Fairy World and the Cave of Destiny in the lead. 89119 (talk)
      • Another option that I have sometimes seen for series is a brief background section which explains basic premises of the series so the Plot section does not have to. If there were a Background section, it could have a brief description of Timmy and his fairy godparents and their new baby, an explanation of who Jorgen and the Yugopotamians are, etc. Your call, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It also seems odd that there are only critical comments from two reviewers (but if that is all there is ...)
  • There is a free picture of Butch Hartman - why not include that in this article (and perhaps cut the image of George Lucas)? I just checked and there is also a free image of Tara Strong - I would include images of people who actually worked on this show.
    • What's the best place in the article to place a picture of Butch Hartman (and how should it be captioned?) I also think the George Lucas image should still remain; I'm modeling this article from Family Guy FA-article "Road to the Multiverse", which has an image of Walt Disney in its "Cultural references" section. 89119 (talk)
      • I would put Hartman's picture in the Production section (just like Road to the Multiverse has Seth McFarlane's photo there). I would move KISS down to Cultural references if need be. One thing to think of is that articles that are FA appear on the Main Page, but fair use images do not. I doubt the KISS or Lucas images would work on the Main Page but Hartman's would. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The most difficult FA Criterion for most articles to meet is a professional level of English. The prose here is decent but has enough rough spots that it would be a problem at FAC.
    • Any specific "rough spots" you could point out? 89119 (talk)
      • There is a huge PR backlog and I do not have time to do a copyedit or point out everything - sorry. You can ask WP:GOCE or at WP:PR/V for copyedit help. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Many FA reviewers do not like verb + ing constructions - so The Kiss members reveal they are the galactic protectors of the white wand, asking Timmy to prove he is the chosen one in order to wield it.
    • Yes check.svg Done - Removed as many "verb + ing"s as possible. 89119 (talk)
  • Two more examples
    • Series creator and executive producer Butch Hartman wrote Wishology, along with head writer Scott Fellows and Kevin Sullivan, who had joined the series since its fifth season.[1] I think the last phrase means "who joined the series after its fifth season" though it might be supposed to mean he joined in the fifth season and has bee with the series since. if you can't tell what a sentence means, it is not well written.
      • Yes check.svg Done 89119 (talk)
        • I think "after its fifth season" sounds better than "since its fith season". YMMV, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Is "who has joined the series after its fifth season" also acceptable? Because Kevin Sullivan is still currently a writer for the series, which suggests a present perfect sentence case. 89119 (talk)
        • Sounds stilted to me - I would say "who joined the series after its fifth season" - the fact the he co-write this means he was still around to do so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • On February 6, 2010 at UCLA's Royce Hall, music composer Guy Moon became the recipient of an Annie Award for his music in "The Big Beginning" in the "Individual Achievement Category" of "Music in a Television Production" during the 37th Annual Annie Awards.[3][40] Does the reader need to know where the awards were held? Even if they do, is that so important that it should come before Moon's name in the sentence? Can't he just be a composer (not a music composer - what other kind of composer is there)? Do we need to know it was the 37th Annual Annie Awards? How about something like Composer Guy Moon won [received?] an Annie Award for his music in "The Big Beginning" in the "Individual Achievement Category" of "Music in a Television Production" on February 6, 2010.[3][40]
  • Several little MOS issues. References should be in numerical order.
    • Yes check.svg Done (hopefully) - I only found one set of refs in backwards numerical order; I changed from [18][13][5] to [5][13][18]. 89119 (talk)
    • Please let me know if any other issues are still present. 89119 (talk)
      • Did not do an exhaustive check - notice Butch Hartman's full name used after first use - MOS says to only use last name in most cases (after initial full name). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Dab finder tool in the toolbox on this PR page finds a diambiguation link
    • Yes check.svg Done - Fixed the "Jonas" link. 89119 (talk)
  • the 95th-100th episodes uses a hyphen when it should use an en-dash - by the way, the lead says this is three movies and six episodes, but that is never really made clear (and the infobox has three production codes, not six)
    • Yes check.svg Done (hopefully) - Changed from hyphen to en-dash. Clarified lead (well, removed the six episodes implication part). 89119 (talk)
    • Does the infobox need to display six production codes? I thought there were only three, each production code is for each one-hour part of the trilogy. 89119 (talk)
      • The lead said it was six episodes, so I assumed each episode had its own production code. In general, I think details like this are better in the body of the article and the lead can be less specific. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Little things like all caps on The in this ref THE Fairly Oddparents: Wishology". TV Guide. Retrieved 2011-05-30.
    • Yes check.svg Done - Changed to lowercase "the". 89119 (talk)
    • However, the original article has it as "THE"; shouldn't we leave the title identical to the one in the original source article? Same goes with "NEW DATES" in [2]. 89119 (talk)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Grammy Award for Best Soul Gospel Performance, Male or Female[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate feedback prior to nominating the article for GA status. One major concern is the length of the article. Enough detail? Too much detail for an award that was only presented once? Any feedback about the article would be appreciated. Much thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

Overall looks good. A few comments:

  • Lead. In general, the lead is not supposed to introduce information that is not present in the body of the article. Currently, the entire first paragraph of the lead focuses on the background of the Grammy Awards, and this information is not repeated in the body of the article. IMO, the majority of the information in the first paragraph of the lead could be moved to the Background section, with just a summary remaining. Combine all of the background info (on both the Grammys as a whole and just this award) into the first paragraph, and then use the second paragraph to better summarize the Awards section. Currently the lead gives almost no summary of the Awards section, while giving almost all of the information that will later be presented in the Background section (and more), rather than providing just a summary.
I appreciated your feedback. Currently, the lead is consistent with all of the other FL/GA Grammy-related articles, though I do understand where you are coming from. I think I will leave the lead as is for now, but I would not object to making changes should consensus at GAN show a similar preference. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Lead and Background, "both of which lasted until the 53rd Grammy Awards in 2011." They were discontinued in 2011?
Correct. The "Full Category List" reference verifies its disestablishment. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Award - Were Daniel and Vickie Winans related?
Yes. I included a link to the Winans family article. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I know the above are not a lot of comments, but I hope they're helpful. In response to your specific question (length/detail), I can't think of anything that has been left out of the article, and I also don't think there's too much detail. The references and images look good. Overall, I think this would make a nice little GA, although you may have some issues at FAC because it's so short (although it does seem comprehensive, so I could be wrong). Please let me know if you have any comments or questions, Dana boomer (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer comments and suggestions. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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



El Salvador national football team[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently improved the history section of the article with many important imformation of the topic; in this case a national football team. Before I put the new information I had created User:Jaime070996/ES MNT history as a rough draft. It was copyedited by two users of the WP:GOCE: User:Diannaa and User:Philg88. I'd like to take this article to GA or FAC at some point, and am looking for comments pertaining to prose, polish, comprehensiveness, and the ability of it to be understood by non-specialists. The article needs a general check to see what's wrong or what to improve.

Thanks, Jaime070996 00:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review by LauraHale

This is the first peer review I have done. The following is all advice. No obligation to follow any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHale (talkcontribs) 01:55, 16 May 2011

  • If the country has a women's team, add a disambiguation statement at the top that links to the women's team. Make clear in the opening section the gender of the team.
  • Football needs to be fixed as a disambiguation link.
  • Looking at articles for other teams, they don't have the current season linked above the userbox like that. The location may be better elsewhere in the article or as a see also.
  • The lead should be broken into several paragraphs. I'd do one for every major section heading. The purpose of the lead is to summarise each section so trying to possibly go about it that way as a guide to how to write it may be useful.
  • Leads don't technically need to be cited because everything in the lead should be cited in the body of the text. I'd suggest either citing everything in there or citing nothing in there for the sake of consistency. (The last sentence of the lead has no citation. Hence the comment.)
  • Many of the tables lack citations. There needs to be a way to cite them so that the information is verifiable. This can be done by adding a reference column, tacking a reference to the end of each row, at the top row of the table, or by making a comment right before the table saying that X Y Z reference covers the table.
  • Double check references. There are a few paragraphs with zero references.
  • If possible, it would be nice to see some pictures added to the article in relevant sections.
  • (18') <-- Those types of references are unclear. If that refers to what minute the goal was scored in, it might be worth making a comment or footnote that says what that refers to and that it will be used to demark that for the rest of the article.
  • If it isn't referenced (didn't see it on the skim), explain why they are playing two matches in some of these tournaments: Home and away and the scoring involved for that.
  • "The players who participated in that first historic game were:" The text following that isn't cited and doesn't fit with the formatting. Not sure how to fix that. Maybe incorporate it into prose better, as a table or two side by side lists? If a table, maybe add their positions.
  • I'd consider removing one level of the table of contents because it is too deep. I don't mean in the text, but just hiding it from view. See WP:WIAFA.
  • There aren't any problems link rot. :)
  • I might suggest doing a bit of expansion on the kit section, making a bit more of an introduction in summary style instead of relying on the see main link.
Comments from Woody

I was asked to review this so here are a few comments from a quick look (though I can't really offer a non-specialist opinion).

  • The lead could be a bit bigger per WP:LEAD. It should adequately summarise the article as a standalone piece. See some of the recent WP:FOOTY FAs for examples you can base it on. You also don't need citations in the lead if it is cited in the article.
History
  • There are too many section links in the history section. It overhwhelms the lead and sub-sections should be slightly bigger than two sections. I would suggest splitting it down to "Formation-1930s", "1940s-1950s", "1960s-1970s" etc and perhaps make them more descriptive such as 1920s: First World Cup" etc.
    • I've done some merging but could do more or tweak how it stands currently. That will come with the changes I suggest at the bottom regarding the history section. Woody (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The 1960s and 1970s sections have too many short paragraphs and single sentence paragraphs. It doesn't flow and needs some of those paragraphs to be merged.
  • The same can be said for the 1980s and 1990s. They essentially consist of bullet points that all start off as "the 1982 season saw..." Try and vary the prose and merge sentences where little is being expanded on.
Results
  • I think that this section would benefit from a summary paragraph at the top. So, something along the lines of "The team has played in major tournaments, participating in the World Cup on XX occasions..." etc
  • Remove the future World Cups in the World Cup results table, you never know what might happen until those World Cups.
    • Removed. Woody (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What is the CCCF championship? You could expand on this in the summary paragraph I suggested.
  • What is the red outline?
    • It has already been covered. Jaime070996 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need the recent results section. It smacks of recentism. Any big matches should be covered in the history section.
    • Removed by me due to RECENTISM, it is all covered in the current season article. No need for it here. Woody (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm also not a particular fan of recent call-ups sections per WP:RECENT
    • Seems they are standard so can't argue with that here. Woody (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You could merge the coaching staff and manager history section into a new "Managers" section. It could also do with some more prose. You might think about splitting it out per WP:SUMMARY to a separate managers article as the table is quite big.

This was just a first run-through, it still needs quite a bit of work before it meets the GA or FA criteria. If you need any help with this or have any questions then don't hesitate to ask. Woody (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The added prose looks good but it brings up the new issue as to why the page is split in two? I have never seen this formatting in any FA/GA as I don't think it is accessible to all readers, particularly those with smaller resolutions. You don't need a separate section for the olympic record as one sentence would do: The El Salvador national football team have competed in the Olympics on one occasion; the 1968 games. They reached the first round of the competition." Or words to that effect. The article looks a bit messy at the moment and doesn't flow. It is very choppy. Woody (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Woody: I have worked on how it is split up meaning that some sections go off from what the article is about. For users with smaller resolutions, changes could be made. The article looks choppy at this point but that is why I am here. Also, in the article is there any wording that does not correspond to the Manual of Style?

Jaime070996 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Righto, I've had a go at the article, trying to smoothen out some of the kinks. One of the main issues I have with the article as it stands is the history section. This is essentially a prose form of the match record, it doesn't actually offer the history of the team and how it developed. We need the back-story behind the games and events that shaped the team. Take the Football War for example, it was barely touched on until I added in a paragraph. These are events that shaped the team. I removed a lot of the winners of the various tournaments they competed in as they simply aren't relevant to the exploits of the El Salvador national team. I still have reservations with the other tournaments section, there are too many tables in this article and not enough prose. You could perhaps create an "El Salvador national football team records" article where you could put all of these tables including the top ten goalscorers tables as well. Then you can put a paragraph about those goalscorers/appearance record holders in the Record and honours section. So, still a chunk of work to go. Woody (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, thank you so much! I get what you are saying. I will work on events that have been crucial to the team at the history section. Creating an "El Salvador national football team records" article would also be very helpful. I will also have to work on getting together images under usable rights for the history section. Also the prose would be on my to do list. The lead could be cleaned-up after the whole article is cleaned-up, so it could summarize the article as a standalone piece. Jaime070996 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently expanded it consistently and would like to check its status for possible good article nomination.

Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Brief comment: I think that the lead and the "At Eurovision" section should be updated before the article is reviewed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never seen Eurovision and never heard of this band or song to my knowledge (living in my hermit's cave as I do ;-). Thanks for your work on this article and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and exmaples to follow. There are nine GAs in the Category:GA-Class Eurovision articles, of which at least 5 seem like the would be good models. For example, Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 seems like it would be a good model.
  • The toolbox on this PR page finds one dab link that will need to be fixed.
  • 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 Criticism and Promotion are two sections that do not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The Background section is all about Eurovision, but says nothing about the band. I would give a little background (one paragraph) on the band soemwhere - how they broke up and got back together, their previous hits, etc.
  • Problem sentence At the same time the United Kindgom has finished last in the contest three times, 2008, 2010, and in 2003 after finishing with the infamous Nul points.[12] "Infamous" seems to violate WP:NPOV, so drop it (unless it is a direct quote from a reliable source, in which case put it in quotes and cite it). I would also go in some sort of chronlogical order for the dates - reverse order would keep the structure. so "...three times: 2010, 2008, and 2003, when the song finished with Nul points.[12]
  • Is it Big Four or Big Five (both are used once)?
  • Would Mika also have sung the song? In July 2010, it was reported that the BBC were in negotiations with singer-songwriter Mika to pen the United Kingdom entry.
  • Try using active voice instead of passive wherever possible (plus it is usually a bit shorter / tighter). So Interest in competing in the contest was also expressed by 2004 Big Brother winner Nadia Almada and British actress Margi Clarke.[18][19] could just be something like Big Brother 2004 winner Nadia Almada and British actress Margi Clarke also expressed interest in competing in the contest.[18][19]
  • This could use a copyedit - I will point out one more place (subject-verb agreement, an announcement is singular) By January 2011, an announcement by the BBC on their plans for the Eurovision selection were [was] imminent. SOmetimes printing the article out and reading it out loud helps (especially after not looking at it for a few days).
  • Another problem sentence - looks like two sentences were fused together incorrectly Acts rumoured to have been internally selected by the BBC included Pixie Lott, Katherine Jenkins and Charlotte Church, reporting that the BBC would return to a format of internally selecting one artist to perform a number of songs in a national final, last used in 1994.[20] It is a complete sentence if the period (full stop) is right after Church. Everything after Church is a fragment without a real subject - who is reporting this?
  • I would include something about "2011 [was] the first time that the United Kingdom entry ... had no input from the British public" in the lead - seems one of the notable things about this year.
  • Provide context to the readers - so say Hamilton is a Formula One driver in He compared the group entering the contest to "Lewis Hamilton entering a go-kart race ...
  • Article really over-uses the word "also" (look at Criticism and Promotion sections especially)
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example the song I Can is linked 5 times and should be linked only three (once each in the lead, infobox and body of the article)
  • WP:MOSNUM says to spell out numbers under ten (two not 2, second not 2nd)
  • Would it make sense to have Promotion before Criticism? I would also add dates for the cirticisms given in that section so the reader knows when these comments were made.
  • There is very little on their actual performance at Eurovision and almost nothing on reaction afterwards. Who won? Did Blue sing live or lip-synch? What were the ratings like for the BBC? What were the critical reactions afterwards? What did the band members say about their poorer than expected performance? Does the BBC plan to continue selecting candidates in the future without popular input?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Flag of Azerbaijan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to further improve it for later nomination for FAC. I would rather deal with any doubts, questions, errors, or omissions here than at FAC, so additional feedback and recommendations are welcome.

Thanks, Neftchi (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu:

  • The infobox display the flag's use as a civil and state flag and ensign, but the lead text then says it's also used as war flag, naval ensign and jack.
  • The lead intro should not be over-descriptive about the flag (e.g. color shades), since that can be elaborated on the rest of the article; on the other hand, very little is mentioned about the flag's history and evolution, which is better developed on other sections.
  • The prose on the symbolism section has to be improved.
  • Why the hyphen in "the red color-its intention..." and "the green strip-its relation..."?
  • What is ADR? Please specify.
  • "The national flag of the Azerbaijan consists..." The "the" appears to be lost in here.
  • Seems to me that the design section should come before the symbolism, so you can describe first the flag and then the meaning of each element.
  • It would be better to follow the flag's evolution stages if you showed them within the sections that are describing them, instead of all being clumped up in one section.
  • The section on the independence needs a desperate prose overhaul.
  • Employ bullet list to enumerate the places where the flag should be raised, as it gets very messy to read them in one block of text.

Parutakupiu (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, this is very helpful.
  • Infobox is adjusted accordingly
  • Changed lead
  • Fixed the hypened text on red and green colors.
  • specified ADR in every section.
  • Corrected the "the" in the constitution.
  • Placed design above symbolism.
I will work on the remaining points. Neftchi (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Zscout370 made the remaining adjustments. He fixed the broken English in the sections and removed the gallery. Neftchi (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance on the lead Parutakupiu, I very much appreciate it. Neftchi (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to further improve it for later nomination for FAC. I would rather deal with any doubts, questions, errors, or omissions here than at FAC, so additional feedback and recommendations are welcome. Thanks, Neftchi (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the previous review I made some changes. Added sources, merged lose sentences, removed images as they were sandwiching the text, merged the subheadlines of modern era into one. Also removed repeating and unrelated text.Neftchi (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Dana Boomer

Although it looks like you've done some good work on this article, there is still a significant amount of work that needs to be done before it is of FA quality. Here are some thoughts:

  • Quite a few areas that still need references. There are currently entire subsections (i.e. Architecture) without references, as well as many places where statistics are given without references, such as: the second paragraph of the Transportation section, the entire Banking section and the entire Education section.
  • Education section, "According to Soviet data, 100 percent of males and females (ages nine to forty-nine) were literate in 1970." This is not referenced, and sounds more like propaganda than anything else. A very solid, high quality, third party source is going to be needed for this. Also, how does this compare to literacy rates today?
  • 17 dead links and 12 dab links (these can be found in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this peer review page).
  • A mix of British and American spelling - defence/defense, recognise/recognize, neighbor/neighbour, etc. Needs to be standardized.
  • Still multiple places where text is sandwiched between images; this needs to be fixed as it is an MOS no-no.
  • Reference formatting needs significant work. All web references should have a title, publisher and access date at the very least - publication dates, authors and other information should be added if available. Some or all of this information is missing on many web references. Also, all books should be formatted consistently with each other, all journal articles, etc.
  • What makes ref #23 (Livius.org) a reliable source?
  • Ref #40 is to another Wikipedia article - this is unacceptable.
  • Ref #59, what does "Citations are at Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic#First or second." mean?
  • Ref #85 (Paralumun) is not a reliable source. It also does not cover all of the information in this paragraph, or even all of the information just about the horse.
  • Ref #110 (Topix.com) does not go to the page specified. Also, why is it a reliable source?
  • Ref #127 (Власти Азербайджана обеспокоены состоянием исторических памятников в Нагорном Карабахе); what is this?
  • What makes ref #133, 150 (Intute) a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #134 (Travel-Images.com) a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #198 (Azeriyoungsters.blogspot.com) a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #215 (Studentsoftheworld.info) a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #220 (Everyculture.com.) a reliable source?

The lack of consistent formatting and essential information in the references makes it difficult to check them fully for reliability. Also, remember that the FA criteria require high-quality reliable sources, not just reliable sources, so it's an even higher hurdle to jump. I haven't checked image licensing or prose, due to the other issues. At this point, the lack of sourcing in many areas and the dead links and unreliable sources in others are the biggest problem for this article, and the issues that will take the most work to fix. I will be watching this page, so please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dana and thanks for your review. Your feedback is very helpful, I appreciate it. Im going to answer your question one by one, that will keep things clear.
  • I added sources for the banking and education sectors. I also adjusted the text according to the new sources. I will also find sources for architecture and transportation chapters.
  • I also added a souce on the "Soviet data 100% Soviet data on 100 percent literacy". It is from "Glenn E. Curtis, ed. Azerbaijan: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995." [3]. For the 2009 literacy rate, I added a PDF source from the United Nations Development Programme on literacy in 2009, which is at 99.5% [4].
  • I fixed all the disambiguation links and will further work on the 17 dead links.
  • Which spelling do you recommend, American or English? I will adjust it accordingly.
  • Later on the day I will work on correcting sources according to CITE and remove all non-reliable sources. Neftchi (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I fixed, removed and/or replaced all the unreliable references (#40-#220) Neftchi (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Fixed all dead links. Neftchi (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Changed from British to American spelling. Neftchi (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Further comments

Thanks for your work so far - for the most part it looks great. However, more work is needed:

  • Still some British spellings - neighbour, metre, criticise, -isation, etc. Please look through the entire article for these.
  • Still need work on ref formatting. For websites, the publisher is not the home domain of the website - it is the organization, company, government or person that is putting the information out there. For example, the publisher for ref #111 is the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, not "azerbaijan.az". This needs to be changed on pretty much all of the web references. Other websites are still completely missing publishers. Some references still have nothing but a website - no access date, publisher, etc.
  • Make sure you're not giving ref titles in all capital letters, like currently in ref #114. Even if the source gives the title all in caps, it should be changed to title case.
  • Standardize formatting of refs to the same publication. For example, refs #24 and 25 are both to Encyclopedia Iranica, but are formatted completely differently.
  • There are books given in the references with no author, publisher, isbn or other vital information.
  • Some of the sources that have been added or were previously in the article are not reliable:
  • What makes ref #81 (o-loshadkah.ru/karabah/) reliable? Also, need a cite for the first and last sentences of the paragraph that this is in.
  • What makes ref #179 (azeri.ru) a reliable source?
  • Still have a reference to everyculture.com (#191)
  • Serious prose work needed. One example, pulled at random: "These dances differ from other dances with its quick temp and optimism. And this talks about nation’s braveness." These...its - singular plural agreement. ...Talks about nation's braveness - ungrammatical.
  • Still areas needing additional refs - Folk dance, Cuisine, Transportation, Biodiversity, Landscape, etc. Basically, when you start using words like distinctive, unique, famous or giving statistics, you have to have references.
  • Still text sandwiched between images in some places.

Please take the above comments as examples - I again found them on a brief sweep of the article. Go through every ref and make sure it is reliable and the formatting is correct. Go through every section to find places that need references. Go through every sentence to find prose and MOS errors. As you want to take this to FAC, I would suggest going to the nomination page and reading through the nominations, to see what reviewers are looking for, and the level of work that is needed. Although I believe that this article can become a FA in the future, it has a long way to go before it gets there. Dana boomer (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Michaelis–Menten kinetics[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's recently had a big overhaul. I don't think it's near good article standard yet, but would appreciate feedback to move it in that direction.

Thanks, U+003F? 14:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

RJH Comments: Overall this article seems a tad technical, so it might not be approachable by the widest audience. I'm not quite sure what you can do about that though. Here's a few comments that I hope are useful:

  • For the "Reaction rate as a function of substrate concentration" caption, it should clarify that this illustration is an example, rather than being exactly the same for all reactions.  Done
  • I think your lead could use a better (more expanded) explanation than is given by the first sentence. Also, including a mention of who it was named after (right in the middle of the sentence) breaks the reading flow somewhat. Unpacking the meaning of Vmax[S] was initially distracting. Alternatively, you could write something like: "...by relating reaction rate V to [S], the concentration of the substrate S; its formula is given by..."  Done
    • Ah, well I didn't quite mean to suggest you should get rid of the mention of who it was named after. I just thought it would read better if that were in a separate sentence.
  • Why is this specific to biochemistry, rather than chemistry in general?
Because it's about enzymes, rather than catalysts in general. I couldn't think of a good way to clarify this in the article.
  • Some FAC reviewers like the mentioned individuals to also be identified by nationality and profession. Hence, "American biochemist Leonor Michaelis". Likewise, "Briggs and Haldane" could also be expanded to include full names.  Done
  • Per the MoS, the em-dashes (—) shouldn't be space separated from the surrounding text. (Either that or you could switch to using space-separated en-dashes [–]).  Done
  • "However, due to the high concentration of protein in a cell, its cytoplasm often behaves more like a gel than a liquid, limiting molecular movements and altering reaction rates." This sentence seems a bit disjointed, as it seems to be missing some connectivity with the surrounding text. Perhaps it could say, "However, in the environment of a living cell where there is a high concentration of protein, the cytoplasm often behaves more like a gel..."?  Done
  • "fractal approaches" is unexplained.
I didn't want to get into too much detail on this, quite minor, point. I reordered the words to, hopefully, make it more clear.
  • "The resulting reaction rates predicted by the two approaches are similar..." Does this mean "law of mass action" vs. "fractal approaches", or does it mean "Michaelis-Menten equilibrium analysis" vs. "Briggs-Haldane quasi-steady-state analysis"? I'm guessing the latter, but the preceding paragraph in the article makes this ambiguous.  Done
  • "...the quality of the approximation improves as ε decreases." Why the switch from the lowercase epsilon to the lunate epsilon?  Done
  • "108 – 1010 M−1 s−1" Per the MoS, this shouldn't be allowed to wrap in the browser. You might want to enclose it with a {{tl:nowrap}} template, or else use &nbsp;; tags.  Done
  • In the references, to be consistent the "Zhou, HX.", "Minton, AP." and "Turner, TE." should be "Zhou, H.X.", "Minton, A.P." and "Turner, T.E."  Done
  • In general, is this considered an important approximation in the chemistry and/or biochemistry industry? Is it widely used in certain processes? It is difficult to judge based upon the content of the article.
It's common in biochemistry. But, again, I wasn't sure how to clarify this in the article.
I'm finding a few book sources that seem to indicate the relative importance of this model (and the most important exceptions).[5][6][7][8]

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmm... not done because you disagree?—RJH (talk)
No my bad.  Not done was a placeholder for "doing" U+003F? 19:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I wanted to check in case I had acquired a misunderstanding with some of the suggestions. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've had a go at addressing most of your comments. Does it come across any better? U+003F? 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ActRaiser[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently rewrote the article (per its tag) and am wondering how well I did it, and where it could be further developed. Thanks!

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off, you need to expand the lead to discuss the religious subtext (assuming the source used for that section is reliable), the development, and the reception. Provide references for the Plot section, too. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 139 WP:FAs in Category:FA-Class video game articles and 9 FAs in Category:FA-Class strategy game articles so there are lots of models out there. Sacrifice (video game) seems like it might be an especially useful model.
  • One dead external link that needs to be fixed.
  • I agree that the lead needs to be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However, A sequel, ActRaiser 2, was released for the Super Nintendo in 1993. In 2007. seems to only be in the lead.
  • To expand it, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, hoiwever Audio and Reception are not in the lead that I can see - please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the Gameplay section has no refs, but needs them. Or there is one citation needed tag that needs a ref.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I think the convention is that the plot is sourced to the game itself and so does not need refs 9but if you can find refs that discuss the plot, please add them)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. FOr example current ref 2 is just a link and the title Nintendo's Era of Censorship.
  • Or this print source Electronic Gaming Monthly's Buyer's Guide. 1994. seems like it needs more information (publisher? pages) See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Similarly make sure that all sources meet WP:RS and are reliable sources. For example, what makes http://www.filibustercartoons.com/ a RS?
  • Be consistent on little details - so date formats should all be the same (but the article uses both formats: August 7, 2004, and 2009-01-10
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up its flow - wherever possible these short paragraphs should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Is it just Tanzra or the Tanzra? (both forms are used)
  • See if some free images can be added - for example there is a free image of Douglas Crockford in the article on him.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


European Southern Observatory[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a way of preparing it for FA candidacy. The page has been substantially improved in the past few weeks, with new sections and subsections added, improved text and new images included. In addition, an extensive list of in-line references has been added. However, scrutiny from more experienced editors is needed to understand what else should be changed for the article to meet the requirements of a FA.

Thanks, Barbara Ferreira (writing on behalf of Lars Lindberg Christensen, director of ESO's education and public outreach department) Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Review from Ruslik0:

The article generally is not so bad, but some problems remain. (I have read only around one third of it.)

  1. The leading section, in my opinion, should mention ALMA and E-ELT. They are the most important projects for the ESO. SOLVED Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. In 'History' section, can more information be provided about what happened between 1954 and 1963? How, for instance, the convention was negotiated? Currently there is an apparent gap in coverage. SOLVED Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  3. ESO's European departments moved into the new ESO Headquarters in Garching near Munich, Germany in 1980 Where had they been located before? SOLVED Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  4. I noticed that many paragraphs lack references.
  5. Per MOS mdashes should be without spaces. SOLVED Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

More to follow. Ruslik_Zero 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I copy-edited parts of the article. I also advise you to reduce the number sentences like VLT contributes greatly to making ESO the most productive ground-based observatory in the world. as the article should be written in the dry encyclopedic style avoiding too much praise. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC) SOLVED Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


Review from Iridia:

  • "composed and supported by fifteen countries" - needs better wording, that sounds rather odd
  • "the aim of providing state-of-the-art facilities and access to the southern sky to European astronomers" this sounds rather like an unattributed quote.
  • "ESO is known for building and operating some of the largest and most technologically advanced telescopes in the world." With that phrasing, you're either going to have to show a) that ESO is famous for this or b) change it to "ESO has built", which is less debatable.
  • "The ALMA project is an international collaboration between Europe, East Asia and North America in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The European executive is represented by ESO, which also hosts the European ALMA Regional Centre.[2]" could shorten, since it's the lead: "ALMA is a collaboration between Europe (represented by ESO), East Asia, North America and the Republic of Chile.[2]" This type of summary style is necessary to keep the lead manageable.
  • "currently in detailed design phase" - unlinked jargon
  • "and will be "The World's Biggest Eye on the Sky". - marketing slogan, not acceptable.
  • "Being an extremely large telescope, it will vastly advance astrophysical knowledge, allowing detailed studies of subjects including" shorten: "The light-gathering power of this telescope will allow detailed studies of ..."
  • lead doesn't summarise the contents of the body of the article. eg. could summarise "Facilities" with "ESO operates three observing sites in Chile: La Silla, Paranal and Llano de Chajnantor."
  • Needs a read through for small things like "On the January 26 1954".
  • Trim the External links severely. The Facebook link is pure marketing only.
  • Only minimal mention of how the site testing and selection were done.
  • As Ruslik mentioned, phrasing like "goals of both surveys include many of the most exciting problems in astrophysics today" has to go.
  • The tone from "Science with ESO Telescopes" onward is particularly noticeable as being that of a press release.
  • Few of the citations are formatted correctly.
  • The See also section can go, as all the links in it are already referred to in the text.
  • Almost all the citations seem to be self-publications by ESO. There needs to be less er, recursion in an article about ESO, though I am aware that a lot of such material must be from ESO. Things like comparisons of productivity between astronomical observatories exist in the scientific literature, eg. Trimble, V.; Ceja, J. A. (2008). "Productivity and impact of astronomical facilities: Three years of publications and citation rates". Astronomische Nachrichten 329 (6): 632–647. Bibcode 2008AN....329..632T. doi:10.1002/asna.200810999.
  • You might want to have a look at a currently featured article like Ben Gascoigne which contains sections discussing observatories to see a related example of what the FA standard will require. Iridia (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fairfax Harrison[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although I hadn't really intended him to go to FAC, it's looking like he's about as good as it gets in terms of research and other things. Would greatly appreciated people looking at all the fussy little details as well as comprehensibility for the non-specialist.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: One "fussy little detail": why is "Google books" listed as author and publisher of A Selection of the Letters of Fairfax Harrison, with the publication year missing? The link gives details of author, publisher and date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm citing the information from Google's web page, not the book itself. I've not laid hands on the actual work, so I'm citing Google's book database here. I could switch it out for World Cat, I suppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the first half: I'll get to the rest later:-

Lead
  • I suggest "Confederacy" rather than "Confederate in "the Confederate President". Why not add his name?
  • "vice president of finance of Southern Railway" - the "of ... of" constructure is ugly; why not "he was the company's vice president of finance...", which helps to reduce repetition of the name?
  • Second paragraph: "during ... during" repetition in the first line.
  • "Another concern..." You haven't really identified other issues as "concerns", so "another" reads oddly. Maybe "A particular objective..." or some such?
  • I don't quite understand "and the extent of service for the railway". Isn't that covered by increasing the amount of tracks?
  • Third paragraph: I would say "managed", rather than "struggled".
  • I would split the final sentence, which presently has five clauses.
Background and early life
  • Non-Americans may not know that Jefferson Davis was "the Confederate/cy President"
  • Briefly say who Francis Burton Harrison was rather than forcing use of link.
  • The section is a little thin. Did Fairfax grow up in New York? Do we know where he went to school, before Yale? Do we know what subjects he took his degrees in, at Yale and Columbia? Any such information would presnt a more rounded picture.
Early career
  • "...later becoming an assistant to the company's president in 1903 and Vice-President in 1906." There is some odd capitalization here. Also, we don't need "later" and the year 1903. Also, as written it's not clear what the sentence is saying. It presumably means that Harrison, after working as an assistant to the president in 1903, became a company Vice-President in 1906. But it could be read as meaning that he was secretary, first to the president and then to the VP. Why not merge with the next sentence, to get: "becoming an assistant to the company's president in 1903 and, in 1906, vice-president in charge of finance and accounting"?
  • "in order" is excess verbiage
  • "Southern United States" reads a bit formally. I would say "the southern states", and pipe a link.
First years as president
  • Two different programs are described in the first paragraph. The final sentence begins "This program..." - to which is it referring?
  • As the word "engineer" is not used in this context in the UK, I suggest you pipelink locomotive enginer thus.
  • "oversaw the overhaul" is inelegant
  • "Also significant was..." reads as editorial opinion, as does the word "unusual" later in the sentence.
  • What is meant by a "foreign trade department"?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - any way you can get a place of death in the infobox? Connormah (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it may have WP:FA potential and I would like to get as many eyes on it as possible.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment

Where possible, I would name the reviewer in question when quoting reviews (eg. Allmusic's Matthew Greenwald. While one staff writer may hold a certain opinion, another writer for the same outlet might feel differently.

I think only reviewers notable enough to have articles should be named. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No other reviewers have articles that I can find except possibly Steve Jones who might be Steve Jones (musician), Stephen Jones (musician), Stephen Jones (Babybird) or possibly Stephen Jones (author) or Stephen Graham Jones, although I doubt he is any of these people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any information on how the two writers were inspired to write the song? Perhaps there's some books out there on Ray Charles which can throw up some extra stuff? LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I hadn't thought of biographical sources for this song article. The Chicago Public Library has 167 books showing up on a keyword search for "Ray Charles". I will get back downtown later this week and see what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I was not thinking clearly when I was downtown and was looking only for post 2005 books that would have content on the duet. I forgot to scour for the original.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • They also have a book by one of the songwriters: "Ride for the brand / by Red Steagall ; with a foreword by Elmer Kelton ; an afterword by Joyce Gibson Roach ; and drawings by Joe Beeler ... [et al.]."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"This song was made during a phase in Charles' career that he was performing a lot of country music.[9]" - Not sure "that" works. I would personally use "where" as opposed to "that", but that could be just me. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


History of the world[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm setting up a project to improve Vital Articles (WP:FAVA), and this is the one I signed on for. I'm looking for some help in identifying the major problems of this article, as our goal is GA, and, eventually, FA.

Thanks, ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 01:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an extremely broad topic, worth trying but hard to do. If I were tackling this and trying to get it up to GA, I would start with the basics. I'd anticipate that many claims, no matter how carefully stated, might be challenged. To prepare for this, I'd be extra careful to adhere to WP:V and the WP:RS guidelines. Here are a few suggestions, though this is not a complete review.

  • Is the article title too broad? Would "Human history since the Early Stone Age" be better? The article is not about elephants or rocks or oceans or the planet's formation, just one fairly recent biological species.
  • Should the article include more about Africa, South America, Australia, and pre-colonial North America? Since time passed uniformly for every place on the globe, why does so much of the history seem to take place around the Mediterranean? Why is one kind of history more important than another? Or is the article to some extent based on unstated and unexamined assumptions about what history consists of? Is it not true that about one third of human history was devoted to sleeping, for example? What is history? What qualifies as history?
  • Large sections of the article lack in-line citations to reliable sources. My rule of thumb for meeting WP:V is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is unusual or controversial, and to make sure that every paragraph includes a source. In this article, the first three paragraphs of the "Cradles of civilization" section are unsourced, for example, even though they include claims like "Mesopotamia saw the rise of the city-states in the 4th millennium BCE." Who says so? For GA, you will need to find sources for claims like this or replace them with claims that can be sourced.
  • Beware of overlinking. It's generally enough to link a term no more than once in the lead and once in the main text. There's no reason to link things like "Mesopotamia", "Agricultural Revolution", "Plato", or "Socrates" multiple times. Also, it's unnecessary to link common words like "trade", "manufacturing", and "writing". When so many things are linked, the sea of blue is distracting, and the value of possibly helpful links is reduced.
  • Many of the citations are incomplete. Citations to web sources, for example, should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.
  • While many claims that are apt to be challenged have no citations to reliable sources, a few have an oddly large number of supporting citations. For example, does the claim "Technological advance and the wealth generated by trade gradually brought about a widening of possibilities" require support from 11 sources?
  • Are all of the cited sources reliable? For example, what makes Solarnavigator.net (citation 35) reliable per WP:RS?
  • The items in the "References" and "Further reading" sections should be listed last name first and arranged alphabetically.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find several dead URLs in the citations and several links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.

Resident Evil 2[edit]

After the FA nomination I have recently withdrawn, I want to improve the prose of the article to better fulfill criterion 1a. A lot was already addressed in the FAN, but a thorough copyedit was requested by a user before they support the nomination: So yeah, coming here mostly for copyedits, that is correcting remaining mistakes, pointing out weird wordings, and ensuring that everything can be understood by readers. Prime Blue (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Reserving this space. You're really helping me out with your PR of Terra Nova. As soon as I can grab some free time, I'll give you a thorough prose review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Still needs a lot more copy-editing. the captions are just way too specific and detailed when they can be much simpler. I'll say more later, but this is one of the things that i spot on the first look.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Re: Changed the first image caption, which I guess was the biggest problem here.

Lead:

  • "is a survival horror video game by Capcom originally released for the PlayStation in 1998."
    • Would flow better as "is a 1998 survival horror video game developed and published by Capcom". I'm not sure the "Originally released for the PlayStation" part is that important, since it's been re-released so many times, but that's up to you. I recommend putting it in a later sentence, though, to avoid cramming too much into the opening.
      • Re: Put the Capcom aspect in the second sentence (left out published since the game has different publishers even for the PS version) and kept the PlayStation part as its needed for the third paragraph (I wouldn't know how to introduce this in the sentence on the ports without blowing everything out of proportion).
  • "turned into zombies"
    • This seems a little on the unencyclopedic side. Perhaps "transformed" into zombies? I'm not sure. I've had trouble with similar sentences before, so I understand how difficult it is.
      • Re: Changed.
  • "The gameplay of Resident Evil 2 primarily focuses on exploration, solving puzzles, and fighting enemies, although the title also contains typical elements of the survival horror genre, such as limited saves and ammunition"
    • "The gameplay of Resident Evil 2 focuses on exploration, puzzle solving, and combat, and features typical survival horror elements such as limited saves and ammunition."
  • "The main improvement over the predecessor is the "Zapping System" that provides each playable character with a different scenario featuring unique storylines and puzzles."
    • "Improvement" sounds a bit on the POV side. Perhaps, "The game's main difference from its predecessor is the "Zapping System", which provides each playable character with unique scenarios, subplots and puzzles." Makes the sentence less of a mouthful, while removing the offending line.
      • Re: Changed. Left out "scenarios" with the new wording as it could be interpreted as totally different environments.
  • "supported by a soundtrack that employs "desperation" as the underlying theme of the musical compositions."
    • "supported by a soundtrack that employs "desperation" as an underlying theme." Since "theme" is a musical term, cutting it down to this is clear enough.
      • Re: This wasn't meant to be connected to the term "musical theme" (as in "a single piece created for a character/place etc."), but rather the atmosphere they were trying to convey with the overall music.
        • Oh. Well, I still say that "the underlying theme of the musical compositions" is a bit clunky, but it's your call. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Following the initial success on the PlayStation".
    • "Following its initial success on the PlayStation".
      • Re: Changed.
  • "Well-received by critics, the game was praised for its atmosphere, setting, graphics, and audio, but criticized for its controls, voice acting, and some of its gameplay elements."
    • "The game was well received (no hyphen) by critics, who praised its atmosphere, setting, graphics, and audio. Its controls, voice acting, and inventory system were negatively reviewed, however, and certain critics disliked its puzzles." Splitting the sentence in two makes it easier to read; also, I specified the meaning of "some of its gameplay elements" to avoid suspense.
      • Re: Changed.
  • "Resident Evil 2 was included in several lists of the 100 best games, has become a million-seller, and is the franchise's most successful title on a single platform."
    • This sentence is a bit on the clunky side. Try splitting the last two parts into their own sentence: "The game became a million-seller, and is the franchise's most successful title on a single platform". Also, re-reading the last paragraph, I suddenly realized that it's slightly out of order. The first sentence refers to the game's "success", when this fact has not yet been established. I recommend putting sentence 2 (or, with the above variation, sentences 2 and 3) at the beginning, followed directly by the rewritten "million-seller" line. Then the "Years after its first release, Resident Evil 2 was included in several lists of the 100 best games" part. After that, I recommend this construction:
      • "Following its initial success on the PlayStation, Resident Evil 2 was ported to Microsoft Windows, the Nintendo 64, Dreamcast and Nintendo GameCube, and was released as a modified 2.5D version for the Game.com handheld. The story of the game was retold and built upon in several later games, and adapted into a variety of licensed works."
        • Re: Changed.

That's all I've got today. I'll re-read the lead for continuity errors once you've gone over it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Re: Replied in line. Removed the serial commas as I normally avoid them. Prime Blue (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I do too, but I don't usually make a big deal about them when reviewing/copyediting. Anyway, replied inline where appropriate, and re-read the lead. It's looking much better. I noticed one other thing, though:
      • "development stage of 60–80 percent, deemed too dull and boring by the producer"
        • Would read better as "after being deemed too dull", I think.
    • Anyway, I'll review the next section today or tomorrow. Good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay:

  • "A survival horror title, Resident Evil 2 follows the same basic gameplay mechanics as its predecessor, Resident Evil."
    • "As a survival horror title, Resident Evil 2 features the same basic gameplay mechanics as its predecessor, Resident Evil." Another option: "As a survival horror title, Resident Evil 2's gameplay is fundamentally similar to that of its predecessor, Resident Evil." Your choice.
      • Re2: Changed.
  • "The player explores different locations while solving puzzles and fighting numerous monsters.["
    • "The player explores the game's world while solving puzzles and fighting monsters." Avoids the vagueness of "different locations" and removes a redundant word ("numerous").
      • Re2: Changed.
        • Re3: Changed "game's world" to "a fictional city" to avoid repeating "game's" in the next sentence.
  • "The two selectable protagonists may be equipped with a variety of firearms"
    • "The two protagonists may be equipped with a variety of firearms, such as [insert relevant term] and [insert relevant term]". I think it's too vague as-is.
      • Re2: Removed "a variety of" as I don't want to go into gameguide-like specifics here (firearms should be self-explanatory).
  • "On the status screen, the player can check the condition of the characters, use medicine to heal wounds inflicted upon them in battle, and assign weapons."
    • "On the status screen, the player can check the condition of the protagonists, use medicine to heal wounds, and assign weapons."
      • Re2: Changed.
  • "Additionally, the current health of the protagonists can be determined by their animation and the speed of their movement. For example, wounded characters will hold their stomach in pain, whereas they will limp slowly when they are on the verge of death."
    • "The characters' current health can also be determined by their body language and movement speed; for example, wounded a character will hold his or her stomach in pain, while one on the verge of death will limp slowly."
      • Re2: Hesitating to use "body language" here. Completely reworded the second sentence for clunkiness.
  • "The protagonists can carry only a limited number of items at a time, requiring the rest to be stored in and retrieved from boxes scattered across the locations."
    • "The protagonists may carry a limited number of items, and may store others for later retrieval in boxes placed throughout the game world."
      • Re2: Changed, but not so sure about the second part. "May" might be inappropriate as the storage is pretty much mandatory, and "for later retrieval" sounds a bit weird in the middle of the sentence there. Please check the changes.
  • "Both characters are joined by a support partner who aids them in their survival and becomes playable for a short time."
    • This needs to be clarified. Having never played the game, I don't understand what you're describing here.
      • Re2: Reworded.
  • "The game may be saved at some select rooms with a typewriter, though one-time-use ink ribbons are necessary to do so."
    • "Certain rooms contain typewriters that the player may use to save the game; however, each save expends one of a limited number of ink ribbons, which the player must collect in the game world." Longer, but clearer.
      • Re2: Changed.
  • "The graphics are composed of real-time generated and thus movable polygonal character and item models, superimposed over pre-rendered backgrounds using fixed camera angles."
    • "The game's graphics are composed of real-time generated (and thus movable) polygonal character and item models, superimposed over pre-rendered backgrounds that are viewed from fixed camera angles."
      • Re2: Really hate brackets, used en dashes.

