Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2010

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.


Mount Albert by-election, 2009[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, in my opinion, it has most of the information it can include now, and would like tips to raise the class of the article. One thing I have thought about is merging sections 4.12, 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:- The article looks to be in a very incomplete state, with mini-banners indicating areas still being developed. It seems somewhat premature to carry out a full review at this stage, but I can offer some suggestions on what needs to be done.

  • When the text is complete it will be necessary to rewrite the lead as a summary of the whole article
  • Overall structure needs a rethink. At the moment there is far too much emphasis on the candidates and far too little on the election campaign itself. Information is scattered about the article in seemingly random fashion; this needs to be properly organised. You also need to get rid of the mini-lists and bullet-points.
  • More background information would be helpful. For example it would be useful to know the numbers of parliamentary seats held by the parties at the time of the by-election.  Done Adabow (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Candidate information should be summarised much more succinctly. The many minor/fringe candidates aren't worth the space you give them Green tickY second half done Adabow (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There should be a Campaign section, which summarises the main events of the by-election campaign from the close of nominations to polling day. Opinion poll information could be included here, at least so far as the main parties are concerned. The two polls that you cite are not particularly helpful, since no dates are given. Also information on debates, and on any other activities of the main candidates
  • I'd suggest that the logical sequence of sections in the article should be something like:
    • Background
    • Candidates
    • Issues
    • Campaign
    • Result
    • Aftermath
  • Some of your online references lack access dates. These dates should be in a single consistent format - at the moment two different formats are used. Done Adabow (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Swing: this is the average movement in percentage votes between two parties. In this election Labour's vote rose by 4.02%, National's fell by 11.93. That's a swing to Labour from National of 7.97% (average of + 4.02 and -11.93). Not done - See this discussion. Adabow (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you complete the article's development, and then bring it back for a full review. I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, so if you have queries arising from this review, please use my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Brown Bear[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's gotten major improvement since the last candidacy and I mean A LOT. I've recently fixed it up and it's looking good. It has it's facts on the subject, cleared of spelling errors, needed information added, and well written. A page this well written has to be feautred. Now, there's the section on bears in culture, but I personally don't see anything wrong with it, basically, it doesn't look like it needs more expansion (not to say it shouldn't have it). This page will be like others, it would get nominated as a feature article and people would continue to change it to make it as clean as possible.

Thanks, Elephant200 (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing this article a while ago but now it looks much better. Still, it still needs some significant work before it has a good chance to pass a FAC. Specifics:
  • intro is too short; doubling it would be about right
  • the table is pretty ugly/clunky; try separating the image into a different column
  • naming and etymology is unexpectadly short; what about the scientific name "ursus actors"? or the name in other languges?
  • significant segments of the text are unreferenced; as a rule of thumb, each paragraph should have at least a reference; plus, some table entries lack any refs
  • description column in the table appears to be very inconsistent: five entries has nothing, while several others only have half a sentence
  • the seagulls image is really poor as it shows a "black" bear
  • the distribution section is not very clear and severely underreferenced: "brown bears were once native to Asia, the..." should be moved at the begining of the first; listing of populations goes from "Russia with 120k", "in Scandinavia" then "Romaina (4k-5k)"; try to find a more consistent way to list the populations. You should probably use a table to put all the coutries with documented populations of over 500. In Russia there are 120k, but in the entire Europe there are 14k? How many of the 120 are in Europe? I suggest this format for the section: paragraph #1 general distribution trends; #2 N America; #3 Russia; #4 Europe without Russia; #5 Central Asia, and Middle-East
  • legal status section is completely unreferenced
  • consider browsing through [1] for more relevant/better images.
  • feel free to take cougar as inspiration as it is a FA with relatively similar discussion points.