That's all for now. I'll finish working through Gameplay soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Re2 Prime Blue (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the delay. I've been really busy, recently. I'll try to get back to this and the Terra Nova review within the week. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Take your time, I'm quite busy myself in the next two weeks. Prime Blue (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Anyway, great job dealing with my comments thus far. I made a few tweaks to the first paragraph of Gameplay, but nothing major. I'll try to have the second paragraph reviewed by tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay, continued:

  • "The main addition to the gameplay is the "Zapping System": Each of the two playable characters is confronted with different puzzles and storylines in their respective scenario."
    • Should specify what the "addition" is adding to. Perhaps, "The main addition to the series' formula"? Also, the first word after a colon isn't capitalized on Wikipedia. I think certain publications do it, but it's not standard practice here.
      • Re3: Worded it differently as the "Zapping System" has not become a staple of the series.
  • "Actions taken during the first playthrough affect the second scenario, for example in the availability of certain items."
    • "Actions taken during the first playthrough affect the second; for example, the availability of certain items may be altered."
      • Re3: Changed.
  • "and the number of saves and first aid sprays used."
    • "First aid sprays" are not mentioned before this. They should either be introduced earlier on, or this wording should be made more general.
      • Re3: Changed to "special healing items". Wouldn't know how to paraphrase it in another way since only this specific type of healing items is counted.
  • "Depending on the player's accomplishments, bonus weapons and costumes are unlocked as a reward."
    • "bonus weapons and costumes may be unlocked as a reward".
      • Re3: Changed.
  • "Additional minigames are available in the form of "The 4th Survivor", "The To-fu Survivor" and "Extreme Battle", three stand-alone missions featuring an extended cast of characters."
    • "The game contains three stand-alone minigames: "The 4th Survivor", "The To-fu Survivor" and "Extreme Battle". These feature an extended cast of characters, and provide goals such as [applicable description]." Could use some clarification, in my opinion.
      • Re3: Changed and expanded.

I'll hit Plot next. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Really sorry about the delay. I just haven't been able to find time for Wikipedia, recently. Here's my review of Plot:

  • "The game is set in the Midwestern American mountain community of Raccoon City, two months after the events of the first Resident Evil. Nearly all of the citizens have been transformed into zombies by an outbreak of the T-virus".
    • This structure could be read as "nearly all of the citizens of the first Resident Evil". Try, "The game is set two months after the events of the first Resident Evil, in the Midwestern American mountain community of Raccoon City". Also, change "the citizens" to "its citizens", just to clarify it beyond any doubt.
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "and that Chris has left the town some time ago to investigate the Umbrella headquarters in Europe."
    • "and that Chris had left the town some time ago to investigate the Umbrella headquarters in Europe."
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "With no more motivation to stay, the two protagonists decide to split up to look for other survivors and flee the city."
    • It says that they had no motivation to stay in the city, but then it mentions that they did, in fact, have a reason to stay (looking for survivors). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of the sentence, but I find it really unclear.
      • Re4: Leon's motivation to come to town was to take up his work as a police officer (but his colleagues are all dead), while Claire's was the search for her brother (who is not in town anymore) – that was the intended meaning. The script (in the reference) just says that the will try to help others during their escape, not that they will stay in the city for an extended rescue mission.
  • "In search of an escape route, Claire meets a little girl named Sherry who is on the run from an unknown creature."
    • "While searching for an escape route ..."
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "Leon encounters Ada Wong who claims to be looking for her boyfriend John, an Umbrella researcher."
    • "Leon encounters Ada Wong, who claims to be looking for her boyfriend John, an Umbrella researcher."
      • Also, perhaps those two sentences could be combined. As in, "... an unknown creature, and Leon encounters ...".
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "Claire discovers that there is a conspiracy involving Raccoon City's police chief Brian Irons: he was bribed by Umbrella to cover up any evidence of the company's experiments in the outskirts of the city, and to conceal the development of the new G-virus, an agent capable of mutating a human into the ultimate bioweapon."
    • Kind of a mouthful. Try, "Claire discovers that Raccoon City's police chief, Brian Irons, had been bribed by Umbrella to hide evidence of the company's experiments in the outskirts of the city. He also concealed their development of the new G-virus, an agent capable of mutating a human into the ultimate bioweapon."
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "The maniacal Irons is killed by one such G-virus mutant roaming the police department, while Claire and Sherry escape through the sewers and become separated."
    • I don't think Irons being maniacal is important to the reader's understanding. Try, "Irons is killed by a G-virus mutant in the police department ...".
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "Splitting up from Leon"
    • "After splitting up with Leon".
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "Ada runs into Sherry"
    • Kind of informal for an encyclopedia. Try, "Ada comes upon Sherry".
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "Further into the sewers, a middle-aged woman fires at Ada, but Leon dives in front of her and takes a shot himself."
    • I find this sentence extremely confusing. Firstly, it's never mentioned when Ada entered the sewers; secondly, I thought Ada and Leon split up. Does Leon randomly appear at a critical moment, or did they meet up again before this? Clarification is needed.
      • Re4: Changed and clarified. The whereabouts of the protagonists are not that important at this point (I just included the "Further into the sewers" to show that Ada's still moving), though one can derive that Ada is in the sewers from her meeting with Sherry. Ada does indeed team up with Leon again, but only for a few minutes. Since they only split up in the sentence before, I didn't know how to word this while avoiding repetitiveness. Any wording better than "takes a shot himself" that would show how selfless and brave an act it was?
  • "Ada follows the assassin who reveals herself to be Sherry's mother Annette, and the wife of William Birkin, the Umbrella scientist who created the G-virus."
    • Again, I'm confused. What happened to Leon? Is he dead or unconscious? Where is he? Also, referring to the woman as an "assassin" might be a bit of an overstatement. To keep it clear, try, "... follows the woman, who ...".
      • Re4: Changed and clarified.
  • "Annette recognizes her daughter's pendant, and a battle over it ensues during which she is thrown over a railing."
    • "Annette recognizes her daughter's pendant and attempts to take it from Ada; a fight ensues, during which Annette is thrown over a railing."
      • Re4: Changed.
  • "Ada finds out that the golden locket contains a sample of the G-virus, and later – taken over by her emotions – returns to Leon, tending to his bullet wound."
    • "Ada discovers that the golden locket contains a sample of the G-virus". Also, why would she need to be overtaken by emotion to save Leon? Considering that she's escaping the city with him, I'd assume that tending to his wound would be the obvious course of action. Perhaps, "... and returns to Leon, tending to his bullet wound."
      • Re4: Has to be worded something like that because she falls in love him (in the FAN, someone complained about Ada's love confession coming completely out of the blue). She is actually a coldblooded spy trying to steal the G-virus, but Leon's saving her is the incentive for Ada to return to him. I now included a sentence to show that she had inhibitions to team up with him again: "Ada reluctantly teams up with Leon again because he insists on his duty to protect her." As always, comment requested. Also, another word for "discovers" or "finds out"? "Discovers" is used in the following sentence already.
        • Changed it while making a few brief tweaks to the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Re5: Thank you!
  • "Claire is reunited with Sherry, and discovers that the mutated Birkin has already implanted his daughter with an embryo to produce offspring."
    • I don't understand. What's the goal behind this? Producing offspring, sure; that's what an embryo is for. But why would he even need to? And why "already", which suggests that it was the obvious course of action? Also, how and when, exactly, did he manage to do it? I mean, if it makes this little sense in-game, I can't really fault the writing. But, otherwise, some serious clarification is in order.
      • Re4: The implantation happens at an unspecified moment off-screen, while Sherry is separated from Claire. The game says that producing offspring is a natural consequence of G's "inherent survival instinct", and that there's two possible outcomes of an implantation, one being a similar mutation to Birkin's and the other being a less powerful monster that just spits out even smaller monsters, and that the first mutation can only be accomplished by implanting life forms with similar genetic coding, and that Birkin thus implanted his own daughter because it just makes so much sense...though I failed to see how this is notable with a plot section already longer than 700 words. You get the picture. ;-) I already cut a ton of subplots to get it down to the current length, so I just sticked to the "he's the bad guy and does bad things" routine.
        • I see. Well, there's not much that can be done, in that case. I do recommend removing the "already", though, since the average reader would not see this as an obvious turn of events. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Re5: Changed.

That's all I've got for now. I'll try to get back faster, next time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re4: Thanks, much clearer now. Prime Blue (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning with Plot, continued:

  • "The protagonists advance through an abandoned factory to Umbrella's secret underground research facility."
    • Who are the protagonists at this point? Leon and Claire? Claire and Sherry? Leon and Ada? Leon, Claire, Sherry and Ada? Specifying this would make it easier to follow. Also, is the abandoned factory related to Umbrella's underground facility? The sentence's wording suggests this as a possibility, but I don't know if it's the case. If it's not the case, then I recommend changing it to "advance through an abandoned factory, and make their way toward", or somesuch. If it is the case, clarify it beyond any doubt by saying, "through an abandoned factory connected to ...".
      • Re5: Good points, changed.
  • "Ada is heavily wounded by an attack from Birkin, and Leon explores the laboratory to find something to treat her wounds."
    • I think "An attack by Birkin leaves Ada heavily wounded" would make it clearer when this event takes place chronologically. The original wording leaves open the possibility that Ada was injured earlier in the story. Also, to tighten up the second half of the sentence, try, "and Leon searches the laboratory for [specific thing, if applicable] to treat her wounds".
      • Re5: Changed, but nothing specific he was looking for (heh, might as well have used one of a dozen healing items he has in his pocket...).
  • "He is interrupted by a psychotic Annette who explains to him that Ada's relationship with John was only a smokescreen to get information about Umbrella, as Ada is actually a spy sent to steal the G-virus for an unknown organization."
    • So did John actually exist? Was she with him to obtain information, or was he a lie she invented so that she could tag along with Leon? Just calling it a "smokescreen" makes either one a possibility. Either way, a comma is needed after "a psychotic Annette". Also, "... Umbrella: Ada is a spy sent to steal the G-virus for an unknown organization."
      • Re5: John did exist and she did have a relationship with him to spy on Umbrella (though I thought it was apparent with that wording). Possibly "a means of getting information about Umbrella"?
        • Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of smokescreen; it would apply to both scenarios, in my opinion. Either way, your new version is briefer, less informal and generally superior. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ada shows up again and gives her life to defeat the Tyrant and to rescue Leon, confessing that she fell in love with him."
    • "Ada returns" is less informal. Also, since Ada doesn't actually die, less certain wording would be preferable. How about: "Ada returns to save Leon, and defeats the Tyrant seemingly at the cost of her own life; she confesses her love to Leon as she dies."
      • Re5: Not entirely satisfied with that wording since it now mentions even more directly that she dies. Reworded, please check. Also, comma needed before "seemingly"?
        • I don't think a comma is needed. It sounds right to me, at least. Plus, it wouldn't need a comma if you were to remove the word "seemingly", so I assume that the addition of one word won't change it. Your version is better than mine; I knew that "as she dies" put things in unfortunately concrete terms, but I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing it. However, I think that the use of both "her last breath" and "her motionless body" ventures dangerously close to the realm of soap opera. It should be fine with just one, though; I'll let you pick. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Re6: Went with the latter, as the "motionless body" thing is less cheesy and more important in the context.
  • "However, she manages to give Claire instructions on how to produce a vaccine for Sherry, and to prevent the embryo from mutating her."
    • Saying "and to" suggests that the vaccine's purpose is not, in fact, to prevent the embryo from mutating her. Perhaps, "However, before she dies, she tells Claire how to create a vaccine that will neutralize the mutated embryo within Sherry." Briefer and more clear-cut.
      • Re5: Changed and reworded (since the embryo itself isn't mutated), please check.
        • Looks good. I assumed that the embryo was also mutated, but I guess that's not the case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Birkin – now mutated into a big lump of flesh and teeth – followed them"
    • I must admit that "big lump" made me laugh. I seem to remember someone complaining about the wording "massive blob" at the FAC, which I assume was an earlier form of this sentence. I think it still needs work, though. Would "amorphous creature" properly describe him, or can he not alter his form? If not, then perhaps, veering into thesaurus-ridden pseudo-intellectual territory, "now deformed into a large agglomeration of flesh and teeth"? Oh, and it should be "follows".
      • Re5: He cannot consciously assume other forms, the body just mutates further upon receiving damage. Uh...that's him...it. Haha, the second wording is too hilariously fancy not too include (though I kept mutate here since the body isn't really blob-deformed). Wrote "followed" as he is on the train. If you want "follows" to imply that he is following the train, I would change this again.
        • "Follows" was supposed to mean that he followed them in some form; I didn't assume that he was following the train. I don't think Birkin's location is really that critical here. The basic facts are that he chases them down, they're in danger, and his proximity to the self-destructing train results in his death. I doubt anyone will be confused. Oh, and I don't think that you need to specify that it's Claire, Sherry and Leon. You introduced them by name in the sentence directly before that, and all of the other protagonists are dead or assumed dead by this point in the story. Just saying "the protagonists" or "them" would be clear enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Re6: Whoops, missed those. Thanks.
  • "but is eventually destroyed when a self-destruct system causes the train to explode"
    • "Eventually" is an unneeded word here.
      • Re5: Changed.
  • "Ada is implied to have survived and to have made away with the G-virus in the pendant."
    • This comes off as kind of a non-sequitur when it's placed directly after the train sentence. I think that it should be moved up so that it follows the sentence about Leon and Claire escaping, to make it more obvious that it's an epilogue-type event.
      • Re5: Moved up.
        • Sorry, I wasn't thinking correctly. I meant that it should be moved down, past the "Escaping the city with Sherry" line. I've gone ahead and done it myself to save you the trouble. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "After their escape from the city with Sherry, Leon decides to take down Umbrella, while Claire continues to search for her brother."
    • "After escaping from the city with Sherry, Leon plots to bring down Umbrella ...".

Only a few more sections to go. As always, great work on the fixes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Re5: Sure on the plotting part? This word brings up images of supervillains in my mind, and he isn't really "plotting" it so much as he is saying "Let's take down Umbrella" (which he will not have a chance to because he is forced to work for the U.S. Government immediately after Raccoon City).
    • Ha! Well, I changed it to "plotting" because it implies that he makes it a top priority, but that it's going to take awhile. Saying that he "decides to take down Umbrella" could mean that, at the very end of the game, we see him kicking down the door of Umbrella HQ. If you can think of phrasing that removes that possibility, without sounding over-the-top like my idea, the problem would be addressed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Re6: Changed to "intends", which should be less decisive.

Re5 Prime Blue (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Replied inline. I'll get to Development now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, one more thing. Re-reading the FAC, I noticed that someone complained about the strange, possibly "rushed" nature of certain events in paragraph 2 of Plot. In the current version, there's only two that stick out to me: Claire's discovery that Brian Irons had been bribed, and the sudden initial appearance of Annette. A tiny bit of introduction about the Irons part would clear it up. As for Annette, perhaps suggesting that she "ambushes" them, or something, would make it seem less random. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Re6: It's not that important that Claire discovers the conspiracy, so possibly "It is revealed that Raccoon City's police chief" or "It becomes apparent that Raccoon City's police chief"? To have an additional connective, probably "...that Leon's superior, Raccoon City's police chief Brian Irons, ..."? Please check. Concerning Annette, her first appearance is pretty random. Mentioned the chance meeting now to make it clearer.

Re6 Still quite a bunch left...but it's comforting to have such a dedicated and great copy editor! Thanks for your thorough review! Prime Blue (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Looks like you took care of my concerns. I made a few final tweaks that I thought improved the section; see what you think. One concern remains, though: removing Claire's discovery makes that sentence seem less random, but it makes her escape into the sewers more random. If this issue can be solved, the case can be closed on Plot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The change you made is perfect; Plot is complete. I'll get to Development soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Great. Don't know how much time I'll have this coming week, but I'll try to keep up with your review. Prime Blue (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Development:

  • "Development of Resident Evil 2 began one month after the completion of its predecessor in early 1996"
    • "Development of Resident Evil 2 began one month after the early-1996 completion of its predecessor". Or something like that. The wording as-is could be read as a run-on sentence that states that RE2 began development on the date mentioned.
      • Re7: Leaving that as is since I don't think the two different readings will cause problems, and there was no definite development start given (early 1996 + one month is still early 1996).
  • "while the first actual footage was shown at the V Jump Festival '96 in July."
    • "and the first actual footage of the game was shown at the V Jump Festival '96 in July."
      • Re7: Changed.
  • "differed drastically from the final release version in its scenario, presentation and gameplay mechanics."
    • I think "final release version" might be redundant. Try either "final version" or "released version". Also, I don't know why, but I think this sentence would be an easier read if "presentation" was listed before "scenario" at the end.
      • Re7: Changed first part. Used the specific order "scenario, presentation and gameplay mechanics" as that is the order in which the aspects will be elaborated on in the section.
  • "The plot followed the same basic outline as Resident Evil 2, and featured a zombie outbreak in Raccoon City, two months after the events of the first game."
    • "Its plot followed the same basic outline as that of Resident Evil 2, and featured a zombie outbreak in Raccoon City, two months after the events of the first game."
      • Re7: Changed.
  • "as a consequence of their illegal experiments."
    • Perhaps "due to their" would be more concise? Up to you.
      • Re7: I was "due to"-banned in the FAN.
  • "The development team sought to retain the level of fear from the original game, and thus introduced two new characters lacking experience with terrifying situations to the narrative: Leon S. Kennedy, largely identical to his persona in the final build, and Elza Walker, a college student and motorcycle racer who came home to Raccoon City for her vacation."
    • Is there a better way of phrasing "retain the level of fear from the original game"? "Sought to make the game as scary as the original Resident Evil" probably won't work; too unencyclopedic. As for the second half of the sentence, try "and thus introduced to the narrative two new characters who lacked experience with terrifying situations". I'm a little concerned that this whole construction runs on too long, but I'm not sure if it could be split apart. Either way, try "and Elza Walker, a college student and motocycle racer vacationing in Raccoon City, her hometown."
      • Re7: Don't know, possibly replace retain with maintain. The second construction is highly dependent on formal language, and I can't think of an appropriate adjective (unsettling/frightening/etc. just don't seem to nail it). Changed the latter.
  • "the story paths of Leon and Elza did not cross over in Resident Evil 1.5, and both playable characters had two support partners instead of just one."
    • "the story paths of Leon and Elza did not cross over in Resident Evil 1.5, and each playable character had two support partners instead of just one."
      • Re7: Changed.
  • "whereas Elza was aided in her survival by Sherry Birkin and a man named John, who was later incorporated into Resident Evil 2 as gun shop owner Robert Kendo"
    • "while Elza was aided by Sherry Birkin and a man named John, who appeared in Resident Evil 2 as gun shop owner Robert Kendo."
      • Re7: Changed.
  • Who are "Isao Ohishi" and "Ryoji Shimogama"? Were they character designs? Character artists? Modelers? If they were character designers, then I recommend changing that sentence to, "Character designers Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama incorporated real-world influences into several of the game's characters," or something like that. Otherwise, I don't know. It depends on their role.
    • Re7: Added "artists".
  • "The police department that served as the setting at the beginning of the game had a more modern and realistic design, and was smaller than the final building."
    • "The police department in which the game begins had a more modern and realistic design, and was smaller than the final building." Unless the game doesn't actually start there; I don't know for sure. The earlier version of the sentence indicated that as a possibility, and the stuff in Plot doesn't really contradict it.
      • Re7: Resident Evil 2 started in the streets, but Resident Evil 1.5 began with the police station. Used past tense.
  • "There were also more encounters with surviving policemen/"
    • "There were also more encounters with surviving policemen".
      • Re7: Changed.
  • "The number of polygons used for enemy models was far lower than in the released version. This allowed an abundance of zombies to appear on the screen, a recurring method to invoke fear in the player throughout Resident Evil 1.5."
    • Perhaps these two sentence could be connected by a semicolon? Either way, "an abundance of" could probably trimmed to "many" for brevity. Also, I think the last part would be better as, "a method of invoking fear in the player that recurred throughout Resident Evil 1.5".
      • Re7: Changed. Kept period as the sentence is kind of long and not directly connected to the other.
  • "Furthermore, the game employed dynamic music and frequently applied changes to the pre-rendered backgrounds as certain events occurred during the gameplay."
    • I don't really get what that second part means. I understand the graphical terms used here, but how do you frequently change the pre-rendered backgrounds? Swap them out for completely different ones? Make subtle alterations to them? Should probably be clarified if possible, or made less specific if not.
      • Re7: The pre-rendered backgrounds were not changed (as in swapped), there were changes applied to them. Swapped "changes" for "alterations" to make it clearer.
  • "The characters could also be equipped with additional gear".
    • "The characters could also be equipped with more types of gear than appeared in the final version".
      • Re7: Changed, removed "additional" as there is no gear in the final version.
  • "Costume changes and wounds inflicted by enemies were reflected in changes to the characters' polygonal models."
    • A little bit on the clunky side, particularly due to the two uses of "changes". Perhaps, "The characters' polygonal models were altered by costume changes and by wounds inflicted by enemies". Too many uses of "by", though. I think there's a way around this. Any ideas?
      • Re7: "Damage received from enemies" instead of "by wounds inflicted by enemies", if it's not too RPG-y?

That's all for now. In other news, the Terra Nova peer review appears to have been archived by a bot, which is kind of a pain. I recently attempted to paraphrase those quotes you listed. I'll take care of the last few unaddressed points and send it to FAC soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Re7 Prime Blue (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I ran through and made a few minor tweaks, just to save time. One more thing, though: since one game begins in the police department and the other does not, "The police department in which the game began ..." may not be the best phrasing. Perhaps, "The police department in one of the game's early scenes ...", or something like that. Something that's applicable to both. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Nice work. I'll try to pick up the pace on these reviews. I should have one for the next section by tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Development, continued:

    • Perhaps the first paragraph of "Redesign" could be moved up to the end of "Initial version"?
  • "The development was handled by a group of about 40 to 50 people who would later be part of Capcom Production Studio 4."
    • Now would be a good time to reintroduce the game's title. Beyond that, I think the sentence would read better as, "Resident Evil 2 (1.5?) was developed by a group of about (you provide another rough estimate directly after this) 40 to 50 people, many (or "all") of whom would later be part of Capcom Production Studio 4".
      • Re8: The problem with this and the preceding suggestion is that the team developed both Resident Evil 1.5 and Resident Evil 2 (that's why I omitted the title altogether) – if I put the sentence up and said only Resident Evil 1.5, I'd be afraid it would confuse readers. The placement was my attempt to make avoid the ambiguity. Changed "handled" to "carried out", removed "about". As I don't know the exact number of staff members who became part of Capcom Production Studio 4, I changed the "who" to "that".
  • "which was composed of more than half of the original Resident Evil staff and relatively young Capcom employees".
    • The citation in the middle of the sentence is jarring. Putting it at the end isn't going to break any rules. Anyway, I find the wording here a bit confusing. Perhaps, "which was composed of both newer Capcom employees and over half of the team from the original Resident Evil"?
      • Re8: Changed (used "staff" instead of "team" to avoid repetition).
  • "In the initial stages, producer Mikami often intervened because of disagreements with Kamiya".
    • "In the initial stages of development" would be clearer, I think. Also, what does the "intervened because of disagreements" part mean? I don't understand. Did he hijack development after disagreeing with the director? It should be clarified.
      • Re8: Changed and clarified.
  • "though he eventually stepped back to an overseeing role as producer, and only demanded to be shown the current build once a month.""
    • "though" would be better as a "but". Also, is "demanded" the right word here? It makes him sound somewhat like a dictator.
      • Re8: Changed. I think "demanded" is okay here, as he was in a higher position and really acted kind of begrudgingly.
  • "Believing the individual assets to be good but not satisfactory as a whole yet, Mikami thought the team would be able to improve the game in the three months leading up to its projected release date in May 1997".
    • "Believing the game's assets to be good individually but not yet satisfactory as a whole, Mikami expected that the team would improve the game (or perhaps, "expected that the game would coalesce") in the three months leading up to its projected May 1997 release date."
      • Re8: Changed, reworded the second part to avoid using "game" twice.
  • "Shortly after".
    • "Shortly thereafter".
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "Mikami later explained that the game could not have reached the desired quality in the aforementioned period, and especially frowned upon the gameplay and locations for being too dull and boring."
    • Perhaps "would" instead of "could"? Up to you. Either way, "being too dull and boring" suggests that a certain level of dullness and boredom was acceptable or even expected. However, if you remove the "too", it sounds POV. Perhaps a direct quote is in order?
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "The old story Mikami tried to end the series with was criticized by supervisor Yoshiki Okamoto, who found the plot to be too conclusive to allow for future installments."
    • What is this "old story"? The story of Resident Evil 1.5? The story he wanted to be in Resident Evil 1.5? Needs clarification. Also, "with which Mikami tried to end the series was criticized ...".
      • Re8: Changed and clarified.
  • "Instead, he proposed the creation of a whole universe, to turn Resident Evil into a metaseries containing common elements, but in which largely self-contained stories could be told, similar to the Gundam and James Bond franchises."
    • Okamoto proposed this? If so, "Instead, Okamoto proposed ...". Also, "the creation of a whole universe" could probably be be cut. Just move the next part up, so that we get, "Instead, Okamoto proposed that Resident Evil be turned into a metaseries". Then, "... metaseries, in which self-contained stories that featured common elements could be told, similar to the Gundam and James Bond franchises".
      • Re8: The creation of a universe is the most important part here (reworded that to make it clearer). Rest changed.
  • "At a time the team did not make any progress on rewriting the scenario, Okamoto was introduced to professional screenwriter Noboru Sugimura who was also a big fan of the first game's story."
    • At a time when? If so, this construction would probably be clearer as, "During a period in which the team made no progress on rewriting the scenario". Also, "... Noboru Sugimura, who was also a big fan (less informal phrasing?) of the first game's story."
      • Re8: Was told to remove "when" during FAN. Changed rest.
  • "Though Sugimura was initially consulted on a trial basis, Okamoto was impressed with how easily the writer came up with solutions to the problems that plagued the script, and soon pleaded with him to compose the entire scenario for Resident Evil 2."
    • "Though Sugimura was initially consulted on a trial basis (is a clearer phrase possible?), but Okamoto was impressed by the ease with which the writer solved (unless he only offered suggestions, in which case the original wording is preferable) the problems that plagued the script, and soon asked (pleaded seems a bit overdramatic) him to compose the entire scenario for Resident Evil 2."
      • Re8: I think he only gave suggestions before he became the writer. Changed rest.
  • "One fundamental modification to the story was the reworking of Elza Walker into Claire Redfield to introduce a connecting element to the plot of the first game."
    • "... into Claire Redfield, in order to introduce a connection to the plot ..."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "To fulfill Capcom's sales plan of two million copies, director Kamiya tried to attract new customers with a more pretentious and Hollywood-like story presentation."
    • Pretentious has a very negative connotation and, when it's used like this, it comes off as POV. Quote it directly if possible; otherwise, try "ostentatious", which serves a similar purpose here without being quite as severely judgmental.
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "As Okamoto did not want to simply enforce the new direction, he had Sugimura talk to Mikami and the development staff to discuss his revisions."
    • Discuss whose revisions? Kamiya's? Okamoto's? Sugimura's? Mikami's? If you're referring to the ones in the sentence directly before this, I recommend "the revisions".
      • Re8: Clarified.
  • "While the planners redesigned the game from the ground up to fit the changes, the programmers and other remaining members of the team were sent to work on Resident Evil Director's Cut."
    • "While The planners redesigned the game from the ground up to fit the changes, and the programmers ..."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "The title was shipped with a playable preview disc of the new Resident Evil 2 version to promote the sequel and to apologize to the players for its belated release."
    • This should be connected to the previous sentence via a comma. Rework it as, "the team were sent to work on Resident Evil Director's Cut, which was shipped with a playable preview disc of the new Resident Evil 2 version ..."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "These environments were created with a software called O2"
    • "... a software program ..."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "about two to three weeks to render"
    • As with the above estimation of the team's size, this provides two guesses as to the number in question; remove the "about".
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "The maximum number of zombies displayed on the screen at once was limited to seven".
    • "The maximum number of zombies that could be displayed on the screen at one time was limited to seven".
      • Re8: More than seven could be displayed (they just limited the number to make the main protagonists more detailed), so I changed only the latter.
  • "One of the most important new features apart from the graphics, the "Zapping System", was partly inspired by Back to the Future Part II, a time travel-themed film sequel that offers a different perspective on the story of the original film."
    • "Apart from the graphics, one of the most important new features was the "Zapping System", which was partly inspired by Back to the Future Part II ..."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "Thereafter, the full-motion videos (FMVs) were created by filming stop motion animations of action figures, then rendered to completed pictures with computer graphics (CG) tools."
    • "... figures, which were then rendered with computer graphics ..."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "The North American version contains more violent game over screens that had to be removed from the Japanese Biohazard 2."
    • "The North American version contains more violent "game over" screens, which were removed from the Japanese Biohazard 2."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "Resident Evil 2 was also made more difficult than its Japanese equivalent to prevent rentals from affecting the sales."
    • That's fascinating and bizarre. Only Wikipedia mentions stuff like this. Anyway, which Resident Evil 2 version are talking about here? Needs clarification.

That's it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

      • Re8: Clarified with "U.S."
Back again with Rereleases and ports:
  • "After the initial release for the PlayStation in January 1998, Resident Evil 2 was reissued and ported to other systems on various occasions, often gaining new features in the process."
    • Should specify the subject at the beginning, as in, "After its initial release". Also, "Resident Evil 2 was reissued and ported to other systems on various occasions, often gaining new features in the process."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "The first rerelease was the Dual Shock Ver. that was modified to incorporate support for the vibration and analog control functions of the PlayStation's DualShock controller."
    • "The first rerelease was the Dual Shock Ver., which incorporated support for the vibration and analog control functions of the PlayStation's DualShock controller."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "Other additions included a new unlockable minigame called "Extreme Battle" and a "Rookie" mode enabling the player to start the main game with a powerful weapon that comes with infinite ammunition."
    • "Other additions include a new unlockable minigame called "Extreme Battle", and a "Rookie" mode that enables the player to start the main game ("main story", perhaps?) with a powerful weapon that features infinite ammunition."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "The Japanese release also contained a "U.S.A. Version" mode based on the difficulty setting of the Western versions."
    • The Japanese release of the Dual Shock Ver.? If so, "The Japanese release of the Dual Shock Ver. also contained a "U.S.A. Version" mode based on the difficulty level of Resident Evil 2's Western versions."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "such as the PC-CD release titled Resident Evil 2 Platinum in North America"
    • "such as the North American PC-CD release titled Resident Evil 2 Platinum"
      • Re8: Not so sure about that one as it's not an exclusively North American release, and called Resident Evil 2 Platinum there only (which is also why using it as an identifier is a bit too encompassing for my tastes).
  • "Aside from retaining all previous new features, it can be run in higher resolutions."
    • "previous new features", while funny, needs to go. Perhaps, "previously added features"? Also, "it" should be specified as "Platinum".
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "allowing the player to watch movies, rough sketches, illustrations and 3D models"
    • I think "view" would be preferable to "watch", since there are still images involved.
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "In February 2006, a Japan-exclusive Windows XP-compatible PC-DVD rerelease was published."
    • "In February 2006, a Japan-exclusive, Windows XP-compatible PC-DVD version of Platinum was published."
      • Re8: Added comma, but same here as above.
  • Saying that the Dreamcast version used features from the PC version is fine, but putting it right after discussion of a 2006 release is jarring for people familiar with the Dreamcast's lifespan. Perhaps the Dreamcast discussion could be moved up?
    • Re8: As much as it hurts, the section would read terribly jumpy and repetitive if everything is in chronological order. Would rather remove the date from the PC-DVD version.
  • "... kept the additions from the PC release, runs at 60 ..."
    • Tense change makes me do a double-take. Perhaps change "kept" to "keep"?
      • Re8: Changed (must have missed that one).
  • "A straight port of the Dual Shock Ver. was released for the Nintendo GameCube."
    • "straight port" falls a bit into the realm of industry jargon. Perhaps "unmodified port"?
      • Re8: Way better.
  • "The Japanese PlayStation Network edition from 2007 is based on the initial PlayStation version, whereas the North American counterpart released two years later is the Dual Shock Ver."
    • "The initial PlayStation version was rereleased on the Japanese PlayStation Network in 2007, and the service's North American counterpart received the Dual Shock Ver. two years later." Not the best, but still less jarring. Could probably still stand a bit of improvement.
      • Re8: Changed (replaced "and" with "while").
  • "The Nintendo 64 version of the game differs most from the other releases."
    • "The Nintendo 64 version of Resident Evil 2 differs most from the other releases."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "Hidden throughout the four scenarios"
    • The Nintendo 64 discussion was extremely clean until I reached this part. What four scenarios? I thought there were only two in the original game? Maybe make this more vague, like "Hidden throughout the game".
      • Re8: Changed. There's Leon A -> Claire B, Claire A -> Leon B, making for a total of four scenarios.
  • "connect the story of Resident Evil 2 to the other installments"
    • "connect the story of Resident Evil 2 to those of the other installments".
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "and had several core features of the original removed"
    • "and removed several of the original game's core features"
      • Re8: Changed.

I'll be back with Music tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Music:
  • "To support the atmosphere, "desperation" was selected as the principal theme of the compositions."
    • To support what kind of atmosphere? An atmosphere of fear? Dread? Forboding? If they don't specify, some other kind of solution will be necessary, but I can't think of anything at this time.
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "In his capacity as lead composer, Ueda provided the motifs, while Uchiyama was responsible for the horror-themed music used for the investigation and movie scenes."
    • "In his role as lead composer, Ueda provided the motifs, while Uchiyama was responsible for the horror-themed music used for the investigation and movie scenes ("movie scenes" refers to the game's FMV cutscenes, right? Perhaps this could be specified)."
      • Re8: Changed. There are both FMV and in-game cutscenes, so keeping this as is.
  • "Various musical styles are used to represent the different environments of the game, ranging from ambient horror music to industrial-oriented pieces."
    • "Various musical styles, ranging from ambient horror music to industrial-oriented pieces, are used to represent (fit?) the different environments of the game."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "while the police department mostly features ominous piano underscores."
    • "while the police department mostly features (saying that it "features" something doesn't mean that it "exclusively features" something, so the "mostly" comes off as a bit unnecessary) ominous piano underscores."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "Key events of the story are supported with more orchestral and cinematic compositions instead, a move that was inspired by blockbuster movies."
    • "Key events of the story are supported with more orchestral and cinematic compositions instead - (I think a dash reads better than a comma in this case, but it's your call) a move that was inspired by blockbuster movies ("films"?)"
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "serves as the main release and includes the majority of the more significant compositions."
    • "is the main release and includes most of the significant compositions."
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "mostly encompasses less prevalent themes".
    • "largely (to avoid repetition of "most" with the new version of the sentence before this) consists of the less prevalent themes".
      • Re8: Changed.
  • "Furthermore, several of the compositions received electronic remixes by Piston Nishizawa, later to be released as the album Biohazard 2 Remix: Metamorphoses."
    • "Furthermore, Piston Nishizawa created electronic remixes for several of the compositions, which were later to be released as the album Biohazard 2 Remix: Metamorphoses."
      • Re8: Changed.

That's it. I hope you can find time to work on the article again. If you'd like, I could lay off the reviews for a couple days, so that the task doesn't become overly daunting. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re8: Thank you, back in full force now. Should be able to keep up again now. Prime Blue (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Great work! I made a few adjustments, but everything looks good. I should have Reception up by tomorrow, and there's only one more section after that. I don't think you'll have any major prose opposition at FAC; if anything, someone might have you fix a few bits of phrasing before they support. Oh, and the identity of Piston Nishizawa should be clarified in the article. I can't believe I forgot to mention that last time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Reception:

  • "A commercial success, the PlayStation version of Resident Evil 2 has sold over 4.96 million copies, making it the franchise's best-selling game on a single platform."
    • Starting with "a commercial success" is confusing. Try, "With sales above 4.96 million copies, the PlayStation version of Resident Evil 2 was a commercial success, and is the franchise's best-selling game on a single platform."
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "Another 810,000 copies of the Dual Shock Ver. were shipped as of March 1999."
    • "Another 810,000 copies of the Dual Shock Ver. were shipped by March 1999."
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "Resident Evil 2 was also well-received by critics and has been held in high regard years after its initial release, having been included in lists of the 100 best games compiled by Electronic Gaming Monthly, IGN, Game Informer and Official UK PlayStation Magazine, where it came in 62nd, 58th, 34th and 6th place, respectively."
    • This sentence is probably overlong. Let me see what I can do: "Resident Evil 2 was also well received (no hyphen) by critics, and has been held in high regard in the years following its initial release. Electronic Gaming Monthly, IGN, Game Informer and Official UK PlayStation Magazine included it in their lists of the 100 best games; it came in 62nd, 58th, 34th and 6th place, respectively."
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "In 2011, GameTrailers ranked it 4th place in a list of games most in need of a remake, behind Silent Hill, Final Fantasy VII and Panzer Dragoon Saga."
    • "In 2011, GameTrailers ranked it 4th place in a list of the games most that most needed remakes.behind Silent Hill, Final Fantasy VII and Panzer Dragoon Saga. (these names may mean something to the video game savvy, but the average reader will have no reference point whatsoever)". Could perhaps be tweaked further.
      • Re9: Included the other games to fulfill the context criterion of the FACR. "Called for" would probably be good here, though I wouldn't know where to put the "most" then.
  • "The original PlayStation version of Resident Evil 2 holds an average of 92.57 percent at GameRankings and a Metacritic score of 89 out of 100 points,[79][84] and was named the 4th-best game on the system by Famitsu."
    • This needs to be moved up. This whole paragraph could probably use some restructuring, in fact. To begin with, begin the paragraph with my alteration of "well received by critics"; change the comma to a semicolon, though, and add, "its original PlayStation release holds average scores of 92.57 percent at GameRankings and 89 out of 100 at Metacritic." The next sentence: "The game has been held in high regard in the years following its initial release, and was named the 4th best (no hyphen) game on the PlayStation by Famitsu." Then add the sentence about EGM/IGN/etc.'s lists, and, finally, the GameTrailers comment.
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "The Nintendo 64 port fared almost as well in reviews, whereas most of the other releases have received slightly lower scores."
    • "The game's Nintendo 64 port also met with critical acclaim, but most of the other releases have received slightly lower scores."
      • Re9: Changed. Guess you missed a "was" before "also", here?
        • Actually, no. A thing can "meet" ("met" here, as it's written in past tense) with something, or "be met" ("was met") with something; either would technically be correct here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Across the majority of reviews, the game's atmosphere, setting, graphics and audio received praise, though aspects such as the controls, voice acting and some of the gameplay elements were criticized."
    • "The majority of reviews praised the game's atmosphere, setting, graphics and audio, but criticized its controls, voice acting and certain gameplay elements."
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "IGN's Rick Sanchez thought the atmosphere of the title was "dead on", claiming the individual factors of the presentation to "work together to create a spooky, horror-filled world"."
    • "IGN's Rick Sanchez thought that the game's atmosphere was "dead on", and claimed that its [specific presentational elements, as referenced by the reviewer] "work together create a spooky, horror-filled world."
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "Ryan Mac Donald of GameSpot shared the opinion and found the game to be "more an interactive, cinematic experience than a video game", appearing "like a product out of Hollywood"."
    • "Ryan Mac Donald of GameSpot shared the opinion, and found the game to be "like a product out of Hollywood"; he believed that it was "more an interactive, cinematic experience than a video game."
      • Re9: Changed. Put period outside per WP:LQ since it's just a sentence fragment.
  • "In his review for Computer and Video Games, Paul Mallinson commended the game's atmosphere, story and presentation as some of its most outstanding features."
    • "Writing for Computer and Video Games, Paul Mallinson called the game's atmosphere, story and presentation its most outstanding features (if he didn't actually do that, then "Paul Mallinson considered the game's atmosphere, story and presentation to be highlights".
      • Re9: As it's listed under "uppers" in the review, I think it's safe to say that these are the aspects he considered outstanding.
  • While we're at it, you might consider deleting most of the stuff in the review template. I find it intrusive. The purpose of that template is to give people a quick overview of the game's scores, which is not what this is. Weed it down to the scores of the PS version, but leave in the port scores for the quoted review outlets that discuss the version in question. Also, due to the size of the section, subsections might be in order. Look at Anachronox (not featured yet, but it soon will be) for how this can most effectively be done.
      • Re9: Sorry, but having tried removing those scores, I don't think that it makes much of a difference – there are still quite some left. Also, Resident Evil 2 is one of the games with the most ports, so deleting scores from major outlets (considering that the lower port scores are mentioned in prose) doesn't seem right to me. If readers consider the table intrusive, they have the option of collapsing it. Got very creative and introduced lackluster subsection titles.
  • "Though he found the plot of the game"
    • "Although he found its plot".
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "GamePro staff writer Mike Weigand made similar remarks about the narrative, calling it "engrossing and dramatic", and the dialogue "well-written" and "spell-binding"."
    • "GamePro staff writer Mike Weigand called the narrative "engrossing and dramatic", and the dialogue "well-written" and "spell-binding"."
      • Re9: Changed.
  • "The "Zapping System" was praised by Sanchez, GameSpy's Brian Davis and Martin Taylor of Eurogamer for adding to the story and increasing the replay value of the game."
    • "Sanchez, GameSpy's Brian Davis and Eurogamer's Martin Taylor (making the structure repetitive keeps it clearer here) praised the "Zapping System" for adding to the story and increasing replay value."
      • Re9: Changed. Sure on omitting the article before "replay value"?
        • I thought about it as I was typing, but I ended up removing it simply to cut down on the amount of words. If you think it should stay, go ahead and put it back in.
  • "Mac Donald thought the idea of actions in the first playthrough affecting the second scenario was "cool in concept"".
    • "Mac Donald thought that the idea of actions in the first scenario affecting the second scenario was "cool in concept"".
      • Re9: Changed.

I'm going to have to put off the rest of this section until tomorrow. I'm a bit busy; sorry. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Re9: In summary, I can only say that disc jokeys are so much funnier than disc jockeys. :) Prime Blue (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Ha! I laughed when I saw that in there. Anyway, I made a couple of inline responses. Also, about those subsection titles: the first one is good, but would be better as "Design and presentation". "Reception of rereleases and ports", though... let's put it this way: I haven't read the WP MOS in probably 3-4 years, but I'm pretty sure it breaks every section naming convention, aside from the ban on including the article's title in a section name ("Reception of Resident Evil 2's rereleases and ports"). Try "Later versions", perhaps. Something better could probably be found, but it'll do for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reception, continued

  • "Resident Evil 2 was lauded for its graphics as well, often seen as a big improvement over the first installment in the series."
    • "Resident Evil 2 was also praised for its graphics, which many critics felt were a substantial improvement over those of the first installment."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "Sanchez and Weigand thought the backgrounds were an impressive update over the predecessor, based on the improved level of detail and the player's ability to interact with them."
    • "Sanchez and Weigand thought that the pre-rendered backgrounds were an impressive leap ahead of those in the original Resident Evil, thanks to their increased detail and interactivity."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "Mac Donald praised the model animations for having reached "true realism" and commended the addition of body language as a means of knowing the protagonists' present condition without having to look at the status screen."
    • "Mac Donald praised the model animations for having reached "true realism", and commended the game's use of body language as a means of seamlessly communicating the condition of the protagonists' health."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "Allgame's Shawn Sackenheim gave the graphics the highest score possible as he found the backgrounds to be "rendered to perfection", the cinemas "a work of art" and the animation "fluid and eerie"."
    • "Allgame's Shawn Sackenheim awarded its graphics the highest possible score, as he found the backgrounds to be "rendered to perfection" (this makes me chuckle), the cutscenes "a work of art" and the animation "fluid and eerie"."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "The audio was just as well received by critics, being cited as an "excellent accompaniment to the visuals" by Weigand."
    • "The audio was just as (I understand that, when writing a Reception section, certain OR and WP:SYNTH liberties must be taken, but I think this crosses the line) well received by critics; Weigand cited it as an "excellent accompaniment to the visuals"."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "Sackenheim described the music and sound effects as "spot on perfect" and called the soundtrack "perfectly composed for [the] game", while Mac Donald likened their employment to that in classic horror movies."
    • "Sackenheim described the music and sound effects as "spot on perfect", and called the soundtrack "perfectly composed for [the] game", while Mac Donald likened the game's use of audio to that of classic horror movies (again, perhaps "films"?)."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "One common point of criticism is the inventory system which Sanchez called "a pain"."
    • "A common point of criticism was the inventory system, which Sanchez called "a pain"."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "He mostly frowned upon the player having to return to item boxes to retrieve objects, though Mac Donald also criticized the system for being unrealistic as the boxes are ...".
    • "He mostly (how do you "mostly" frown?) frowned upon the player's need (better wording is possible, but, for some reason, it isn't coming to me) to retrieve objects from item boxes, and Mac Donald also criticized the system for being unrealistic, as the boxes are ...".
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "Furthermore, Mallinson and Mac Donald disapproved of some of the puzzles, finding them out of place for the police station setting."
    • I thought the police station was only a brief area near the beginning of the game? Here, it sounds like the entire game is set there. Either way, "disapproved of certain puzzles, which they believed were out of place in a police station setting."
      • Re10: The police station accounts for at least half of the game, I think (though we changed a comment above in "Development" to avoid confusion). Changed.
  • "Sanchez thought that the puzzles were paced better than in the first game, but also less interesting and too easy for experienced adventure gamers."
    • "Sanchez thought that the puzzles were paced better than in the first game, but also found them less interesting and too easy for experienced players ("adventure gamers" means nothing to the average reader)."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "Sackenheim addressed the relatively short play time in his review, remarking that the individual scenarios are not different enough to keep casual players interested to complete all of them."
    • "addressed the relatively short play time" makes it sound like you're calling the game short. Try, "Sackenheim noted the game's brevity in his review, and remarked that the individual scenarios are not different enough ("sufficiently different"?) to hold the interest of casual players until the end of the game."
      • Re10: Changed.
  • "Although he found the controls to be "easy to pick up and play", Sanchez thought the aiming was difficult, especially on the edge of camera angles."
    • "Although Sanchez found the controls to be "easy to pick up and play", he thought that aiming was difficult, especially on the edge of camera angles (I have no idea what this means)."
      • Re10: Changed. Removed the camera angles part as it would be hard to explain. If "the aiming was difficult, especially if the playable character is on the edge of a camera angle and the enemy is out of sight" is sufficient, I'll use that.
  • "Some reviewers also panned the voice acting, calling it "cheesy", "terrible" and "barbaric"."
    • "Certain reviewers (believe me, "some" is a reviled word at FAC; "certain" is preferable in almost every circumstance, for some reason) also panned the voice acting, calling it "cheesy", "terrible" and "barbaric"."
      • Re10: Changed.

I'll try to get the rest of the review up later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re10 Prime Blue (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for running through the last section ahead of time. I looked at the diff, and I think it's going to make it go a lot faster. Anyway, here's Reception, continued again:

  • "Weigand advised players who had already bought Resident Evil 2 to rent the Dual Shock Ver. for the "Extreme Battle" minigame, and recommended newcomers to the series to buy the updated edition in favor of the original release."
    • Hmm... thanks to the new subsections (which improve the section greatly, I might add), this sentence is a bit strange. Perhaps a small introductory sentence could be placed at the beginning of the section? Either way, "Weigand advised players who already owned Resident Evil 2 to rent the Dual Shock Ver. for the "Extreme Battle" minigame, and recommended that newcomers buy the updated edition instead of the original release."
      • Re11: Changed, and added introductory sentence from above.
  • "The PC port was praised for the extras added to it, but criticized for not allowing the player to save at any time, and for lacking updated backgrounds to fit the higher in-game resolution."
    • "The Windows port was praised for its additional content, but criticized for not allowing the player to save at will ("at any time" suggests that players could, in fact, never save), and for lacking updated backgrounds to fit the higher in-game resolution."
      • Re11: Changed.
  • "The Nintendo 64 version was universally commended for the technical achievement of fitting a two-disc game on a single 512-Mbit cartridge; however, Taylor criticized the inclusion of the door opening scenes, which were meant to conceal the loading times of the PlayStation version – a technical disadvantage of optical discs that cartridges do not share."
    • This sentence is extremely long. Let's see: "The Nintendo 64 version was 'widely ("universally", like the "just as" I pointed out earlier, takes the level of synthesis/OR past that of necessity) commended for the technical achievement of fitting a two-disc game on a single-512-Mbit cartridge; however, Taylor criticized the game for retaining scenes from the PlayStation version that were used to conceal loading times (I understand what "door opening scenes" is referring to, but the vast majority of the people reading this article will not) - a technical disadvantage of optical discs that cartridges do not share."
      • Re11: Changed. But is the hyphen after "single" needed here? I was going for "one 512-Mbit cartridge".
        • I apologize; that was a typo that I somehow missed.
  • ""The Freshman" of GamePro was impressed with the enhanced high-resolution graphics of the Nintendo 64 port, but disappointed with its heavily compressed CG FMVs."
    • I hate GamePro for doing this to us. It's cruel to force us to use unprofessional-sounding pseudonyms in encyclopedia articles. Perhaps to make up for it, "A GamePro writer under the pseudonym "The Freshman" was impressed with the enhanced high-resolution graphics of the Nintendo 64 port, but was disappointed by its heavily compressed CG FMVs."
      • Re11: Changed.
  • "and also noted".
    • "and also (redundant) noted".
      • Re11: Changed.
  • "called the Nintendo 64 release the best version of the game."
    • When using the word "call", it reads best when you follow up with a direct quote. If no direct quote would be adequate here, change "called" to "believed" and add a "to be" after the "release".
      • Re11: Changed.
  • "who also remarked that the character models appear slightly sharper."
    • He thinks that they're sharper? If so, change "appear", which could have multiple meanings in this context, to "seem"--or an equivalent word that does not begin with "s", to avoid the alliteration of "seem slightly sharper".
      • Re11: Changed to "look".
  • "However, Steve Key of Computer and Video Games frowned upon the Dreamcast release's low-resolution backgrounds, which he thought make the characters stand out too much from the environments, taking away from the atmosphere."
    • I think two uses of "frowned upon" is enough; Mikami frowned upon something in Development, and Sanchez frowned upon something else in Reception. As an alternative, try "disliked the Dreamcast release's". Also, "which he thought made (the game is in present tense, but his review is in past tense; in this case, switching the game to past tense avoids a jarring tense transition) the characters stand out too much from the environments (is there a more concise way of putting this? I can't think of anything, but it seems like there should be something better), which lessened from the game's atmosphere."
      • Re11: Changed. Corrected double "which". Can't think of a more effective wording at the moment, but will rephrase once I can.
  • "GameSpot staff writer James Mielke called the Dreamcast port "not an essential purchase", but still a "great game" and an attractive offer considering its low retail price."
    • I didn't know Mielke wrote for GameSpot back then. Weird. Anyway, "GameSpot staff writer James Mielke did not believe that the Dreamcast port was "notan essential purchase", but still called it a "great game" and, thanks to its low retail price, an attactive offer (direct quote would be ideal with this construction)."
      • Re11: Changed.
  • As a note, have you considered reference groups? I first heard about them during Tales of Monkey Island's FAC; I just went there to grab you the link, I then saw that it was you who brought them up! Wow. Anyway, they might be for the best. There are a lot of reference clusters in this section.
      • Re11: I'll look into it.
  • "The Nintendo GameCube release was heavily criticized for its high price and dated graphics, while still being acknowledged by "Four-Eyed Dragon" of GamePro for offering the best in-game visuals across all versions of the game."
    • "The Nintendo GameCube release was heavily criticized for its high price and dated graphics; however, "Four-Eyed Dragon" of GamePro (!!!) noted that it offered the best in-game visuals of any version of the game."
      • Re11: Changed.
  • Davis and 1UP.com's Mark MacDonald were disappointed with the port's omission of features previously included in the Nintendo 64 release."
    • "Davis and 1UP.com's Mark MacDonald were disappointed by the port's lack of features that were previously included in the Nintendo 64 release."
      • Re11: Changed.
  • "Peer Schneider of IGN found the 2.5D version for the Game.com to be frustrating and only "partially faithful" to the original release of Resident Evil 2."
    • I'm assuming his name is "Peter Schneider"? "Peer Schneider" sounds almost like a title, like "Judge Schneider"--which would kind of make sense, seeing as he's a fellow game reviewer. But that's enough of that.
      • Re11: He is really called Peer Schneider, as far as I know (IGN doesn't use any pseudonyms either, I think).
        • That's bizarre. I think you should include a wikilink, in that case, to prevent confusion; others might make my same mistake.
  • "Although he felt that the handheld approach had managed to recreate the atmosphere to a certain extent with its graphics and sound effects, he thought that the controls were too "sluggish" to allow for an enjoyable experience."
    • "Although he felt that its graphics and sound effects managed to recreate the original game's atmosphere to a certain extent, he thought that its controls were too "sluggish" to allow for an enjoyable experience."
      • Re11: Changed.

Reception's done; yay! One more section to go. I must say, this is a really good article. I hadn't actually read the whole thing (my copyediting method involves reading only as far as I've edited), but, now that I have, I can safely say that it's FA material. You've done a great job here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re11: This will probably remain my only FA candidate. The last one already felt like I'm campaigning for homecoming queen, and that's not what I expected from the process at all. As much as the peer review now improved the prose of an article, those edits simply aren't any fun. I'll try to remember your corrections here, and to write future articles with those in mind (which is probably the best thing to come out of this review, so many thanks for your great efforts here!). But FANs are not my world, they're just not worth the time invested. Prime Blue (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Left a couple inline replies. Anyway, normally, I just change everything myself; this giant review business was an experiment on my part. I sometimes feel that my standard approach takes away the individuality of each editor's writing, and, this time, I decided to try my best to help you increase the prose's quality without sacrificing the original tone. I also hoped that this method would help you improve your writing overall; watching Wikipedia copyeditors was how I learned. I apologize if the ordeal has given you a negative perspective on FAC! I find the FAC process stressful, but not, when done in moderation, more trouble than it's worth. If you'd like, I could just plow through the last section on my own to save you the trouble. Even if the tone is slightly altered, the rest of the article is still intact. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I guess my last comment sounded ungrateful and lazy. Your peer review was not the problem at all, it was the FA nomination process itself. It's just that I underestimated the time that needs to be invested to get an article to FA status, as well as some other "sheer-luck" factors that need to fall into place during a review. In the end, it just isn't worth the hassle and the stress. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you reviewed the last section the same way as before. Prime Blue (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Honestly, I understand your position. That stuff gets to me, too. Plus, I didn't help the situation by going after Malleus; I apologize for that. Even though I was irritated by his tone, duking it out on someone else's FAC is always bad form. Anyway, I'll get on that final review by tomorrow, and you should be good for another go at FAC. I'm almost sure—as sure as you can be at FAC—that it'll pass this time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, not a problem at all – wouldn't have changed anything (if not made things worse for yourself), the article clearly wasn't up to snuff yet. Prime Blue (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Adaptations and sequels:

  • "The story of Resident Evil 2 served as the basis for several licensed works and later games."
    • "The story of Resident Evil 2 was the basis for several licensed works and later games."
  • "Ted Adams and Kris Oprisko loosely adapted the plot of Resident Evil 2 into the comics "Raccoon City – R.I.P." and "A New Chapter of Evil", released in the first and second issues of Resident Evil: The Official Comic Book Magazine in March and June 1998."
    • Saying "the plot of Resident Evil 2" is clearer than just saying "it" or "the game's plot", but it's also really similar to the first sentence. Also, "and "A New Chapter of Evil", which were released in the first and second issues of Resident Evil: The Official Comic Book Magazine in March and June 1998."
  • "The Cantonese 60-issue manhua Shēnghuà Wēijī 2 was published weekly from February 1998 to April 1999."
    • I think placing "60-issue" before "Cantonese" would increase flow. Also, is there a way of explaining how it's connected to the game? I can only assume that "Shēnghuà Wēijī 2" means "Resident Evil 2", but this is a guess based on the presence of "2" in the title. Even a little bit of clarification, like a translation of the title in parentheses, would go a long way.
  • "Resident Evil: City of the Dead, a 1999 book created by author S. D. Perry, is another more direct adaptation of the narrative, and was released as the third work in her series of Resident Evil novelizations."
    • "Resident Evil: City of the Dead, a 1999 book (novel?) written by author S. D. Perry, is a more direct adaptation of the narrative, and was the third release in her series of Resident Evil novelizations."
  • "The mobile game Resident Evil: Uprising contains a condensed version of the Resident Evil 2 story, adapted by Megan Swaine."
    • I understand the comic book and novel adaptations getting coverage, but this seems like too much information to me. Might want to just axe this sentence.
  • "which serves as a reimagining of the original Resident Evil 2 plot, using key scenes from the game's four scenarios."
    • "which reimagines the original Resident Evil 2 plot while retaining key scenes from the game's four scenarios."
  • "a full-fledged remake of the game"
    • He could be referring to a "full-fledged remake of Resident Evil 5", with this structure. I'm not sure how to make it clearer without repeating "Resident Evil 2" once again, which isn't optimal. Any ideas?
  • "which were centered on the characters of Sherry and Ada, respectively."
    • The sentence is fine without this, I think. Their names make it pretty obvious what they're about, and including this final part makes the whole sentence run on too long.
  • "Sherry gets separated from Claire while fleeing from masked soldiers that were sent by Umbrella to kill any remaining witnesses of the viral outbreak."
    • "Sherry is separated from Claire while fleeing from Umbrella soldiers sent to kill all witnesses of the viral outbreak."
  • "Sherry ends up seeking refuge in the neighboring town of Stone Ville, and eventually escapes to Canada with the help of a girl named Meg ..."
    • "Sherry seeks refuge in the neighboring town of Stone Ville, and later escapes to Canada with the help of a girl named Meg ..."
  • "Ada intercepts the delivery of the locket to Loire Village in France, and kills Hunk and his men."
    • "Ada intercepts the delivery of the locket to Loire Village in France, and kills Hunk and his men."
  • "Along with a unit of the French Air Force sent to burn down the village, she encounters Christine Henry, an Umbrella facility director. Christine gave Hunk the order to deliver the G-virus to France."
    • "Along with a unit of the French Air Force sent to burn down the village, she encounters Christine Henry, the Umbrella facility director who gave Hunk the order to deliver the G-virus to France." I notice in the diff that you just changed it from this. However, I think this is better than having two sentences.
  • "with the G-virus to be able to stop Jacob."
    • "with the G-virus to give himself the power to stop Jacob."
  • "deciding to quit the spy business and to return to him."
    • deciding to quit the spy business and to return to him."
  • "The two drama albums are not acknowledged in later series releases, with the story arcs continued differently instead: Sherry is taken into custody by the U.S. Government immediately after the events of Resident Evil 2, and Ada keeps the pendant with the G-virus and resumes her activities as a spy; Hunk successfully delivers a separate G-virus sample to Umbrella."
    • "The two drama albums are not acknowledged in later series releases. The characters' story arcs are continued differently instead: Sherry is taken into custody by the U.S. Government immediately after the events of Resident Evil 2, and Ada keeps the pendant with the G-virus and resumes her activities as a spy. Hunk successfully delivers a separate G-virus sample to Umbrella."

Finished! It took quite awhile, but I think the results are worth it. Drop me a line when you renominate the article and I'll support it as a peer reviewer. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed basically all of these save for the Uprising sentence (which seems weird to omit, given that all other adaptations are mentioned, and that the article says "several games"). Many, many thanks for taking the time to put together this very, very, very long and thorough review. I'll read the article one last time tomorrow, then I'll renominate. Again, thank you for your great efforts. Prime Blue (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. I had a lot of fun. If fate ever conspires to make you attempt FAC again, and you need a VG copyeditor, feel free to hit me up. I've had both good and difficult experiences while copyediting; this was definitely in the former category, and it'd be fun to work with you again in the future. Good luck at FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like suggestions for improving this article in any way possible. I'm one of the major contributors to this article and it would make me happy to see it upgraded to GA status.

Thanks, Paper Luigi TalkContributions 04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Hi, I've done a review of this article's structure and language but not a source review. Generally the article is good but it suffers from some indiciations of OR and synthesis; please see my inline comments in this diff. Below are some further comments:

  • The lead currently doesn't summarise the article as it omits mention of Reception and Other media. "The series was been nominated for X Emmy Awards and Y Annie Awards during its run. Spin-off media include a feature film, an anime, as well as various licensed merchandise." should be suitable.
  • Overview section should come before History section to give the reader a grounding in what the article is about.
  • Please look through the prose of the article and pick out redundancies in the text; e.g. "The girls are frequently called upon by the town's childlike mayor, who will then request the girls to help fight nearby criminals using their powers." is fine without the italicised text.
  • The History section jumps around quite a lot and isn't focused on the things it should be; the broadcast of the pilot is in parentheses for some reason and mention of the animation studio is relegated to the penultimate sentence.
  • Did merchandising actually "encompass everything" or is this just hyperbole?
  • Moving on to the Overview section, the entire paragraph about the location of Townsville is unsourced and constitutes orignal research. I doubt there is much in the way of reliable third party text on this subject but if there is you could incorporate that. Likewise the sentence regarding the animation style and comparisons to other series is unsourced.
  • Characters section. Big pool of OR. It's very difficult to describe a fictional character's personality traits using episodes directly because there is always the chance of running into synthesis, e.g. "She is often seen as the most mature, level-headed, and composed member of the group, although she can at times be fussy, overbearing, petty, and too analytical." Are there any descriptions of the characters in reliable sources? Does the creator talk about their personalities at all?
  • Reception is scant on the reviews, most likely these two were all that could be found on Google? If so, you could try asking at WT:TV if anyone has access to Newsbank or a similar database. Some further reviews may turn up. Nice work with the awards table. This should be sortable per WP:ACCESS and the years should have their own column.
  • Other media: The last sentence of the anime section is unsourced and contains a time-dependent word ("currently" - is that currently now or currently six months ago?) and the Film section is unsourced.

Overall it's not a bad read. The groundwork is there for a successful GA but the prose and referencing need working on quite a lot. WP:GOCE may be able to help with prose. Bradley0110 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


America's Backyard[edit]

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

  1. I've never asked for a PR before and need the experience of implementing suggestions rather than my own plan.
  2. It is labeled as Start class and that seems low to me. But I really can't tell what to reassess it as.
  3. I did not write this page but I see so much potential in it that I want to make it as good as possible.

Seeking suggestions and comments of all types. Thanks, Awg1010 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting undertaking, and I hope my comments are helpful.

  • The article needs a more clear focus. It's partly an extended definition of the term America's Backyard, but it deals mainly with Latin America. One problem with this is that at least one other Wikipedia article deals specifically with U.S. – Latin American relations. Would it make sense to convert this article to an extended definition and to merge most of the Latin American material with Latin America – United States relations? That would make this a much shorter article but one with a clear focus. (The other article needs a lot of work and could use your help.)
  • Many claims in the existing article are not supported by inline citations to reliable sources per WP:RS and thus fail to meet WP:V. For example, the claim that Latin America is the "most unequal" area in the world is extraordinary. It needs an inline citation to a reliable source. It would be good to support the claim with an unbiased statistical study, if possible.
  • "These aggressive strides – to develop and maintain beneficial relations and substantial control – implemented by the U.S. on their backyard neighbors are seemingly endless." - This is another example of a claim that needs a reliable source. Who says so? Judgments like this can't come from Wikipedia. To whom do they seem endless?
  • "The course of history leads to the overall inquiry of whether the US should be perceived as a good neighbor or a big bad wolf." - Who says so?
  • Even if you can support claims such as the two I mention above, you will need to include counterclaims and sources for areas of disagreement. Who says the United States is a good neighbor? Who says it is a big bad wolf? Who says it is something else?
  • My rule of thumb in meeting WP:V is to include inline citations for every set of statistics, every claim that is apt to be questioned or is unusual, every direct quote, and every paragraph.
  • I see some Manual of Style (MoS) problems as well as the larger issues mentioned above. For example, Wikipedia articles should avoid repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. Thus "Latin America as America's backyard" would be better if truncated to "Latin America". Also, "The Monroe Doctrine" would be better as the more telegraphic "Monroe Doctrine", per WP:MOS.
  • "America's Backyard" appears as "America's backyard" in some places in the article. Decide which is correct and stick with it throughout.
  • Newspaper names take italics.
  • Common words like "neighborhood" and "concept" do not need to be linked.
  • Has Canada ever been considered by anyone to be "America's backyard"? How about the eastern Pacific, Bikini Atoll, for example? Would the definition include U.S. bases in other countries? An extended definition might (or might not) include these places.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Sogen Kato[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, several months after the story first came about, the article has featured on DYK and become a GA; now I think it is comprehensive enough to become an FA. Before I nominate it, I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions on how it could be improved.

Thanks in advance to all reviewers, wackywace 16:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments': Thanks for an interesting if somewhat disturbiong article on a case I had not heard of before. While I like what is there, I think the article is not quite ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • My main problem with the article is that the title seems to imply it is a biography of Sogen Kato, but there is almost nothing on the man himself in the article. Since one of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, I think this would be a problem at FAC.
  • One partial solution to the problem might be to rename the article so as to better indicate its content and focus. I wonder if calling the article something like "Death of Sogen Kato" would be a better title (and leave the current title as a redirect). As it now stands the article is lamost entirely about his death and the fate of his corpse and the reaction to the discovery that he had been dead for decades.
  • Even changing the title is not enough to fix the article entirely - as it now stands, the article starts in media res and I think it needs some background / introductory material to better provide context to the reader and be comprehensive.
  • Some of these issues could also be seen as not following WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the fact that he was thought to be Tokyo's oldest man (until his mummy was discovered) is only in the lead.
  • So I would start with a paragraph or two on Sogen Kato's life. There are a few tidbits scattered through the article - his date of birth (though for some odd reason, this is often only in the lead in biography articles). The article also says that he was married and had children and grandchildren, and there is mention of a teacher's pension fund (so was hea teacher? or was his wife?). Even if there is little known about his life, say that.
  • I also found that there is often less information in the article than there is in the sources used as references. For example, the sources state that he was found lying in / on a bed [9], but the article does not say this.
  • The sources also give the date of the most recent newspaper found in his room (Nov. 5, 1978) [10] while the article just says Newspapers that were found in the room dated back three decades to the Shōwa period, suggesting that Kato's death may have occurred around 1978. This same source says his wife was a teacher and gives more details about his family, including their ages and a son-in-law who lived in the house but is not mentioned in this article.
  • So I checked the first three refs and found something in each not in this article - the third [11] says when Respect for the Elderly Day was that year (Sept.) and names two of the officials.
  • While I like the illustration, the caption is not great. "Location the body was found" is not a complete sentence (I would say "Bed where the body was found"). Also the telephone is not otherwise mentioned in the article and the implications of the rotary dial (not used for many years) are also not made clear.
  • I would make it clearer that becoming a Sokushinbutsu results in mummification if it is successfully done.
  • I would also make it clearer that it was done only by Buddhist monks and that it is no longer practiced by any Buddhists anywhere (and apparently has not been done for years) (at least according to the article on the practive here on Wikipedia)
  • The statement his family had never announced his death in an attempt to preserve his record. in the lead is not repeated in the article and did not appear in any of the refs I checked. It also seems a bit odd as he was only 79 when he is thought to have died.
  • The Aftermath section is generally well done but I would say the Globe and Mail (not "a Canadian newspaper reported")
  • Also would spell out one-third
  • He's already been identified as a doctor, so the MOS says not to call him "Dr. Aiba Miyoji" - also the article then refers to him as both Dr. Aiba and Dr. Miyoji - both can't be right.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Tripoli[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to GA status. Thanks for any comments!! :)

Theking17825 02:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dana boomer

Although a decent enough article, there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done to get this article up to GA status. Probably the biggest issue is referencing. Some specifics:

  • The overall lack of references is a huge issue. Statistics, opinions and controversial facts all need references. For example (and these are just examples - references are lacking throughout the article), the Contemporary era section gives statistics without references, the History section in general has huge swaths of information without references, Law and government section gives in theory/in reality information without references, Geography has statistics and "more appropriately" (says who?) without references, etc.
  • The Economy section has a cleanup banner and multiple in-line cleanup tags - these would be grounds for a quick-fail at GAN.
  • Ref #16 (Libyan Airlines) is dead.
  • Referencing Commons or other language Wikipedias, such as is done in refs #18 and 19, is not acceptable.
  • Words like "allege" (sentence: Among the alleged fatalities of the 15 April retaliatory attack by the United States was Gaddafi's adopted daughter, Hannah.) should be used very carefully, and referenced to extremely good sources. For this particular sentence, there are no references.
  • The information given by some references needs to be expanded. Books need authors, dates, publishers, isbns, etc; websites need titles, publishers and access dates at the minimum.

Another major issue is comprehensiveness/broadness:

  • Colleges and universities - The title of this section should probably be changed to "Education" and information on the primary and secondary schools in the city added.
  • Sports - Is football really the only sport played in the city?
  • Transport section - Are an airport and an under-construction railway (2007 info, needs to be updated) really the only ways of getting around in Tripoli? No roads? No intra-city buses/trains/subways? Do many people walk, ride bikes, etc?
  • No information on demographics?

Some other issues:

  • External link #3 (Tripoli at goruma) is dead.
  • There is a mix of American and British spelling, which should be standardized. For instance, harbor and program are American, while metre and defense are British.
  • Text shouldn't be sandwiched between images.
  • Prose needs a serious going-over. There are many ungrammatical spots, poor punctuation, sentence fragments, etc.
  • During the 2011 Civil War section - "peacock term" tag that needs to be dealt with
  • The lead needs some work. For this article, per WP:SIZE, three to four paragraphs is appropriate. These should give a summary of the information within the body, without including new information.

As I said above, the article is a good start, but needs some significant work before it is of GA status. I will be watching this page, so please let me know if you have any questions about the above. Dana boomer (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Nadia Ali[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some work on the article with more relevant content. I would like some feedback to get it to a Good Article rating.

Thanks, Hassan514 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I'll post some comments soon, I should have a decent amount of free time now.... CrowzRSA
    • Thanks so much, that would help a lot! Hassan514 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
CrowzRSA comments
  • What verifies Ali released two collaborations in 2009, the first "Better Run" with Tocadisco was released on his album TOCA 128.0 FM in September 2009 and the single was released in January 2010. "12 Wives In Tehran" with Serge Devant was released on his album Wanderer in June 2009, and the single was released in December 2009.?
    • This is a problem I face with music in the EDM genre, since it's not mainstream, it's hard to find reviews and most of the artists release these things over facebook which as you have said isn't a reliable source. The songs have been released but what do I reference to? Particularly since something like a itunes, beatport or amazon link won't be acceptable.
      •  Done Ref added (albeit not sure if allmusic is an acceptable one?)
  • …it was her songwriting that got me hook, line and sinker".[12] should be her songwriting that got me hook, line and sinker."[12]
    •  Done Ref added
  • What verifies Ali was featured on MTV Iggy in March 2009, where she recorded three live acoustic videos, performing "Rapture", "Crash and Burn" and "Love Story".?
    •  Done Ref added
  • There are no references in the first section of "Solo career"
    • Same problem as I've described earlier with the other collaborations.
      •  Done added refs
  • The lead should at least double in size.
    • I'm honestly not sure what more to add to it, could you please make some suggestions?
  • What verifies Using that inspiration, she decided to use the playing card "Queen of Clubs" as the title, a move she described as 'audacious' but something she felt she could prove because she had the substance.[15] The package was broken into three releases - Ruby Edition (August 2010), Onyx Edition (October 2010) and Diamond Edition (December 2010). It featured collaborations with, and remixes by several prominent DJs and Producers. Notable ones included Armin van Buuren, Tocadisco, Schiller, Gareth Emery, Avicii, Morgan Page, Sultan & Ned Shepard, DJ Shah, TyDi, Myon & Shane 54, Andy Moor, Dresden and Johnston, Afrojack, the Scumfrog, Alex Sayz, Starkillers and Max Graham.?
    • Again, the same issue, what exactly should I link since I can only find links to the Ruby and Onyx edition in third-party websites. (Edit: sorry meant blogs with illegal download links)
      •  Done added refs, though to last.fm
        • Last.fm isn't a reliable source, but most of the stuff on there can be found at allmusic and is often in album notes. CrowzRSA 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What verifies She was also a featured guest on his "Atemlos" tour.?
    • Removed since I couldn't find anything besides a facebook post
  • MySpace is not a reliable source.
    • I do realise MySpace is not the best source but sadly in this case her blog is the best source, most interviews of hers or features on her cover her time as iIO biefly, it doesn't go in detail at all about how she was discovered, such as her working for Versace and then quitting, all they say is when she was 17 she started working at Versace, which is correct but it was only 3 years later that she met Moser.
  • YouTube is also unreliable, and that video may be a copyright violation.
    • I have been conscious of that myself so all the videos I have linked are from her Official Youtube Channel or her Record's Channel. I do feel that without the interview she has uploaded from Voice of America on her record's channel, I would have a hard time expanding the "Early Years" section as I have now.
      • Removed link to one video, I have left the VOA interview and the IDMA nomination. Neither are available on the VOA and IDMA website anymore and only on Ali's channels.
  • Facebook isn't reliable either.
    • I have the same problem here, the upcoming collaboration with Sander van Doorn and Sidney Samson is only announced on her twitter and facebook page, same is the case with her first single from her new album. There's no other websites talking about it. Should I just simply delete?
-CrowzRSA 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, made corrections and referenced a lot of the facts which weren't. If there's anything else I can add, please let me know! Hassan514 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Review by Keraunoscopia
  • "becoming one of the most recognisable vocalists" — WP:WEASEL phrase, should be rewritten, or cut out. "prominent producers" may have similar issues. Prominent by whose standards?
  • Ali's MySpace blog is a nice source of information, though if you can get the information from secondary sources, rather than this primary source, that would be preferable. WP:PRIMARY
    • I have tried to veer off it as much as I can, but the detail of her start in music and how exactly she met Moser was only available here.
  • "Nadia Ali was born in Libya to Pakistani parents in 1980. The family relocated to Queens, New York shortly after and has remained there ever since.[1]" This entire sentence is cited by the MySpace blog, but nowhere in the source does it mention Pakistani parents or that the family relocated to Queens. I highly recommend going through the entire article and making sure every citation is correct. I know from personal experience that citations can easily get mixed up during major edits, no matter how careful you think you're being!
    • My mistake, I honestly have never worked properly on the Early Years section, leaving it intact and focussing more on her solo career. I have also rephrased that sentence based on the information I had to show how long she lived in Libya to that she grew up in Queens, not that she moved there directly.
  • "avoid causing problems in the future with Sony" — clarify. Was there a potential for a lawsuit?
    • Added that she worked on a Sony VAIO laptop, with them using Vaiio as group name the possibility of a probable lawsuit.
  • In the "Early years" section, the text is confusing and not very focused. Ali is introduced to the music industry, but suddenly the text begins talking about a single. What single? She was writing lyrics for what songs?
    • Clarified it, added more background based on the interviews I had access to. Like I said before, I have mostly neglected this section but worked on it now.
  • "by the likes of" — avoid jargon like this. Read through the entire article and change it. GA articles should read somewhat professional (though not as professional as FA).
    • Removed links to remixers
  • According to WP:MOS, phrases like "number one" should be changed to No. 1. Do not use the hash (#) symbol (avoid "#1 hit", for example).
 Done
  • Several quotes use single quotation marks. Double quotation marks should be used for quotes, unless it's a quote within a quote.
    •  Done
  • "Chase Gran from About" — the website is actually called About.com, with the ".com"
    •  Done
  • "The package was broken into three releases -" — replace the hyphen with a colon (:)
    •  Done
  • "It featured collaborations with, and remixes by several" — should have a comma after "by"
    •  Done
  • I'm not checking all the references, but spot check here: "She is also a featured guest on his Armin Only tour.[16]" turned up that this information is not in the reference. Again, I would make sure every citation is correct.
    • t is mentioned on the third page of the interview, I just used one main reference to link to all the facts I have linked to that article, should I remove that?
  • "Her work has been likened to Madonna's in her prime" — Awkward phrasing. In whose prime?
    • Changed
  • "She lists her main influences as Stevie Nicks, Sade, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, U2, Madonna, Led Zeppelin, Carole King and Carly Simon.[27]" — once again, not a single item cited here appears in the reference.
    • Changed, the archive seems to not have it and her official biography seems to have been changed since I used the material. I have added influences based on third party sources.
Well, I think the citations situation needs to be resolved immediately. The prose of the article is kind of clunky, but I would blame this on the excessive listing of names and remixes; a lot of names filling up the article, which is probably difficult to work around on pop music articles, especially artists of dance-type genres. The article doesn't seem very comprehensive, though. I feel like there should be a lot more information. Regarding citations, I see MySpace, Facebook, an official website, and a photobucket image. These all need to be replaced with reliable secondary sources unless it is absolutely impossible to find anything else. But this shouldn't be a problem. I find it best to find a good solid quote, Google that quote, and you should be able to find another source with the info. The Discogs link needs to be removed from the External Links section. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I would work a lot more on the prose and try to make it easier to read and less crowded with names, which doesn't really help the reader any (I have no clue who they are; why are they important?). Finally, I would check the entire article against WP:MOS. I found several instances of grammar and punctuation problems besides the few I listed above. To be honest, I think if GA is your goal, then there's a lot of work that needs to be done. Hope this helps you out some. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your extensive feedback, I definitely do appreciate it since after working on the article for a while I was definitely not picking up a lot of mistakes which have been pointed out. I have added more information in the early years section as how she was inspired to sing, not just randomly decided and more on how the group was formed. Also at that point the difficulties she faced with her family and her unique postion as a Pakistani woman in EDM (unless this wasn't essential?). I have also added more information on her decision to form her own record label. What else do you suggest I need to add to make the article proper. The reason I have added personal links like MySpace and Facebook are simply because there is no alternative to the information provided on them. I have mentioned this earlier, there's no links to her upcoming work besides that on Facebook. Also, the photobucket link is actually a photograph of an interview in a magazine, which has been referenced. I have simply used it for that unless it is not appropriate. With the DJs mentioned, I do understand the problem you mentioned and I have cut it down significantly after being suggested to do by a fellow editor but it has to do more with the genre. EDM, as I have also explained in her legacy is dominated entirely by DJs, vocalists barely get a mention. In general it is Ali's achievement as a vocalist that she is recognised by name in EDM because of the DJ-dominance and also the DJs listed are some of the most prominent ones in EDM. I have only listed the prominent ones to an EDM listener because they signify the "star power" she possesses within that genre to get such names to collaborate and remix her work. If it isn't appropriate I am happy to remove them. Hassan514 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Keraunoscopia
  • File:Nadia_Ali_2011.jpg Summary needs a completed {{Information}}.
    •  Done
  • File:Nadia_Ali_Queen_of_Clubs.jpeg Reduce size for fair use (300 pixels wide) — this isn't exactly a rush, but if you take the article to GA, fair-use images will be scrutinized.
    •  Done
  • Lead needs to be expanded. Familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD. Don't work on it first, work on it last. Once the rest of the article is in good shape, you can return to the lead and summarize the article's most important points.
  • ""Rapture", which she wrote within 30 minutes" – I think "in 30 minutes" would be clearer?
    •  Done
  • Watch your use of past and present tense. "Says" should be changed to "said", for example (I changed it). Keep an eye out for other examples.
  • "after the Sony VAIO laptop Ali was working on" sounds like Ali was helping develop the laptop
    •  Done clarified it to the laptop she wrote her songs on
  • "An album, Poetica ..." Expand this. An album? What kind of album? Their first?
    •  Done clarified it as their first studio album
  • "continues" change to past tense.... again, fix tense throughout entire article. Should be consistent the entire way through
  • "No.1" should be "No. 1"; add a space
    •  Done
  • "the 2007 Album" lowercase "album"
    •  Done
  • "Followed by "Something to Lose" in 2006, a duet with singer-songwriter Rosko, produced by John Creamer & Stephane K and released by Ultra Records, the track was licensed to Roger Sanchez's Release Yourself, Vol. 5, as well as Sharam Tayebi of Deep Dish for his Global Underground debut Dubai." long and confusing sentence
    •  Done 2 different sentences
  • I still see examples of single quotation marks where there should be double quotation marks.
    •  Done Fixed all i could see
  • "DJs and Producers" producers should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence
    • I've changed that with producers but shouldn't DJ be capital since it is an abbreviation for disc jockey?
  • "eastern mystique" I think Eastern is supposed to refer to cultural music here, and should be capitalized
    •  Done
  • "the resulting work having been described as minimal trance,[48] "sad disco"[27] to "mainstream pop"." I would make this its own sentence, but I think the list of genres is awkward with the "to" in there.
    •  Done
  • You need to explain what EDM means if you're going to use it in the article (and only in quotes; I would not use the initialism in the actual encyclopedic text you are writing). People not familiar with the term won't easily make the connection to the genre.
    •  Done I used it once in the quote in the 'legacy' section but clarified it there
  • The Early years section is much better, much more interesting. I wouldn't mind it being expanded even further if possible, but this is dependent on what you come across in your research.
    • Yes, I'm looking for more things from her iiO career as well, I have found a couple of interviews from that time but there's nothing substantial in there to add, the questions are mostly on favourite places they have toured or how their songwriting happens.
  • You asked about "her unique postion as a Pakistani woman in EDM (unless this wasn't essential?)" — I believe this to be absolutely essential. It's what makes her character so different and should be a reason her article is that much more interesting for readers. Any more info you can gather regarding this, I would try to fit into the article, without going overboard, of course.
    • Still looking for more information on that myself, from what I've seen in interviews she rarely talks about it unless it's in her musical influences. The one video interview with Voice of America was very very helpful here though
  • You asked "What else do you suggest I need to add to make the article proper" — My only advice is to read every article you can about her that you find. Magazines, online, books, Google books, whatever. Read, read, read, and as you come across info, you'll start incorporating it into the article and you may or may not eventually feel the need to create new sections. Otherwise, take a look at other songwriter/EDM GA articles and see what they've done.
  • "there's no links to her upcoming work besides that on Facebook" — This is problematic. Wikipedia, and especially music-related articles, require the information to be notable. If you can only find information on a primary source, and no one else is reporting it, then the information will have to be thrown out. This can be frustrating, but sometimes it helps you re-write sections and they come out better, even if you can't get every last drop of information into the article that you want. If it's not notable, it can't be in the article. GA reviews will find these bits of info for sure.
    • Happy to remove that then, my biggest concern is the post from her myspace blog. That was very useful in putting the timeline correct for when she joined Versace and then when she met Markus Moser. Otherwise, she simply refers to it as 17 when she worked at Versace and introduced by a colleague to Moser. Also, with the future release, the production company behind the shoot for the upcoming single's video posted their involvement. Is that a good source or ignore that as well?
  • "photobucket link is actually a photograph of an interview in a magazine, which has been referenced" You cannot link to the JPG, that's a breach of copyright because the image is, itself, a copyright violation of the magazine. Don't worry, it's not a big deal, you won't lose the citation. Just gather all the information you can on the magazine: page numbers, title, issue, volume, etc etc. The magazine citation is still correct. Of course, it's your burden to make sure all the information about the magazine is correct.
    • I have emailed the guy who conducted the interview regarding more detail. He uploaded the image to his own website and hopefully he'll reply. He has also done another interview and I have asked him on details for that as well so I can cite it because he covered a lot of things with her such as why her label is called Smile in Bed and a couple of auditions she did for Broadway.
  • "EDM, as I have also explained in her legacy is dominated entirely by DJs" and "If it isn't appropriate I am happy to remove them" — See, someone like me who isn't familiar with EDM will have trouble with this. Thank you for explaining. I felt there was a lot of names being dropped, but apparently it's a normal thing for the genre! So long as it's written with the least amount of name-clutter as possible. Try to expand sentences and make it as easy for us lay-people to understand what's going on : )
    • Do you think I should add this information earlier in the article instead of right at the end. I have clarified it at the end though that vocalists are often an supporting act in electronic music and hence her notability is important.

I think the article is improving some. I still think it can be expanded—just keep reading every interview and article you find. Read the article aloud and keep tweaking the prose. It's better, but it still needs to flow smoothly. Try to avoid repetitious words, constant changes in tense (you have something like three tenses going on at points: present, past, and present perfect, I think). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 07:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. It's definitely appreciated because there were many issues with the article which I didn't know and wasn't picking up anymore. I need to work on the language definitely, planning to print the article over the weekend since that helps me pick up a lot more grammatical errors! Thanks again! Hassan514 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued
Since my citation #s could change with any edits, be sure to read them carefully. I'll list them first as my following suggestions could change the order of citations.

Citations
  • I agree with CrowRSA, get rid of last.fm
    •  Done since there's no mention of them on allmusic just referenced liner notes
  • Citation 6 has a link to Nadia's article, causing it to be bold. Remove
    •  Done
  • I completely forgot to mention above, you said you had a citation that was found on "page 3" of a reference? I meant to tell you, you need a citation for each page. Sounds weird, I know, but there you go. So if you cite page 1 of a 5 page interview/article, but no other page, then still make sure you say "page 1" in the citation. Then if you cite page 4, you'll need a new citation for that. (This is for online sources only, of course.)
    •  Done
  • In Citation 1 (interview), you have "01" as the date. Change to "1". If you do this out of habit, be sure to change other examples of the leading 0.
    •  Done
  • Get rid of MySpace. Find relevant info elsewhere
    •  Done
  • Citation 6: " Joy94.9" add a space. Is this a radio interview? Is there any way to find an online link to it, without being a copyvio (no unofficial YouTube)? Also, the date has a leading 0
    •  Done Yes, it's available as a podcast from iTunes
  • Citation 8: "Billboard charts" I think should be changed to Billboard.com
    •  Done
  • Citation 16: I didn't notice this until now, but for instance, this citation has two date formats: MM DD, YYYY and DD MM YYYY. As a major contributor to the article, you need to choose one format and make sure the entire article has the same format throughout, including references, infobox, article, file (image) descriptions, etc.
    •  Done
  • Actually, I think all cases of Billboard charts should be changed to Billboard.com, because that's the publisher, not the title of the page or anything.
    •  Done
  • Citation 23: About is About.com. All instances of this should be changed.
    •  Done
  • Get rid of Facebook
    •  Done
  • JPG link: even if the author took the image, unless it's his magazine and he owns the rights to it, the image link needs to be removed. People will assume good faith that you have cited the magazine properly, no need to prove it with a picture.
  • Citation 37: Ministry of Sound is a blog and is most likely not reliable unless there is editorial oversight. Try to replace the source.
    •  Done, I just removed the licenscing information. I can't find anything else which validates Ministry of Sound as a distributor except links to websites selling their compilations and the single.
  • Several citations: Beat my Day also looks like a blog. Try to replace the source.
    •  Done
  • Citation 44: Adam Stewart's MTV article did not archive properly. Try re-archiving.
    • Doesn't seem to be working, tried it a few times. Removed the archive link
  • Citation 47: SF 3D is a blog. Replace source
    •  Done
  • Hipster Overkill also looks like a blog, but much more professional. Find out if it has editorial oversight (editors/staff working that reads the articles published) and see if the author is staff.
  • I may have missed earlier examples of blogs in the citations. I would go through all of them and make sure they all meet WP:RS guidelines, otherwise be prepared to make some seriously convincing arguments for the GA reviews. Most of my "replace source" comments above need to be replaced for sure. But Hipster Overkill is a well-written article, so really work on either finding a replacement for it or finding out if it is reliable enough. Take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and ask if Hipster Overkill is reliable enough for GA.
    • I did use blogs to cite reference dates for the collaboration releases. This has more to do with the nature of electronic music and it's audience. The way music is spread is not through press releases but more through weekly DJ podcasts, their set lists from live performances. Armada music is the only label I have found having proper press releases. The coverage is rarely in mainstream music resources so the music is also spread through multiple blogs. That's the reason I used beat my day. Same with Hipster Overkill, muumuse or House that Dan Built, they're definitely not the most ideal sources for wikipedia but for electronic music websites like these are often the best source for a lot of information. I will post the links anyways at the page you suggested but should the article get good enough to be taken for a GA Review, I do think without these websites I not have enough left.
  • Same thing with House that Dan Built. I see typos and missing information; not sure how professional that site is.