Good job until now, and I hope this helps. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha

Right now, the article is far short of GA. Some editors can done from zero to FA review, but most use GA review as a stepping stone, and I recommend that you do this. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); some tools that are the easiest way to cover some technical points; lead last, as it must be a strict summary of the main text. Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

In this PR I'll be aiming for "GA review lite" - covering the same types of issues, but with a selection of examples in each type, so you will have to search for the rest. --Philcha (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Green tickY Looks to have all the sections I'd expect, and I'll look at coverage within sections at I get to them. --Philcha (talk)


  • I usually place "Description" before "Taxonomy", so that non-specialist readers get a word picture and some of the key terms, and these will be useful in "Taxonomy". How do you think this would work here. --Philcha (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Physical description[edit]

  • Nothing about the skeleton? Proportions? How robust? How do its mechanist work? --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The para about fluctuation in body size is better at the top, as this is an important factor in the other dimensions. --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The dimensions of brown bears fluctuate very greatly according to sex, age, individual, geographic location, and season. The body length of large males from the Russian Far East and the Southwestern Alaskan Coast reach 2.45 to 2.55 metres (8 ft 0.46 in to 8 ft 4.4 in), and reach </>a shoulder height of 1.20 to 1.35 metres (3 ft 11 in to 4 ft 5.1 in)." --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Females weigh no more than 75% of the mass attained by males and sometimes less" - "no more" implies "sometimes less" --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That means the first sentence of para "Brown bears are massively built and heavy bodied animals. They have a large hump-like mass of muscle on their shoulders" is redundant and should be removed. --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "... provide brown bears with a great digging ability" looks as some being to sound impressive. Clear and consise is best, e.g. "... make brown bears powerful diggers." --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Brown bears have very large and curved claws, those present on the forelimbs being longer than those on the hind limbs" can be simplified even more dramatically, e.g. "Their very large and curved claws are longer on the forelimbs than on the hind limbs". --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The claws are blunt, while those of a black bear are sharp" needs a citation. If the citation from the previous sentence also supports "The claws are blunt ...", move the citation to the end of "The claws are blunt ...".
  • If "The claws are blunt ..." gets a citation, you can combine the sentences, e.g. "Brown bear claws are longer, straighter and blunt, while those of American black bears are shorter, straighter and sharp" - and then move it before the more detailed description of browns' claws - this will give readers a word picture before they work through the details. --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "They may reach 5 to 6 centimetres (2.0 to 2.4 in) and sometimes 7 to 10 centimetres (2.8 to 3.9 in) along the curve" is unclear. Do you mean typical is 5 to 6 centimetres and very large is 7 to 10 centimetres? If not, I'm confused. --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "They are never less than 6 centimetres (2.4 in) in length" is also confusing, considering that the previous sentence says "They may reach 5 to 6 centimetres (2.0 to 2.4 in)" --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Nothing about the sockets, and whether the length include or excludes the sockets. --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In "They are generally dark with a light tip (hence, the name "grizzly"), ..." the etymology surpises me. Grizzly_Bear#Name has the one I heard often, and has a good citation. One of them has to be wrong. --Philcha (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What does "concave" mean is "Adults have massive, heavily built concave skulls which are large in proportion to the body." E.g. do you mean that the steep forehead form a concavity at the joint between forehead and rear of snout? --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The projections of the skull are well developed when compared to those of Asian black bears: the latter have sagittal crests not exceeding more than 19-20% of the total length of the skull, while the former have sagittal crests comprising up to 40-41% of the skull's length" could be clarified, e.g. "The sagittal crests of brown bears are up to 40-41% of the skull's length, while those of Asian black bears do not exceeding 19-20% of the total skull length." --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The second upper molar is smaller than the others, and is usually absent in adults. It is usually lost at an early age, leaving no trace of the alveolus in the jaw" could be simplified. --16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikilink alveolus. I'd also add "(socket)". --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy and evolution[edit]