Article

  • I also see at least two improper uses of the hyphen: "Ali's next project -", which needs to be a colon, and "not only a male but DJ-dominated genre - with vocalists", which should be a comma. Actually, that entire sentence could be slightly re-written for the sake of clarity. I understand it, but it's a bit awkward.
    •  Done
  • In the 2010–present section, can you move the image down one paragraph (in the code)? I can't find the guideline at the moment (I'm looking for it), but I recall reading somewhere that images should not be immediately below a header. So just bump it down a bit, this way it's still next to its related paragraph.
    •  Done
  • Now, related to the Queen of Clubs poster, there are a couple things. First, in the caption: "Album promo" doesn't tell me anything, though I think the image description says poster. Don't use the word "promo" since that's vague. Since the poster is a fair-use image, there needs to be an absolute reason for it being used. Read through WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI and try to figure out what your intent with the fair-use poster is. Otherwise, I don't see a solid, valid reason for it to be there. As far as I can tell, its removal would not be detrimental to the reader's knowledge of the subject.
    • I do think the poster is essential, because it provides a visual fro the concept Ali is going for. Simply saying she chose the Queen of Clubs card at least to me doesn't feel helpful. This concept is also important particularly to her identity now as she is constantly referred to as the Queen of dance music especially after the release of the trilogy.
  • One usage of single quotation marks remaining: 'unrivalled contributions to club culture'.
  • The intro paragraph to the Solo career section has been bothering me. I think it needs to be incorporated into the Embers section. You essentially have two paragraphs that begin with "after leaving iiO" and it's a bit confusing. You don't need an intro paragraph there, and it looks like Embers began immediately... but within the four years' time, the touring happened.
  • I'm wary about using the word "legacy" in a section header, unless the artist is so absolutely, globally notable and left some sort of mark on a planet-wide musical scene. Madonna would have a legacy, for example. But Nadia Ali? I know I never heard of her until recently. In addition, I don't see anything in the section written about a legacy. So I'll have to presume the word is a case of WP:PEACOCK and it should be removed at any rate.
    •  Done I was never comfortable using legacy for her because it is too soon in her career to even have a legacy. The hard part for me was to put her current place as one of the leading vocalists in dance music in the right spot. I have removed that section and placed it straight after the information on "Queen of Clubs" trilogy since that seems to be the most appropriate place to me.
  • The musical style section needs to be greatly expanded. I don't think there's enough discussed on her style. Do you think you could add a relevant sound clip as well? I (as the average reader) don't know what Nadia's "musical style" sounds like. I don't even know what EDM sounds like. But you will be dealing with the same issue as the poster image: fair use rationale. You will need an absolute reason for using a song sample, and it needs critical commentary both in the text and in the caption of the sample. Pick the sample wisely and make sure it's relevant. Please read WP:SAMPLE as well. You can use Audacity (freeware) to convert the sound to .ogg and make sure to follow the 10% rule and ~64kbps sample rate. I'll be happy to convert the sound for you if you have trouble (or would rather not do it).
    • I don't think I am the best person to provide such a critical commentary. I know her work, yes and I'm a fan of the genre but my knowledge isn't enough to provide something which will warrant addition of a clip or a proper discussion on it. I know the style section is not enough at times but this is also because of my own limitations in understanding the EDM genre.
  • Another incorrect hyphen use: "how she likes to be recognised - " Check out MOS:HYPHEN for proper uses. Information on the en dash is below, also. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help! Appreciated as always! Hassan514 (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure! In regards to the sound clip, I think it would be nice, but it's definitely not necessary. I sifted through the WikiProject Electronic Music GA articles and a good portion of the low-importance GAs didn't have any sound clips; but the mids began to, and the highs definitely had them. So it's really up to you. As for critical commentary, that phrase wasn't meant to be intimidating. Technically, I think you have enough critical commentary as it is to warrant a sound clip. In the Musical styles section, the word "Eastern" is mentioned a couple of times, and I think this would be the key element for a sound clip. If you can find a clip where her music is most Eastern sounding on Embers, that would complement the Musical style section nicely, I think. You don't need to really write anything more (though if, in your research, you find more information regarding the Eastern influences of her music, the more the merrier). The caption of the sound clip would merely serve to point out the Eastern influences mixed with the modern dance.
That makes it a lot more easier. I uploaded a portion of one of her songs. It combines all the three styles which were on Embers - acoustic, eastern and electronic so I thought it was more appropriate than picking one of her other works which was focussing on one or two only.
I also noticed one sentence: "She chose to release her singles and albums digitally citing the nature of the electronic music audience and the traditional method of distribution deals in the United States." This is vague. What's the nature of the EDM audience/traditional method of distribution? It doesn't say why she releases her music digitally. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 19:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Corrected that. I think I've done most of the corrections you suggested. I'm just waiting to get more details on the magazine citation now. I have emailed both the interviewer and the magazine asking me if they can provide details of the page numbers, issue no etc. Hassan514 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sound clip seems okay. According to Embers_(album)#Track_listing, "Crash and Burn" has a run time of 4:11, which means, if you look at the bottom of WP:SAMPLE, can only be 24 seconds long. Can you trim it a bit? Don't lose the Eastern stuff at the beginning, that was good. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Corrected that, also I have expanded the lead, could you please have a look at it? Still waiting to hear about the reliability of Hipster Overkill and the House Dan Built. Hassan514 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! Okay, I snuck a peak at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nadia_Ali_references and it looks like the House Dan Built is not a reliable source. Seeing that you've only referenced it twice, and both for "quote-ables" that could easily be replaced, I don't think losing this as a source would be detrimental to the article. The quotes you've pulled from Overkill are much more important, so cross your fingers on that one. The lead looks good and seems to summarize the article pretty succinctly.
One final thing: I noticed the phrase "volunteering to sing" is lifted directly from the Armada Music interview, and while technically this is a quote and should have quotation marks around it, it's actually either poor English or a poor translation. The phrase appears in the Early years section, as well as the lead. I would recommend changing it entirely. What does she mean "volunteering to sing"? I think she means she took the opportunity to sing wherever and whenever she could, but the word "volunteer" makes it sound like she was singing for soup kitchens or something. Rephrase it in the Early years section, and rephrase it again in the lead (the lead summarizes; it should not repeat info verbatim). Once that's done, if you feel your article is ready, then good luck with the GA review! Great job! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(outdent) You're right. I have corrected it to what you suggested. Working on this article I have realised how bad my writing skills have been since I left uni! I've removed it from the lead because the "Early Years" section doesn't precisely say what kind of events she performed at besides the christmas parties at Versace. I have removed the links to House Dan Built and now that I re-read the material quoted from it, it probably is an exaggeration to call her a "saviour" of dance music. I do hope Overkill is considered suitable given the information from there is far more useful. Lola Richards isn't mentioned as staff anywhere but I have emailed them and hopefully they'll reply soonish on what her status is. I'll nominate the article soon for GA review, just waiting to get complete details for the Downtown Niche magazine reference. The interviewer said he'll get back to me soon with them and then I'll go through one final check. Thank you so much for such detailed feedback and pointing me in the right directions. Much appreciated! Hassan514 (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick question, does the caption for the "Queen of Clubs" image seem adequate now? Do you think it helps give relevance now? or still recommend removing the image? Hassan514 (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Nah, don't think your writing skills are bad! Think of it this way, as you take the article to higher levels, your writing can only improve. As more and more people take a look at these articles, the writing will change, and it's for all sorts of reasons. Every step is a draft. Your favorite novel most likely was not written in a single sitting—I guess it depends on the author though! That's what makes Wikipedia so incredible, the community behind each article. Almost every sentence can be better. Every idea can be said in a myriad ways, there's no right way. But there are ways that are better than others, and it's the community's job—it's your job—to find that way, and only because you want it to be better.
As for the Queen of Clubs poster, I'll be completely honest: I'm very skeptical about fair-use images used within articles. The critical commentary has to be practically divine for it to be there. But don't get rid of it right now. An idea may come to you, you may suddenly realize why that poster is so important to include. When you take the article to GAN, you'll probably be told to remove it, but why do it now? I think I only told you to get rid of stuff in this review because they absolutely had to go. Some stuff is arguably hazy (to a very lazy extent) until you reach certain levels of article classes. The image must make "a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." So it's up to you! By the way, I left a note on the article talk page (but it was buried in my subsequent edits to the page): is Nadia Ali really within the scope of WikiProject Rave? I didn't get that impression when reading the article, but like I've said before, I'm not familiar with EDM, and maybe EDM is part of rave culture. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Great, that massaged my ego a bit haha! My reasoning was simply that the image helps give a visual with what she did with the "Queen of Clubs" theme, using that for herself in the context that she is Queen of (night)clubs, because of the predominance of her music in clubs. But yeah, let's see what happens once it reaches the GA review. Technically yes, Nadia Ali would be a part of the rave project. Not so much as her original work since it blends heaps of other styles but the remixes of her work. EDM is definitely the main kind of genre in rave culture but more specifically sub-genres like house and trance. The remixes of her work fall into either of the two categories and "Rapture" and a lot of tracks from "Queen of Clubs" definitely form a part of rave culture particularly with remixers like Paul van Dyk, Myon and Shane 54 or Armin van Buuren. Hassan514 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it as a FLC, but I feel that it could do with the input of other contributors first.

Thanks, GlanisTalk 10:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: As a general point, were any criteria adopted for inclusion in this list. e.g. some level of notability recognised in a formal way? In the absence of such rules, if these are personal selections, it might be that the list carries a POV element. Specific points:-

  • Lead prose
    • Schools are not founded "by the death of..." someone. I assume you mean that Beckingham's will provided funds for the endowmwnr of a school, and you should reword accordingly.
    • Second paragraph: the word "though" in the first sentence is inappropriate. We have two sepaarate statements here: "The school initially educated 30 of the "poorest men's sons"; and "This has since grown to approximately 900 students, 300 of whom are in the sixth form." The form "This has" doesn't work, since "this" is not defined, so I'd begin "Numbers have since grown..."
    • Why are you including information about the school's admissions procedures? They have nothing to do with a list of Old Guildfordians.
    • "Former pupils of the school are referred to as "Old Guildfordians" and as such are sometimes listed "(OG)" after their name." Perhaps so, but "sometimes listed" is very vague. Where would they be listed in this manner, except in reports or correspondence directly related to the school? And tou need to say "listed with"
    • "Amongst the schools alumni..." → "Among the school's alumni..."
  • List
    • Maybe I'm out of date, but the term "Class year", to signify the subject's leaving year, seems like an Americanism that I have not seen used much in the UK.
    • In this column the number of blanks - more than half the entries - is surely excessive. If the exact year of leaving cannot be established with certainty, then an approximation should be given. For example the source relating to Mackenzie Taylors tells us that after Taylor left RGS he worked for four years in an accounts department. Then "In 2001..." etc; this suggests a leaving date of approx. 1997. I'm particularly surprised that you can't give a date for Bob Willis, who has published an autobiography, or for Terry Jones.
    • Your "Notability" column is used to explain briefly who each subject was. For Sir John Allison the entry says "Royal Air Force",. which is not adequate
    • I think the term "Royal Navy" means the British Navy; no need for British Royal Navy.
  • References: I haven't carried out a detailed check, but I notice you employ different ways of indicating that ODNB entries require subscriptions, and in at least one case this information is missing. Also, ref 29 looks incomplete, and its page formatting "p115" is inconsistent with other entries.

Enough to be going on with. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at the list for me, with regards to the criteria for inclusion, the one I have adopted is any person listed by the school who meets wikipedia's notability guidelines, and then any other persons who can be proved to have attended who already have a wikipedia article, hopefully there is no POV there?
I think I have now addressed most of your other concerns/suggestions, specifically the lead, and working detail into the list, I have also changed the term "Class year" to "Leaving year". GlanisTalk 08:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment from Cirt
  • Nice job with the reference formatting. ;)
  • I don't think there should be the two columns, Notability and Reference.
  • Combine them into one column, Notes.
  • Then just add the referenced cites at the end of the text about info on the entry.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, the only reason they are separate columns, is firstly, I have been following the lead of two other alumni featured lists List of Benet Academy alumni & List of Boston Latin School alumni, and secondly a number of the references are not specifically related to the notability field, as the content for that comes from the main article on that subject. The references are in most cases used to prove attendance and leaving date, so I am not sure they should be merged? GlanisTalk 08:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, they really should be merged. The field should not be called "Notability", but rather, "Notes". The former sounds ... to circular and self-referential to Wikipedia — the latter sounds encyclopedic. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll do that then. Thanks GlanisTalk 20:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Journey (2011 video game)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've gotten all of the other Thatgamecompany articles to GA or FA, and I'd like to submit the lot as a Featured Topic, which in turn requires that articles that can't be GA'd yet (like this one) have a completed PR. I've also never written an article on a unreleased video game, so I'd like some suggestions on what to include in the article. Thanks! --PresN 21:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs a section discussing expectations, impressions of what's been seen, etc. from reliable sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • While the scope of the article is obviously limited, there don't appear to be any major obstacles in the way of the article appearing as part of a Featured Topic. Just remember to update the article once the game has been released. Minor points: The caption of the image is a bit uninspired - it might be worth highlighting some items mentioned in the text, such as the mountain, or finding one with two players interacting, etc. It also has no alt text available for screen-readers. The release date is mentioned in the lede and never again, and isn't referenced. I'd also agree with the above commenter that a section (or at least a few sentences in Development) on expectations (from critics or the community) would be good, especially if you can find a few choice soundbites to serve as quotations. GeeJo (t)(c) • 06:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, captions/alt text and release date reference added. I'll look for expectations, but most places don't really do reviews of early builds of games, even when they talk about them. --PresN 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I have read it and one of the refs cited - here are some suggestions for improvement. *In the lead, I would make the verb tense future for distribution (as it has not been distributed yet) Journey is an upcoming video game developed by Thatgamecompany for the PlayStation 3 and distributed on the PlayStation Network.

  • MOS says extended quotations need to be attributed so article needs to identify who said "It's about two strangers who meet online. They don't know who they are or how old they are. All they know is, that is another human being."[3]
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Thatgamecompany is linked twice in two sections of the body of the article
  • wording tweak - would "trying to draw a large monster away from each other" work better in The team initially created a prototype named Dragon that involved players trying to draw away a large monster from each other, ...
  • "Co-op" seems a bit slangy - would cooperative be better (or is this a gaming term, in which case should it be linked)? The Co-op aspect of the game is intended to allow the players to feel a connection to other people through exploring with them ...
  • I read current ref 3 (from 1UP.com) and it mentions several things that are not in the article. I realize some of them might be better to incorporate once the game is released, but I thought some were worth mentioning even now.
    • although it is an online game, it does not have to be played online (can be single player or multi-player)
    • the characters do not have hands and cannot make gestures
    • The character is described as "a flowing personified ribbon of cloth" with "nubby feet"
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hit all these points, thanks for the review! --PresN 20:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dreaming of You (album)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the article to be a featured article.

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Update I believe all copy-editing and prose concerns and issues have be addressed. Thanks to User:Bulldog73 ([12], [13], [14], [15]) and User:Diannaa ([16],[17]). If there is any other concerns please address them so I can fix them, thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks much better than it did in my previous PR, but still has a way to go before it would have a good chance of passing at WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement - I will review this as I would if it were at FAC.

Lead

  • Why is "double album in quotes? Also "like dance hall and reggae" is awkward and ungrammatical in Dreaming of You is a "double album" with previously unreleased English and Spanish language tracks that were given a Caribbean remix like dance hall and reggae.[1]
  • Antecedent of She is not super clear in She was the first Hispanic singer to accomplish this feat. (Selena has not been mentioned by name in this paragraph or in over four sentences)
  • It is also not clear to me which feat is meant in the above sentence - debuting at number 1? Selling over 331,000 units in its first week?
  • I do not understand what this sentence means Dreaming of You was the second-highest debut, after Michael Jackson's HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I.[2][3] What can be higher than debuting at Number One? There is no Number Zero on the charts ;-)
  • Unclear what time period this refers to (sold over 700,000 copies) - the first day? week? month? year? EMI Records believed the album actually sold over 700,000 copies, because Billboard did not include discount stores or small shops specializing in Latin music.
  • Thrid paragraph of the lead has a lot of issues. The previous paragraph said it was the second best debut, behind Michael Jackson, so does also telling the reader it is in the top ten debuts add anything to their understanding? Similarly we've already been told that the album set a sales record for a female pop singer on its release date, so does adding it is among the "best-selling debuts for a female artist" really add anything? If these statements do add something, why not put them closer to the previous similar statements? If not, why include them in the lead?
  • More on the third paragraph In July 1995 Dreaming of You joined five of Selena's studio albums that remained on the top ten of Billboard Top 50 Latin Albums.[6] I would say something like When it debuted in July 1995, Dreaming of you became Selena's sixth album in the top ten of Billboard Top 50 Latin Albums at that time. or something similar.
  • Lead said earlier that the album is in both Englsih and Spansih so Dreaming of You became the highest ranking Spanish language album to chart on the Billboard Top Latin Albums.[7] makes no sense
  • Logically this sentence seems odd Some were released in both the United States and internationally, while others were released for promotional purposes. I expected the second phrase to be about geographic locations of single releases too. By the way, aren't all singles released for promotional purposes?
  • Should promotional single be linked to Promotional recording?
  • OK, language is the most difficult criterion for most articles at FAC - this has 10 problems just in the lead, so I do not think it is ready yet (though it looks much better)

Production and development

  • Need to explain that this was Selena's first contract with a major record label. Prior to signing her contract with EMI Latin Records in 1989, Jose Behar, the former head of Sony Music Latin, wanted to sign Selena for a major crossover album.[8] Might note that alll her previous albums were Spanish only (?)
  • Explaining that Behar was the former head of Sony Music Latin is a bit confusing here - it is not clear that Behar was head of EMI Latin. Maybe something like Selena had several successful Spanish language albums on small record labels prior to signing with EMI Latin Records in 1989. Jose Behar, the head o Latin EMI and former head of Sony Music Latin, wanted to sign Selena for a major crossover album.[8]
  • The MOS says to use a full name the first time, then just the last name afterwards (so Jose Behar the first time, then just Behar). People known be one name (Selena) and people who sahre the same last name (like Selena's family members named Quintanilla) are exceptions to this style guide.
  • Who denied the crossover album request?
  • Need to make clear that SBK Records is sub-label of EMI Latin.
  • Clarify Initially Selena stated in interviews that the [crossover]] album was going to be released sometime in 1994. Following the release of Amor Prohibido [in March 1994], she stated that the album [her English album?] was still being developed.[10][12]
  • When was the dinner where she complained about the pressure?
  • Missing word Recordings for the album were different [from?] what she usually sang.[10]
  • Awkward - also did she record with Byrne or did he record his part by himself - sentence seems to say both Selena wrote and recorded with David Byrne for his Gospel song, "God's Child (Baila Conmigo)", her vocals were later used in the song after Byrne recorded it in Clifton, New York
  • Do not understand what this trying to say The composer Keith Thomas who wrote "I Could Fall In Love", never finished a second song and revealed the song's fate when he made an appearance on the A&E series, Biography which talked about Selena's life and death.[13] Which song's fate - he only wrote one and it was a huge hit? Plus Keith Thomas (producer) has written lots of songs according to his article here.

General comments

  • Article has several places where possessive is meant but no apostrophe is used, i.e. "albums" when "album's" is meant
  • Lead says it is her second posthumous album, but it is not clear from this article what the first posthumous album was
  • Avoid needless repetition - for example
    • In "Production and development" The composer Keith Thomas who wrote "I Could Fall In Love", never finished a second song and revealed the song's fate...
    • In Musical style and lyrics" "I Could Fall in Love" (an EPK) the first lead single[20] off the album Dreaming of You was written by Keith Thomas.
    • Later in the same section (direct quote) Vibe editor, James Hunter, stated "Selena gives an astute, loving reading of Tennessee writer/producer Keith Thomas's song as though she recognizes the tune for the gem it is. could be pruned back to Vibe editor James Hunter wrote of I Could Fall in Love "Selena gives an astute, loving reading ... as though she recognizes the tune for the gem it is.
  • Similarly the "Release" section and "Commercial performance" both repeat much of the same material on sales. Does the article really need to repeat sales of 331,000 in the first week four times? (Once in the lead and once in the body is enough)
  • Organziation is confused in places - here is part of the first paragraph from "Release"
The album was put on hiatus due to Selena's death on March 31. The album was scheduled to be released sometime in 1994; however, it was delayed after Selena released her last Spanish language studio album, "Amor Prohibido". Jose Behar, who was the head of both Sony Music Latin and EMI Latin, told EMI Records that Selena and her band, Los Dinos, were going to "walk" and find another record company that was willing to sign Selena for a major English language album. This helped boost EMI's decision to embark Selena for her crossover album.[13] The official release of the album was July 1995, as told by Selena during a small interview on January 20, 1995.[17] Three months after Selena's death, EMI Records and EMI Latin released Dreaming of You on July 18, 1995 and it quickly debuted #1 on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart, selling more than 331,000 copies in its first week, and knocking off the Pocahontas soundtrack and Michael Jackson from the top spot.[50][51][52]
  • So the first sentence is her March 31, 1995 death. The next three sentences are all set well before this and are a repeat of material already stated earlier in the article. Why do they have to be here at all?
  • Next we are told twice (two sentences) that the album was released in July 1995 - not sure what a "small interview" is. Why not combine the first sentence and part of the second to something like 'In a January 20, 1995 interview, Selena said the album would be released in July,[17] and three months after her death, EMI Records and EMI Latin officialy released Dreaming of You on July 18.
  • More problems ... it quickly debuted #1 on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart... - how can something quickly debut? A debut is an even, not a process, and it happens when it happens. Second there is a missing word ("debuted at number one") Last the WP:MOS says to spell out "number" (not use #)
  • There is only one top spot, so how can an album knock two other albums off the top spot?
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • So I think it is clear this would not pass FAC in its current state and needs a fair amount more work.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I have done almost everything that you had wanted me to cleanup. However, the second posthumous album is Las Reinas Del Pueblo, released several months before Dreaming of You. This can be spot on Selena's chronology section in the infobox. Secondly, the comment that you made about the last paragraph on the lead that "aren't all singles released for promotional purposes", is true, but some had remixes (I Could Fall in Love, Dreaming of You, Techno Cumbia, I'm Getting Used to you) while others only were one-track singles (Captive Heart, El Toro Relajo", "Tú Sólo Tú, God's Child), so I don't know any other way of rewording that last para. The "Avoid needless repetition" didn't understand that one either. "There is only one top spot, so how can an album knock two other albums off the top spot?" according to Billboard the past three number-one albums, before Dreaming of You, were Cracked Rear View, Pocahontas, and HIStory. Do you want me to just say "It knocked off Cracked Rear View" off the top chart" instead? AJona1992 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Avoid needless repetition means don't say the same thing in two different sections of the article (except in the lead and then in the body). WHy does the article have to say Keith Thomas wrote the song three times? The sales figues should be in one section, not repeated and in two. This album replaced one album in the number one spot, so yes say it replaced Cracked Rear View. This album did not end Pocahontas or HIStory's stays at number one, so the article can't say that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dreaming of You (album)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be a FA. I have fixed all issues that were asked to be fixed

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note - I am closing this PR as the PR rules state that you have to wait 14 days between PR requests for the same article. Until today there were two PRs open at the same time for this article, which is also not allowed. Since you had 6 PRs open and the rules allow only 4 open PRs per user, I am closing the two PRs for this article (not that I asked you on your talk page a few days ago about this, but have had no response). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Point of view pornography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want some feedback after my merger. What could be improved? Also, Anons keep removing the picture. Is its use acceptable?

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NVM, I'd like to withdraw that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify what you are "withdrawing". Your comments, or the PR nom? Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The nom. If I were withdrawing my comments, it would leave a blank page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"I'd like to withdraw that" could have been referring only to your comment on the image problem. To close the nomination, please follow the procedure indicated on the WP:Peer Review page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

S&M (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know the specifics now of what to do on the S&M article in order to make it GA standard for nomination. What I mean by this is that instead of being told "the reference section needs work and references are un-formatted", I would like to know what exactly needs work in the reference section (Are all refs wrong? Part wrong? Formatted wrong? Missed something out in the ref.? etc.). I've found the 2 GA reviews to be a bit vague, so I'm hoping I will get actual help here. This is my first article I am trying to make GA, so I need to know everything about how to make it GA.

Thanks, calvin999 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of commenting here and making you more confused, I would wholly revamp and copy-edit the article, so that it will be much much easier for you to understand. Follow the reference modifications I'm doing and the prose changes too. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Footprints in the Sand (song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to nominate it to GAN in the future, but prose is always unclear with me (always). So, I'd like to know what's wrong with the article, thank you. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

Overall, it looks pretty good, but the prose needs some work and I have a few questions/comments on references. A few comments:

  • The second external link ("Official Sport Relief Video") goes to a "video not available" page for me.
  • Why is ref #6 the only bundled ref?
    • Because it would be seen like this. Of course it is not a problem and I can remove it. ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing an issue with that format. Is there something specific that you were looking at?
        • There are two problems, sometimes references are mixed with text, and sometimes there is an error at "references" sections, where they are not recognized. This is the correct link 1 ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Background - Why does "which according to music critics, contains a gospel production performed by the choir, and features "crashing drums"." need four refs (three bundled, one stand-alone)?
    • And why not? If the problem is the lack of consistency is because I cannot identify why it does this, but as I said, I can remove it. ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "does this". I've gone to the link, and on a quick scan see nothing wrong with the format of those refs. For this and the two following comments, it's over-referencing. Unless something is particularly contentious, only one ref is needed - just pick the best one and stick with it. References to sources provided by the article's subject (in this case Lewis' website) should also be minimized, which is not done by using them as gratuitous sources when there are multiple uninvolved sources available.
        • Overreferencing is not a problem (until somebody believes it is a problem). The reason why there are four references is because of the "which according to music critics", thus, there are needed at least two or three references. ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Background - Why does "The song is an adaptation of the Christian poem "Footprints"," need three references?
  • Release and promotion - Why does "with proceeds going to the charity." need four references?
  • Lead, "It received generally positive reviews by music critics, some of them noting its gospel sounds, but others compared Lewis' vocals with American R&B singer Mariah Carey." Are you deliberately doing a compare and contrast here? The "but" makes it sound like being compared to Carey was a bad thing.
    • Well, I do not know if it is positive being compared with another artist. She has bee compared to Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey and Céline Dion many times, most of time in a negative way (see Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song))
      • It can be either positive or negative. However, unless the critic specifically compared her in a negative way (i.e., "Lewis can be compared to the histrionic warbling of Mariah Carey" would be an (overblown :) example), then you should not set up an unintended (by the critic) compare and contrast. Just present the facts and let the reader draw their own assumptions.
  • Lead, ""Footprints in the Sand" song charted in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Hot 100 Singles, while the double A-side appeared in Germany and Switzerland, and was certified silver in the UK by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)." What is "song charted" Also, not sure why the "double A-side appear[ance]" is relevant in this discussion of charting.
    • It was a typo; I believe it is relevant because "Footprints" was released as a double A-side, unlike "Better in Time". Although the latter was released with "Footprints" in some countries, "BiT" was released alone in those and many other places. ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I added a bit to this to make it, I think, a bit more clear.
  • Background, "It incorpores five instruments: Keyboard instruments (a piano, an organ and synthesizers) guitar, bass, drums and choirs performed by The Tuff Session Singers". Is a choir really considered an instrument?
  • Background - In the Lewis quote, I don't think you need the first sentence "I recorded Footprints In The Sand in the UK with Steve Mac". You've already told the reader this, so having it in the quote is just redundant, and pulls the reader's attention away from the important part - the song being based on the poem and Lewis' reaction to the song.
  • Critical response, "Upon the release of Spirit, "Footprints in the Sand" received generally positive reviews by music critics, but some of them compared Lewis' performance to other singers, such Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera." Again, you're setting up a compare and contrast. Being compared to other singers is not always a bad thing.
  • Critical response, "that in "Footprints" Lewis would drawn comparisons to Carey." Not sure what you're trying to say here. If that she would be compared to Carey, perhaps "...that by recording "Footprints", Lewis opened herself to being compared to Carey." or something similar.
  • Critical response - I'm not sure why the Digital Spy reviewers have "two different opinions". Both of the reviewers compare Lewis to Carey and seem to think the song is over the top, so I'm not really sure where their opinion differs.
  • Chart performance, "After selling 40,476 copies and being beaten to the number one spot by Duffy's song "Mercy",[6] it soared to its peak position at number two on 22 March 2008" It was beaten to the top spot and then soared to its peak position?

More shortly, just saving for now. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, just added the rest. I've made quite a few copyedits; feel free to revert any that changed meanings or you just don't like. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Of course I won't revert, any help is welcomed. I have some replies as you can see. Thank you so much Dana. ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • It's always nice to have a prompt reply on suggestions! A few responses above, and I made a few more tweaks to the article. It should be OK to go for GAN now, although any reviewer will probably find issues that I missed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again :) ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

Catholic Church[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the last month or so I've been working on organizing and better presenting the existing content on this page. In the past, I've worked on several other Catholic related articles.

In the Catholic Church article, I particularly focused on the "Doctrine" section, which seemed more of a long list of ideas, rather than narrative. I've also worked on the "Worship", and "Organisation" sections, but basically did not touch the "History" section, as it seemed fairly mature. Mostly I focused on existing content within these sections, but did work to fill in a few holes, and helped integrate some new content. I also changed the arrangement of these sections to better present the material.

One of big reasons I'd like to open this up for peer review is article stability. I've briefly skimmed the editing history for this article, and it seems every few years, the page is built up, and then torn down again. It seems like a lot of effort is expended, and results are short lived. The content I found on the page when I started working on it seemed to have been fairly stable for the past year. Hopefully this content was consensus driven, so that this article, now organized a little more effectively, can be polished, rather than demolished!

Some content I've noticed to be particularly volatile are sections dealing with the Eastern Catholic Churches. Several different section equivalent to the "Communion of Churches" section can be found throughout the page history, many with nearly identical phrasing. I think such a section really is important, of course with due diligence to the relative size of these churches, and should remain.

I've also noted that social teachings tend to be added and removed, as well as some of the historical and contemporary controversies. I'm not sure how to incorporate these, especially, as the page's size is getting fairly large. Ideas?

Anyways, these are some of my thoughts. Any help this article would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Zfish118 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your idea may be well intentioned but it betrays a lack of knowledge of what happened around this page in the recent past. A sort of peace has broken out in the aftermath of a pruning excerise that took place last year that removed the worst excesses. If you are contemplating the peer review-FAC cycle I think you can expect the wars to break out once again - beginning with the the very first words of the article, and with good cause. The saying "let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind Yt95 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the warning. The article was left in shambles after that "pruning", so hopefully things don't get too out of hand this time around cleaning up.--Zfish118 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That is an interesting statement: after the "pruning", the article was in the best shape it's ever been in (which may not be saying a lot :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The content hasn't changed much, just the presentation, and a few areas that needed rounding out (such as the sacraments, and eastern catholic churches). I agree that maybe some "MOS" issues remain. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am not sure why the article has been sent for peer review at this point in time, since there are several indications that the article is still under development. For example:-

  • The lead does not look adequate for an article of this length and complexity. It should be expanded into a full summary of the article.
  • There is serious under-referencing, with key assertions uncited. See, for example, the "Communion of Churches" section, "Eastern Rites", "Anointing of the Sick" and elsewhere.
  • There is an expansion tag in the "Contemporary" section
  • Numerous references, in particular between 57 and 81, are incompletely formatted
  • Sections (e.g. History) should not consist entirely of links. Summary information, broadly equating to the lead section of the link article, should be included.

As well as these major points, there are specific issues of detail, clarity, grammar etc which I have picked up from my reading of the earlier sections. I would rather continue this check when the development of the article, in its present incarnation, is complete.

  • Per MOS, bolding should not be used for emphasis in the text.
  • "so-called" is a hyphenated term
  • "The title Cardinal is a rank of honour bestowed by previous Popes on certain ecclesiastics..." This sounds as though the title of cardinal is no longer conferred. Suggest delete "previous"
  • Dioceses, parishes, and religious orders: "even major cities" - the "even" serves no purpose. In the same sentence, "served by" may be better written as "organized into". The introduction of the term "particular churches", even with the link, may confuse the general reader; I would rephrase the sentence: "Individual countries, regions, or major cities are organized into local dioceses or eparchies, defined in canon law as particular churches, each overseen by a Catholic bishop."
  • In the same section, the "and/or" could be read as implying that some parishes are staffed enirely by unordained ministers.
  • Headline membership figures should be more directly related to increases in the world's population since 1950. By my calculations the proportion of Catholics in the world's population is largely unchanged (perhaps marginally reduced) since 1950. Perhaps this could be brought out?
  • "A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each particular church." I think a rather more reader-friendly definition of "rite" is called for.
  • "Catholics believe that at each Mass, the bread and wine are supernaturally transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ by the consecration celebrated by the priest." Hmmm...This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but should not be ascribed generally to "Catholics", some of whom to my knowledge have reservations on literal transubstantiation.

I'll pause at this point for some reaction/feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Check the tool, top right of this page, for disambiguation links. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. Its a holiday in the United States, so I'm too busy to fully address your comments, but they seem fair and reasonable. I definitely agree the prose needs work and the history section needs trimming. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Seeing this at Peer Review, I glanced at the article and see that it is has deteriorated significantly in Karnacs' absence. Other than the absence of experienced editors like Karanac, I wonder what happened. There are numerous MOS errors in addition to the issues raised by Brianboulton, and I wonder if a revert to an earlier version might not be a better use of time (I saw a February version edited by Truthkeeper88 that had fewer MOS and other errors). The article size is in decent shape now, but the History section is still much too long and that should be better summarized, using summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A revert is absolutely not warranted. The article was in terrible shape earlier, particularly the doctrine section, which was a mere collection of disconnected statements. Even if in the past it conformed to the "manual of style", by any objective measure, the content is now better organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talkcontribs) 18:14, May 30, 2011
Hello, I used to edit the Catholic Church page and tried four times to get it featured. I found SandyGeorgia's suggestions unhelpful then and I find them unhelpful now so I continue to disagree with her positions in this peer review. Good luck Zfish. I think your effort is much better than what has been presented by the "pruners". NancyHeise talk 21:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and encouragement! It helps :) --Zfish118 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Summer Wars[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking this to at least FA status. This article has just passed a GAN and have undergone two previous peer reviews leading up to the GA promotion. This article has been significantly improved upon during this time and I have done some extensive copyediting and significantly expanded the article, especially with regards to its production section, its reception section, the box office section, the plot section and the lead section. Any and all comments how to improve this article are welcome.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As the original creator of this article, I'd like to thank you for taking the article this far. I only managed to skim the article for now, but I noticed there is a confusing gross ticket sales number: "The film closed its run with a total gross of $29,785." South Korea's sale was mentioned in the previous sentence, so which one is this? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The $29 thousand gross total is about the Singapore release of the film and has been changed accordingly. Thanks for the feedback, Arsonal. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just curious - "At least FA status" - what is there beyond FA (and why did no one tell me)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this as if it were at FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • One dead link here
Lead
  • The infobox and lead do not agree - when I see produced by for a film, I think of the people who are the producers in the credits. The lead says produced by Madhouse (which is a Japanese animation studio) but the infobox says the producers are: Nozomu Takahashi, Takuya Ito, Takashi Watanabe, Yuichiro Saito, Executive Producer Seiji Okuda. The lead says released by Warner Brothers, but the infobox says Studio Madhouse, distributed by Warner Bros.
  • Similarly the lead says grandmother and the Plot section says great-grandmother - which is it?
  • The most difficult criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This sentence would be a problem Hosoda intended to make it widely acceptable to audiences without age or sex references. Since the characters' genders and ages are pretty much all given in the Voice cast section, I am not sure what this really means (and it is clunky)
  • The Jinnouchi family is mentioned in the lead, but it is not really explained who they are in the lead.
  • There are several FAC reviewers who do not like verb + ing constructions - so I would change things like ...as well as being nominated for the 2009 Golden Leopard award at the Locarno International Film Festival.[5] to something like "...and was nominated for the 2009 Golden Leopard..."
Plot
  • Avoid one and two sentence paragraphs wherever possible
  • I am not clear what "it" refers to here Love Machine, an artificial intelligence running in the OZ infrastructure, uses Kenji's account and his avatar to hack into it, causing widespread damage.
  • MOS says to spell out numbers less than 10, so "second" (not "2nd")
  • Tighten Recognizing the situation as akin to war, Sakae calls her various associates in important positions in Japan's society and her relatives who work in various emergency services.
  • Awkward (to Sakae's anger) Wabisuke reveals that he created Love Machine and sold the program to the United States Armed Forces, to Sakae's anger.
  • Not clear what is destroyed (antecedent for last it unclear) in Wabisuke disables Love Machine's defenses, distracting it long enough for King Kazma to be revived and assisted by several Jinnouchi family avatars before destroying it.
  • More unclear language - the satellite is destroyed, the entrance is destroyed - how is the geyser related? (satleiite causes that, but the sentence does not really say that) The Arawashi's impact causes a shockwave that destroys it, as well as the estate's entrance and a geyser to erupt.
  • Has? Who has them kiss - unclear Some time later, the Jinnouchi family celebrate their victory as well as Sakae's birthday and has Natsuki kiss Kenji after confessing their love to each other.
Voice cast
  • Looks like the same footnote is used for all Japanese voices - why not add it to the coumn header instead? Ditto for English voices.
Production
  • Needs a ref Aoyama was an animation director, and Nishida a key animator, on The Girl Who Leapt Through Time. so do the similar statements All songs written and composed by Akihiko Matsumoto. and All songs written and composed by Tatsuro Yamashita.
Release
  • I would discsuss the promotion of the movie before the manga (swap the paragraphs, also somewhat more chronological that way)
  • WHat sort of profit did the film make (not just gross revenue, but net profit)?
General
  • Bottom line, I think this owuld benefit from a copy eidt before FAC
  • Any chance for free images? There is one of Ueda in its article...
  • WHy not include CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST - Jonathan Clements gets into the hidden meanings of Mamoru Hosoda's Summer Wars. in the article itself - is it not a RS?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions, Ruhrfisch. Your help is invaluable, and these comments are helpful reminders of issues throughout the article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarja Turunen[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Tarja Turunen is among Ville Valo and Tuomas Holopainen one of the better known finnish artists. The article has about 1200 views per day. Copy edit has been done recently by User:Diannaa. I'd like to nominate it to GA status later on. Would greatly appreciate any helful hints and comments.

Thanks, Pass3456 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye toward GAN and perhaps FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many biographies of musicians at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music_biographies
  • There is a toolbox on this PR page - the external links checker in it finds one dead link which will need to be fixed before GAN.
  • The MOS says to use the person's full name on first use, then generally to refer to the person by just their last name thereafter. Exceptions are two or more people with the same last name in an article and people known by their first names. This article uses both Tarja and Turunen to refer to its subject. If she is best known as just Tarja (it should say that in the lead, it true) then just use that. If not, then use Turunen.
  • First off, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. As such and per WP:LEAD and WP:CITE the references are usually not in the lead, but rather in the body of the article. It is OK to have refs in the lead, and they are required for direct quotations and extraordianry statements. However, most reviewers either like the lead cited for everything or (more commonly) just for direct quotes and extraordinary staments. This is somewhere in between.
  • Problem sentences from the lead She is best known as an original member and the former lead vocalist of Finnish symphonic metal band Nightwish, which she founded with Tuomas Holopainen and Erno Vuorinen in 1996. [2] Tarja is also well-known as a professional classical singer. Their combination of hard and fast guitar riffs with Tarja's classical lead vocals quickly aroused the enthusiasm of critics and audiences.[2] Note that refs are probably not needed in the lead (as above) and if they are there, need to follow punctuation directly (not after a space as in the first ref). I think I would rewrite the first sentence to be something like She is best known as the former lead vocalist of the Finnish symphonic metal band Nightwish, which she founded with Tuomas Holopainen and Erno Vuorinen in 1996. Founding implies she was an original member and this is tighter. The other problems come in the next two sentences: Tarja is also well-known as a professional classical singer. Their combination of hard and fast guitar riffs with Tarja's classical lead vocals quickly aroused the enthusiasm of critics and audiences.[2] The first sentence is about here solo career as a classical singer. What then is the antecedent of they in the last sentence (clearly it is the band Nightwish, but the sentence is not clear as written). The use of "aroused" seems a bit unencylcopedic too.
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary fo the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I don't see anything on her register in the lead, and there is little on reception/
  • There is relatively little that I could see in the article on her personal life as an adult - this may be a problem as GAN as the article criteria include broad in its coverage. Would definitely be a problem at FAC (where articles are supposed to be comprehensive in their covereage of their subjects)
  • Make sure to include details to help provide context to the reader - for example, Early life does not include a single year - when did she move to Kuppio, for example?
  • In With Nightwish the article mentions a second demo, but not a first.
  • What year did she start at Hochschule für Musik Karlsruhe?
  • Links could be better incorporated into the text - for example After the last concert of the Once Upon a Tour on October 21, 2005 (End of an Era), Holopainen gave Turunen a letter signed by himself and the other band members ... could be something like After the last concert of the Once Upon a Tour on October 21, 2005 (which was released on video as "End of an Era"), Holopainen gave Turunen a letter signed by himself and the other band members ...
  • The artiocle uses the {{quote}} template for several block quotes. The MOS in WP:MOSQUOTE says that block quotes are supposed to be at least 4 lines long or more than one paragraph, but on my monitor almost all of the quotes are only one or two lines long. I would just incorporate most of them into the text directly.
  • Biggest problem as I see it is the Eglish. While it is understandable, it is a bit stilted and would benefit from a copyedit.
  • I do not see the need for the Live performances section - the article talks about her live performances throughout her career, so it seems needlessly repeptitive to have this section. I checked only the first sentence of the section Tarja performed live at the Savonlinna Opera Festival for the first time in 1998, singing songs from Richard Wagner and Giuseppe Verdi. which is basically a repeat of the information in the With Nightwish section That same year, Turunen performed at the Savonlinna Opera Festival for the first time, singing songs from Richard Wagner and Verdi.[14]
  • Also watch WP:OVERLINKing - the rule of thumb is to link opnce in the lead and once in the body of the article, but Wagner and Verdi are each linked twice in the body.
  • I noticed many of the sources are either to Nightwish's own website or hers - wherever possible, try to use sources that are reliable third-party sources, independent of the subject
  • Nice images, ref formatting seems OK on a spot check
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


List of awards and nominations received by Madonna[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because me and my friend User:Bluesatellite have worked hard on developing this all encompassing article about the awards received by one of the most iconic figures in popular music, Madonna. I would like to have some advice on what could be bettered about the article, the lead etc.

Thanks, — Legolas (talk2me) 05:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello there! I've just read the article and I must say I'm impressed! There's a lot of dedication here! Some rather small things that I found that require tweaks are:

"She has won twenty VMAs from a total of 68 nominations, more than any other artist ever. She is also the first female artist to receive the lifetime achievement Video Vanguard Award."

To avoid repetition, might I suggest you replace the second "She" with Madonna

"Billboard listed her as the "Top Pop Artist" for 1985, as well as the "Top Pop Singles Artist" for the next two years."

I think it would be better to specify that Billboard is a publication (ex: Billboard magazine). I also suggest this because in the awards second you wrote "[award] is sponsored by Billboard magazine" several times
  • In all the references, the titles are not suppose to have any words in all capitals.
  • Reference 7's publisher needs to be unlinked.
  • Reference 102 needs to be unlinked (already linked in 61)
  • Reference 103 needs to be unlinked (already linked in 59)
  • Reference 127 needs to be unlinked
  • In reference 9, the work and publisher should be linked (Billboard and Neilsen)

Crystal Clear x3 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Adabow (talk · contribs) Nice work, just a couple of reference suggestions:

  • Try to find alternative sources for the book by Ciccone, as it seems a bit COI
    • Finding....
  • What makes Allbusiness.com reliable? Can you replace the references with the original Billboard articles?
    • AllBusiness.com is fine, they are a repository for business related news and sometimes when links from main websites goes kaput! AllBusiness.com have them present. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A very good work but you forgot the Golden Raspberry Award, Madonna won nine times. --79.18.84.238 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but the Razzies are not an industry officiated awards, hence never added to any person award list. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (Glee)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to meet the FA criteria. It has previously been put up for peer review, but was left unanswered. Like the last time, I would like some feedback on the article. I will try and make these changes, but feel free to make the changes if I haven't addressed them.

Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Akcvtt's comments

  • Lead
    • "The episode is a tribute to Lady Gaga" -- Is this accurate? The episode is clearly named after one of her songs, but the episode itself does not appear to be a tribute in the same way that "Theatricality" was.
I agree that it doesn't give tribute in the same way as "Theatricality" does. But it does give tribute to her in some way, as the episode plot generally reflects the message that is intended to be seen in Lady Gaga and her song. DAP388 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011
  • Plot
    • While it's implied why Rachel wanted to get her nose job, it isn't really explicitly stated. Stating that it is one of her insecurities may clarify the plot context for readers unfamiliar with the show.
    • "...after noticing him checking out Sam" -- "checking out" its a bit too casual. Perhaps "showing interest in Sam" is better?
    • "that drove Kurt from McKinley and the glee club" -- It may be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the show to clarify that McKinley is the name of the school.
    • "Karofsky issues an apology to Kurt at a group meeting involving Will, Principal Figgins (Iqbal Theba), and their fathers." -- Whose fathers? Will's and Principal Figgins'? Needs rewording to clarify whose fathers were at the meeting.
    • "amongst the girls like Lauren." -- Confusing. Perhaps "amongst girls who share the same insecurities as Quinn"? From the rest of the plot description, it seems as if Lauren isn't actually insecure and that the other girls were identifying with Quinn's former insecurities, not Lauren's.
Working on it. DAP388 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011
  • Music and performances
    • "Sandra Gonzalez of Entertainment Weekly stated that she loved the song choice" -- "song choices" (plural)?
 Done DAP388 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011

Overall, this article is well-written, especially the Reception section. Nicely done! Akcvtt (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Cottage Home Historic District[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it reviewed as a featured article eventually. However, this is only the second article I've ever written, so I'd really appreciate input from more experienced editors before I try to send it through the featured article gauntlet.

Thanks, PhantomPlugger (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just gone through and did a little copy edit of the article. Overall, I'm very impressed, especially since this is only your second article. A few explanations of why I did what I did, and what I think you can do to make the article a bit better:
Good copyedits, thanks! PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
What I did
I noticed that, but didn't know how to fix it. Thanks for that tip! PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You had originally written, "Cottage Home comprises the National Register Area and a larger..." First off, Cottage Home doesn't comprise the NRHP district and larger state districts but rather is comprised of the two. Also, the average reader doesn't know what the "National Register" is without a little bit of a description, so it's usually desired to at least include the full name of the register, i.e. "National Register of Historic Places", before using the shortened form "National Register." I've edited the lead to rearrange this sentence, which I believe takes care of the issue, but if you disagree, this is a very minor issue, so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on it.
Your rewrite is clearer and smoother. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Another quick tip: Districts and buildings are listed on the NRHP and not designated to it. Again, a very minor issue.
Thanks! PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Though it may just be personal preference, sentences that include "with ____" are usually very awkward to read. Examples you had were, "After annexation, Cottage Home experienced strong growth in housing with almost 400 households living there by 1900, nearly three-quarters of which rented a house or apartment," which I changed to, "After annexation, Cottage Home experienced strong growth in housing. Almost 400 households were located in the area by 1900, nearly three-quarters of which were being rented." There was another example of this type of sentence structure which I changed later on in the article as well.
Those are good changes. I'm not used to writing in an encyclopedia style, so I'm sure there are other tweaks that could be made. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
What I think you could do
  • You mention throughout the article that the National Register district is smaller than the state and local district, but you never really quantify that statement to my knowledge. You do include that the NRHP district includes 23 structures while the state/local one includes 292, but I think describing the size difference in terms of areas would be helpful to include in the prose. The infobox says that the district is 77.6 acres large, which is the area of the locally-designated conservation area (I presume.. it isn't cited to anything). According to the NRIS database, the area of the NRHP district is just 2 acres. It could be helpful to include both the area of the NRHP district and the local district in the infobox. This could be done with a <br /> tag in the infobox code, i.e. |area={{convert|2|acre}} (NRHP district)<br />{{convert|77.6|acre}} (local district).
Here's where it gets a little hairier. 77.6 acres would technically be the area of the state boundaries, as I calculated via this tool. Since the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store aren't actually included in the local district, that area would be slightly smaller. Then, the national district is of course another size. So, for the sake of simplicity, I included the largest bounds. Where are you getting the NRHP acreage? From my reading of the boundaries, it would be more like 5-6 acres. On a related note, I can't find a hard reference to the areas, I'm inferring them from the boundaries. Is that an issue? If so, what is the fix? PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that tool you used to calculate areas to be a reliable source, so I wouldn't include that number in the article. I got the NRHP district acreage from the NRIS database, downloadable here as an entire database. Usually this database is not used but is rather accessed through a tool put online by User:Elkman at this website. You can type in either the name of the district or the reference number (90000328), and the website will generate a Wikipedia-ready infobox full of all the information provided by the NRHP. Another way to find the area is to find the actual document submitted to the NRHP when the district was nominated. That file will eventually be available at the following url: "National Register of Historic Places Nomination: 90000328" (PDF). 

, but as can be seen from clicking that, the "document has not yet been digitized". You can request a hard copy from the NRHP using instructions at WP:NRHPHELP#NRHP forms, and that will usually arrive within two or so weeks. That document will include not only the area of the district but also probably maps, pictures, and an extended description of the history/significance of the district.

As to a hard reference of the area of the state/local district, your Reference #2 says "...the approximately seventy-six acre farmland site now known as the Cottage Home neighborhood." Using that, you could put |area=approx. {{convert|76|acre}}. You may also be able to contact the IHPC and see if they have acreage of their districts in a database somewhere. If you can't find anything better than the approximate acreage, that's fine; just leave it out. One thing I would avoid, though, is that tool you used, since it is not a reliable source and is original research IMO.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've requested a copy of the nominating documents, so whenever I get those, I'll add any new information or references I find. PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If possible, a map of the district boundaries would be ideal. If you'd like some help making a map, drop a message at my talk page; I've made a few, such as File:Meridian, MS Historic Districts.PNG.
There's a decent map in the Conservation Area Plan (ref #2) that shows the boundaries of the district, location of the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store, and the locations of the historic curbs and sidewalks. It's not public domain, but I know people at the IHPC, so I may be able to get permission to use it. What would you suggest? PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you can get permission to use that map, by all means go ahead. As I said above, there's probably a map of the NRHP district in the NRHP nomination form. Getting all of them together and combining them into your own map would be the best option in my opinion because you could show all of them at once.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since there doesn't appear to be a map anywhere with all the boundaries, I think the best solution is to make a map. Can you show me how to do it? PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Every map I've made has been a combination of a base map generated by a OpenStreetMap (all maps are released under a Creative Commons license unlike Google or Bing Maps) and some manual editing in an image editor such as PhotoShop, Paint, etc. To make the map I linked to above, I looked at this pdf and basically re-drew the district boundaries manually onto my base map. For this map, I simply transposed the highway shields onto the base map. There are undoubtedly many more high-tech ways to do this, but I think the results I get are pretty good. You're more than welcome to try to find someone who uses a more advanced procedure.
To generate a base map from OpenStreetMap, click the "Export" tab at the top and then zoom to the region you want to include in the map. I think this is a good angle, but feel free to zoom in or out to your liking. I usually try to include at least a little of the surrounding area for context. After the area is selected, make sure "Mapnik Image" is selected from the selectboxes, and select an image format. I usually use PNG because I don't have software on my computer to handle SVGs, but if you have that software, SVGs are preferable to PNGs; I don't know how to manually edit them, though, so if you go that route, you're on your own. You'll then see a box labelled "Scale 1:___". The lower the number in the text box is, the more detailed and larger the file size is. It will show you an image size right under that box. You may have to export the image a few times with different numbers to figure out which scale works best. Save the file on your computer and open it with an image processing app.
You can then use the map in the Conservation Area Plan to copy the boundaries of the local district and location of the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store. When you get the NRHP document(s), you can use the map that is hopefully included to copy the NRHP boundaries. If you need further help, let me know!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I made a map and added it to the article. PhantomPlugger (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks great, although the caption is a bit long, and the positioning isn't the greatest. As the article is expanded, it may start to look better, so I wouldn't worry about it right now. One alternative is to use the |district_map= parameter of the NRHP infobox to show the district map instead of the state map there. I personally like to have both in the article, but if you want to move the new map into the infobox, it's possible. Just out of curiousity, did you receive the NRHP documents yet for those boundaries? I didn't see any other added information, which is surprising. Usually NRHP documents are full of useful information.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I haven't received the documents yet. I used the boundary description from the Conservation Plan. The positioning of the map was the best I could come up with and I couldn't think of a better alternative to the caption. PhantomPlugger (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You state that the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store were designated locally before the state and local designation of the district. One piece of information missing is when this happened.
I know, and it's so frustrating because none of my sources mention the year. I know the information exists, it's just not in the sources published online. I don't live in Indy anymore, so I don't have access to offline sources I used to. The best solution I can think of is to email the IHPC for the information, then reference the offline file. A plan for the buildings exists, it's just not online. PhantomPlugger (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe contact the local organization that handles designations like this one? It may be possible for them to mail you a hard copy like the NRHP does. Not sure if that would cost anything or not, but it's worth a try.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You mention several times throughout the article that the establishment of the Cottage Home Neighborhood Association "stabilized" the district. While I understand that to mean that people stopped moving away at such a rapid rate, I don't really like the choice of wording. The district wasn't unstable before, so it shouldn't need to be stabilized. Maybe just explicitly state that the exodus from the area and rate of demolitions slowed after 1984? Your most-used reference, the Cottage Home Conservation Area Plan, says that there was a restoration boom in the mid 1980s and that the CHNA was a product of that restoration boom–not that the CHNA caused the boom (though it obviously acted as a catalyst).
I don't entirely agree with this point, but I made a couple tweaks that I think will satisfy us both. PhantomPlugger (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me now.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In the lead of the article, as well as later on, you say that the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store "anchor" the NRHP district. Then later on, you claim that the Vonnegut & Bohn Doubles anchor the district as well. Which is it? Or is it both? Is this in a source somewhere? This needs to be explained in more detail.
I guess I just viewed the use of "anchor" as a stylistic choice, because the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store is clearly the most significant part of the district and provided the impetus for creating the district. Does anchor have an additional meaning that I'm not understanding? It is unclear that I use that word in the section on the Doubles, so I'll fix that. PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Usually I use the word "anchor" to refer to the most important structure or site in a district. Maybe the word pivotal would work better here? I'm also fine with your recent edit that changed the wording a bit.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
While I didn't thoroughly check the references you cite, I did look over a few. Participants in the GA and FA processes will scrutinize these much more, so I would make sure that everything you cite in the article (like the CHNA claim above) is explicitly cited to some reference. Anything in the realm of original research or synthesis won't pass those processes.
I tried to be careful not to do any original research or synthesis in the article. It was kind of hard at some places because I have a lot of informal information on the topic, but I think I have a reference for everything. The only sources I'm unsure about are the ones from the Cottage Home Neighborhood Association. I consider them to be reliable sources, because I know who the author of the CHNA history sections is. Her credentials are not evident, however, in the source web pages. Is that going to be a problem? PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that history section from the CHNA will be fine; I've used references like that many times before, and no one has ever said anything about it, even in the higher-level processes. One thing I did notice, however, was your use of File:Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House Old.jpg. You say the source is http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagephoto/411765282/sizes/s/in/set-933600/ on the image page, but, visiting the page, I see that "Heritage Photo" has labelled that image All Rights Reserved. That would mean that the inclusion of this image on Wikipedia is a violation of copyright. I won't tag it for now, but you should see if you can get a free version of this picture. One way to go about that is to contact the uploader and see if he/she will change the copyright status of the file. For more information about uploading photos from Flickr, see this page on Commons.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I asked the pictures' author for permission to use that image and the main image in this article. I believe I marked them as such when I uploaded them. Is there something further I need to do? PhantomPlugger (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Either get the author to update the copyright information displayed on the Flickr page linked as the source of the file to show an acceptable license, or make use of the WP:OTRS process, where you can get email confirmation of the photographer's permission sent to Wikipedia. For an example of a Flickr-uploaded image, click here (note the use of the Flickr template in the licensing section), and for an example of an OTRS-uploaded image, click here (again, note the use of the licensing template).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Overall, I think this article is pretty good, and I was forced to find very minor flaws with it. If you'd like help fixing any of the things I mentioned above, drop a note at my talk page. Keep up the good work!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I will respond inline. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hunter × Hunter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I managed to improve Yoshihiro Togashi's other major work, YuYu Hakusho to GA status some time ago. I'd just like some up-to-date opinions reflecting the standards of getting a manga/anime article to this level.

Thanks, ~ Hibana (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The article looks very good as far as I see and I only had some doubts.
  • The anime opening and ending themes are already in their own respective lists, so there is no need to put them here.
  • There are some common links like English language.
  • The other merchandise section uses six consecutive references, so it's confusing to see what references what. The same happens with the manga reception section that uses five refs in a row.
  • The manga and anime sections in reception could be renamed to "manga reception" and "anime reception" to avoid having sections with the same name.
Other than that, the article looks really good. I'm pretty sure it will be able to become GA. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree this looks pretty good - thank for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Two dead links - see here
  • The Lead really emphasizes his father - when I read the plot section and got to the end, I was surprised that there was so little on his father in it.
  • Re-reading the lead now, I am surprised there is not more on the later plot there
  • Avoid vague time terms which can quickly become out of date. With 310 chapters to date, it has been published in 27 tankōbon chapter collections in Japan so far. could instead be something like As of June 2011, its 310 chapters have been published in 27 tankōbon chapter collections in Japan.
  • Ditto with "recent years" in However, the manga has gone on hiatus a number of times in recent years. (since 2006??)
  • I think I would split this setnece into two: In 1999, the manga series was adapted into a 62-episode anime series produced by Nippon Animation and directed by Kazuhiro Furuhashi, and premiered on the Japanese terrestrial television network Fuji TV and has also aired on the satellite television station Animax.
  • Tighten The Hunter × Hunter manga has been a large financial success in Japan, having sold over 44 million copies in the region alone [there?] as of January 2008. Since the sales figure is given, I think large can be omitted. Also since Japan is specified earlier in the sentence, "in the region alone" can be struck too - may want to add "there" if you think it needs to be clearer that this is in Japan only.
  • Why not say something like Critics of both the manga and its television adaptation have praised the complex plot, endearing characters, and superb art and animation. "positively noted" is a bit clunky
  • In Plot Hunter is linked - I think per the MOS it should also be linked in the lead too.
  • I am not sure the use of quotations follows the MOS - "Hunter", "Hunter's Examination", etc.
  • Shouldn't the translation of Japanese titles like Downtown no Gaki no Tsukai ya Arahende!! be given in the article?
  • In Manga, I would give specific years here For instance, it was serialized between the first and final issues of Banzai!, a German version of Weekly Shōnen Jump.[26][27] so perhaps something like For instance, it was serialized between 2001 and 2005 in Banzai!, a German version of Weekly Shōnen Jump.[26][27]
  • I think it is better to have detail in the body of the article and more general statements in the lead - I would just have something like premiered on Japan's Fuji TV in the lead, and then more detail in the body, i.e. "...premiered on the Japanese terrestrial television network Fuji TV"
  • CDs - MOS says that even if something is in all capitals, we usually do not spell it that way here (so the song titles PALE ALE and POPCORN couls just be Pale Ale and Popcorn)
  • Seems odd that there are no Japanese critics quoted in the Reception section
  • Any chance for a free image of the author or somebody associated with the manga or videos?
  • I owuld try to get a copyedit before GAN - there were a few rough spots (tried to point out the worst)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Walt Disney[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have worked in the past to improve the content of this article and am looking for suggestions to help this article reach GA status, and need assistance with evaluating its current quality and making improvements before actually nominating it for GA. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Tiggerjay (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Thank you for your efforts to improve this article on a seminal figure in the world-wide entertainment industry. I'll review the article with the GA Criteria in mind since that is your aim at this point. I'm not completely familiar with WP's policies on biographies so you should make sure this article conforms to those policies and is comprehensive. This review will be done in installments given my busy life and the length of the article. So hang in there and we'll get through this together.

Lead

  • I see several [citation needed] and [when?] templates in the lead. Per WP:LEAD you don't have to have citations in the lead because it is assumed that the information in the lead will appear in the body of the article with citations. One or two references wouldn't hurt or be discouraged though.
  • The lead for this article is going to be important and difficult to write. A lead should be a summary of the entire article. It is a skeletal version of the article. An article of this length should have 3 to 4 paragraphs.
  • One thing I can see already that will need to be addressed is the use of peacock words. Keep terms like "well-known", and "popular" to a minimum.
  • From a writing stand point there are two instances of "well-known" and one occurance of "best-known", consider using different terms.

Beginnings

  • Is there a reference for the sentence about the family settling in Norton Disney?
  • "He also developed his love for trains in Marceline, which owed its existence to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway which ran through town." Two "whiches" in the same sentence usually means two subjects in one sentence, which isn't good prose. Consider rewriting or breaking up the sentence.
  • consider combining the two sentences about Walt listening for the coming train and looking for his engineer uncle.
  • See WP:LINK. You only need to link a term once in the article, perhaps twice if it is a long article and the term is not used very often. You link Disney's parents twice in two paragraphs, this isn't necessary and overlinking should be checked throughout the article.
  • I added a [citation needed] tag to the end of the Childhood section where it says that Disney acknowledged that Electric Park was a major influence on his design of Disneyland. This should be sourced.
  • Consider tightening up the prose in the Teenage years section. A key to good WP writing is not to say in 10 words what you can say in 5. Here's an example:
"After considering becoming an actor or a newspaper artist, he decided he wanted to create a career in the newspaper, drawing political caricatures or comic strips."
Rewrite - "He considered a career as an actor but decided he wanted to draw political caricatures or comic strips for a newspaper." It is not redundant and is more direct.
  • Book titles should be italicized.
  • "Walt and Harman then secured a deal with local theater owner Frank L. Newman — arguably the most popular "showman" in the Kansas City area at the time — to screen their cartoons — which they titled "Laugh-O-Grams" — at his local theater." This sentence should be reworked.
Here's how I would do it: "Disney and Harman agreed to screen their cartoons at a local theater owned by Frank Newman who was one of the most popular "showman" in Kansas City." I would put the fact that they were entitled "Laugh-O-Grams" in the preceding sentence about hiring Harmon, I would add that they created cartoons they called "Laugh-O-Grams".
  • Also it's important to be consistent with using last names, which is better than first names. I wouldn't refer to Disney as Walt, especially when you refer to Fred Harman by his last name.
  • When did he open the Laugh-O-Gram studio and then when did he move to Hollywood?
  • I would move the details about the Disney Bros studio to the Hollywood section. This makes more sense then in the Alice Comedies section. I would also move the info about the Alice Comedies in the Hollywood section down to the Alice Comedies section for the same reason.
  • There are no references in the Alice Comedies section, this needs to be remedied.
  • The Oswald the lucky rabbit section is underreferenced, I count two in the last paragraph. This should also be remedied.
  • "Mickey's popularity would now skyrocket in the early 1930s." This sentence is important but not well-written. Consider reworking thus, "Mickey's popularity grew steadily during the early 1930's." "Skyrocket" is a peacock word and "would now" doesn't fit in the past tense.
  • Check your linking of the Ub Iwerks studio. Make sure you link the first reference to this studio.
  • I notice the use of the word "would" a lot on the text. This word often diminishes the force of the writing and isn't usually necessary. Example:
"The same year also saw competition increase as Max Fleischer's flapper cartoon character, Betty Boop, would gain more popularity among theater audiences."
Remove "would" and make "gain" → "gained".
  • The section entitled "First Academy Award" has one part of a sentence about an Academy Award and the rest of the sentence and the section is about the stable of characters that surrounded Mickey Mouse. I think the section should be renamed. Also the first sentence has two subjects and should be split into two sentences, perhaps even three. More review to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Golden age of animation

  • The Disney's Folly section is under referenced. Claims like the fact that other industry insiders dubbed Snow White "Disney's Folly" need to be sourced. Same can be said for the fact that Snow White was the most successful movie of 1938 and grossed over $8m in its initial release.
  • I don't think the picture of the Cinderella book belongs in the section about Snow White. There are two reasons for this, first Cinderalla didn't come out until 1950 and second the picture of Disney with the seven dwarfs sits right below it. It's a great picture, I would just move it to the Post-war era section.
  • The caption also links to the story of Cinderella rather than Disney's film version, I would recommend linking it to the Disney film.
  • The [clarification needed] tag is warranted here. Why were the Silly Symphonies ended?
  • The paragraph about the financial disappointment of Pinocchio and Fantasia and the animators strike needs to be referenced.

WWII Era

  • One sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Consider expanding or combining the information with the paragraph below.
  • Why the information about Benton's unsuccessful bid for Disney to make educational films? I'm not sure that this adds.
  • Consider moving the Amazon Basin information up to the paragraph about WWII.
  • I think all of this information could fit into one paragraph. Though I'm surprised there wasn't more activity or happenings during WWII.
  • Why are there five references for this information? That seems kind of overkill.

Post-war period

  • "Disney studios also created inexpensive package films, containing collections of cartoon shorts, and issued them to theaters during this period." The word "also" infers that something else was happening during this time frame. This is the first sentence in the section so the readers don't know what else was happening so I would remove "also", unless this information belongs in the WWII section.
  • I don't think this is a good way to start this section. I would instead start with the big picture, like the beginning of the second paragraph.
  • the end of the first paragraph talks about Mickey's waning popularity after the end of the war. In my opinion we've heard multiple times now about Mickey's waxing and waning popularity and the various reasons for it. This isn't an article about Mickey Mouse so I would eliminate further discussion about his popularity unless there is something notable that impacts Disney. Make sure you're staying on topic.
  • "In 1948 the studio also initiated a series of live-action nature films, titled True-Life Adventures, with On Seal Island the first." The writing here isn't very clear. "In 1948 the studio initiaed a series of live-action nature films entitled True-Life Adventures, it's debut episode was On Seal Island."
  • References needed for the one-sentence paragraph on the space program films. Also either expand or combine the one-sentence paragraph.
  • I would move the image of Disney with Von Braun up to the top of the section, it spills into the testimony before congress section and throws off the spacing for the Theme parks section. Since the reference to Von Braun is above the picture this move makes sense.
  • Another one-sentence paragraph in the Testimony before Congress section. Ok I'll leave it there for now, more to come as we dive into Disneyland. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Theme parks and beyond

  • I added a [citation needed] template to the first paragraph in this section. This section is very under referenced.
  • This sentence is a bit awkward, "As Disney explained one of his earliest plans to Herb Ryman, who created the first aerial drawing of Disneyland presented to the Bank of America during fund raising for the project, he said, "Herbie, I just want it to look like nothing else in the world. And it should be surrounded by a train."
I would remove the portion about being presented to BofA for funding. It's a bit too detailed and tangental to the subject of the sentence.
  • I don't think you need to put the full date for the media preview of DLand. Seems a bit redundant, perhaps replace with "the day before" or something to that effect.
  • "...Disneyland hosted a live TV preview, among the thousands of people in attendance were Ronald Reagan, Bob Cummings and Art Linkletter, who shared cohosting duties, as well as the mayor of Anaheim."
Not sure about this sentence, it sounds like Disneyland and Art Linkletter hosted the event. I assume Linkletter cohosted with Disney?
  • The Carolwood Pacific Railroad section seems chronologically out of place where it is. I would place it at the beginning of the Theme park section as a precursor and inspiration for the train in Disneyland. The section also needs to be referenced.
  • To build on the previous entry, the chronology of the events in this section seem to be out of order. Expansion into new areas contains portions before and after the opening of Disneyland. You talk about the opening of DLand and give the date...again, which is duplicative information. In my opinion the entire Theme park section should be reworked to give it more continuity and flow.
  • I'm not sure it's wise to speculate about how much competition Disney would have posed to Hanna Barbera in the Saturday morning TV cartoon slot.
  • I would make his death a full separate section. It doesn't really coincide with the subject of Theme parks and beyond.
  • In-line citations belong at the end of sentences or at least after punctuation marks like commas. Ref 81 is dropped right in the middle of the sentence and this is usually frowned upon.

Legacy

  • What is a terrestrial television network?
  • One or two sentence sections like the family museum are frowned upon. Can this be expanded?
  • In the awards section there are dates in (parentheses) for all the awards except the last three. Why is that?
  • I would remove the HBO show since it was abandoned, this doesn't seem to be significant enough for inclusion.

References

  • Dead links need to be fixed.
  • Here are a list of the dead links by reference #: 2, 4, 61, 71, and 97.
  • The most important thing about formatting the references is consistency. There are a myriad of ways to reference an article but whatever way you choose to use, please use it throughout the article. Here are some examples of inconsistency with referencing in the article:
  • The Gabler references. I see you rely heavily on this source, it is important to give the full book reference first and then the abbreviated reference for all the various pages you pull info from. When you do that then the rest of the abbreviated references can simply be Galber (2006), p. x. No need for the title of the book or the author's first name. Another idea is to put all book references in a Bibliography or References section with the abbreviated references for page numbers in the Notes section. See the Olympic Games article (which is FA) as an example.
  • I see you have a References section with one book, why aren't the other books in this section?
  • There are a few (94 and 95) that are simply website urls w/o publisher, title or accessdate. Wherever possible add date of the article and author.
  • You link to Disney in the references a few times. Why? It doesn't seem to add much. I assume that Disney is the publisher of the particular website referenced? If so then the publisher should be the entire formal name (ie Walt Disney Company).
  • Ref 37, the publisher is, "at ESPN website". Just say ESPN.
  • Page range indications. If there is a page range say pp. or pgs. Sometimes you say pp. other times it's just p. This is nitpicky I know but if your aim is FA at some point for this article then that is one of those fussy little details that will need to be addressed.
  • Ref 97 appears to be a blog, or a personal homepage (it's listed as a dead link as well). See WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:CITE for policies on citations. Chat rooms, blogs, social networking sites and personal pages are not considered credible sites and should be avoided when referencing articles.
  • Are you familiar with the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates? These will help you formalize the references and make them more consistent.
  • An article of this profile should have a considerable amount of book references. These are always viewed with higher credibility than websites because of the third party review and editing process that books go through. Google Books is a great online resource.
  • Don't put books in the further reading section that are referenced in the article. It's duplicative. To me further reading sections in general are duplicative. If the information in the further reading books is important then it would be referenced in the artice so what is the need for a further reading section. That said I know people like the section so I wont go so far as to say it should be eliminated, but if the book is referenced in the article it shouldn't also be listed in the further reading section.

Overall

  • The foundations of this article are sound and a lot of the heavy lifting has been done.
  • But there is a lot of work still to be done to get this ready for GA consideration and beyond. Here are some general thoughts:
  • The article is under-referenced and should be beefed up.
  • Referencing needs to be more consistent and an overhaul of the references section should be done per my recommendations above.
  • There are some comprehensive issues with the article:
  • The article seems heavy on his company's work straying away from his life. I understand he was very involved in the projects his company was involved in but it seems hard to separate the company from the man. Is there information on his personal life during the pre-war through 1966 years? There are snippets of information, he moved from one home to another and had a railroad built for example. But for the most part the article covers his company and what it did.
  • What about the personal relationships he built with the men who helped him start his company. There is quite a bit of information about these men early in the article but then they disappear. Did they all break ties with Disney?
  • What other criticisms were leveled at Disney other than anti-semitism? A man of that much power and that much influence must have made some enemies and must of made some mistakes. Was there backlash for his collusion with the government during the Red Scare for example?
  • The writing needs to be reviewed. I recommend a thorough copy edit after the content work is done.
  • Those are the big things that should be addressed before the article goes to GAC. This concludes my review I hope you found it helpful. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. If you found the review helpful please consider reviewing an article here or a GAC to help reduce the ever-present backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Winchester[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in building up Winchester towards GA. I know that there are already a couple of problems with the article such as the Media and culture section, but I will get back to that later. For now I just really need a second opinion on the article first. Thank you very much!

Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

An interesting article. I've only visited Winchester a few times so don't know that much about the city, but I am familiar with WP:UKCITIES so will comment from that perspective.

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). So "The Cathedral" could be changed to "Cathedral". There are also at least 3 sub heads with the word "Winchester" in them.
Done. Jaguar (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The Lead could be expanded to fully summarise the article. There are some subsections in the article which aren't mentioned in the lead at all.

History

  • The whole of "Anglo-Saxon times" & the first & third paragraphs of "Medieval and later times" are unreferenced
  • I'm not sure what the one sentence paragraph "Further learning" is for - if it's more sources of information it should come after references. If it is an important landmark or part of the culture then it should come at appropriate points.
  • Watch out for phrases such as "famous novelist" it is unreferenced so could could as personal opinion
  • Some mention of Winchester in the civil war (eg [18], [19]) might be of interest
  • Anything significant in the 20th century?

Governance

  • When was Martin Tod defeated - this doesn't seem to be chronological so I'm a bit confused
  • A link to City of Winchester and some comment about non-unitary districts & their relationship with the county council might be worth a mention
  • Is EU constituency worth mentioning?
  • WP:UKCITIES suggests sections on Geography, Demography, Economy etc before landmarks

Landmarks

  • Do you have a reference for "longest cathedral..."?
  • Several of the paragraphs in this section are completely unreferenced. This is particularly important where claims are made such as the Pilgrims Hall having the "earliest hammer-beamed building still standing in England"
  • Do we need to say that The Da Vinci Code starred Tom Hanks in this context?
Good point - I have removed him from the sentence. Jaguar (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In the University paragraph, do we need to be told that Winchester is in Hampshire England again? - this looks like a copy & paste from the University of Winchester article. Could this paragraph be moved to the "Education" section?

Education

  • Unreferenced

Sport

  • There is an external link in the information about the Womens FC team
  • Lots of short one sentence paragraphs in this section which could be combined

Transport

  • Several unreferenced claims.
  • Watch out for ambiguous terms such as "recently" restored it is better to give a year or decade if possible

In fiction

  • I'm not a fan of these sections but if it is to be included it needed to be supported with suitable references.

References

  • References 3 (Channel 4) & 13 (History of the Guildhall) are showing as deadlinks
  • Refs 4,5,7,13 & 14 need details of the publisher, accessdate etc & 14 needs a title

I hope these comments are useful and if you need clarification please let me know.— Rod talk 15:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Rent (musical)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA and would like some comments.

Thanks, Theking17825 22:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

  • From a review point of view this article presents several problems. It has had nearly 4,000 edits, over half from IPs. It has been worked on by hundreds of editors; the list of the top 50 editors shows that none have more than 88 edits and hardly any of the most prominent have been near the article in the last six months.
  • The article continues to be edited frequently, generally by IPs. There is no evidence on the talkpage of co-operation between the multiple editors, whereby the article's problems could be identified and worked on. For example, a tag dated July 2009, drawing attention to the excessive length of the plot summary, is still in place although clearly much work has been done on this section.
  • The PR nominator appears to have only one edit to the article. The reason given for the PR request is an intention to try for GA. I think that at present the article is some way from GA standard, and the full peer review would be more appropriate when much more of the necessary development work has been completed. I suggest the following steps:-
  1. Post the intention to work towards a GAN on the article's talkpage, and explore the possibility a building a group to work together on the article.
  2. Look for a well-developed musical or opera article that you can use as a model. There are very few of these at WP:GA - Hair (musical) is in my view far too long and over-detailed. There are more and better examples at WP:FAC among the mucicals, light operas and operas.
  3. Identify and agree on the areas which most require attention. After a quick scan through the article I would suggest the following for consideration: Drastically reduce the "Productions" section; Introduce a proper critical reception section; Get rid of the general listiness - at present we have (a)the infobox, (b) the La boheme/Rent comparison (c) List of musical numbers (d)Lists of main and minor characters (e) Cast list (f) Lists of actors (g) Lists of awards. All these distort the nature and appearance of the article. Suggest get rid of some of these and shorten/merge others
  4. Work needed on referencing. At present there are unreferenced paragraphs, unreferenced quotes, and at least one "unreliability" tag
  5. Consider whether you need the "Cultural impact" section, which at present contains what is mostly trivia.

Bearing in mind that peer review is intended for articles that have already undergone considerable development, I suggest that it brought back here for further review when these major concerns have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Kenesaw Mountain Landis[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I plan on taking it to FAC in due course, and I'd like feedback. The man was a prominent judge long before he was baseball commissioner, and I've tried to do justice, so to speak, to both parts of his life.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The length of the articles means review in stages, but I'll do my best to get through it. On the basis of the lead image he looks a pretty formidable character. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Some observations on the early sections of the article, to be getting along with:-

Lead
  • "He is remembered for his handling of the Black Sox scandal ..., expelling eight players from organized baseball and refusing reinstatement requests". Handling, expelling, refusing is too much "ing", and the grammar is dubious. I suggest "He is remembered for his handling of the Black Sox scandal ..., when he expelled eight players from organized baseball and refused reinstatement requests".
  • Same problem with the sentence starting "Landis spent much of his youth in Indiana, leaving school at fifteen and working in a series of positions..." I suggest replace "leaving" with "where he left" and "working" with "worked".
  • Second paragraph, penultimate sentence: the justification for "but" is not obvious unless you expand, e.g. "but closed it when..."
  • Second para, final sentence: an "and" conjunction should not be used to link unrelated information
  • "over $29 million" → "more than $29 million" (reads better)
  • "his 1944 death" - as distinct from all his other deaths (ha ha)? Or, maybe, "his death in 1944".
Young man in a hurry
  • Not sure about section titles like this. A little interpretative, and POVish, surely?
  • An approprite link should be use for "Mennonites". The comma after "Mennonites" is unnecessary
  • I wouldn't refer to Abraham Landis as "Dr" before explaining that he was a physician
  • Last sentence looks out of place, and the cryptic reference to "listening baseball men" needs rethinking. What is a "baseball man" anyway?
  • Link "Congress" (esp. for non-USA readers)
  • "Offered a pro contract" → "When offered a professional contract..." (slang abbreviations should be avoided) No comma required after "ballplayer".
  • Could we have a year for when he enrolled at Cincinnati's YMCA Law School? Also, what year was his "final year of law school at Union Law School", and can the repetiyion be avoided somehow?
  • Repunctuation required: "He began a practice in Chicago, served as an assistant instructor at Union and, with fellow attorney Clarence Darrow, helped found..." Or you could delete the commas after "and" and "Darrow", which is probably a better solution.
Washington years
  • Something missing in the first paragraph, which should explain that Gresham employed Landis, and in what capacity.
  • The sentence beginning "President Cleveland grew to like Landis..." is overlong and needs splitting into two.

More on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew that section title would be a pain ... oh well. I'll get to these tonight. Thanks much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
All done, though I varied from your suggestions in addressing the issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A little more...

Judge
  • Wouldn't "brother-in-law" be simpler than "sister's husband"?
Yes, though someone might misread it to think that it was a brother in law the other way, i.e. one of the Landis brothers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Last sentence: I can't work out from this whether or not Landis was pro or anti-rebating.
I got $29,400,000 says he was against.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Standard Oil
  • "Trusts often sought to purchase or otherwise neutralize their competitors, allowing them to raise prices to high levels." In this wording, "them" is ambiguous. Not quite sure how this could be reworded, though.
  • Please give us poor Europeans the dates of Theodore Roosevelt's administration
  • Unnecessary name repetition: "After several days, Rockefeller was found at Taconic Farm in northwestern Massachusetts, the estate of Rockefeller's lawyer".
Prominent judge
  • Don't think that I'm making a habit of knocking your titles, but I would have thought, given the reception he got after the Standard Oil case that he was already pretty prominent.
  • A baby girl should surely not be called an an "it"? Perhaps "the child".
  • "Mr" unnecessary
  • Maybe date the caption? (very odd pic indeed)
Yes, that is why I grabbed it, it is Landis at a ballgame, tie askew and cigarette in his mouth, which you never, never saw as commissioner (I do not know if he had views on smoking, but I just am not aware of other pictures showing him smoking). Unhappily, it is not dated and the piece I got it from implies that it is from the newspaper's files. I could say "published in", but that might be misleading. By some accounts, Landis was loudmouthed as a baseball fan, but I don't have enough confidence in the sources to include that. The photo kinda implies that, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Except where noted (I did not change it to brother in law), these things are done. As I lack accurate date for that image, I can't do much with the caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuing...

Wartime cases
  • "The entry of the United States into World War I in April ended Landis's determination to resign, as the judge, a great supporter of the war effort, felt he could best serve the country by remaining on the bench." Might be a little tidier as "The entry of the United States into World War I in April ended Landis's determination to resign; a great supporter of the war effort, he felt he could best serve the country by remaining on the bench."
  • "Landis's first case allowing him to show his disdain for draft dodgers and other opponents of the war came in July 1917, when he presided over the trials of some 120 men, mostly foreign-born Socialists, who had resisted the draft and rioted in Rockford, Illinois." The wording seems slightly cumbersome; I have played around and come up with: "Landis's disdain for draft dodgers and other opponents of the war was evident in July 1917, when he presided over the trials of some 120 men, mostly foreign-born Socialists, who had resisted the draft and rioted in Rockford, Illinois." Just a suggestion.
  • "All were ordered to register for the draft after serving their sentences—except 37, whom he ordered deported." The distance between "All" and "except 37" creates problems. Consider rephrasing: "All except 37, whom he ordered deported, were required to register for the draft after serving their sentences."
  • "would preside" - why not "presided"?
  • (comment) I love the description "the face of Andrew Jackson three years dead" Very apt, too!
  • "Landis is generally conceded to have tried United States v. Haywood, et al. in a fair manner." I'd delete this; it reads as editorial summing up.
  • Likewise, the "smiles" caption is not really encyclopedic, is it?
  • "interred near Reed"; it might be worth a line explaining what Reed, an American journalist, was doing in Moscow.
  • "The war ended in November 1918." Indeed it did, but a specific statement of the fact is surely unnecessary. The paragraph could begin: "With the ending of the war in November 1918, Landis..."
Building trades award etc
  • Third paragraph: the section beginning "A bill barring..." is rather oddly tacked on to a paragraph the substance of which is the bank teller case, and it might be better to separate it.
I think it is best to keep the gathering storm around Landis building chronologically.

Much as I am loath to leave the old brute, I will have to defer comment on his baseball career as I have some urgent work to get the slightly more fragrant Kathleen Ferrier ready for PR. I will endeavour to return in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm up to date again except as noted. Yes, I have been noting your work on Ferrier, another person I know little about and was glad to read up on.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And finally...

Black Sox scandal
  • You need to state specifically that the World Series was between these two teams. Someone ignorant in the ways of US baseball would not immediately grasp this.
  • "Rumors that the series was fixed..." → "Rumors that the series had been fixed
  • We have "Rumors ... began to circulate" and "rumors began to spread..." in close proximity. "...and there was speculation" might be a good alternative for the second.
  • Explain "winning the pennant"
Search for a commissioner
  • When did the Lasker plan for a 3-man commission morph into a single commissioner? The 3-man plan seems to have been widely accepted, and we read of Landis's selection as head of the proposed commission. Then, without explanation, we have "the proposed appointment of Landis as sole commissioner".
  • What does "cleared his docket" mean?
Banning the Black Sox
  • Curious wording of the last sentence: "remains in force"? Long-dead players surely can't be banned? Do you mean "was never revoked"?
I don't actually know that Bud Selig maintains a list someplace with Shoeless Joe's name on it, but yes, the ban remains meaningful because until he's taken off of it, he is not eligible for election to the Hall of Fame, which his career statistics otherwise would have justified in the first few elected classes (they started electing people in 1936). Weaver is unlikely to be elected, he was a fair player but did not dominate his position, his advocates want baseball to admit he was unjustly treated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Cracking down
  • "The player had been released by the Browns after admitting to sitting in on meetings with gamblers who were trying to raise the money to bribe the Black Sox, and a minor league official asked if he was eligible." Eligible for what?
He had been playing winter ball against teams which included minor league players, and at least one (unnamed) major league. The President of the Pacific Coast League was getting antsy because his players were playing against Gaedel, and it was against baseball rules for players in organized baseball to play against (or with, for that matter) an ineligible player.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I really can't find a way of including all that. I'm going to let it stand and play with possible improvements as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Ruth-Meusel barnstorming incident
  • The section is rather lengthy and detailed; does a single incident justify this extent of treatment?
Yes, it established Landis's control over baseball; Ruth was the most popular player. Landmark incident. People will expect it. And it's Babe Ruth ....--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's been ages since "Spink" was mentioned, so he should have his full name here.
  • "the slugger": is this a technical baseball term, or an informal way of referring to Ruth? If the latter I think it should be modified.
Major-minor league relations etc
  • The Browns: I'm sure they were identified earlier, but it would be better to have their full name here, to help readers follow the story.
  • Some problems with baseball-ese. For example, what does it mean, to "strip the Browns ... of infielder Phil Todt"?
Baseball color line
  • "Robinson integrated the major leagues in 1947 with the Dodgers". I assume this is shorthand for something like "Integration of the major leagues began in 1947 when Robinson signed for the Dodgers". One black player joining one club is a step forward, but cannot be described on its own as as the integration of the major leagues.
I'll rephrase. All major league teams were integrated by 1959, fyi.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "At the time of his appointment as commissioner, Landis was considered a liberal on race questions." Considered by whom, and on what particular evidence?
  • I think we need a reminder about the impeachment efforts - I'd forgotten this detail
  • "Veeck initially placed some of the blame on National League President Ford Frick, but later reserved blame exclusively for Landis" Clarify whether "initially" means in the book, and "later" means in the interview.
  • "In November 1943, Landis was persuaded by sportswriter Sam Lacy for the sportswriter to make the case for blacks..." Very clumsy and repetitive. How about "In November 1943, Landis agreed after some persuauion that sportswriter Sam Lacy should make a case for blacks..." etc
World Series and All-Star Game etc
  • Overlong sentence beginning: "After Landis was blamed..."
  • Can you explain "night baseball"? Does this literaaly mean through the night, or does it mean evenings? The final phrase also needs clarifying; was the ban on Sunday baseball, or just on Sunday night baseball?
Night baseball simply means evenings. I'm not sure this can be clarified without talking down to an audience which knows very well what night baseball is, but I will look more closely at it. The ban was on Sunday night games, really because one or both teams might be playing the next afternoon someplace else, and that was cutting it close in an era when baseball teams traveled by train.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
World War II etc
  • "Many major leaguers were drafted;" - clarify that this means into the military!
Finally: a point I may have missed in my readthrough. For how long into his commissionership did Landis continue to sit as a judge? Perhaps this could be clarified in the final session?
I was trying to keep the two roles entirely separated. About fifteen months. It's set forth in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the detail was over my head, and I may have missed a few points, but overall an absorbing article about a formidable man. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll clean it up most likely tonight or tomorrow. I will say that the likelihood you would review the article at some stage to tone down the baseball terminology and legalese. I do have another reviewer who is more familiar with baseball hopefully coming in, and User:Baseball Bugs informally looked it over and did not have any specific complaints.

Coemgenus comments[edit]

I'll tack my comments on down here:

Boyhood and early career

  • The part about owning his own livestock seems like a non sequitur.
  • "He took his law degree..." Do we say that in America? I thought that was just a Britishism. The meaning is clear enough, if you want to leave it, but it stood out to me.
I ran a google search and it did not seem to be rare in the US--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, sounds good to me. --Coemgenus 13:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Standard Oil

  • I don't think the last sentence is germane.

Baby Iraene

  • The sentence about King Solomon is awkward. I know what you mean, but it doesn't quite flow.

Wartime cases

  • "men indicted" or something like it would sound better than "indictees".
  • The sentence about the jury charge is awkward. Maybe "On August 17, 1918, following the closing argument for the prosecution (the defendants waived argument), Landis charged the jury. The lead defense counsel objected to the wording of the jury charge several times, but Haywood believed it to have been fair."
  • Where you talk about Reed being interred in the Kremlin, it's not clear which Reed you mean. I'm guessing it's not Reed Landis, but do you mean John Reed? Since he's only mentioned as a journalist above, it might be good to mention his first name when you reintroduce him as a communist.
Nice catch! I had not noticed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Black Sox

  • You say that three teams were duelling for the league lead. Might "battling" or "competing" work better?

Search for a commissioner

  • "one-man commission" -- is that from the source? One-man commission sounds weird, but I guess since the office is "commissioner," maybe it makes sense.
    Yes. The justification is from page 55 of Spink: "Dreyfuss and most of the National Leaguers preferred a one-man Commissioner, but they were willing to go along with the three-man National Commission so long as Ban would play ball with them and help Heydler find that new strong chairman."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

_________________________________ As I have permission from a FAC delegate to nominate this article, I am going to close the article. I feel three editors (including Baseball Bugs) have looked at the article, and though one is still working, there's been nothing seen that is an impediment to FA. Thank you all.


Modern Family (season 2)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope this can either become a featured list or a good article. Could the reviewer please suggest which one this article would fit in

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


A Boy and His Blob: Trouble on Blobolonia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it on and off for past several months. I feel its pretty close to GA status, but I would like some feedback before pursuing a nomination. Also, I'm missing a vital source for the development: the Retro Gamer "Making Of" article from issue 77. I live in the States and don't have access to that periodical. If anyone happens to have it, please let me know.

Thanks, ~ Hibana (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me too, here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • I do not have Retro Gamer magazine - have you tried asking for it via Interlibrary loan at your local library? Or asking on the WikiProject Video games talk page?
  • I might include the year 1990 in the first sentence "...is a 1990 video game..."
  • The word "between" seems odd here - I would just use "in" It was released in North America, Japan, and Europe between 1990 and 1991.
  • Problem sentence "using" should be cut or perhaps words are missing? Crane has described the game's overall concept of a boy using accompanied by a blob tool-set as a fun, unconventional idea.
  • Reception has three paragraphs but only one sentence in the lead - seems like there should be a bit more in the lead - perhaps mention some of the awards in a sentence?
  • Any info on sales figures?
  • Tighten The game's plot involves the titular boy and his alien blob friend (fully named Blobert) ...
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - does the average reader really need a link for sweets?
  • "Platformer" seems a bit slangy for an encyclopedia article Despite being a platformer, the player-controlled boy is limited to simply running and leaping from ledges.
  • Tighten The boy is accompanied by his companion Blobert, who is controlled by the computer AI.
  • Tighten Also found on the map are extra jelly beans and peppermints, the latter of which increase the player's lives.[6]
  • Can year(s) be added in Development? Assume 1989 was the start of development?
  • Tweak - doubt he rented the whole flophouse ;-) Crane rented a room in a flophouse near his office ...
  • Try to change passive to active wherever possible. One example: The concept of a boy accompanied by a shapeshifting blob was described by Crane as "an off-the-wall idea".[12][13] could be something like Crane described the concept of a boy accompanied by a shapeshifting blob as "an off-the-wall idea".[12][13] (and active is usually a bit tighter)
  • Not sure something can be "heavily inspired by" something else - how about "heavily influenced by" in Blobert's design was heavily inspired by the characters Gloop and Gleep ...
  • For clarity I would add "in the Japanese version" at the end of The game's sprite for the boy was made more detailed, and jellybeans were renamed as "candies".[17] I might also link sprite
  • Not sure what this means (equal praise?) The two reviewers of Mean Machines gave equal praise to the graphical quality of A Boy and His Blob... Perhaps something like Both reviewers for Mean Machines praised the graphical quality equally...?
  • Vast instead of vastly? Thomas faulted the game's controls, its vastly empty environments, and ...
  • In Legacy I would give the years for the various items. So "in 2005, Jason Poland, a writer for America's Intelligence Wire, attributed ... Or what year did Absolute close?
  • Poland was a columnist for the Univerity of Houston's newspaper - his work is distributed by America's Intelligence Wire, but not really written for it.
  • Ref 8 (IGN) says it was released in 1989 (not 1990 or 1991)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Azem Hajdari[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I rebuild and expanded the whole article. I'm now intrested what others think of it.

Thanks, Vinie007 15:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I commend you for your work on this article. I'll give you my input and I'll make some edits that won't be too controversial.

Lead

  • You want to put the fact that he was assassinated after all the deeds he did while he was still alive. It's a little out of place to say he was killed and then talk about his chairmanship of a commission.
  • See WP:LEAD for instructions on what should be included in the lead. To sum up the lead should be a summary of the entire article with all points in the body of the text in the lead. I think the lead could be expanded a bit to fully summarize the article.

Background

  • One sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, I would either expand or combine it with the previous paragraph.
  • This section has no references. Every section should have references, and really every assertion of fact should be referenced.
  • I think this section could be expanded. Where was he born, who were his parents, did he have other family members? Expand on his early relationship with Sali Berisha? This obviously was a key connection in early post-Communist Albanian history. Also this should be an early history section rather than a background. You will cover the protests, and his assention to the party chairmanship later. I would rename the section and eliminate the third level heading. Third level headings should only exist if there is more than one, otherwise just put all the information under the second level heading.

Student protests

  • A one sentence section is not good. Please expand or fold into another section.
  • I know that there is an article on the fall of Communism in Albania. It is still ok to cover it in a summary style here. With references of course.