  • W-link to Ursus etruscus. --Philcha (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The formatting of citation to "A REVIEW OF BEAR EVOLUTION" by McLennan & Reiner is a mess: --Philcha (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Some words combined, other split. Copy PFDs can be a pain sometimes, and you just have to check every word.
    • Use lower or title case, not upper. This is another pain, but fortunately can be help by tools - if you have a word processor that may have a "change case" tool; if not, you can get a free text editor that has a "change case" tool, such as ConTEXT. --Philcha (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The date / year of publication is need for any citation - it may be so long that it's obsolete.
    • I see that more of the citations are formatted by citation templates, which are for consistency. Please check all other citations for consistent formatting. The "Hints" section of this review recommends a tool that make it easy to create citations (I used it in every article).
  • "possibility of two separate brown bear migrations" is vague - ? "... migrations into North America"? --Philcha (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Apparently you expect readers will recognise China, Europe, North Africa, but not British Isles - hmmm, did you note my variety of English? . I think reader will need w-links for Pleistocene, Kodiak bears, Kamchatka (is that's from the Risk game?), Ontario, Ohio, Kentucky and Labrador (for readers outside N Amercia). --Philcha (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Arctodus simus is often named as "giant short-faced bear" --Philcha (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


  • The text in this section is a mess - but you can blame the government (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife) :-) I'm sure the scientists who wrote the original paragraphs on the taxonomy knew what they were doing, but the final form of the paper is a policy document ("to establish a distinct population segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) for the greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and surrounding area. We also propose to remove the Yellowstone DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife") that's being re-drafted a few times, and what the scientists wrote has been distorted in translation. Moral: go back to the original scientific papers. --Philcha (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Clades and subspecies are totally different ways of classification things. Subspecies are a level of the Linnaean taxonomy and are means to be exclusive, so that an individual is a member of only one Subspecies. A clade is "a group composed of a single ancestor and all its descendants", and clades can be be nested any numbers levels, i.e. there can be clades in clades in clades in clades in clades in ... A subspecies can be part of a high-level clade and partly of a lower-level clade one - and clades and subspecies are totally different that a subspecies can be in parts of clades and the same clades can also include parts of other subspecies. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service document says Rausch (1963) recognised "2 subspecies in North America, U. a. middendorfi on the islands of the Kodiak archipelago and U. a. horribilis in the rest of North America", but says of brown bears "Clade II from Admiralty, Baronoff, and Chichagof islands in Alaska; Clade III from eastern Europe, Asia, and western Alaska; Clade IV from southern Canada and the lower 48 United States; and Clade V from eastern Alaska and northern Canada" - e.g. Clade IV and V occur on North America excl Alaska, Clade III is all other the place inluding Alaska, but Clade II is also part of Rausch' "U. a. middendorfi on the islands of the Kodiak archipelago". For this article I think you should omit clades, otherwise you'll get thorougly confused. --Philcha (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "recent DNA analysis" is a discipline called "molecular phylogeny", which is the [cladistics]] to biochemistry rather than morphology. These days molecular phylogeny mostly about DNA (the first analysis were comparisons of proteins), but there are different types of DNA - e.g. the the Fish and Wildlife Service document mentions mitochondrial DNA, but many analysis use rDNA - and somtimes they get different results. Another reason for omitting clades until you know more. --Philcha (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've never read about phylogeography, and wouldn't write about it without some study. --Philcha (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So I think that for now you should stick with "... have proposed as many as 90 sub-species. As of 2005, 16 subspecies have been recognised." --Philcha (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


  • No citation for "Previously, the hybrid had been produced in zoos ..." --Philcha (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "cryptid" looks like one of these words that means what the author means - sometimes fairly sensible, as here ("not in the wilder, but a few in zoos), to sensationalism, as in "encounter with Yeti". --Philcha (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(rest of the main text)[edit]

You need to check the rest of the article for the types of issues I've raised after:

  • Basic science. ---Philcha (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Citations needed. --Philcha (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Formatting of citations. --Philcha (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearer phrasing. --Philcha (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of wikilinks. --Philcha (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Links validity check[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Use of images[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)


(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)


  • Note to reviewer Philcha: a very thorough review, but your use of level-2 and level-3 headers was very disruptive to the WP:PR page structure. I've converted them all to level-4 which is OK. Please note for future use. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on making it better.