'Attacks

  • What was the date of the attack on Hajdari, Minarolli, and Pollo? Also give Minarolli's first name.
  • No references for the Tropojë Attack.
  • It's also a one-sentence section. Why were they attacked? Who attacked them?
  • The details of Hajdari's assassination are unclear.
  • On 9/18/97 he is shot five times over a dispute about value added tax.
  • Two days later he seriously injured when Mazreku shoots him several times. Huh? He was shot 5 times and is back in parliament 2 days later? How is that possible?
  • Who is Mazreku, as above give first and last names the first time you mention someone.
  • The order of your account is jumbled. You talk about the shootings and then about Mazreku's sentencing, and then you go back to give more specific details about the shooting. The account should be given in chronological order.
  • Abbreviations like DP should be given only after spelling out what the abbreviation means first. If it's the Democratic Party then say Democratice Party (DP) so that readers know from then on what DP stands for.
  • Spread the references out, you have five references in a row and then nearly nothing. Make sure all assertions are referenced.
  • Be sure to convert all metric measurements to imperial measurements. See WP:UNIT for more on this.
  • We then move to Hajdari being shot again. What happened to him after he was shot by Mazreku? We don't know any details. The writing makes it sound like the poor guy was shot over and over again. This needs to be clarified.
  • When was he assassinated? Why?
  • This sentence is a fragment, "His assassination in front of the headquarters of the Democratic Party in Tirana, by 3 males." Are you trying to say he was assassinated in front of the headquarters by 3 males?
  • Most numbers under ten should be written out rather than given a numerical value. In other words 3 should be three.
  • Ok more confusion, you say he was killed by three males but I count six, three from the building and three from a car. Was is three or six?
  • Another fragment sentence, "Then in opposition, triggered a two-day violent protest." Not sure what you're trying to say here.
  • More confusion, you say no one was convicted of the murder and then you say Jaho Mulosmani was sentence for the murder. Which one is it?
  • Several one sentence paragraphs should be combined and expanded.
  • See WP:LINK you only need to link the first mention of the term. Do not link every time you use the words. For example Tirana and Democratic Party are linked multiple times.
  • I'm very confused by these sentences:
"I'll continue the battle from whatever cell they put me in, Sali Berisha said today, repeating comments he made before the vote to about 3,000 people in central Skanderbeg Square. I have decided to resist. I have decided not to negotiate."
  • Did Berisha say that today as in this very day? I doubt it, so remove today and put the date.
  • More importantly why is he talking about being in a cell? Why would he be imprisoned? This doesn't make sense or there is missing information.
  • What is he resisting? What is he not negotiating about? I don't understand what is being said here.

Political activity

  • See WP:LIST. Lists embedded in articles are discouraged. Consider transforming these lists into prose.
  • No references here, there needs to be some.

References

  • It's very important that your references be consistent. Use templates like {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}. This will help you make the references look the same. For website refs you need a minimum of the title of the article, publisher and accessdate.
  • A google book reference should be fully spelled out with author's name, p. number, publisher info, date it was published, isbn.
  • Any websites in Albanian need to have a language notice on them.
  • Refs one and two are dead and should be fixed.

Overall

  • You've made great headway on this article and you should be commended for that. You couldn't get me to try and write about an American politician in Albanian so you should be commended for taking on this work.
  • There are quite a few things that need to be worked on.
  • The writing is rough and should be edited by someone versed in English prose and grammar.
  • As I stated above there's quite a bit of confusion in your details about the assassination, the various attempts on his life, and then the statements by Berisha. Those need to be clarified.
  • The lead should be expanded.
  • Many more references are need to fill in the details and make the article more credible.
  • Be more consistent with your referencing. Use those templates, it will make your life easier.
  • This concludes my review. I hope it was helpful. Best of luck in your work. If you have comments or questions please leave them on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnard Castle School[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve it as much as I can. I'm fairly inexperienced as an editor of Wikipedia articles.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interestin improving this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The article has four major cleanup tags at the top - this is enough to disqualify it from peer review. The idea is that major issues have already been identified and should be addressed first.
  • There is a toolbox on this PR page which finds 2 dab links
  • Also finds 1 dead external link
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several featured articles that may be useful models at Category:FA-Class school articles
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. The fact that the campus is 50 acre is only in the lead.
  • To get an idea how to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. 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, for example there are multiple citation needed tags and several paragraphs and sections with no sources at all
  • 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
  • It would be nice if more images could be added.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in helping it become a featured article. I am very well aware of the 14-day clause, and it's only about 12 days since I've withdrawn the article from WP:FAC. However, as with all rules, I don't think this is set in stone. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Previous FAC have noted stylistic/prose problems. Not really my expertise. I have mostly addressed technical problems in the FAC. I've submitted it to the Guild of Copy Editors, and User:Diannaa have done the copy-editing. I am submitting this two days early because I don't really expect much major editing work to happen in the next two days. In short, to save time. I wish you'd consider on this one.

Thanks, Moray An Par (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Commendable GA-standard work, but more needs to be done if the article is to reach FA. Here are some specific points for attention.

Lead
  • What is the basis of conversion to US$ that you are using? Ref 4 is uninformative.
  • As we are now nearly halfway through 2011, I would expect to find more up-to-date statistics than the 2008 enrollment figures and "As of 2007..."
History
  • General: The feel of this section seems somewhat towards the promotional rather than to the required neutral/encyclopedic tone. there is also over-detailing; e.g the number of lampposts
  • The first sentence needs some punctuation, minimally a comma after "Mount Makiling". Personally I would favour a reconstruction, along the lines: "The campus was established in 1909 on 72.63 ha (179.5 acres) of abandoned farmland at the foot of Mount Makiling, purchased by the University of the Philippines (UP) Board of Regents to serve as the campus of the newly-created UP College of Agriculture (UPCA)". This highlights the original year, and does away with "initially".
  • Acts don't of themeseves appropriate, they authorize appropriation by others.
  • Did the acquisitions of 940 acres and 646.8 acres mean three different campuses, or were they all adjoining?
  • Give dates for the Japanese occupation
  • "during this period" - be more precise.
  • "(believed to the "largest and best equipped in the eastern hemisphere" at the time it was constructed)"; Who "believed" this? The citation is to the institution's own website.
Upper campus
  • Try to avoid repetition such as: "...the upper campus. The upper campus..."
  • "MFR" acronym introduced without previous explanation. There is a tendency towards overuse of acronyms; later in this section we have "NAPOCOR" with a link to another article to find out what this is.
  • "via Republic Act 6967" is too telegraphic. Perhaps "under the terms of..."?
  • "Del De Guzman of the 2nd district of Makati filed HB 1143.." Please expand on this (presumably) legal or parliamentary process. Also, you need to follow through. The bill was opposed by UPLB; did it pass? Is it still pending after 3 years?
Land grants
  • Can you include a sentence that explains who makes these grants? Is it the government?
  • "Numerous parties have expressed interest in developing the land grants" - developing for what purposes? Housing, commercial, agricutural, recreational etc?
Buildings and landmarks
  • You should drop the bullet-point format and reconstruct the section in straight prose. Also, per MOS, bolding should not be used for emphasis in the text.
  • "National Artist for Architecture Leandro Locsin..." is an ugly formulation. Try "designed by Leandro Locisin, a National Artist for Architecture known for his..." etc.
  • "Carillon" could use a wikilink
Transportation and amenities
  • The Tagalog explanation should cover both the right and left terms
  • Mixture of tenses, present, past and future: "As this part of the campus is the destination of many passengers, jeepney drivers estimated the change would result in a loss of ₱200–300 (US$5–7)..." Standardize.
  • "A walkout was staged by around 500 students, with students citing the lack of community consultation..." The "students, with students..." phrasing is awkward.
  • THe change of topic in the second paragraph needs to be signalled by more than a wikilink on "congregations".
  • The "among others" at the end of the penultimate sentence is clumsy and needs to be dropped.
References
  • I have not checked these out individually, but glancing through, it looks as though a high proportion of these are to sources published by or connected to the university. This could lead to questions about the neutrality of the article.

I hope these points are helpful. As I am unable to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you want to raise any issues from this review or if you would like me to take another look.. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I used Yahoo! Finance for the conversion. WP:CURRENCY says

Conversions of less familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies, such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling. Conversions should be in parentheses after the original currency, rounding to avoid excess or false precision (one or two significant digits are usually enough, as the exchange rates can vary significantly) and noting the conversion as approximate, with at least the year given as a rough point of conversion rate reference; e.g., Since 2001 the grant has been 10,000,000 Swedish kronor (approx. US$1.4M, €1.0M, or £800k as of August 2009), not (US$1,390,570, €971,673 or £848,646).

But since the article presents many monetary values, and thus would need many (approx #### as of month year), I made it as a footnote.
As for the "most advanced in the eastern hemisphere" claim, I'll reword it. I can't seem to find any info on it aside from university sources.
I'll start addressing those concerns, and post here when I'm done. Moray An Par (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The lands that UPLB got by Act 2730 adjoin the original campus. Moray An Par (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
MFR was defined in the lead. Moray An Par (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for help. I striked out those I think I've addressed. Carillon link? I don't think it's appropriate since its a proper name. How do I signal change of topic in another way? Sorry I'm no expert in English. MOS:BOLD says its allowable for definition lists. Regardless, I'll convert it to prose. I'll also do more research on Rep. Del's bill and its aftermath. Moray An Par (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It's now in prose. Moray An Par (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments The article has been considerably improved since ny last reading. A few points still need some attention:-

  • You must specify your source in the currency conversion footnote
  • We still seem stuck with out of date enrolment and library figures.
  • There still seems to be rather a lot of unexplained initials, e.g. in "The University Library is a periodic recipient of publications from the United Nations agencies (namely the UNFAO, UN-HABITAT, and UNU)..."
  • Redlinks such as PhilHealth are useless; they don't tell us what this body is, and it is not explained elsewhere in the article.
  • Some reference formatting needs further attention, e.g. Ref 12 - check for others.

I'm sorry that my time has been limited. Overall this looks an informative article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I'll try searching for the figures. They are kind of hard since UPLB doesn't periodically release them.
  • Don't these initials stand for themselves? Like US? They really have very long names that's why I didn't expand them.
  • I expect that an article will be created later on. PhilHealth is a government health care agency so it's a notable topic. Same case for other redlinks.
  • I'll fix them. Moray An Par (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Ref 12 fixed. No other problems found. Unfortunately, the Commission on Audit is still not releasing its audit report for State Universities and Colleges for fiscal year 2010. As for the library data, no luck. Moray An Par (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion. Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at WP:Featured list candidates — but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Provided notices to WikiProject talkpages, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional problems[edit]

Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,

I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to strongly agree. Wikipedia is not a platform for Dan Savage fanwankery, and has been abused as such for several years now, to much and repeated controversy (e.g., multiple, rancorous and inconclusive AfDs of Santorum (neologism)). Enough is enough. The very existence of this page is silly, and the fact that it's more detail-wallowing by about an order of magnitude than Mark Twain bibliography is strong evidence that it's non-encyclopedic crap. NB: I actually read Savage here and there and find him usually very amusing, frequently insightful, and rarely wrongheaded, so I'm not coming at this from an "Anti-DS" viewpoint. I'm simply against using WP as a fan page. This is not Geocities or MySpace. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey (archbishop of York)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it at FAC at some point and am looking for feedback on the prose, polish, and comprehensibility to the non-specialist. He's a very ... funky ... guy and definitely one of the more interesting characters in medieval English history. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the interesting character part! A very enjoyable read, and very informative. Apart from a few examples below, I cannot imagine it would present any problems for the non-specialist. It looks like it would be a comfortable FA. With this in mind, here is a long list of nitpicks, but nothing major. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

  • "The identity of his mother is unclear, for the one contemporary source that gives any information on her is hostile to Geoffrey. It is possible she was a woman named Ykenai.": A little wordy here; could the information on the hostile source be dropped from the lead (it does not really help to explain anything here) and have something like: "The only source of information on Geoffrey's mother is unreliable but suggests she was a woman named Ykenai."
  • "Upon the ascension of King Richard I of England,…" Wordy? What about "When Richard I became king…"
  • "probably in order to force a potential rival to the throne to become a priest and thus out of contention for the throne." A little hard to follow. Could this whole sentence be recast as: "When Richard I became king, he nominated Geoffrey as Archbishop of York, probably with the intention of removing him as a potential rival to the throne."
  • "promptly entered a dispute with William Longchamp, Richard's regent in England, when Geoffrey attempted to go to his province.": To a casual reader, this does not make sense. Why would going to his province cause a dispute?
  • "ordered Longchamp out of office, and Geoffrey was able to proceed to York.": It is not clear why Longchamp being in office would stop Geoffrey going to York.

Early life

  • "Geoffrey was probably born around 1152,[1] before his father married Eleanor of Aquitaine,[2] and probably was named after his grandfather, Geoffrey of Anjou, Henry's father." Flow? Leave out grandfather and replace it with Henry's father?
  • "The medieval chronicler Walter Map claimed she was a whore named Ykenai, and that he was not actually Henry's son." Maybe replace "he" with "Geoffrey".
  • "There is no evidence that Henry ever did anything other than accept his paternity." Awkward phrasing "accept his paternity". Maybe "accept his paternity of Geoffrey", or "accept he was Geoffrey's father."
  • "he was confirmed as bishop-elect in 1175": Of Lincoln?
  • "he at first was refused confirmation by Pope Alexander III, and went to Rome in October 1174 to secure confirmation, which happened before July 1175." confirmation … confirmation. And "which happened before July 1175" sounds slightly odd, although I understand why it is written like this. What about "which was given at some point before July 1175"?
  • "Peter of Blois wrote that a number of monarchs considered Geoffrey as a possible successor.": Which monarchs? For example, does this mean Henry, Richard and John or does it mean foreign monarchs?
  • "Geoffrey was the one son of Henry II's that was present at the death of the king."
  • "He did not attend the conference where Henry submitted to King Philip II of France right before Henry's death, unable to see his father's humiliation." Maybe put this before the previous sentence about Henry's death, unless the submission occurred on Henry's deathbed, and if not I would take out "shortly before he died" and replace it with a date. And possibly rephrase: "Unwilling to see his father's humiliation, he did not attend the conference at which Henry submitted to King Philip II of France."
  • "Henry made a bedside wish that Geoffrey…" Bedside suggests that Henry was beside Geoffrey's bed. Deathbed?
  • "…he used his father's seal to make appointments to York after Henry's death." Who is "he", as the subject of this sentence is Henry. If "he" is Geoffrey, the "and" linking to the deathbed sentence seems odd, as there is no obvious connection between the two sentences.

Archbishop

  • "Richard probably gave York to Geoffrey in order to make him become a full priest and eliminate a potential rival to the throne." Smooth slightly? What about "Richard probably appointed Geoffrey to York to ensure his ordination [correct word? I think the proper word would work best here.] as a priest, eliminating him as a potential rival to the throne."
  • "The cathedral chapter at York, however, disputed the election, claiming that because the Dean of York, Hubert Walter as well as some of the chapter had not been present, the election was not valid." Slight confusion of commas here. I feel there should be one after Walter, but that would make it more confusing. Could the sentence be recast to avoid? However, I can't think of a better way to do it at the moment.
  • "and had his estates taken by the king until Geoffrey submitted and became a priest." What about: "and his estates were taken by the king until Geoffrey submitted and became a priest"?
  • "His ordination as a priest took place"
  • "and then went to York, where he refused…" Missing he? It currently reads that his ordination went to York. Not sure about the connection between the events again here, so not sure about and. But maybe I'm being too fussy.
  • "The king, however, made Geoffrey allow the royal appointments…": What about "However, the king forced Geoffrey to allow…"
  • "and excommunicated Henry Marshal and Burchard in retaliation for a dispute during a church service": What took place during the church service, the excommunication or the dispute?
  • "This led Richard to insist on payment of the fine, which the archbishop-elect was unable to do because Hugh du Puiset, who was Justiciar, impeded attempts to collect money for the fine." fine … fine. And the previous paragraph suggests that the fine had been paid.
  • "The pope stepped into the dispute and ratified the election, thus enabling a reconciliation between the king and the archbishop at Tours in June." Not clear how this would end the dispute, as it was not over the election. How did the pope's actions improve matters?
  • "Longchamp claimed that Geoffrey had not sworn fealty to Richard, but this was likely just an excuse to eliminate a rival." A rival of the king or Longchamp?
  • "with the opposition led by Henry Marshal, Burchard du Puiset, and Roger of London. The chapter objected to his having given a large part of York's treasury towards Richard's ransom…" Were these three men not Richard's appointments? Nice loyalty! And "his having" is a bit clunky.
  • "He strengthened the defences…" Presumably Geoffrey, but Geoffrey and Hugh were subjects of the previous sentence.
  • "This forced the archbishop to go to Rome to deal with the appeals of his various antagonists, who capitulated shortly after Geoffrey's arrival." This suggests to me that his rivals were in Rome.

Under John

  • "But it was a short peace, as disputes over the appointments in the diocese of York broke out, but Geoffrey managed to gain the support of Pope Innocent in some of the disputes and thus he was able to secure the appointment of a few of his own candidates." Very long sentence and contains two buts.
  • "but in the meantime the archbishop had fled"
  • The last paragraph contains a scary number of "also"s.
  • "His loyalty to his father was also an important part of his legacy." Not quite sure about this. Legacy suggests something that carried on after his death, but loyalty to his father could not carry on as his father was also dead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thank you SOO much for the very helpful. I shall get to most of these in the next few days. Thanks again! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bad Girls Club (season 6)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I feel as though the article is well-written (maybe need some copy-editing) but willing to take my time to fix these.

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I have not seen this show except for clips on The Soup. I am not clear what your goal with the article is - GA? I also do not think the article is very well-written (sorry); here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are over 900 Television GAs - see Category:GA-Class television articles. One of these is Survivor: Borneo which is about one season of a reality show and may be a good model article.
  • The prose is pretty poor, sometimes to the point where I was not sure what was meant. Just in the lead, I have no idea what this sentence means Unlike previous seasons where a break in production occurred between seasons, the sixth installment was shot several months after Bad Girls Club: Miami was completed. So there is a difference with Season 6 that there was apparently no break between filming (production), but then the sentence concludes this was shot several months after the previous season was completed (which sure sounds like a break to me).
  • Similarly, I do not understand this from the Pre-Season section Casting in cities began on July 3, 2010 in Atlanta, Buffalo, Oakland, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. Applications for the show were due on July 24, 2010[1] Casting began three weeks before applications were due?
  • The level of detail is excessive (giving the address to ship audition tapes to does not need to be in the article)
  • Watch out for needless repetition - much of the material in Pre-Season is repeated in Production - the cities where there were casting calls, the deadlines. This only needs to be i nthe article once (if at all).
  • As I said, I have never watched the show and do not have a clear idea what the purpose is (besides entertainment). What do the contestants get for appearing and is there a winner? Were these all new contestants or were some from previous seasons? I think there should be a brief background paragraph or two that explains things like this.
  • Similarly, the number of episodes is usually mentioned in the lead and earlier in the article than the table at the end - even there I am confused as one table shows 13 episodes while the other (with ratings) shows 15 episodes - which is it?
  • Many of the references need access dates added.
  • There are 33 refs. 15 are from the ratings web site TV by the numbers (need to be consistent as the to name in the refs - is it "TV by the numbers" or "TVbythenumbers"?) Of the 18 refs left, 16 are from Oxygen shows or its website. Per WP:CITE, articles should try to use sources that are independent of the subject as much as possible. Except for the ratings, there are very few such third-party relaible sources.
  • imdb.com is not generally seen as a reliable source
  • The creed broke the Guinness Book of World Records for the tallest creed in history.[12] - why is this sourced to Oxygen and nopt the Guinness Book of World Records? Extraordinary claims need very solid references to back them up, not hype from the company making and airing the TV show.
  • This needs a copy edit badly - if you can't find someone to do that, try not looking at the article for several days, then printing it out and reading it aloud slowly.
  • For example, what does "underdid" mean - I am pretty sure it is not even a word. The tour of season six's mansion was released for public viewing on December 15, 2010, while Oxygen underdid their website's change for the upcoming season of Bad Girls Club.[12]
  • Avoid contractions like "aren't" in To date, television sets aren't included in the bad girls' house. Also, why use "to date" here? This is an article about a definite season, so why not say "No television sets were included in the Bad Girls House in this or any of the previous seasons."
  • Be consistent on how bad girls / Bad Girls is capitalized.
  • Make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article - the House description is quite a large section but is not really in the lead, for example.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed all that ha been asked, however, I'm not good in prose. Is there anything else that I need to do? AJona1992 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nickelodeon (TV channel)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this may be reached to FA or GA status because it is one most popular teen and children's television channel including iCarly and SpongeBob SquarePants. Any comments are welcome here.

Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 05:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this article. I do not think it is anywhere near ready to pass as a GA, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Paramount Television Network is a FA and may be a useful model
  • The disambiguation links finder in the toolbox on this page shows several dab links and circular redirects that need to be fixed - see here
  • There are also at least two dead external links that need to be fixed
  • Biggest problem I see is that there are many places that need references but do not have them. For example the second and fifth paragraphs of the Relaunch as Nickelodeon and national expansion (1979–1990) section do not have any refs and need them. Other paragraphs have a ref followed by one or more sentences that are not referenced - these sentences need refs too. The Movies and Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards sections have no refs at all. This would be cause for a quick fail at GAN or FAC
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Many of the references given are incomplete and do not have all the reuired data. Some Internet refs are just bare URLs, but they need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure the sources used meet WP:RS - for example, what makes fredalan.org a reliable source?
  • Make sure the See also links follow WP:See also - generally this is for links not already in the article
  • Headers need to follow WP:HEAD
  • Use of bold text needs to follow WP:ITALIC
  • Language could use a copyedit in places - one example In 1990, Nickelodeon opened Nickelodeon Studios, a television studio/attraction at Universal Studios Florida in Orlando which many of its sitcoms and game shows were filmed and entered into a multimillion-dollar joint marketing agreement with international restaurant chain Pizza Hut, which provided Nickelodeon Magazine for free at participating Pizza Hut restaurants (which was put on hiatus for three years).[11] This is a run on sentence and should be split. It is also unclear what the antecednt of which is - what went on hiatus? When did the three years start?
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which interrupt the narrative flow. WHere possible, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
  • Focus on the article topic - Sister channels seems to go into way too much detail
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this should be a featured article one day. Manchester United are arguably the biggest football (soccer) club in the world and 1999 was perhaps their most successful season.

Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The statistical information is most impressive, but the prose is more problematical. I have only gone through the lead and beginning of the first section in any real detail and have identified numerous prose issues.

Lead
  • "Over the course of the season, United lost only five times, including a one-off Charity Shield fixture, their League Cup quarter-final against eventual winners Tottenham Hotspur and a league fixture at home to Middlesbrough in December 1998." It is not immediately obvious why you include the Middlesbrough loss but not the other two league losses. Presumably it's because this was United's only home defeat; if so, make this clear: "...and their only home defeat, a league fixture against Middlesbrough..." etc.
  • You don't need "soon" when you have the exact date the unbeaten run began.
  • "The team's never-say-die attitude, instilled in previous seasons, was focal to their success as they often snatched victory from the jaws of defeat." This sentence is over-the-top POV unless you are quoting someone, in which case it should be attributed and cited. Likewise "crowning moment" and "dramatic" comeback.
  • For the benefit of non-UK readers we need wikilinks on terms such as "knighthood" and "Freedom of the City"
  • "Manchester United’s achievement was also matched off the field, officially becoming the world’s richest football club". The statement is an example of WP:PEACOCK, and the grammar is faulty.
  • The word "however" in the final sentence is unjustified. And "such advances" doesn't sound right.
BSkyB takeover
  • General: I believe that the information relative to the abortive takeover should be much condensed. At present the section is presented in a muddled way, and the prose is strewn with errors. Here are a few examples:-
  • The heading should be amended to "BSkyB attempted takeover" or similar wording
  • "were subject to a proposed takeover" → "were the subject of a proposed takeover"
  • spaces not required around mdashes. And there needs to be another dash after "their final offer"
  • "deemed as too low" → "deemed too low"
  • "who in turn budged for a higher price" - "in turn" is redundant. I never heard "budged" used in this way - wher does it come from? Maybe "pushed" or "pressed".
  • "and as a matter of closing the deal" → "in an attempt to close the deal"
  • When you say "United accepted", I think you mean "United's shareholders voted to accept the increased offer". The word "between" later in the sentence should be "among".
  • Don't use contractions such as "It wasn't..."
  • "On the pitch, United have amassed four league championships and two doubles since 1992..." "Amassed" is another peacock term. And surely the statement is incorrect as of now? Only 4 Premier league titles?

That is as far as I have gone. I did take a quick look through the later prose and it seems that the same sorts of problems are present there, too. There is non-neutral phrasing ("In typical United fashion...), sports journalese ("the hot topic", "scored a brace") etc. There are further contractions ("didn't", "wouldn't"); the team are called the "Red Devils" without any prior introduction of this term; there are unexplained phrases such as "brought down Solskjaer in the box" and "a European hangover". If the article is to aspire to featured standard, considerable more attention needs to be given to the prose. Having said that, the tables are very informative, and fans of the club, particularly those who remember this season, will love poring over the detail.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Appreciate your concise feedback as to where this article at present. I will be making adjustments in the coming week hopefully. The bigger problem will be rewording the match summaries, written in next to no time but yes, it's clear more work needs to be done before it can reach the 'Promised Land' of articles. —Lemonade51 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Gent Strazimiri[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I build it up from scratch and wants to know what could be done better.

Thanks, Vinie007 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many Biography FAs at Category:FA-Class biography articles for some model articles
  • two disambiguation links
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • 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
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - link once in the lead and once in the body of the article (at most). Here in just the lead Assembly of the Republic of Albania is linked twice (Albania Parliament is a redirect) and so is Democratic Party of Albania
  • Avoid vague time terms like current in Stazimiri is the current deputy leader of the Democratic Party in the Albanian parliament.[7] Use things like "As of June 2011, Stazimiri is the deputy leader of the Democratic Party in the Albanian parliament.[7] or you could give the year he started as deputy leader
  • I am not sure what this means On 1992 Strazimiri graduated on the faculty of Law at the University of Tirana.[8] I think it means he graduated from law school, but it sounds like he was a faculty member (professor) instead.
  • I would list events in Background in chronological order for better clarity. It goes from 1992 to 2007-2009, then back to 1990, then forward to 2007-2009 again.
  • Avoid needless repetition - in Background it says He joined the Democratic Party in the 1990, and was an activist at the fall of communism in Albania. and then in Career it syas Strazimiri became member of the Democratic Party in 1990, this was during the fall of communism in Albania.[4]
  • Spell out abbreviations on first use - so "Forumi Rinor i Partise Demokratike (FRPD)"
  • The article has lots of little typos - "He entersed the race with several years of political experience ..." (entered) or "During 2002 and 2005 he was the adcisor to the president ..." (advisor) - and needs a copyedit.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if I can improve this article more to make it an FA. The article has been copyedited and I feel with this PR, it can be nominated again for FA. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's comments on prose
  • The song features multiple acoustic pianos?
  • "A music video for the So So Def remix was also filmed featuring appearances" - reword, probably with a comma after "filmed". Overall comma use needs some attention - try reading the article out loud and looking for places where you would naturally pause
  • According to the article you link to, the correct capitalization is "Disney Channel Original Series"
  • "over-usage of digital sound manipulators" -> "over-use" or "excessive use/usage"
  • Why the dashes around the blockquote?
Removed. Novice7 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "The song is mostly of the dance-pop genre[9][10] with elements of pop rock,[11] funk music,[12] and Latin rhythms" - this reads somewhat awkwardly. Again, reading the article out loud helps resolve this and similar issues
  • "to a key" doesn't make since from a grammatical or musical perspective
  • Repetitive phrasing in the discussion of the song's range, check for others
  • "following a musical setting that is beat-oriented" - what does this mean?
I believe it means that the music is developed around the beat. Novice7 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "the song carries some effeminate viewpoints that Sheyne had managed to incoporate through her contribution" - phrasing is awkward, and "feminine" would make more sense than "effeminate"
  • "close at hand" is too informal a phrasing for this context
  • "the song demanded for "total fulfillment""; "The version featured on Lizzie McGuire soundtrack" - grammar
  • "also includes disco influenced string arrangement" - grammar, need a hyphen in "disco-influenced"
  • "Both the remixes" -> "Both of the remixes" or "Both remixes"
  • Wikilink pressing, Wallonia?
  • "Similarly, Chuck Taylor of Billboard also" - having both similarly and also is redundant, check for other redundancies
  • "Taylor complimented the uptempo, contemporary appeal of the track and felt that "Irresistible" would be a staple airplay song at radio" - this passage is difficult to follow
I modified it a bit. Novice7 (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "street edge" should either be quoted or reworded, look for other informal phrasings
  • "something unheard from Simpson's previous material" - either replace "from" with "in", or reword to "something not previously heard from Simpson"
  • I realize you're trying to use synonyms to avoid repetition, but "annotated" is taking that too far
  • Chart performance needs editing for prepositions and conjunctions, particularly the first paragraph
  • "reaching its peak position of number sixteen, the fourth week on the chart" - replace comma with a connecting word
  • "Netherlands" -> "the Netherlands"
  • "critics gave the music video received mixed reviews" - grammar
  • US or UK English? For example, you use both "criticized" and "criticised"
  • Check footnote placement - footnotes should come immediately after punctuation when it is present, and unspaced after the word when it is not
  • Where is Wango Tango? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your comments Nikki. I'll start fixing the issues soon. Novice7 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Almost done. I'll fix the rest too. Novice7 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't finished the comma issue. I'll fix it soon. Thanks again. Novice7 (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Kakha Kaladze[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can become FA.

Thanks, TGilmour (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


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

I think there is only one issue regarding this article. It lacks the playing style section but don't forget that he is a defender not a forward so it may be slightly incongruous to have such section here.
  • There is a toolbox on this PR page which finds at least one disambiguation link that will need to be fixed before FAC
Done
  • It also finds about 19 dead external links - see here - these need to be fixed before FAC too
  • The billboard image File:Kaladzeboard.jpg is probably copyrighted by the firm that set up the billboard - not sure if there is freedom of panorama where it was taken (Georgia?) or not. If it is copyrighted, it probably cannot be used in the article even as FAIR USE per WP:NFCC
Done
Added
  • Avoid vague time terms like now, currently, today, etc. So in the first sentence in the lead I would either say that he plays as a defender for Italian Serie A club Genoa and captains the Georgia national team as of June 2011 OR something like "he has played as a defender for Italian Serie A club Genoa since August 2010 and captained the Georgia national team since YEAR.
Done, please check it now
  • The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet is 1z, a professional level of English. Just in the lead this could be tightened He was voted as Georgian Footballer of the Year in the years 2001–2003, and 2006.,[3] [and] Moreover, he is considered as one of Georgia's most important players.[4][5]
I corrected it but can you tell me why it was a mistake?
  • Avoid needless repetition - the first paragraph already said he was Georgian Footballer of the Year four times, so why does it need to be repeated in the second paragraph of the lead i.e. To date he has won the Georgian Footballer of the Year award four times...
  • Second paragraph also written as if he were still with Milan With Milan he has won the Champions League on two occasions... why not just With Milan he won the Champions League on two occasions...
  • What years did he play for his local club Lokomotiv Samtredia?
He did not play there.
  • Awkward until former Georgia international footballer David Kipiani requested Kakha to join Dinamo Tbilisi.[6] perhaps "requested that Kakha join Dinamo Tbilisi" Also was it really just a request or was it some sort of business transaction?
  • Early career mentions eight league titles in a row twice - are they the same? Does this need to be mentioned twice in the section.
  • In the Milan section an injury to Gerasimenko is mentioned as the reason for his leaving Kiev, but Gerasimenko has not been mentioned before.
  • How about "an injury to Paolo..." instead in In 2005–06, the injury of Paolo Maldini meant that Kaladze was moved back into the centre of defence, his favoured position.[15]
  • What are the refs for the stats after the table in Career statistics?
They are included: As of 22 May 2011.[1][81]
  • Seems comprehensive, refs also seem OK as far as I can tell. Biggest issue would be the prose which is rough in spots - try to get a copyedit.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I did some stuff and please re-check it. TGilmour (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

English National Opera[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've added a lot of new material to the article, and I should like comments from Wiki-colleagues, with a view to getting it up to FAC standard. In particular, have I got the balance right between performance history and the internal goings-on of the company? All contributions gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, since no-one else has yet taken up the baton, I'm going to start with a few general observations (I have a number of niggly little things that I'll keep for later):

  • It is generally very readable, though towards the end there seem to be an awful lot of opera titles in rapid succession under various headings.
    • I agree the sections at the end are a touch costive, but I felt the info should go in, and it isn't, to my thinking, substantial enough to warrant an article of its own, but I see I am in a minority on the latter point, and will go with the consensus at the end of this PR Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • However, I'm not tremendously happy about the overall shape of the article. It's entitled English National Opera, but (leaving aside the lead/lede), there's nothing about ENO until about 40% of the way through (my estimate). My feeling is that the early stuff (Foundations, Vic-Wells, Sadlers Wells Opera and probably Coliseum) would be best treated in a series of short paragraphs pointing to spinoff "main articles", some of which already exist in whole or part.
I usually agree with G-Tell, and I agree with nearly all of his points below, but I must respectfully disagree on this. I don't think there is much more to say about these early periods. Why not present it all together. Sadler's Wells Opera redirects here, and no one can be confused, and the article is not terribly long. I see not reason to create a series of short, out-of-context spinoffs. I would suggest keeping it all together as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Some other spinoffs could perhaps be created, e.g. List of operas performed by English National Opera, List of English National Opera world premieres, that sort of thing
Sounds good to me, except those two lists sound suspiciously like one, with an asterisk after the ones that are premieres. Also, could have a recordings article, perhaps? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ssilvers's view chimes with mine. The Gilbert book (apart from one ghastly clanger in saying that poor Stephen Arlen died of cancer of the sarcophagus) is a good, solid study of the company from its origins to three years ago. Pp. 1–214 deal with company at the Old Vic and Sadlers Wells Theatres, 215–265 with SWO at the Coliseum, and 266–585 with ENO. At a guesstimate I'd say the article is not so very far from the same sort of proportions. I'll see what I can do about a recordings section. There were some SW potted operas in the 60s, and the Goodall Meistersinger and Ring are on CD. I'm not sure about the Chandos opera-in-English recordings - not officially ENO recordings, I think, but I'll check. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Later: added. Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • On a more nitty-gritty level, I feel that there is rather too much criticism of the "Powerhouse" era and the more, er, unusual productions, some of which, e.g. Pountney's Rusalka and Hansel and Gretel, have been critically acclaimed and revived. A bit more NPOV, please.
    • I've added the Hansel and Gretel production.

Now shoot me down! --GuillaumeTell 18:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! - much food for thought here. I'll ponder and report back. Tim riley (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional miscellaneous stuff (because I'm off to the opera at the other place tomorrow):

  • Lede:
    • London Coliseum redirects to Coliseum Theatre, which smacks of pedantry by persons unknown; also, the link appears three times in the lede
    • Old Vic link is interesting in that the word "opera" only appears once there
      • I hold no brief for the Old Vic article, but the operatic facts are as stated in the ENO article Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Conductors: a somewhat contentious list - for example, isn't Gardner rather too recent? What about Daniel? And so on.
      • I have tried to keep the numbers down to five apiece to avoid a great long list. Happy to juggle names if there is a consensus Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Directors: no mention of David Alden or Christopher Alden ...
      • As with the conductors.
    • final sentence says: "In addition to the core operatic repertoire, ENO has presented a wide range of works, from early operas by Monteverdi and standard opera repertory, to new commissions, to operetta and Broadway shows." Clunky (... from ... to ... to ...).
  • Foundations:
    • "semi-staged versions of Wagner operas" - were these different from the banned fully costumed performances mentioned higher up?
      • No - just the same presentation as the Verdi etc earlier, but now ambitiously expanded to include the Beast of Bayreuth. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Lots of Shakespeare stuff, not relevant to ENO
I'm just a yank, but I found the relationship with the theatre co to be an interesting part of the history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Vic-Wells: "the other side of London from the Old Vic" - which other side? north, south, east, west, transpontine, what? Also, "In 1932, a British newspaper commented ..." - which British newspaper?
    • I'm reluctant to get into too much geographical detail, but will expand if people think it helpful. Newspaper named. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sadler's Wells Opera: something wrong with "Having survived that threat, the continued existence of Sadler's Wells Opera was put into jeopardy by internal divisions." - did the continued existence of SWO survive the threat? Recast.
    • This seems to me to say what I mean. The continued existence was at risk, but survived. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "Monteverdi's L'Orfeo, sung in Italian, for reasons not clear to the press." Nor to me - there must be an explanation somewhere, so let's have it.
      • Not clear to me, either! I cannot for the life of me find out why Orfeo was in Italian. Gilbert doesn't say, and the press were baffled. Raymond Leppard, who conducted, put in what Gilbert calls "some special pleading", but the substance of his plea is not even hinted at. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • 1980–1999: Worth mentioning that Elder and Pountney were contemporaries at Cantab and were clearly friendly - must be a ref somewhere
    • I have said that it was Elder's urging that Pountney was brought in; this could be expanded, though I am wary of seeming to suggest cronyism by making a point of their association. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Gilbert, whom you appear to rely on an awful lot, seems to me (I haven't read her book) to be a rather partial witness. "Euro-bollocks" needs a counter-statement. Who were the directors who are fingered as "director's opera" enthusiasts? I think we should be told.
      • Gilbert - I've drastically trimmed the references to her book and replaced with newspaper articles to the same effect. Hytner's comment is itself a counter-statement to Elder's immediately before it. I thought of naming the directors such as Copley who were sidelined by the Powerhouse trio, and will do so if this is thought helpful. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No mention that I can see of designer Stefanos Lazaridis
      • There isn't at present; there could be, if it is thought a good idea. I have not mentioned many designers. Perhaps I ought to add more. I shall be interested to see what other reviewers think on this point. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Later - done, in note on Powerhouse years. Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No mention of English National Opera North, which became Opera North, and whose guiding lights, Payne and Daniel, moved to ENO after their success in Leeds.
      • I pondered hard about this. Gilbert gives quite a lot of space to it, but I thought it was going off at a tangent for this article. Happy to add a few words if people think it a good idea. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Later Now done. Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Bieto - no mention of the famous Ballo in maschera production ...
      • I didn't want to go in for Bieito-bashing, and have already mentioned his Don Giovanni.
  • 21st century: Doran's Valkyrie at Glastonbury seems to be out of order
    • Need it be mentioned at all, I wonder? I inherited this from a previous editor, and left it in, though it seems to me of peripheral interest - rather a gimmick and not noticeably productive of new patrons at the Coliseum. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "ENO provided for the increased interest in Handel's operas, staging Alcina (2002), Agrippina (2006) and Partenope (2008)." - "provided for"?
    • Happy to alter. Any suggestions?
  • Operetta and musicals: no need to repeat the G&S stuff up above - put it in one section or the other but not both.
    • Most of the G&S stuff is only mentioned once, but the ref to the earlier productions is, methinks, needed here, to put it in context, showing how much of the operetta repertoire was continental and how much English National. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Candide needs a mention in this section
      • Indeed it does. Most remiss of me. Added. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Musical directors: Why no article for Corri?
    • There will be - albeit a hideously scrappy one. I can't even establish his d.o.b. I'll link him after I've written the article. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's all, folks (until I get back on Tuesday). --GuillaumeTell 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't intend to make many comments here at this time. I note that sometimes the article says "music director" and sometimes "musical director". I prefer the first, but I think the British generally use the second, and this article should stick to British usage. Another lovely expansion job, Tim, although I'd say it is currently closer to GA than FA. As G-T says, it may rely a little too heavily on Gilbert. Are there any other major chroniclers of the company and its story? Perhaps some more could be said about the styles of the musical directors of the company, or of the styles of its productions? You imply that there were a lot of concept productions but don't describe what the concepts were that drew the most controversy/acclaim/criticism. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • musical/music directors: I have tried to stick to the usage in force at the time of each mention. Up till Elder the title was musical director, and from Elder onwards, music director. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Gilbert references heavily pruned and replaced with stuff from a Baylis biography for the early years and from press articles for later years. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm in enough trouble already without describing the "concept productions". Powerhouse productions always (God knows why) had a bedstead sticking out half-way up a wall of the scenery. And so on. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Most grateful to Guillaume Tell and Ssilvers for these reviews. I should welcome the comments of any further reviewers on those points mentioned above where I seek a consensus view. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments for now. Overall, this is a mighty impressive job. It puts the mish-mashy articles on "the other place" (Royal Opera House and Royal Opera, London) to shame. Anyhow...

  • Perhaps also mention in the lede that the operas are all sung in English? This is one of their hallmarks, and they're one of the few major opera companies that still (stubbornly) stick to singing in the vernacular. I know it's mentioned further down the article, but it takes quite a while to get to it.
  • Re "ENO provided for the increased interest in Handel's operas, staging Alcina (2002), Agrippina (2006) and Partenope (2008)." Perhaps "responded to" instead of "provided for". They also revived their brilliant 1999 Semele in 2004.

I'll pop 'round later with some more comments once I've a second pass through it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Both ideal suggestions – many thanks. I'll put them into effect at once and look forward to your second pass. Tim riley (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt

Been busy, haven't had much time yet, but here are my comments on the lede. I'll add for the rest of it later on and possibly tomorrow.

Lede
  • "rough area". Possibly a bit too informal, although I could really go either way on it.
  • "ballet company, which evolved" This is ambiguous, it is uncertain if each fathered one, or whether the ballet company spawned all three. suggest "ballet company; these evolved".
  • "In 1968, the company moved to the London Coliseum in the heart of London. In 1974 it adopted the name English National Opera " Suggest merge sentences into one. It would smooth out the writing.
  • "several attempts" Really, I think "several proposals" would be better. Broader.
  • "and standard opera repertory," Omit. Perhaps text accidentally left in?

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All incorporated except for "rough" area. Would, say, "poor area" seem less informal? Looking forward to further comments, but no rush, of course. Tim riley (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
History
  • , including Il trovatore. It seems odd to give exactly one example.
It does indeed. Pruned. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Vic-Wells (caption of image). This was the building before it was torn down in the 1920s, or the building that was built then?
Clarified. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You've slipped in the term Vic-Wells without defining it or really saying where it comes from.
Very good point. Now addressed. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "was no longer incompatible with that of Sadler's Wells" I would state this in the positive, something like "was now compatible with that of Sadler's Wells.
Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "dowdy" and "stodgy" You need a cite at the end of this sentence because of the quote.
Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • " co-exist." At least to an American reader, this doesn't convey what you want it to. Perhaps something like "remain separate?
Right-ho. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Having survived that threat" A little POV! I'd omit the phrase entirely and pick up with the next words.
Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "a vital" evidently not, it survived. Perhaps "important"?
Touché! Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • to cover for him. Perhaps a bit informal.
Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Money continued to be a problem." What company has that not been true of? I'd strike the whole sentence. Also, the paragraph perhaps unfortunately covers two different areas, finance and dramatic production.
Addressed first point. Inclined to stick to the present wording as regards the second. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Roseberry Avenue". You haven't called it that in a lo-ong time.
Now addressed. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "were far less well provided " Awkward sentence, at the least change "were" to "had been"
Yes – a bloody awful sentence. Now redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "and practically destroy" perhaps "diminishing".
No, I think they really felt it would effectively end the company's presence on the London scene. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "two interchangeable companies of equal standing" You may be assuming knowledge here. So what did the two companies do? One tour and one stay in Islington?
Just so. I've added a bit to that effect.
  • I would massage the Islington statistics into prose, it is jarring as it is.
Done.
  • "Its last performance at Rosebery Avenue" Did Islington Council change the spelling?
Thank you! (Why can one never spot one's own typos?)
  • The word "production" occurs three times in two sentences at the start of the Coliseum section.
Dealt with. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • " Looking back at the first ten years at the Coliseum in 1978, " I would scrap the idea of looking backwards, simply say that According to Harewood, among the highlights of the first ten years at the Coliseum were ...
Okay. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You seem to give more attention to discussing Mackerras than you do anyone else associated with the ENO. I suggest cutting back a bit.
Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Mackerras was succeeded " I would add "as musical director", as you discuss multiple roles for Mackerras.
Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Will finish tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Resuming:
  • "Productions during the 1980s. " This sentence tries to do too much and should be split at one of the "and"s.
Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "In 1984 ENO ..." This sentence also must be split, you can't have multiple semicolons in a sentence.
Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Rigoletto, directed by Miller, depicting the characters as mafiosi, was greeted with a mixture of enthusiasm and booing." I like the writing, but this part of the sentence needs a little more grammar.
Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Repertoire
  • "UK, the U.S. " The variant punctuation there looks odd. Haven't checked to see how consistent you are being in US vs U.S. and so forth.
I am aiming to follow the practice of each country. Since the 1970s full stops have not been much used in Britain for "UK", "BBC" etc, but it seems impolite to impose that convention on the U.S., where, as I understand it, periods are still the general rule in analogous abbreviations. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "students and young professionals, and workshops, commissions, talks and debates": Too many ands in this sentence.
Amended. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's about it. Looks good!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! These amendments improve the article substantially. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have a range of small quibbles, mainly minor prose matters, but no real criticism of this first-class article.

Lead
  • "From those modest beginnings,..." Perhaps "modest" is slightly POV? Either way the comma after "beginnings" should go.
  • "...which evolved into the ENO" It is not clear, as worded, what "which" refers to.
  • Last sentence: what is the distinction between "core operatic repertoire" and "standard opera repertory"?
Foundations
  • The sentence beginning "In the years after the First World War..." is a bit of a snake, and could do with a split, possibly after "national attention"
Vic-Wells
  • Image caption should be clarified, since Baylis's theatre is now the "old" Sadler's Wells.
  • The words "icluding" or "included" are rather over-used in this section - four times in the penultimate paragaph. Perhaps a little rephrasing?
Sadler's Wells Opera
  • "The company continued to leave Roseberry Avenue..." This colloquial way of referring to the theatre needs a prior explanation.
  • ""two interchangeable companies of equal standing" presumably refers to Sadler's Wwlls and Covent Carden, but the two companies you have been talking about are Sadler's Wells and Carla Rosa, so a little rearrangement is in order.
    • Clarified that the two companies are both Sadler's Wells companies, one touring and one in Rosebery Avenue, turn and turn about. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "more Janáček" is unnecessarily vague. What did they do - Jenufa? The Cunning Little Vixen? Makropulos? Just curious.
    • Will expand in a footnote – don't want to clog the narrative up in the main text. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (private observation) It is difficult to contemplate the words "legendary" and "Goodall" in the same sentence, unless the word "bore" is interpolated somewhere.
    • I don't think I've ever laughed quite so loudly at a PR comment. Shame on you! – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Coliseum
  • Is a second pic of the Coliseum necessary? different angle, I know, but...
    • Well, I felt the need of something to break up the slabs of Riley prose, and give the poor old reader's eyes a break. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Mackerras wasn't knighted until 1979
    • I dithered about this: the sentence covers the period 1970 to 1983. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "He was an exceptionally versatile conductor;" As presently organised, this reads like editorial opinion. It should be worked more directly into Harewood's comment.
ENO
  • I'm afraid Hytner's comment is two gnomic for me; what the **** does he mean?
    • I take it to mean that only the directors know what they are getting at. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Two semicolons in a sentence is one too many ("In 1984 ENO toured..." etc)
  • "This was the first British company..." → "They was the first British company..." The sentence needs some further attention towards the end. I think.
  • "Payne's successor was Sean Doran, whose appointment was controversial because he had no experience of running an opera company." Reads as opinion.
    • Corroborative ref added. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Re the Glastonbury Valkyrie, whose description is "notable achievement"?
  • No hyphen in "shoestring"
    • The OED prefers the hyphen, though admitting the unhyphenated version too. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of general points
  • Like a previous reviewer I am not keen on the "Premieres and commissions" listings and think that a subarticle would be a better solution
    • That's three-to-one against me. I've done the necessary.
  • If you want it, the ISBN on the Blyth book is 0-7110-0319-X - maybe not on your copy, however.
    • No, not on mine. I'd better stick to OCLC, perhaps.

Apologies if some of my points have been picked up by earlier reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for these points. Hugely helpful. – Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments - more to come - I looked on Flickr for a photo of an actual performance with a free license and found this - if you want I can upload it to Commons and perhaps crop it too. PR comments next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks very good to me - here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • Link Freehold (law) on first use of "freehold"? Baylis set up a public appeal for funds in 1925, and with the help of the Carnegie Trust and many others acquired the freehold of Sadler's Wells.[12]
  • The caption says The old Sadler's Wells, demolished to make way for Baylis's theatre but the article says Work started on the site in 1926 and by Christmas 1930 a completely rebuilt theatre seating 1,640 was ready for occupation.[11] To me, rebuilt seems to be a bit different than completely demolished
    • I've redrawn the article text accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Needs a ref The first production there, a fortnight's run from 6 January 1931, was Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. The first opera, given on 20 January, was Carmen. Eighteen operas were staged during the first season.
  • Typo? In for It? It Harewood's view, among the highlights of the first ten years at the Coliseum were the Ring, Prokofiev's War and Peace, and Richard Strauss's Salome and Der Rosenkavalier.[47]
    • Well caught! Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it would help to give the seating capacity of the Coliseum somewhere (apologies if I missed it)
    • Capacity is given at the end of the Sadler's Wells section, contrasting it with the smaller size of the Islington theatre. Tim riley (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded it and then uploaded a cropped version at File:Deborah Warner's production of Handel's Messiah for the ENO.jpg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much both for your comments, all of which I have acted on, and for the excellent Messiah pic. I am working (sandbox only at present) on the Messiah article, and may well reuse the picture there too. Warmest thanks! Tim riley (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Now closing PR with warmest thanks to everyone who has contributed above. Tim riley (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Manhunter (film)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, although it has received one back in February of this year, it has grown substantially since then. Having passed as a Good Article, it has been nominated for Featured status, but a poor showing at FAC meant that the only vote was one oppose. I'd like to ensure that the article is at its highest possible standard before nominating it again, so any help that anyone could offer would be great. Thanks!

GRAPPLE X 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from GeeJo

Immediate comments:

  • Images have sufficient rationales and alt texts are provided for screen readers (always nice to see) and the captioning makes the purpose of the image wonderfully clear.
  • Plot section looks a bit on the large side, some fat could definitely do with being trimmed. You don't need itemised details of every plot movement, just the general direction.
  • I'm not a huge fan of "see also" sections. Generally, items listed there are either redundant as they're linked in the main text or irrelevant.

Detailed comments

  • Lede: "...to track down the killer; and shows..." Semicolons don't work like that. I'm not certain you need any punctuation there at all, for that matter.
  • Lede: "stylised". Some sections use "ize", others "ise". It doesn't overly matter whether you go with AmE or BrE, but you need to be consistent.
  • Pre-production: "initially began". Tautologous.
  • Pre-production: "Brian Cox has also", "Tom Noonan, who played the killer Francis Dollarhyde,". You repeat one's connection to the film, but not the other. Both approaches have merit but, again, consistency is good.
  • Pre-production: The tenses in the final sentence are a bit awkward.
  • Production: "to adapt a guerrilla filmmaking approach." Adapt or adopt?
  • Production: comma usage in the first sentence is strictly correct but a bit awkward. Maybe shorten it a bit.
  • Production: The anecdotes and some of the quotations in this section seem at times to be a bit more "magazine review" than "encyclopedia". I'm not sure how to help you here.
  • Post-production: Again, it's obvious on reading this that much of the material is from interviews and primary sources rather than academic or other secondary sources. There's nothing wrong with this for a B or even Good article, but it seems to have altered the tone of the writing in ways I'd be uncomfortable seeing in a Featured Article.
  • Soundtrack: I'm in two minds over whether or not you should make the sources of the quotations explicit in the article text.
  • Soundtrack: You remark that the soundtrack wasn't released on compact disc, but neglect to say what format(s) it *was* released in. Cassette tape? Vinyl? Wax cylinder?
  • Themes: Of all the sections in the article, this is the one I'm most comfortable with.
  • Box office: You mention the gross, but without context (such as the budget) it's not immediately obvious whether the film was a success or not. There's a lot of information in the first paragraph of "Reception" that probably belongs here
  • Box office: "postponed for almost two years." August 1986 and November 1987 aren't "almost two years" apart.
  • Home media: the section has information on DVD and Blu-Ray, but this film was released in *1986*. Was it never released on VHS or *shudder* Betamax? If it was, was there a Director's Cut available in those formats?

That's all for now, I'm off to get some breakfast. GeeJo (t)(c) • 07:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have addressed those that can be done readily. As for content coming from interviews and magazines, it's a problem that seems unavoidable for the time being - the vast majority of scholarly sources I've been able to turn up on the film are too scholarly for the bulk of the article. It's why the 'themes' section works so well, as the film is analysed for thematic content without any real academic documentation of the nuts and bolts and making of it. The lack of information about VHS/Beta/Laserdisc releases, if there were any, is simply lack of sources. The film flopped and took a while to gain cult status, and in that interim period, no one cared enough to really report any release information. I'll dig up what I can, though at the minute, that is solely a few Amazon listings of the VHS tape. As for your comment that some information from the "reception" section could go under the "box office" header, is there anything in particular you think should be moved? Thanks again for your time, I appreciate it. GRAPPLE X 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Also managed to track done one source for the laserdisc edition, still looking for more info on it and the VHS too. GRAPPLE X 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Have cited some information about the VHS releases of the film as well. They're not as detailed as the DVD information is, but that's seemingly unavoidable. GRAPPLE X 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is there a cast list at the very bottom of the page? I mean, I know there is current discussion about whether we should have a basic "list", or how that section should look, but I do know there is a general consensus that it shouldn't be the last thing on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
It was added by another user and I wasn't sure whether the best idea would be to remove it or add to it with information. Is repeating information from elsewhere in the article such as casting decisions, etc, in the cast list appropriate or should it just be taken out? GRAPPLE X 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's up for the regular editors of this page to decide how they want the cast information presented. There are many different ways to do it, and each has its own pros and cons. It just shouldn't be the last thing on the page. So, if you guy(s)/gal(s) don't think a list is necessary then don't put one in. If you think it is, then it should be up higher, probably just below the "Plot" section. I mean, I have my preference, and I know that Erik has his own preference, and others have different preferences for he and I. I would look over other FA film articles (the more recent the better) and see what style you prefer. You have cast information already, so it's really just a matter of how you present the info you have. Just make sure it's not the last thing on the page. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I'll move it up the page and throw in some information for each entry. I just wasn't sure if repeating information was alright, but if it is then I can model the section on other similar sections in other FA articles. I just didn't want to cannibalise the rest of the article just for padding. GRAPPLE X 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Done what I can with it for now. Going to have another trawl over the DVD commentary and the like to see if anything about Farina, Lang or Greist can be found, as it's a little Spartan on their parts. Aside from that, I feel that this might be ready for its next bash at FAC. GRAPPLE X 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Erik

A featured article should be comprehensive and well-researched, so here are some resources I found:

Any chance of vetting those? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Of those, I have had a look at Blood in the Moonlight and Detecting Men before, though neither really had much to say that would be relevant to the article - Blood focussed on a narrow allegorical 'video age' idea, whilst Detecting Men was quite cursory in its mentions. I'll have a look at the others, though, and see what I can put to use. Thanks again! GRAPPLE X 21:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
WorldCat.org is a pretty useful resource for finding print sources. :) If a book has a table of contents published, one can search for the appropriate keyword and find relevant chapters within books. I've crossed out the ones you said you've vetted. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm checking each entry in Google Books for what I can use. I'll cross off anything that I look through. Might use a few to add second refs to already-sourced points just so that they're backed up with scholarly sources as well as the extant ones. GRAPPLE X 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The majority of those seem to be unavailable online, so I don't know what I can glean from them. I'll check both the town and university libraries next chance I get, though, to see if they're available there for a read through, though. Have used what I can, though, which was useful. Thanks again! GRAPPLE X 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Code Lyoko[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this may listed for GA. Any comments are welcome here.

Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-review comment

Please be aware that PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work" (see top of this page). This article has been tagged for a number of major issues since July 2010. It would be a very good idea for you and others who may be involved in the article to work your way through these issues before coming back to PR for more specific advice. Thanks. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Switzerland[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I based it off the FLs List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada and List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present). I wish to have someone review it before I submit it for FLC.

Thanks, Anthony (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A very impressive list, though I think some work is necessary on the prose. Other than that, just a few nitpicks around the tables.

  • The prose in the first two sentences is unnecessarily repetitive, and the senetences could be combined thus: "Men's ice hockey tournaments have been staged at the Olympic Games since 1920; the sport was permanently added to the Winter Olympic Games in 1924".
    • Fixed.
  • The focus of the second paragraph seems to be on the American/Canadian NHL which is confusing to find in a list of Swiss players. Most of this information should be removed, as it has no bearing on this list. The change in the Olympics from amateur to open competition should be stated as a brief matter of fact; the NHL's private machinations are irrelevant.
    • The thing is, the NHL's involvement changed the Olympics forever, and although Switzerland isn't a hockey powerhouse like the USA or Canada, its involvement is still necessary to be noted. Not to mention that I was basing this off the Canada and US articles, both of which mention the NHL (as they would and should).
  • In the Goaltenders table, what does the column headed "WC" mean?
    • Copied it over from a World Championships table and forgot to change it - fixed.
  • There is no information in the "Notes" column in this table, so why have it?
    • Because there's a Notes column in the skaters table, and in the future there might be a note to throw in for a goalie, so it's there as a placeholder.
  • Skaters table: The column heading "Olympics" is not informative. It should ne "No. of Olympics".
    • Fixed in the table explanation.
  • The abbreviations for the Skaters table should be brought to the head of that table, for ease of reference.
    • All other hockey FLs list all the abbreviations up top for streamlining - keeps them all together.
  • There are two links to disambiguation pages - see the toolbox on the right.
    • Fixed.

That's all, really. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    • Hope I addressed your concerns. Feel free to respond. Anthony (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Phil Ochs songs[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for consideration as a Featured List, but I would like the benefit of a peer review first.

Thanks, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead
  • I am slightly cofused as to the composition of the list. The lead begins: "American singer-songwriter Phil Ochs ... wrote or recorded at least 238 songs..." Later in the lead you say: "This is a list of all songs recorded by Ochs that have been officially released". Did he write songs that weren't recorded or released. If so, I would expect the lead to begin something like: "American singer-songwriter Phil Ochs ... wrote or recorded at least 238 songs during his brief career, of which xxx were released as recordings".
  • Related to that point: you mention Joan Baez in the middle of the lead. Can you clarify whether your list includes recordings of Ochs's songs by other artists, or only when Ochs was one of the performers?
  • Prose style point: It would be better to begin "The American singer-songwriter..." rather than "American..."
List

Overall it looks impressive, but a few problems suggest themselves:-

  • The information in the "Recordings" column is not clearly presented. For instance, am I to assume in the first entry that Gunfight at Carnegie Hall is the album name? Or was it the name of the live event? In the second entry we have: "On My Way (2010, recorded 1963). To what does the date 2010 refer? Why a different format from the information in the first entry?
  • I feel that the information might be clearer if the information in the "Recordings" column was subdivided among several columns, such as "Album title"; "Date written"; "Date recorded" etc
  • The decision to use alphabetically organised segments is marginally useful for finding individual song titles, but as the list is in alphabetical order, titles could be quite quickly found anyway. What you miss out on in this format, however, is a "sortable" function which would enable the list to be considered from other than an alphabetical perspective. For example, if the dates were properly columnised it would be possible for a reader to sort the list by date of composition, or by date of recording.
  • Why are there wikilinks to the "See also" and "References" sections?
Image
  • Why are the copyright tags and fair use rationales triplicated on the image page?
  • Is there any evidence for the assertion that "Photographer has agreed to give Wikipedia full rights to use the photograph as it wishes, as many times as it wishes..."?
  • In the fair use rationale, "illustrate article" is not a sufficient justification for use. If this was Och's biographical article, an identifying image of the subject would be acceptable non-free use. But this is a list of (some of) his songs, and it can be argued that the image is irrelevant to readers' understanding of the list.

I hope you find this review useful. As I am not able to watch individual peer review pages, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to raise issues from this review, or if you wish me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on sizing of references

Why is the Works cited and Further reading sects in small font? There is really not enough size in those lists for that to be needed. -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Georgia Tech Research Institute[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it from GA (promoted today) to FA, and I think it needs a bit of work before I nominate it at FAC. I'm especially looking for any content ideas and copyediting help.

Thanks, —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  • There is one dead external link - see here
  • The lead says about 1400 employees, but the infobox and article body both say 1520 as of 2010. FOr FAC little thing like this will have to be consistent.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
  • The current lead seems a bit sparse. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Scientific Atlanta (as one example) is not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Biggest concern I would have if this were at FAC is the references. Wikipedia articles are supposed to use independent third-party sources as much as possible. This article relies very heavily on Georgia Tech sources, which are not independent not are they third-party. While some uses of GTRI mateirals are OK, this seems excessive and would be a real concern.
  • I know that I'm going to hear that concern again, but I distinguish the use of GTRI-based sources from the use of Georgia Tech-based sources; in particular, historical works such as Engineering The New South and Dress Her In White And Gold and news sources such as The Technique are independent. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Statements like GTRI contributes positively to the Georgia Tech research environment for faculty and students by conducting externally sponsored, applications-oriented research programs that benefit the state, region, and nation. especially need thrid-party refs, but all three sources cited later in the paragraph with this are from Georgia Tech.
  • I removed the word positively from that sentence as it's rather subjective and that helps a bit until a decent ref can be found. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In the table "Comparison of ranks at Georgia Tech" every university I know of ranks Associate Professors above Assistant Professors
  • That is correct, I must have swapped the ranks when I created the table. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not undertand this (or the pie chart) In 2010, the United States Department of Defense consisted of 72% of GTRI's awards by value; the remainder was composed of federal (12%); non-DOD (8%) state and local (6%); and university, business, or nonprofit (2%).[2] Since DOD is federal, how is the 12% federal different from the 72% DOD? And what exactly is non-DOD (assume it is federal non-DOD, but then how is this different from the 12% federal)?
  • I've attempted to clarify that a bit in the chart. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why use full sentences in the Laboratories table research area column, but fragments in the table below it?
  • Good catch. I've made the research centers table use full sentences as well. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections like Intellectual property - these break up the flow of the article and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • I'm open to suggestions on how you would logically organize that section. That's the best method I could come up with, and I agree that short sections are not desirable. What section header best combines employee numbers, financials, and intellectual property? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I decided to lump it in with the previous subsection for now until I come up with a better idea. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed the decimal places in inflation conversions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Prose is OK but tends to have long complicated sentences - most difficult FA Criterion for most articles to meet is 1a, professional English prose.
  • Article seems to only have good things to say about GTRI and Georgia Tech - this may be seen as a WP:NPOV issue at FAC (and is likely a reflection of using so many GTRI refs).
  • Captions could use more detail - the Baker Building - where what takes place?
  • Added more detail to the captions in that section. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking the time to review this article :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Romances[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've listed a PR months ago and managed to get the article to B-class. I would like an extensive and thorough list of the article needs in order to reach at least A-class. EDIT: My stance is now that I would like a thorough and extensive list of improvements that needs to be at least be nominated for FA.

Thanks in advance! DJ Magician Man (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Neither wikiproject support the A-class rating. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Very well then, in that case, an extensive list of improvement need to achieve FA will do. DJ Magician Man (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FA album articles at Category:FA-Class Album articles which might be useful models. Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall may be a useful model as it is an article on an album of cover songs of standards.
  • Does he really cover songs "from the History of Latin America"? When I think of the History of Latin America, Besame Mucho is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Also the oldest song is only from 1940, which is not that old compared to all of Latin AMerican history. I would say something more like he covers Latin standards dating back to the 1940s...
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, I think the names of songs in Spanish should translated into English somewhere - does not have to be in the lead, but perhaps at first mention in the article?
  • There are a lot of little typos and grammatical rough spots - for example Manzanero is spelled "Manzero" in at least two places.
  • Or here there is a missing word In December 1996, Miguel held a [press] conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he announced his desire to record a third Romance album with the possibility of working with Manzanero and Juan Gabriel; he also announced his intention to sing in Italian and Portuguese.[7]
  • I do not understand the need for the next sentence: The following day, Manzero expressed interest in the production of the album.[8] He just "announced his desire to record" the album the day before, what was different here? Why does this sentence need to be in the article / what does it add?
  • Background says he wanted to record in Portugese and Italian too, but it is not clear to me if he did or not on this album
  • Which orchestra in LA are the guest musicians from?
  • Unclear timeline The album was released on August 12, 1997 in the United States. It reached No. 2 on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart on August 23, 1997.[19] An event was held in New York City to commemorate the release of the album.[20] A week later it reached No. 1, a mark it was able to hit for a total of eleven non-consecutive weeks. When was the event held in New York City (Aug. 12? Aug 23? Some other day?) When is "a week later" then?
  • hendecuple is not a well known word - could it be linked?
  • Add time to some stats - for example [By October 2010,] the album has sold over 4.5 million copies worldwide.[33]
  • I would also add the year the statement was made to According to Pollstar, it was one of the "Top 20 All-Time Grossing" tours in the history of music.[41]
  • The tour could use more general information - how many concerts were performed? Any idea of how many tickets were sold or how much it grossed?
  • There are two fair use sound clips in the article, but I am not sure that they currently meet WP:NFCC. There is no real discussion of either song in the article - I think there needs to be more description of the songs to justify the fair use of the sound clips.
  • The FA criteria have two items that may be a problem at FAC. One is comprehensiveness - the article is fairly short, which is not a problem in and of itself, but may be an indication that more material could be included. I would look at the model articles to see what (if anything) other articles cover that is not here or not covered in as much detail.
  • The other FA criterion that would definitely be an issue is 1a, a professional level of English prose. This has decent prose overall, but also has lots of places that could be polished. A few examples follow.
    • The shows comprise of Miguel performing dance pop, bolero arrangments, and brief mariachi segments for two-and-a-half hours.[42] Perhaps The shows featured Miguel performing dance pop, bolero arrangements ...)
    • Robert Hilburn of the Los Angeles Times wrote a more optimisitc review of the concert where he described the show ... (positive would be better than optimistic)
  • A copyedit would be very useful.
  • Is it really necessary to list all of the string players in the credits? If it is, could the strings be combined by instrument (so list all of the violins, then all the violas, then cellos, etc.)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input Ruhrfisch, I will get in touch when I feel I have addressed the problems you posted. DJ Magician Man (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ruhrfisch! Thank you again for the review of the article for Romances. Since your comments on the review, here are the changes that I have done:

  • I took your advice and noted that the covers date back to the 1940s.
  • I've translated the songs mentioned in the article.
  • I removed the sentence: "The following day, Manzero expressed interest in the production of the album.[8]"
  • I'm not sure to reword the sentence, but I put "original intention" rather than just "intention" since the final work did not include songs performed in either Italian or Portuguese.
  • I had a little trouble finding the name of the orchestra, because the article was written in Spanish, so I had look for the name in the Spanish Wikipedia a came across the name.
  • I did my best to fit the commercial release in chronological order.
  • I added a timestamp for both the total sales (as of 1999) and for Pollstar (1997)
  • From Romances Tour article, Miguel did 79 concerts which I added. While that article also mentions the total gross of the tour, that statement is not sourced which I'm not sure whether I should include it or not. What I find was that Miguel's shows in the National Auditorium in Mexico was the highest grossing venue by a Latin artist of the year (sourced by Billboard).
  • I removed the two audio samples from the article since those songs were not covered much in the article. Instead, I put a sample of the lead "Por Debajo de la Mesa" since it is mentioned numerous times.
  • For comprehensiveness, I followed the article body from WikiProject Albums. After looking at it and some other FA-class Album articles, I'm still not sure what I'm missing (some FA-class Albums are just as long, some even a bit short than Romances).
  • Hendecuple does not have an article, so I'm not sure what to do here.
  • There is something else I would like to ask and it is about the review from the Los Angeles Times. See what I found was not a review of the album, but rather a response to a review of the album. The problem is, I could not find the original review mentioned in the response and the article itself does not mention why exactly he disagrees with it. I've only kept it still to maintain neutrality of the article, but I'm not sure if it is helpful.
  • If nothing else needs to be done, then I will have the article copy-edited.

Thank you for you time. DJ Magician Man (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Second look - I only looked at my original PR comments and yours above.

  • I still think that " in which Miguel covers songs from the history of Latin America which dates back to the 1940s." in the lead sounds very odd (especially with the link to History of Latin America) I think I would say something like in which Miguel covers Latin songs from 1940 to 1978. or something similar.
  • I would express he also announced his original intention to sing in Italian and Portuguese. as something like he also expressed an interest in singing in Italian and Portuguese,[17] although the album's songs are all in Spanish.
  • I do not have a specific idea in mind for expansion - if you have looked at models and believe this follows them, that is OK
  • I am OK with the statememnts from the LA Times in the article.
  • This still needs a copyedit.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well looks like everything else has been taken care of. The only thing that needs to be done is the copy-editing which I will request at the Guild. Wish me luck. DJ Magician Man (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


Bohemian Rhapsody[edit]

Previous peer review

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

Thanks, TGilmour (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this article. I see you have made relatively few edits to it. I would make sure to look at the article history, which includes several other peer reviews and two unsuccessful FACs. Those will also have ideas for making the article better, and here are my suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on songs at Category:FA-Class song articles. One that may be a good model is Paranoid Android by Radiohead, which is also a song in several parts and cites this song as an inspiration.
  • Article has one dead external link here would need to be fixed before FAC
  • Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of references. Just in the Release section, this needs a ref Eventually the unedited single was released, with "I'm in Love with My Car" as the B-side. (and the actual release date would be good to add here), as does and is also the only single to have been UK Christmas number one twice with the same version. The second was upon its re-release (as a double A-side single with "These Are the Days of Our Lives") in 1991 following Mercury's death, staying at number one for five weeks.
  • In the video section The video then fades into them playing their instruments. In the opera section of the video, the scene reverts back to the "Queen II" standing positions, after which they perform once again on stage during the hard rock segment. In the closing seconds of the video Roger Taylor is depicted stripped to the waist, striking the tam tam in the manner of the trademark of the Rank Organisation's Gongman, familiar in the UK as the opening of all Rank film productions. needs a ref, as does After a few weeks at number one, an edit of the video was created. The most obvious difference is the flames superimposed over the introduction as well as several alternate camera angles.
  • Critical reaction ... section has a citation needed tag and this also needs a ref On 30 September 2007 on the Radio 1 Chart Show, for BBC Radio 1's 40th birthday, it was revealed that "Bohemian Rhapsody" was the most played song since Radio 1's launch. In 2004, BBC Three featured the song as part of their The Story of... series of documentaries dedicated to specific songs. First broadcast in December 2004, the programme charted the history of the song, discussed its credentials, and took Roger Taylor and Brian May of Queen back to one of the studios in which it was recorded.
  • First three paragraphs of Live performances seem to have no refs and all need them. Much of the Composition and analysis section also needs refs - for works of art some things that are obvious from the work itself do not absolutely need refs, but much of this seems like it needs 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
  • Lots of little MOS issues also will need to be fixed before this owuld have a chance at FAC
  • Article does not follow WP:ITALIC in its use of italics for quotations (and they are italicized inconsistently anyway)
  • Article uses & for and
  • The article quotes an awful lot of the lyrics, which may be a WP:NFCC issue.
  • Watch for NPOV language - imapssioned in ... and the vocals change from harmony to an impassioned solo performance by Mercury. is one example - note that if this quoting or paraphrasing a reliable source, it is OK to use, especially if attributed (i.e. something like what music critic X calls "an impassioned solo" by Mercury)
  • Article does not follow WP:MOSQUOTE - quotes within a quote use single quotation marks, all else use double quotation marks. so "Did he say 'I am fine' to you?"
  • Language is OK, but could stand a copy edit at some point (fix all the other issues first).
  • In its current state this would be a quick fail at FAC and I am surprised (with the large number of uncited statements) that it is a GA.
  • There is someone who seems to know what s/he is talking about raising what seem like valid points aboiiut recording studios and such on the talk page
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thinking there were several issues, the article found out to have a plethora of problems :( TGilmour (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen Ferrier[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. This is the biography of a singer of a bygone era. She died of cancer aged 41, in 1953, having built a wide repertory which included opera, oratorio, lieder and folksong. She gained a mass following through her radio broadcasts to the homebound, entertainment-starved Brits of the postwar era, and according to some was, when she died, the second-most popular woman in Britain after the newly-crowned Queen Elizabeth. Her recordings have been constantly reissued and still sell well. I am currently working on a subarticle detailing Ferrier's copious recording history, as a companion to this. Comments welcome on all aspects of the main article: prose, pics, refs etc. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Tim riley comments

  • Lead
    • "relatively short" – some people (including Fowler if I recall aright) get hot under the collar about "relatively" – "relative to what?" they cry. You could safely lose the adverb altogether, perhaps.
    • Main image is not a good scan; the grid pattern is distracting. Perhaps find another image?
I'm hoping to improve this one. I want an image with a definite provenance, and this fits the bill in that respect. If it can't be improved I'll consider changing it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
(later)Jappalang has enhanced it by getting rid of the scaly pattern. I think it will do now. It's not the best photograph of Kath, but the non-free use rationale could be challenged were we to use one of the many touched-up publicity shots that adorn her Decca releases. Brianboulton (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a great deal better. Round of applause for Jappalang's skill! Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Telephonist and pianist
    • "invited by the Manchester studios of the BBC" – sounds oddly anthropomorphic
    • "playing works by Johannes Brahms and Percy Grainger" – the latter may possibly need his first name (you might consult the distinguished author of the WP article on that subject) but Brahms certainly doesn't.
    • "examinations at the Royal Academy of Music" – taken at the RAM or remotely?
She went to London, so "at" Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "her musical life centered on the piano" – in America presumably
    • "new speaking clock service (known generally as "TIM")" – Oh, Lord! I'm old enough to remember when it still was known as TIM (and you got the test match score by dialling UMP) but be that as it may, does the parenthesis add anything to the reader's understanding here?
I remember both, too. But I agree the note is unnecessary here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "Humphrey Burton would later write" – does the subjunctive add anything here?
  • Marriage
    • "a mutual love of dancing" – you'll get some pedantic soul (not me) carping at this use of "mutual" for "common" rather than "reciprocal". I reckon if it's good enough for Dickens it's good enough for me.
  • Early singing career
    • "Carlisle" – first mention in main text" – a link here, perhaps?
It is linked at first mention. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "When Albert Wilson's departed" – possessive left over from earlier wording I imagine
  • Career apex, 1948–51
    • "the renowned black American contralto" – does it matter here what colour Anderson was?
In this context, no. More generally, it was the reason that her Met debut was delayed until she was well past 50 - but that's another story. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Final performances, illness and death
    • "the first female vocalist to receive this honour since 1914" – perhaps say who got it in 1914?
Muriel Foster
  • Assessment and legacy
    • "Granta editor Ian Jack" – definite article before Granta?
    • "Lord Harewood" – link?
Already linked at first mention Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's my lot. I don't think I've ever concluded a peer review with moist eyes before. Heartrending! A first class article, as I need hardly say. Tim riley (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments which I have generally acted on as you suggest - specific responses only as required. It was emotionally exhausting to write; most of the time I was listening to her voice as I worked through the Decca edition, which gave added poignancy. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Afterthought: you generally use unspaced em-dashes, but there are a couple of spaced en-dashes. Deliberate? Tim riley (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The only ones I'm aware of are within quotes where I have reproduced the material in its original format, as printed. I believe that's one one is supposed to do, though I could be wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt comments

I couldn't help linking some of my favourite pieces and would like to see some of them, some of her strong parts in the lead, like Bach - Elgar - Mahler, together with the few operatic roles already mentioned. I need rather less there on her beginnings, and wonder about the talk about cancer before we even know what she did. The article is fascinating reading, I never knew what she had planned in Bayreuth. "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a better indication in the lead of the range of her repertory, and I have extended the first sentence to mention Bach, Elgar, Mahler etc. On her early life, a comprehensive biographical article requires inclusion of succinct information on the subject's early life; I honestly don't think that what we have here is excessive. Ob Bayreuth, I think it is more what others were planning for her - there is no indication that she would accepted Wieland Wagner's overtures, even if she had recovered her health. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
  • Really couldn't find very much to criticise, which leads me to believe that either I'm getting careless, or you're avoiding my usual objections! Anyhow, here we go.
Lede
  • I would identify Sargent as a conductor.
  • "and incapacity" Really, to an American that would be taken to refer to someone of limited mental capacity. Can you select another word?
Early life
  • "The Lancashire branch originated in the 19th century, when Private Thomas Ferrier of the Pembrokeshire Regiment was stationed near Blackburn during a period of industrial unrest." For the sake of the good name of Her Majesty's Troops, could we say that he married and/or settled there? As it stands, it sounds like-well, anything's possible.
  • "showed prowess". I think this is too strong a term, perhaps "promise"?
Early singing career
  • " it was here that Ferrier "made her first serious appeal to musicians". Can the "why?" of this be expanded upon?
Stardom
  • "on the provincial tour which followed " This should be the start of a new sentence.
  • "Ferrier's limited acting abilities caused some difficulties in her relationship with the conductor, Fritz Stiedry" I find it a bit odd that it is the conductor up in arms (so to speak) about the acting!
  • "in the next few years." This seems a mildly awkward phrasing, but I was able to think of no better.
  • "She returned to Holland" Perhaps my slight exposure to the Dutch makes me a purist but wouldn't "the Netherlands" be best?
  • "when Sandor was too ill to appear" I think "became" better describes the situation.
Failing health
  • "attend the Edinburgh Festival" I'm guessing you are trying to avoid a double use of "perform". Perhaps "travel to"?
  • "She was told that the impact on her cancer would be insignificant, but that her voice might be badly affected;" This seems like such a no-brainer that perhaps it is not necessary to mention the discussion of her having the operation.
  • I think this information should stay in, as a valid comment on her medical history, though I have altered the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • " a bone in her left thigh " As I thought from a quick check, and confirmed with the thigh article, there is only one bone in the thigh, the femur, which I think people have heard of. Suggest just saying "left femur" or "femur in her left leg".
  • "despite two further operations, her condition deteriorated further." Suggest deleting final word.
  • " 8 October 1953—a date on which" Suggest "the date on which".
Assessment
  • "Coronation" Could some way be found of mentioning the Coronation earlier? Perhaps she watched it on the telly? Not everyone, especially us Yanks, know when the Coronation was. Probably most assume that the Queen invaded Normandy in 1066 and has been there ever since (and Philip).
Recordings
  • "has drawn attention to numerous works which she did not record" I gather she performed them, though? Perhaps that should be stated.

Well, that is all I have. Very smooth writing, kept focused and on the ball. Well done, looking forward to the FAC.

Thank you for these comments. All have been acted as you suggest, with just the one point as indicated above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Apterygial
  • "The Lancashire branch originated in the 19th century, after Private Thomas Ferrier of the Pembrokeshire Regiment settled in the area after being stationed near Blackburn during a period of industrial unrest." The repetition of after here makes the sentence run on a bit. Could it be rephrased?
  • Bearing in mind that I'm essentially musically ignorant (which is probably why you asked me to review!) I'm wondering about the rationale behind the method of naming composers; why, for example, are Bach, Brahms, Mahler and Elgar only given surnames, and then Grainger, Ferguson, Wordsworth and Rubbra have their full names given?
  • It is an accepted convention in music that only the acknowledged master composers are awarded surname-only status. To some extent, of course, this is a matter of judgment. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "and became LRAM". Even with the part of the sentence before this it's still a touch confusing; could it be reworded to avoid the acronym?
  • The full sentence reads: "In 1931, aged 19, Ferrier passed her Licentiate examinations at the Royal Academy of Music and became LRAM": This doen't seem confusung; perhaps slightly tautologous, since "passed her Licentiate examinations" and "became LRAM" are essentially the same thing. I'll tweak it.
  • It's probably worth noting earlier that between 1935 and 1940 she performed as Kathleen Wilson, or note it in the sentence where you explain she reverted to her maiden name.
  • I wonder whether it would be easier to say "24 December" rather than "Christmas Eve"; we may have readers (from other cultures, for example) who would be unsure of the date, and it seems that in this case there is no real connection with the festival itself.
  • "On the provincial tour which followed the festival it failed to attract the public and incurred heavy financial losses." The '"it" here presumably refers to the opera; better to make it clearer by saying "the opera".
  • But this would give "the opera" three times in as many lines. I think it's OK as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you have any more information on the acting difficulties that caused friction with Stiedry?
  • Not really. Ferrier was not a trained actress; her only previous stage experience had been with Lucretia. Stiedry, it seems, was an autocrat who lacked patience and understanding. But they got by in the end. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:QUOTE, you're free to change quoted dashes to fit in with the rest of the article. So, "My God, what a voice – and what a face!" for example can be "My God, what a voice—and what a face!"
  • "she sang a St Matthew Passion at the Royal Albert Hall" (the "a" can be deleted).
  • Very minor point—if a quote ends in an exclamation mark do you still need the full stop outside the quote? ("Princess M sang – very good!".)
  • Yes, as the full stop concludes the whole sentence of which the quote is only a part. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is "treatement" in the Guardian's quote (in Final performances, illness and death) a transcription error?
  • Christianson or Christiansen?
  • Have you considered adding one or more short samples of her singing, under a fair-use claim? Provided you could find suitable samples, it may go a long way to helping the reader understand the descriptions of her voice.
  • I am not competent to make soundfiles. If someone wants to tackle this, that's fine by me! Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A very sad story, and yet very well-written. Most of these comments aren't problems at all, just points for potential improvement. Apterygial talk 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these most useful comments. Where I have not responded I have acted on your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


in a tearing hurry from smerus

Very nice article, deserves promotion undoubtedly. I don't have time to do it justice but 2 things caught me on a brief runthrough:

Best , --Smerus (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I have de-Madameised Alma, though that is how she is referred to in the source (and more generally, I believe). On Land of Hope and Glory, this must have been taken from the a broadcast recording, or a private tape, and issued many years latet (after 1992, or Campion would have picked it up). I have amended the text, and will make the appropriate alteration in the list of recordings article. There may well be other late issues from recordings held by broadcasting companies, and I'll watch out for them. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


I am closing the peer review with a view to an FAC nomination. Grateful thanks to all the above for their help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Adult Swim[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this may be listed for GA like Family Guy and South Park. Any comments are welcome here.

Thanks, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, this article is not about science, social science, society, and/or culture at all. Fuck all that. The "Adult Swim" article is about media and journalism. Anyways, let me give you a deflated word: Hi. I'm 1007D (pronounced "one-thousand-seventy"). I tried to get an article to GA status (which is about a Nine Inch Nails album named The Downward Spiral (1994)), but that failed to turn out as I planned. This article's about the Cartoon Network late-night block. So, you have just split the [as] work group into a wikiproject? 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I wish you'd find a person to do this peer review with you, all right? I hadn't done any plans to stay at this page at all, and I can't review the article with you. I got other duites like do the Tiger shark article and expand some other ones about sharks.'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

El Chico Del Apartamento 512[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, even though the article is only 11,392 bytes, I believe the article can be promoted to a GA status. I've looked and searched for an entire month (April 30 - May 22) for sources. Not one of her signature songs, but still liked by many. If anyone can give me sources, I am willing to expand it further. This is my sixth Selena article that I helped expand from a STUB CLASS to a "C" or higher :)

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on Selena articles, unfortunately I do not think this meets notability criteria. Here are some more details on that and some suggestions for improvement.

  • I worry that this article does not meet the notability criteria. WP:NSONGS says in part All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • There are only 15 references in the article. Ref 1 is to a one page of a book on Selena, so that is good, but the requirement is for significant coverage in reliable sources (so plural, more than one). Ref 2 is to AMG but it is a page about the whole album and just lists the tracks and their running times and has a little check mark by this song that it is one of three track picks.
  • Every other reference (3 to 15) is to material that is not independent of the song - either the album credits or the amazon.com pages for versions in different countries or the existence of various cover versions.
  • For the sake of argument, let's say the song is notable. The article needs a lot of work. For one thing, watch WP:OVERLINKing - as one example A.B. Quintanilla III is linked seven times in a very short article (including twice in the lead!)
  • Needs a ref: The single was released the day before the murder of Selena, which jeopardize any further development of a music video.
  • The English is somewhat better than some of the articles on Selena and her music that I have peer reviewed recently, but it is still rough in lots of places. Three examples follow:
    • In the quote above it should be "jeopardized" (which is a little odd as verbs go).
    • Was this her final performance ever as an artist (sorry :( ) or just of this song? Also missing words Her final performance [of the song?] was on March 14, 1995 during her concert [at the] Calle Ocho Festival in Miami, Florida, which attracted over 100,000 fans.[1]
    • The song's lyrics describes about a women who seeks out for true love, while, along the way men who aren't Selena's "type of guy" tries to approach her. would be grammatical as something like The song's lyrics describe a women who seeks true love, while men who are not her type try to approach her.
  • The "Critical reception and chart performance" section is a real mess. First off it includes nothing by any independent critics, just unsourced statements from Selena's brother and her keyboardist which need a ref.
  • Second, the statement from her brother is basically a repeat of what is already in the Background and composition section (that this is a Cumbia song). Avoid needless repetition.
  • Third, despite the section title, there is nothing on chart performance in this section (if the song had charted, that would help establish notability).
  • I have already said that I have my doubts on the "every cover ever made" approach to singles in a previous PR, and would only include notable or ones by covers by notable bands
  • Track listing needs refs and the length does not match that given in the AMG ref.
  • Here is my advice - get to a library and look up print sources on Selena. Books, biographies, magazine articles, etc. My guess is that since this was the song released right before her tragic death and that since her murder was covered widely in the press and there have been multiple books on her, there may be some things that are not on Google out there that might help save this article. I will not nominate this for deletion, but if it were at WP:AfD in its current state I would !vote to delete for lack of notability.
  • Not sure the sound clip meets WP:NFCC either
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the whole notable thing. However, I'm not the one who created the page, I wouldn't even create a new page about Selena if the single or song didn't chart, hence "Missing My Baby", which peaked at #22 on the Rhythmic charts [20], isn't even created, yet. Before I had fixed this article, there were three charts that it supposedly peaked at [21]. But I searched Billboard, Rovi, and Allmusic and none of these backed this claim up. Billboard has removed some of Selena's peak positions, but if I can't find it on Billboard itself, where else can I find this? I'll go and look for more sources, however, if we both can agree that this articles isn't all that notable, within time, we can merge this to Amor Prohibido, an article I'm currently expanding, similar to what I did with Dreaming of You. Thanks for your comments, greatly appreciated. AJona1992 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian comics[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article for a couple of years, my goal is to reach whatever quality grade the topic and my abilities make possible. Since I'm editing this page alone (apart from minor editing like copy edits and bots), outsiders' opinions and advises would be very useful. In the past few weeks I completely rewritten the "Current scene" chapter, made some major changes in referencing and made some efforts in making it compatible with style standards (ie. italics). So in short: I'd be happy to read any kind of comments. Thanks, Zoli79 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this, one of the things I love about Wikipedia is coming across articles like this on interesting topics I have not heard of. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several Featured articles at Category:FA-Class Comics articles and many more at Category:GA-Class Comics articles. It seems that some of the GAs might be better model articles for this one, as they are about groups of comics. For example Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954, Silver Age of Comic Books, LGBT themes in American mainstream comics, and LGBT themes in comics
  • The toolbox finds one disambiguation link that needs to be fixed
  • The toolbox also finds one dead external link that also needs to be fixed
  • The lead is too short and needs to be expanded to better follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • For ideas on expanding the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • The section headers need to follow WP:HEAD better. On Wikipedia headers are usually pretty concise, and do not repeat the name of the article, and subheaders do not repeat the names of higher level headers. So "Notable artists of the era" could just be "Notable artists" and "Main publications of the era" could just be "Main publications". Or under "Media" the subheader "Mainstream printed media" could just be "Mainstream print"
  • The article has a lot of WP:FAIR USE images and probably does not meet WP:NFCC - if there were articles on the artists, these could used in those.
  • Lists of names are not very informative and should instead provide context to the reader. So instead of just a list of names, a sentence or two on each of the artists or publications would be more useful to the average reader.
  • SOmep laces in the article need more references such as To attract more attention to Hungarian creations, MKSZ founded the Alfabéta prize in 2006 to award domestic authors. (The name ironically rhymes and refers to the Hungarian word analfabéta - meaning illiterate, a common offense against comics readers in the past.)
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some references do not have enough 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
  • Avoid vague time expressions like current - things like "As of 2011" are better*
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Zoli79 reply: Thank you very much for your help! Your advises are very helpful. Finding a model article has been a concern for me, since there's no common policy on comics articles dealing with a whole country (and I haven't found any with a higher quality level than B). The articles you listed, might help. As for fair use, the topic really ties my hand here. Thanks again! Zoli79 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Exhale (Shoop Shoop)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like someone else to go through the article to see if it's really good. I would like to nominate it for an FA later too. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

I haven't done a review of a music article before so please bear with me. Overall it's a good article; the topic is well covered without overdetailing and there is a good mix of free and non-free media. However, the grammar and language could be tightened up and clarified in some places:

  • In the Background section: ", adapted from the novel of the same name by Terry McMillan." This either requires a "which was" between the comma and adapted or removing altogether (mashing clauses together doesn't always look good and the original novel is never mentioned again in the article).
  • "and also the accompanying soundtrack." The "also" can be dropped here.
  • "Though Babyface visited the set of the film, Houston was determined not to record songs for the soundtrack." I don't understand the conjuction; was Babyface's set visit a gesture of goodwill that Houston shunned? If so this should be clarified and if not it should be clarified. I notice this sentence came up in the GAN review and the construction of it has not changed much.
  • Composition section: "...while Kyle Anderson of MTV..." The use of "while" implies their opinions came at the same time. A simple "and" suffices here.
  • Critical reception: This section has a good cross-section of opinion, however it is a bit of a laundry list ("so-and-so said this, so-and-so said that") and has quite a high number of quotes (I know from writing TV and bio articles that it is difficult to get across a critic's opinion without using the full quote). You've paraphrase the last half of the section well but the first half may be a stumbling block at FAC.
  • Chart performance: The first sentence would run a bit better if "the issue dated November 25, 1995" was put in brackets and "with 125,000 copies sold" was changed to "and sold 125,000 copies".
  • "In other countries, the single performed moderately on the chart" an s and a semi-colon here obviously (incidentally, does the assessment of its "moderate" success come from a source, or is it just surmised from the following paragraph?).
  • "However, in few other countries, the song managed to reach only the top forty;" Is number one not within the top 40? "the song did not reach the top twenty" would be better.
  • Live performances section: "Houston used the song throughout the entire run of her The Pacific Rim Tour (1997)." Source?
  • "She later performed it during the entire run of her My Love Is Your Love World Tour (1999)" Source?
  • "The song was included in the set list of her Nothing but Love World Tour (2010) promoting her seventh studio album, I Look to You (2009)." Source?
  • References: Ref 7 - I believe Cablevision did not publish the Newsday article in 1995 as they only bought the paper a couple of years ago. This should be checked along with other references to articles contemporary to the song's release.

This was an overall pleasant article to read and aside from the above issues is not far off a FAC nomination. WP:GOCE may also be able to help with the language. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bradley, for such a thorough review. I'll start fixing the issues soon. Novice7 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1920 Akron Pros season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted help trying to get this article to become a "good article". I wanted to know is there anything that should be expanded, added and/or taken away. Also, I was wondering if the lead section is written well enough or if it is messed up. Finally, I wanted someone who is a lot better than me in English to proofread it to see if there are any grammar and/or spelling mistakes,

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN. I think it needs some work before it would pass as a GA.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several GAs involving professional football team seasons - see 1973 Buffalo Bills season, 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, 1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, 1986 New York Giants season, 1986 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, 1987 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, 1990 New York Giants season, and 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season
  • I think the lead needs to make it clearer that their "perfect season" still had three ties - I think today most people think of a perfect season as no losses and no ties.
  • The Perfect season article says in part that In 1972, the NFL retrospectively altered its standings to treat tied games as being worth half of a win - so, these four teams are no longer recorded as having the perfect 1.000 percentage. Assuming this is correct, it should be mentioned in this article too - their modern record is not 1.000.
  • Similarly, the Brunswick-Balke Collender Cup article says in part Even though the Pros were given the trophy in 1920, the league lost track of the event and for a long time published in its own record books that the 1920 championship was undecided. It took until the 1970s for the NFL to remember its early vote on awarding the Akron Pros the 1920 championship. and this article does not mention this. Again if it is true, this should be mentioned.
  • There are several places that need references. For example Three other teams accumulated a perfect regular season record, but lost in the post-season: the 1934 Chicago Bears, losing the 1934 NFL Championship Game; the 1942 Chicago Bears, losing the 1942 NFL Championship Game; and the 2007 New England Patriots, losing Super Bowl XLII. needs a ref.
  • The whole Offseason section is only one paragraph and has no refs, but needs at least one.
  • The whole Post season section also has no refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Make sure that the article uses reliable sources - what makes current ref 7 a RS? 1920: The Year in Football". The-Kramer Family. http://www.the-kramerfamily.com/1920PACKERS-YEAR.html. Retrieved May 14, 2011. By the way the link is now a redirect to a different website, but it still does not indicate why it is a RS.
  • Article could use a copyedit - just in the lead They did not allow a score until the eight[h] week of the season. The Akron Pros played in the Ohio League from 1908-1919 until the APFA (which would be changed to [bacame] the National Football League (NFL) in 1922)
  • This sentence does not make sense The APFA consisted of teams from the APFA, the NYPFL, and independent teams.
  • I would move the team picture up to the lead, per WP:LEAD
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


2011 UEFA Europa League Final[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to have this article in proper conditions to undergo a FAC nomination with the least amount of work (and worries) possible. Any type of comments/suggestions on any section is more than welcome.

Thanks, Parutakupiu (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Firstly I don't think this is article for FAC just yet I would advise you take it take to GAC firstly, as I feel a review would bring it closer to featured standard its just not there yet unfortunately.
  • The main area that sticks out is the summary section, considering the article is about the match the section is extremely short compared to the background section. Have a look at 1956 FA Cup Final which is a featured article to get a feel for what the article should look like.
  • The lead could be more developed, more could be made of the match, the leadup to the final. Also if something is referenced later on in the article it does not need to be referenced in the lead.
  • "Having 47.4 km (29.5 mi) separating the cities..." change to The separation of 47.4 km (29.5 mi) between the two cities
  • "an historical second place" why was it historical readers will want to know why its classed as historical, make it clear
  • "Breen stated that "Irish football fans have travelled the world supporting the Republic of Ireland but this is the first time that an event like this has come to our shores and this will be a major occasion for the city". quotes need a reference
  • The match summary is not very encyclopaedic this needs to be rectified again I would look at other final articles that are Good and Featured articles to get an idea of how the section should read.
  • A post-match section detailing the reaction of the players and staff and other post-match events should also be included
  • Seem to be a few typos and missing words throughout the article which need to be fixed.

Hope this helps. NapHit (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, NapHit. Your comments helped a lot... to see how basic this article is in comparison with that FA Cup one – from a completely different league! It will be very hard to match the prose and content. As for the match summary I will need some help because "football language" is not something I handle well, being a non-English native speaker. Meanwhile, I will fix those "minor" items you pointed out. Parutakupiu (talk)
Comments by Oldelpaso

I agree with everything NapHit says above, some additional comments:

  • As well as the Featured example above, you might want to look at two current GAs which are about the same competition: 2001 UEFA Cup Final and 2002 UEFA Cup Final.
  • The Route to the final section needs some prose, not just a table.
  • The visual identity subsection comes across to me as PR fluff, it doesn't really increase the understanding of the reader.
  • There's an overreliance on UEFA.com for references. There's nothing wrong with using it as a source, but if you want to get to FA, the criteria call for a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. For example, what was the reaction in Portugal to an all-Portuguese final? Presumably the likes of A Bola and O Jogo covered the match extensively.
  • This might just be personal preference, but I don't think its necessary to put quite so much about the background of Ronnie Whelan or the ref. A sentence or so on each would suffice. What might be a useful addition to the officials section is a brief explanation of the use of goal-line officials in this season's European competitions.
  • Porto were strong favourites going into the match, there should be a (well-sourced) explanation of this somewhere.
  • As part of a post-match section, there ought to be some context about Porto's season as a whole, and Villas-Boas winning the treble in his first season.
  • It'd be worth searching on Flickr to see if there are any suitably licensed photos of the match.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for your comments, Oldelpaso. I now see how this article is still under par to what a FA demands. I'll integrate all your suggestions into my overhaul scheme. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Listen to the Rain on the Roof[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it can achieve good article status.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Some of the same issues here as "You're Gonna Love Tomorrow" - change "American Broadcasting Company (ABC)" to "ABC (American Broadcasting Company)" in the lead, and change the past tense to present in the Background section.

  • Lead
    • "The episode takes place six months after the events in the negatively-received second season." I think this sentence would work better without the "negatively-received"; you mention that critics saw an improvement to the series in the third paragraph and I don't think it works to drop a piece of reception into a sentence that tells the reader the setting.
    • "Lynette (Felicity Huffman) copes with her husband's illegitimate daughter and her mother." Whose mother? Lynette's or the daughter's?
  • Plot
    • "Desperate Housewives focuses on the lives of several residents living on the fictional street of Wisteria Lane." I've always found it strange where some people choose to place "fictional"; the construction of this sentence implies to me that only Wisteria Lane is fictional, and that the residents and their lives are all real. The lead's reference to the series as a comedy drama establishes it as fictional, so I don't think it needs repeating here.
    • "[...]Orson's former neighbor, Carolyn Bigsby (Laurie Metcalf) arrives uninvited[...]". Comma before "arrives".
  • Production
    • "Cherry stated that he regretted "most of Season 2,"". The short quote doesn't require quotation marks.
    • "Cherry The cast also expressed disappointment in the second season." Anomalous "Cherry"? Semi-colon at the end.
    • "[...]while Marcia Cross confessed". "and" instead of "while".
  • Reception
    • Again, some of the single-word quotes don't need quote marks when the sentence signposts it as a quote (e.g. Dave Anderson of TV Guide called the episode "first-rate," while praising the comedic Bree storyline and declaring the set-up for the Orson mystery storyline "ingenious.")
    • Can you incorporate any more reviews from publications? The Los Angeles Daily News and New York Daily News both have good reviews making reference to the improvement over the second season.[22][23]

Bradley0110 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


You're Gonna Love Tomorrow[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it to at least good article status.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Bradley0110
  • Right off the bat there is a problem with the infobox image. The purpose states: "[...] This screenshot depicts the introduction of the Dave character, who is the focus of the season's mystery. The screenshot also features the Edie character, one of the series major characters who is also involved in the mystery storyline." You really can't use a non-free image to represent a concept (i.e. a mystery). I look at the image and all I see is "Man and woman". The image of McDonough is suitable enough to represent both his and Dave's first appearance in the show. If you really think the image can provide information that cannot be expressed in words, I suggest you ask users at WT:TV about helping you to bolster the non-free rationale.
  • Lead: A good summary of the article. Some issues though:
    • I would dump the season premiere link behind "premiere episode"; it adds nothing to this article and devalues the link to DH season 5 that is next to it.
    • Something I've seen a lot of in episode articles about, particularly, ABC and NBC shows is the expansion of the initialisms. This is something I think came about when someone took a Lost episode article to FAC, and someone inisisted "ABC" be "American Broadcasting Company" in the text to differentiate from the Australian Broadcasting Company. This is totally unnecessary; ABC is the television network that is run by the American Broadcasting Company. I know you're just following what has (sadly) become the standard, but I recommend altering this to "ABC (American Broadcasting Company)" (i.e. just switch the parentheses). The article clearly says it aired in the United States, so there's no way anyone can confuse it with the Australian Broadcasting Company. I'd recommend doing this in future episode articles too.
    • Dump the "also" at the head of the last sentence in the second paragraph.
    • "making it the most-watched show of the night and the second most-watched program of the week." Could you specify in the sentence whether this is just on ABC or across all networks.
  • Plot section: I like the addition of the Background section. I think this is going to become common in episode articles about serialised shows.
    • In the Background section you're using the fictional past tense in places where you should be using the fictional present (e.g. "[...] Susan (Teri Hatcher) and Mike Delfino (James Denton) celebrated the birth of their son."); although you're referring to events "five years before" the narrative timeframe of this episode, you're still summarising episodes that have been broadcast.
    • "Gabrielle convinces Juanita to play a game in which she chases after her car in order to lose weight.". This lumpy prose confused me ("in which", "in order to"). Is Gabrielle driving the car? Is Juanita aware it is a game?
  • Production
    • "Filming for the episode began on July 7, 2008." The source was published in June, so how can you be sure the schedule was adhered to? Unless another source is available that confirms the date, I'd change the sentence to "Filming for the episode was scheduled to begin on July 7, 2008."
    • Full stop at the end of "fourth season finale".
    • Is it important that Cherry pitched the idea to McPherson at a baseball game (besides it being a good pun!)?
    • The rest of this first paragraph features a lot of quotes from Cherry that would be better paraphrased. It currently has a very journalistic tone; "He stated", "He also referred to the show's second season, which proved to be creatively challenging. He said", "Cherry said that the time jump would be permanent. He commented", etc.
    • The same applies to the second paragraph. It's very difficult to see an encyclopeadic explanation for the changes to the characters' circumstances when it's just a wall of quotations from different people. You really need to pull out the salient facts from these quotes to really make it understandable.
    • "His role was described by the press" It appears that it was just BuddyTV that offered this description, rather than "the press" (whatever the scope of that refers to).
    • "Producers said that the inclusion of the Carver twins could attract a younger female audience because of their resemblance to Matt Damon." It appears to have just been one producer, Sabrina Wild, who mentioned Damon. I also don't see where in the source it states younger females would tune in because of the (perceived) Damon resemblance.
    • In the fourth paragraph, you have two instances of "removed from the cast". This has a very weird ring to it. Can you not just say "left the cast"?
  • Reception
    • A nice summary of the ratings without overdetailing.
    • The BARB source only indicates the ratings for the Channel 4 broadcast, not that it was the premiere. Additionally Channel 4 is not a network, it is a station or a channel.
    • The quotes from some reviewers aren't really necessary; "Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker commended the time jump, declaring, "This season, the Housewives aren't desperate: They're avidly ambitious, like the series itself," and giving the episode a 'B+'" could be recast as "Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker commended the time jump as a reflection of both the characters' and series ambitions, and rated the episode 'B+'". Using too many of these tabloid-y quotes devalues other more analytical reviews in the same section, such as the Brian Lowry quote (I note the text in the quote box is almost unreadably small. Can you increase this to, say, 95%?).
  • References
    • A large number of web-only sources are formatted as publications; sites like BuddyTV and TV by the Numbers should not be in italics.
    • I'm concerned about the high number of references to BuddyTV. BuddyTV is one of those sites that's accepted as a reliable source in small doses but I'm concerned that the article relies on it too much. If the same information can't be found in more reliable sources then I wouldn't worry about it.
    • Ref 18: The description of the host channel is "Hey, I'm just doing this all for fun... I'm not associated with DH at all, and I don't intend any copyright infringement! Anyways, here you can find the most recent DH videos/interviews/etc and some cool older ones." This indicates that the channel is hosting videos produced for either the official show website or the DVDs without permission. We cannot link to copyright infringements (which, apparently, the channel owner doesn't "intend". Ah, legal ignorance). Is the same information available anywhere else or does the clip appear on the DVDs or official website? It would be a shame to lose such an important piece of casting information.

I'm sure if you can get through these issues and give the prose another going over, this will pass GAN fine. :) Bradley0110 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Compartment syndrome[edit]

CarrieRocks (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article compartment syndrome for peer review because I edited it for my class in Cal Poly Pomona in California because it is required group project.

Thanks, CarrieRocks (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are dozens of FAs in Category:FA-Class medicine articles which should provide some useful models to follow.
  • There is one dead link found using the external link checker in the toolbox on this PR page. It is to a journal, so assuming the journal is in print too, the link is not needed (as an interested reader could still theoretically look up the print version of the article cited).
  • The current lead does not seem like a full summary of the article. 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. However, Rankin's definition is only in the lead and not in the body of the article itself.
  • For ideas on how to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article mixes reference styles - some are (Last Name, Year) and others are inline (superscript linked numbers). While either style is OK, the Manual of Style says to pick on reference style and use it consistently throughout the article. Most Wikipedia articles use inline refs, but either is OK.
  • Some places do not have references and need them - for example The cause of compartment syndrome is due to excess pressure on the muscle compartments. This pressure can occur for many different reasons, many are due to injuries. Injuries cause the swelling of tissue. The swelling of the tissue forces pressure upon the muscle compartments, which has a limited volume. Due to this pressure, the venules and lymphatic vessels that drain the muscle compartments are compressed, and are prevented from draining. As arterial inflow continues while outflow is decreased, the pressure builds up in the muscle compartments. This pressure will eventually decrease the amount of blood flow over the capillary bed, causing the tissue to become ischaemic. The tissues will release factors and will lead to the formation of edema. needs at least one ref.
  • Much of the treatment section is laso without references and needs them
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • References used do not always have all information needed. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • References need to be to WP:RS - reliable sources. There is a link to this article, but Wikipedia is not in and of itself a reliable source.
  • The external links seem excessive and probably do not all follow WP:EL - my guess is that some of them could be converted into references.
  • As it currently stands, the article is pretty technical and could be written in a somewhat easier to understand manner. This is is especially true of the lead (which is supposed to be an accessible overview of the whole article and topic). Some technical articles have a fairly accessible Overview section after the lead which gives more detail in an easier to follow manner.
  • I would also go from more general and accessible to more detailed, specific and technical - as it is in someplaces the article goes the other way - for example the Causes section starts out pretty technical and ends with a fairly accessible and general passage (quoted above as it needs a ref).
  • Avoid paragraphs that are either too long (Causes section is all one paragraph) or too short (one or two sentences) as these interrupt the flow of the article narrative. For short paragraphs, consider combining them with others or expansion if possible.
  • Use of bold face text does not seem to follow WP:ITALIC
  • Most editors avoid bullet lists where possible - not always, but very often the list can be converted to straight prose.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Karpal Singh[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for GA status in the future and would like some suggestions on how to improve it further. There are a couple of issues I would like the reviewer to specifically examine:

  • Completeness – is the coverage of the article broad enough?
  • Structure – are the sections appropriately divided?
  • Variety of sources – the article mainly references news articles, some journals, but few books. Judging by what's already in the article, is the variety of sources sufficient?

Thanks, Yk3 talk · contrib 05:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]

Short article, but well sourced. I made some changes as I went through, mostly minor copyediting etc. Feel free to revert it if I make a mistake.

I'll post my responses now, but make the relevant changes later. Thank you for reviewing. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Lead
  • I'm not sure if the s/o abbreviation should be used, it would be more understandable if spelled out.
    • I would dispense with the s/o completely since he's almost never referred to as Karpal Singh s/o Ram Singh. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Shifting between courtrooms and parliament, he is known as a fiery debater, which has gotten him into trouble with authorities on occasion." seems slightly WP:PEACOCKy.
  • I removed the word "strict" in front of the Internal security act, as the word doesn't add much information and is a subjective judgement, and therefore often not that WP:NPOV.
  • The lead could do with some expansion. I recommend adding a sentence or two about his early life, and some more information on political/legal views.
Early life and Education
  • I added Ram Singh as the father's name here for clarification.
  • The wikilink to India is slightly anachronous. Perhaps British India may be better?
  • The date he was born should be included here.
— Agree to all of the above. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • When did he study at St. Xavier's Institution?
  • When did he obtain his Bachelor of Laws?
— Hard to find out the exact dates, but I don't think they're that important. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there something special about taking seven years to graduate?
    • I think the standard law student takes 3-4 years to graduate. He admitted to being a slacker. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Some information about ethnicity should be included here, this being Malaysian politics after all.
Legal Career
  • What is the "Penang bar"? (pardon my ignorance)
    • That was quoted verbatim from the source. It's probably the Penang branch of the Malaysian Bar. I'll replace that with just the Malaysian Bar if it's confusing. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "'He started his legal firm, Messrs Karpal Singh & Co., in 1970 and is well-known for his expertise in the field of litigation" Should these sentences be connected? I don't see how the legal firm connect through and to his well-known expertise. It's especially confusing as chronology is being mixed with current status.
    • Ok. Will clarify that. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The use of the word "apparently" makes the story of the chinese boy unreliable. Who made this apparent?
    • The incident definitely happened. What can't be confirmed is whether Karpal's reasoning that the event would be politically explosive (as he claimed afterwards) actually convinced the king, hence the word apparently. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about whether "(See below)" and similar instructions are favoured under the MOS. Either way, should not impede GA status.
Political Career
  • When he joined the DAP, when "citing the party's multiracial stance" was he citing this as a reason for joining? If so, clarify.
  • State that Alor Setar is in Kedah earlier, as it seems like it is in Penang by the text.
  • The second paragraph is unsourced.
— Will work on the above. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The word "allegedly" is again used at the end of the entry into politics section. If this is alleged, state by whom.
    • Just quoting from the source. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "He was released briefly (a few hours) in March 1988 in response to a habeas corpus application, and remained in prison until January 1989." This sentence needs clarification. Was he released for a few hours, after a few hours? Who filed the application, and why was it rejected?
    • It wasn't rejected. It was accepted, he was released for a few hours, and then they rearrested him. I will rewrite that sentence because it is confusing. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How could Karpal lose a seat along with an opposition leader?
    • Karpal and Lim Kit Siang (the opposition leader) both lost their seats in 1999. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "a 1,261-majority win" means what? He won by that amount? Out of how many?
    • Means he won by 1,261 votes. I think that's a pretty standard way of putting it in parliamentary politics (same goes with the UK). - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Instead of just saying "the accident" it may be better to quickly clarify what happened.
Other sections and misc
  • I would combine the Political Views section with the Political Career section, perhaps using the general views as an introduction to the section and shifting examples into where they chronologically belong.
  • The accident and disability section should probably go into personal life, seems WP:UNDUE as its own section to me.
  • Is Gurmit Kuar Thai?
    • She's probably a Malaysian citizen. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What does Man Karpal currently do?
    • Don't know. I can only follow where the sources go. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Reference date formats need to be standardised. Perhaps shifting them all to day month year would be a good course, this being a Malaysian article. Both dates and accessdates should have the same format.
    • Yeap. It's my fault for switching my date format sometime last year. Gonna be a pain in the rear end to fix them. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article seems quite well covered overall. I however can't shake the impression it seems slightly one-sided, which I guess is to be expected. Perhaps temper all the positive quotes with some by his opposition. Anyway, these are just my comments, you may agree or disagree as you will. I have this page watchlisted if there are any questions, reply under a bullet or under here. Good luck, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the refreshing perspective. I completely agree that it's too one-sided. The language is mostly neutral but most of the coverage focuses on what his supporters would want to read (very subtle POV), something I did not previously realise. Most of my future contributions will be focused on negative coverage of him. - Yk3 talk · contrib 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wall[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wonder what should be done to this article to becoma FA. TGilmour (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thnaks for your interest in getting this to FA, here are some suggestions for improvement. I was pleased with how well written this is, but think it would have some issues with comprehensiveness if it were sent to FAC in its current state.

  • TGilmour I note that you have made only a few edits to the article, and that they were fairly minor in nature. If you plan to take this to FAC, you need to check with the major contributors first (as one of the rules at WP:FAC is that Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination.) The contributions by editor to this article can be see here.
  • I would consult with Parrot of Doom and GabeMc as they are the two main contributors to this article by number of edits.
  • When I read the article, I was surprised that there was not more on the album's Critical reception. Most FA album articles have a separate reception section, and for something like this, there are often sections on Musical style and on Themes. While there are some reviews quoted here, it seems like material that could be expanded quite a bit.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on rock albums. Kid A may be a useful model.
  • I also note that there was an extensive peer review (linked above) done on this article in January of this year. This PR was by someone obviously pretty familair with the article and made multiple suggestions for expansion. I did not check evewrything mentioned, but the few things that I did check did not appear to have been acted on. There are technical details on the recording of the album as well as material on its legacy (graffitti on the Berlin Wall, being banned in apartheid era South Africa as black school children sang songs from it as a form of protest against their inferior school system). So the main thing I would do is look at that and see if the article can indeed be expanded in the ways mentioned in the PR.
  • I was surprised that there was no mention in the article itself of the Pink Floyd album Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live 1980–81, basically a concert album version.
  • The Wall (Pink Floyd) lists some things that are not in the article that I can see - the above live album, and Waters current (2010-2011) The Wall tour. Seems to me that a Legacy section might be the way to go with this post-album material.
  • I was surprised that there were not more images - I know that free images from that era will be difficult to obtain, but since the band and its individual members have continued to perform the album live, it seems as if more recent images of them would be justified.
  • There are also free images of Roger Waters performing live at the Berlin Wall in his article which could be included in that section.
  • A free image is useful for Main Page appearances too - perhaps a crop of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-0722-405, Berlin, Aufführung der Rockoper "The Wall".jpg might fit the bill - shows a live performance by Waters at the Berlin Wall.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Chetham's School of Music[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I wish to bring it up to featured article status. It got a favourable GA review, and I've now got some time to spend to improve it.

Thanks, AD 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, which I enjoyed reading. Here are a few suggestions that might help to improve the article to the next level.

Infobox

  • Wikipedia almost never uses "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Ms.", or "Miss". In the infobox, for example, "Mrs. Claire Hickman" should just be "Claire Hickman".

Lead

  • "Chetham's educates students between the ages of 8 and 18, with entry is based on an audition... " - Delete "is"?
  • "Despite entry being solely through musical audition, the school regularly obtains good exam results." - The "despite being" combination is a bit awkward. Would this combination be better: "Chetham's educates students between the ages of 8 and 18. Although admission depends solely on an audition to demonstrate musical potential and talent, the students typically do well in other subjects." Or something like that.

History

  • To avoid repeating "history" in the first subhead under "History", you might consider something like "Beginnings".
  • The last subhead under the "History" section might become something like "Since 1952", to avoid repetition and to avoid the ambiguity of "present".
  • "a fortified manor house owned by the Grelleys" - Who were the Grelleys? Could something be added to briefly describe them?
  • "In the early 14th century... " - Combinations like 14th century should include a no-break code to keep them from being separated by line break on various computer screens. WP:NBSP has details.

Humphrey Chetham

  • "between the ages of six and ten from "honest" families, who should be taught and cared for until they were 14.[16][17][16]" - Something's amiss with the citations here. I think one of the 16s should be something else.

Images

  • There is, alas, a problem with the license of the lead image, File:Baronial Hall Chetham's.jpg. If you click through to the Flickr source, you will see that the license includes a "no-commercial-use" provision. (Click the "some rights reserved" link on the Flickr page to see what "some rights" refers to.) That means that it should not have been uploaded to the Commons and that it will not pass scrutiny at FAC. You might be able to persuade the copyright holder to re-license it without the NC restriction.
  • There is also a problem with the license of File:Humphrey Chetham.jpg. Since the source link is dead and the license summary provides no author and no publication date, it is not possible to determine whether the license is valid. Since this appears to be a very old image, you might be able to track down the missing information, especially the source, and use it.
  • The licenses for the other images look fine to me.

Charity school

  • Should "illegitimate" be linked, perhaps, to Legitimacy (law)? I'm not sure every reader will know what the word means in this context. Also, did the rules ever change on this point? I'm guessing that they must have, but I don't know for sure.
  • "Public appeals meant the numbers rose to 97 in 1929." - I think this must mean "successful public appeals for funding"? If so, could the wording be modified to say that?

Admissions

  • "studying any instrument except electronical" - Should that be "electronic" rather than "electronical"?
  • "Grades and exam results are not required (with the exception of Grade 5 theory for sixth form)" - I'm not sure that this is the first use of "form" in the article, but it occurs to me that not all readers will know what "form" means. Would it be helpful to add a brief explanation or a link to an explanation?

Curriculum

  • As a specialist music school, all students study a curriculum which concentrates on music... " - Misplaced modifier. "Students" are not a "specialist music school". Maybe "As a specialist music school, Chetham's requires all students to study a curriculum that concentrates on music... "?

School life

  • "a house parent who liaises with parents at home" - Would "communicates" be better than "liases"? "Liase" is a back-formation (from liason) used mostly in the United Kingdom, but it may not be familiar elsewhere.

College house

  • "which was constructed on a plinth" - Link plinth?

Notable alumni

  • The Manual of Style recommends writing in straight prose rather than lists when feasible. It's not always easy to tell whether prose or a list would be better, but my feeling here is that this section could be turned into prose rather easily by combining groups. Something like "A partial list of alumni includes pianists A, B, C, D, and E; conductors F, G, and H; and something, something. Other notables are O, P, Q, and R." Or something like that.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! AD 14:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've already put Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) through a PR and FA, and I'd like to do the same to this one. I believe it's just about ready. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Having reviewed the season 1 article, this looks like it follows a successful model. Thanks for your work on these and here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • Lead - missing word . Daniel Baldwin publicly criticized NBC Entertainment [chief? head? president?] Warren Littlefield over the matter, and ...
  • I think "reportedly dismissed" sounds better The second season was the last to include original cast member Jon Polito, who was dismissed reportedly because NBC officials ...
  • Shouldn't it just be "for Williams" in and the show received one Emmy nomination for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series for Robin Williams. ?
  • Wasn't Three Men and Adena a single story episode (albeit in Season one)?
  • I think I would mention in the lead that the series was renewed for a third season
  • In Episodes, I think it would help to provide context in a few places, especially for readers not familiar with the series. Had I not read the article on Season One recently, I would not be sure who Felton and Howard were in the first episode, for example. Just adding the word "Detectives" at the start of the first sentence would help.
  • While it is probably not necessary to introduce each detective with "detective", I would make it clear that Gee is their Lieutenant. Not sure about spelling out his full name on first mention.
  • I think the last phrase is not grammatical in ...a police lieutenant (Michael S. Kennedy) with whom Howard had an affair and still harbors romantic feelings. perhaps a police lieutenant (Michael S. Kennedy) with whom Howard had an affair and [for whom she] still harbors romantic feelings. or something similar would work
  • In Renewal "put off less viewers" seems a bit awkward ("fewer viewers"? recast as positive, i.e. "would attract more viewers"?) and I think "succeed better" sounds, um, better Ohlmeyer said he believed a better timeslot, less dense stories and less hand-held photography would put off less viewers and help the show better succeed:...
  • tweak due to competition from the ABC high-rating comedy block featuring Home Improvement and Coach.[6][17] to something like due to competition from the highly-rated ABC comedy block featuring Home Improvement and Coach.[6][17]
  • Word choice - voiced? Even during the first season, Levinson often voiced that the series was truly designed for a 10 p.m. timeslot.
  • In Crew since this is an article on the second season, is that bit needed in and screenwriter James Yoshimura became story editor starting with the second season?
  • In Cast, tweak ...Wendy Hughes, who previously played medical examiner Carol Blythe; her absence was never explained on-screen.
  • Another MOS full name on first use, then just last name thereafter issue - I am fine with listing the cast by full name at the start of the section, but then it should just be Polito (not Jon Polito) in all following uses (unless there are two or more people named Polito in the article). Check for this throughout (not just Polito and Williams)
  • In Writing it is not clear which season is meant (assume the first??) in the start of By the time the season ended, four additional scripts had already been written,[4] but before approving the second season, NBC asked for refinements in both the visual style and the scripts.[3]
  • In the first paragraph of this section I would swap the last two sentences to keep all the material on Bop Gun together.
  • The image of Simon should be left justified so he looks into the text, per the MOS
  • Can the handling ... were handled construction be avoided in Attanasio deliberately wrote the "See No Evil" script so that it would be morally questionable whether the police handling of both main subplots — the assisted suicide and the suspected police shooting — were handled in an ethically correct way.[31]
  • Can the episode name be used just once in "Black and Blue" was written by James Yoshimura, who continued working on Homicide throughout the entire life of the show, but considered "Black and Blue" his favorite script.[53]
  • Missing word in Filming? Fontana said [Levinson?] remained involved in the development of scripts and the production of the shows.[24]
  • Reviews I would use "fewer" instead of "less" in Robert Bianco of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette praised the show and said the decision to focus on less subplots might help.
  • Not clear which Sun is meant - assume Baltimore Sun? Sun reporter David Bianculli praised the show's complex characters ...
  • NYPD Blue Say which network this show was on?
  • Missing name NYPD Blue co-creator [?] took exception to that characterization, saying he believed his reputation and experience in television proved he was capable of conceiving his own material.
  • In Ratings should the lead in show be mentioned? Back then NBC had a strong Thursday set of programs (Friends, Seinfeld, Frasier IIRC)
  • Error? "continued to commit"? Despite Homicide's improvement in the ratings, NBC continued to commit to a third season until the producers agreed to even more changes, including more prominent guest stars, more women in the cast and more life-affirming storylines.[95]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! As always, your attention to detail is much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 22:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pilot (White Collar)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get feedback on this new article, and hopefully eventually get it to a Good Article and later even Featured Article if possible. I want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything, and that I've done everything correctly. Particularly, I'd like to check the use of and formatting of citations, the writing in the "Reviews" section, and the use of links throughout.

Thanks, Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - sounds like a fun series. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. SInce your eventual goal is FA, there are four FAs which are on pilot episodes. They are Pilot (House), Pilot (Parks and Recreation), Pilot (Smallville), and Pilot (Supernatural) and seem like they would be useful models.
  • The MOS says to use a real person's full name the first time and then refer to them by just their last name afterwards (it is OK to use full name first time in the lead and again in the body of the article)(exceptions are people with one name or when two or more people have the same last name).
  • Avoid needless repetition - in the lead, instead of The cast includes Matt Bomer as Neal Caffrey, Tim DeKay as Peter Burke, Willie Garson as Mozzie, Marsha Thomason as Diana Lancing, and Tiffani Thiessen as Elizabeth Burke, Peter's wife. perhaps instead say something like In addition to Bomer and DeKay, the cast includes The cast includes Willie Garson as Mozzie, Marsha Thomason as Diana Lancing, and Tiffani Thiessen as Elizabeth Burke, Peter's wife.
  • The plot section is 593 words long, which is longer than any of the models. For comparison, the plots of the model FAs are: House 505, Parks and Rec 454, Smallville 445, and Supernatural 560 words. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) too.
  • One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness - I think that a little more background would help make the article more comprehensive. FOr example, what did Eastin do before this series? See WP:WIAFA and WP:PCR
  • The Writing section seems very short - I would avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections if at all possible. Where possible combine the short paragraphs or sections with others, or perhaps expand them.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - articles are linked once in the lead and once in the body, both on first use (infoboxes are OK for more links). Jeff Eastin is linked three times in the body of the article.
  • Why is the only place this cast change is mentioned in the Reception section? ...did not appreciate the use of Tiffani Thiessen as Elizabeth or the replacement of Marsha Thomason with Natalie Morales.[14]
  • Language is decnt but will need a copyedit before FAC for sure.
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says to have photos of people look into the text, not away from it, so the pic of Tim DeKay could be left justified.
  • Avoid needless repetition. In The Filming section the first sentence repeats info on the writer and director which already been stated. I also note most of this section is about the cast - would it be better in Casting? Problem is that there is relatively little on filming itself in this section
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Starkiller[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting this article to A-class (and hopefully eventually FA-class, but we'll see). This article as had a previous peer review by the video games WikiProject (see here). As a start, I'll mention that I believe the Joystiq sources are reliable as Randy Nelson used to work for IGN (a reliable source) and apparently Alexander Sliwinski has a degree in journalism. However, I may be wrong and, if so, please tell me. Also, I am unsure whether the video game portal should be used in the see also section. While he is a character primarily from a video game, the game has been adapted into both (admittedly less big) a novel and comic, which also applies to the sequel he appears in, and unlike Mario or Link he's recieved some attention outside of being a video game character.

Thanks, Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I see Force (Star Wars) is only linked once; in the lead. It should probably be linked in the last paragraph of the "Concept and Creation" section.("a new Force wielder") As a start, I think you should make sure that all subjects that need clarification are either clarified or linked to, where a person completely oblivious to the Star Wars universe can understand everything. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done I agree. It's hard to accept, but there are people who don't know what the Force is. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I might hopefully be able to squeeze some more characterization from the TFU book. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Image review, by Keraunoscopia

Quick note, according to PR guidelines, you shouldn't use the {{done}} template, but use the {{done-t}} template instead. : )

  • File:Starkiller.png — Image file description needs cleaning. The {{information}} is listed under "Licensing", but should be moved beneath "Summary". The source link doesn't lead anywhere. We need to see where the image came from.
  • File:Sam Witwer (2007).jpg — For archival reasons, the original version of this image needs to be uploaded to Commons. There's two ways of doing this. The original image can be uploaded over the same file, with the comment (or edit summary) "upload original image for archival purposes"—then the image history can be reverted back to the crop—or the original image should be uploaded under a separate name, but then you need to note that the crop is a derivative of the original. Either way should be fine. The image can also do with a little lightening, maybe even a touch of sharpening. You can do this yourself, or you can make a request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop.
  • File:GalenStalkerArmor.jpg — I know you're trying to abide by fair-use rules, but this image is seriously tiny. Go back to the original size, resize it as 300 px wide, and upload. You'll still be within fair-use requirements. (People like me have their preferences set for images to be viewed at 300px as well, so it makes articles prettier.) Once you've done that, the original size image should not remain on Wikipedia (besides, the source link links to it), so please tag the page with {{subst:furd}}. Typo in "Portion" section: "Image shown in it's entirety" should read "its entirety".
  • Also, simply as a courtesy, you should change the {{Reflist|3}} to {{Reflist|30em}} so columns can be decided by browser size, not forced into three tiny columns, which can be very difficult to sift through for people with narrow screens.

– Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 12:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    •  Done... well almost. I haven't lightened/sharpened the Sam Witwer image, but I've requested it on the workshop place. Everything else is all done. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Seems odd to me that the article name Starkiller does not appear until the third sentence. Seems like it should be in the first sentence of the lead.
  • I am not familiar with the Force Unleashed - the word "prject" threw me off. Perhaps include a bit of explanation - so something like Galen Marek, also known as the Apprentice and Starkiller, is the main character of the Star Wars: The Force Unleashed project (including a video game, novel, and comics), who first appeared in the game Soulcalibur IV. (I do not think that mentioning Vader and Yoda were also in the game has to be in the lead, or at least not in the first sentence of the lead.)
  • Problem sentences - avoid needless repetition dying and sacrificing himself can be combined, and no need to repeat the cloned or resurrected bit in
After supposedly dying in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed after sacrificing himself, Starkiller is either resurrected or cloned by Darth Vader in order to be his secret apprentice again. After either being cloned or resurrected, Starkiller escapes from the cloning facility. At the end of The Force Unleashed II Starkiller captures and imprisons Darth Vader. So this could be tightened to something like
After Starkiller's supposed sacrificial death in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, he is either resurrected or cloned by Darth Vader in order to be his secret apprentice again. Starkiller escapes from the cloning facility, and at the end of The Force Unleashed II he captures and imprisons Darth Vader. (and why isn't the sequel game linked?)
    •  Done As for the sequel not being linked, probably because no one noticed it. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Make sure the article is written from an out of universe perspective. So Starkiller is named after Luke Skywalker's original name, Annikin Starkiller,[4][5] and is a designed to be a photo-negative of him.[3][6] could be clearer that The character's name is taken from Star Wars creator George Lucas' working name for Luke Skywalker, "Annikin Starkiller"; the character is designed to be a photo-negative of Skywalker. (not sure what the phot-negative part means - should that be in quotes?) See WP:IN-U
  • The MOS says to refer to people by their last name once they have been introduced using their full name (unless there are two or more people with the same name in an artice or someone goes by just one name). So once Sam Witwer is introduced in the lead, for the rest of the lead he should be referred to as just Witwer. Sitto in the body of the article - full name on first use then just Witwer
  • In Concept and creation, I think it would help to give some more background / context. What year was the game development started? I also think that this section should make it clearer that the TFU project is set in the time period between the two movie trilogies. See WP:PCR
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says that images of people should face into the page, drawing the reader's eyes into the text and not out of it. This means the photo of Witwer should be right justified so his gaze looks into the page.
    •  Not done Not because you're wrong, but because I have no idea how to do that. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I did it for you - feel free to revert if you don't like it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not know what this sentence is trying to say According to Blackman, the staff were very hard in casting Sam Witwer as Starkiller, ... Ditto with the Developers tried to make The Force Unleashed more personal to Starkiller,[16][17]...
  • Since the game is his first appearance, why is Soulcalibur IV not mentioned in the Concept and creation section? The Appearances section could be written with some out of universe perspective too. I am making this up, but something like "Lucas and the TFU development team decided to allow the character to appear in Soulcaliber IV as away of publicizing the upcoming TFU project...
    • Doing... Just need to find some sources an' all that jazz. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As a bit of a Star Wars geek, I wondered why his being a secret apprentice was not explained in the article that I saw. My recollection is that the Sith were allowed one apprentice at a time, and I assume the apprentice (Vader) was not allowed his own apprentice.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments. In the process of doing now. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking the article to nominate it for GA state, and hopefully higher levels in the future. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer
  • Background, "after a conflict between Philippine independence forces and the United States, Filipinos as U.S. nationals were able to freely immigrate to the United States." For people not very up on their Philippine history, the relationship between a conflict and free immigration is rather ambiguous. It would probably be good to expand this a bit to explain this relationship.
  • Background, "In 1934, their national status was withdrawn." Why? If they weren't resident aliens or citizens, what were they?
  • Background, "Some who volunteered to serve were refused due to their age." The source also says "and/or the need for them to continue to work in the fields harvesting the crops to feed the armed forces." - why not include this information as well?
  • History, "something that was barred in 1924." What was barred in 1924? People from the Philippines becoming citizens?
  • History, "due to anti-miscegenation laws, those soldiers who wanted to get married to non-Filipino women were transported to Gallup, New Mexico," What do anti-miscegenation laws have to do with Gallup, New Mexico?
  • History, "soldiers of the regiment, also faced discrimination in Marysville." Why?
  • History, "with Carlos Bulosan there to witness it." Why is this important?
  • History, "who were not allowed to enlist until 1943," Why?
  • History, "and soldiers of the regiment that were reassigned back to the regiment." What?
  • History, "Others took the time to find wives due to the War Brides Act," Why?
  • History, "and younger soldiers connected to a culture that they only had tacit connection to." Connected, connection...repetition.
  • History, "Soldiers of the regiment who did not qualify to return home," Why? I thought they had had a mass naturalization ceremony while still in the US?
  • Legacy - Be consistent with 442d vs 442nd
  • Legacy, "was documented in documentaries" - repetition
  • History, "soldiers of the regiment were then assigned to the Alamo Scouts[33] and the 5217th Reconnaissance Battalion." What did they do there?
  • History, "Finally in the Philippines, the regiment conducted "mopping up"[38] operations on the island,[39][40] Samar,[1][3][41] and other islands in the Visayan islands group.[10]" Is there any more detail on these operations? Prisoners taken, enemy killed, ability in battle, etc?

Overall, I think the biggest issue is a lack of detail. There were a lot of spots in the article that felt like they made huge jumps from point A to point C, while completely skipping point B. The article is nowhere near breaking size limits, so if more details can make the article more accessible to the average reader, go for it! It is a nice little article though, and I don't think you should have much trouble going for GA. I made a few edits to the article; feel free to revert anything you disagree with or don't like. Dana boomer (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Post review reply from RightCowLeftCoast

  • I have made a change to an edit of yours, that is more consistent with the reference provided.
  • On the first two background points, the articles which are linked in the wording fully explains the sometimes difficult to understand 1898-1913 relationship of the United States and then-insular territory of the Philippine Islands. I had thought that delving to far into that complicated era would distract readers from the primary focus of the article, being the article's subject, the regiment. If you feel it should be expanded upon, I would like to hear your suggestions, on how to due it in a neutral tone, due to the politically contentious arguments/POVs surrounding that time period.
  • I have expanded the statement regarding Manongs (second wave Filipino immigrants) as you suggested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As suggested I had changed the wording regarding the barring of naturalization, and added an additional reference.
  • As suggested I expanded upon the reason for the busing to New Mexico.
  • Expanded, and gave "reason" for discrimination, as suggested.
  • Expanded upon reason why Carlos Bulosan's presence was important.
  • Expanded on reason why Hawaii Filipinos were not allowed to join the regiment (or create the planned third regiment). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Copy edit and expansion regarding concerns about reassignment, War Brides act, and re-connection.
  • Regarding the sentence about soldiers who were not qualified to return home, on 1200 of the more than 7000 soldiers of the regiment participated in the mass naturalization ceremony according the the references provided. I have provided expansion, with references to the latter fact.
  • 442d to 442nd. Recent changes in military abbreviation have began to drop the n, however historically the usage of nd was more common.
  • Reduced redundancy regarding documentaries.
  • Statements about the activities of the Alamo Scouts and the 5217th, IMHO is better left on the articles regarding those units. That is why I originally didn't include the numbers on the combined strengths of the two Filipino Infantry Regiments (the latter later downgraded to enlarged battalion) as I wanted to be as focused on the subject as possible. But I can see where the lack of context can have readers who aren't as familiar to the subject a bit confused.
  • Regarding expansion on combat history, see the comment I made here. Unfortunately, there is no reference in the extensive research that I have found that specifically talks about the results of the regiment in combat. It appeared that those states were rolled upwards to the Division was assigned to. There is a statement in table 4, page 368, found here that mentions casualties of the "1st Filipino Division" which I believe is a typo and is meant to refer to the regiment which is the subject of this article, however, without independent proof of that, it is only speculation on my part, and cannot be included per WP:OR. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall, it looks good. A few points:

  • For the first two points of the Background section, I do think that a few extra sentences of explanation are needed to not leave readers completely baffled. For instance, I'm not suggesting a full paragraph on why their natural status was withdrawn, just something like "In 1934, their natural status was withdrawn because they were determined to be little green aliens" or something simple :) I realize that there is not much that is simple in the history between these two countries, but a little bit more background is needed for readers who have very little knowledge of the relationship.
  • Stateside, "This was later remedied by the regiment's commander." How?
  • As much as possible, I try to work the links in the See also section into the article itself, rather than having them in this separate section. For the "broadness" criteria of GAN, it doesn't really matter, but for the "comprehensive" criteria of FAC, many reviewers will wonder why these terms/people/groups are not included in the article body, if they are important enough to be listed in the see also section.

Nice work on this article. Again, you should be good to go for GAN (I see now that you have already nominated it), although another editor is most likely going to catch things that I have missed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Second reply following secondary review Thanks for the continuing comments, this is very help full. Let me show you a few more of my recent edits

  • I have expanded on the reason why naturalization was barred, with an additional references; is this sufficient? I understand that the legal matters surrounding this subject are complicated given that the status changed a number of times from 1899 to 1946.
  • Expanded on actions by Colonel Offley.
  • Integrated the Wikilink found in the See also section.

I hope this fulfills all the necessary changes needed for a GAN and possible FAC in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Comments by Dank
My understanding that under the MILHIST order of precedence, GA was below A-class, and thus why I nominated the article for GA first.
When I had ran the article's content through Microsoft Word, it didn't highlight any significant issues, prior to your edits. That being said, let me thank you. Anything that can be done to improve the article so it can eventually become a FA, is greatly appreciated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing. Either order is usually fine, although occasionally reviewers will ask nominators to go to GA first. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

2010–11 NK Maribor season[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is completed and is planned to become a GA or FA if it meets all the criteria. The article sums up the past season of the Slovenian football club NK Maribor, current GA nominee. This is the first peer review of this article.

Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso
  • My first impression is that to get to GA the article requires a lot more prose. At present the article is dominated by tables of statistics without anything to put them into context. Try looking at some existing football season GAs, for example 2009–10 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season.
  • Its not clear why the teams are bolded in the list of results, though I see some other articles of this type also do it.
  • The lead should be longer than a couple of lines, see WP:LEAD.
  • Somewhere or other the positions should be either wikilinked or put in a key, so that the reader can find out the meaning of FW, GK etc.
  • There's inconsistency in the type of English used. In some places it appears to be American English (e.g. The score after regulation), in other places the British discretionary plural is used. A couple of times usage varies in the same sentence: The team played its opening match of the seasons in a Supercup final on 9 July, 2010, when they lost against Koper
  • How did the club qualify for the Europa League?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Indian Head eagle