Also, I was looking at the Category:Tabletop games and I didn't see a way to navigate to Category:Tile-based board games. How can I create a subcategory on Category:Tabletop games?

Thanks, RexJacobus (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha
  • I notice that the Boardgamegeek page seems to describe a game from the 2 other pages you mention - and this comment from Boardgamegeek says the main Boardgamegeek page is out of date. If this is correct, the game is still evolving and you will need to keep updating the article. I think you would get more results for the effort if you choose a more stable subject. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The "first rules" seems to describe the 2-player strategy. However it links to Play Palago, which seems to describe othe variants. Play Palago is also one of the most irritating pages I've seem - try clinking "Enter" to see that I mean - it's a basic newbie web page designer error, and makes the whole enterprise look unprofessional. Its only benefit that it outlines other variants / games uses with the tile set. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Apart from the pages I've mentioned, Google found me nothing useful. In desperation I tried Google Scholar, where the academic articles live, but the only half relevant hit was Duotone Truchet-like tilings, an article by Cameron Browne - unfortunate in a subscription-only journal for while I don't access, so I can't see how far the article is any a variant of the game and how far its about the tile set. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • At present I suspect Palago is at risk of being deleted if it was nominated for deletion review, because it's hard to see that its notable by WPs rules. I suspect you should save a copy in a subpage of your user page, e.g. User:RexJacobus/Palago. Sorry for the pessimistic review, but sometimes you just can't get enough sources - I had to give up on 3 where I get sources for some of the sections but not for others. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been told that it is not far from FAC level in many respects, but that other issues require major work to get to that level.

I suspect that the language and grammar needs a make-over, and I have started fixing things like missing non-breaking spaces and alt texts, but I bet there is a ton of other things to do.

Please advise!

Thanks, HMallison (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm doing a proofread/copy-edit. I'll post anything content-related here.
  • The following two sentences "This indicates that Plateosaurus probably had an avian-style flow-through lung. The tail of Plateosaurus was typically dinosaurian, with high mobility." could do with citations. --JN466 08:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Done HMallison (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "While the bones are often significantly deformed, Frick yields skeletons comparable in completeness and position to those of Trossingen and Halberstadt": I am not sure "deformed" is the right word here. A "deformed bone" sounds like a pathological condition; however I suspect this is a comment on the state of preservation of the bones. --JN466 08:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. QUESTION: "taphonomy" is wikilinked in the lead, and at the start of its own seciton. Should I also wikilink "taphonomic" here? HMallison (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea, and I've done it. --JN466 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for doing this! I have read that text so often that I can recite it in my sleep, so I never pick up any errors anymore. HMallison (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I know the feeling. :) Will continue later today. --JN466 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Initially, when the genus was poorly known, it was only included in Sauria, with the possibility of being some kind of reptile." Can that be reworded? If it was included in Sauria, that already implied it was a reptile. --JN466 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The first explanation was offered by Agassiz, who listed Greek platy/πλατη (paddle, rudder; Agassiz translates as Latin pala = spade) and sauros/σαυρος (lizard)": This sentence needs recasting and clarifying. Did Aggasiz translate πλατη as pala? If so, then we should probably say, "Agassiz translated this as Latin pala = spade". --JN466 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed HMallison (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a note to let you know I haven't finished reading through the article yet and will come back to it later. JN466 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
take your time! HMallison (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest it might be best to attribute the Etymology section, as it follows the reasoning of one source that has looked at the history of the name in depth (and concluded that many other sources are perpetuating popular misconceptions). Just a mention of the author's name in the text would take care of it. --JN466 11:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
better now? I hate writing "the following follows...." or so, even if it only is because I actually went and got copies of the sources and checked that Moser cited correctly. HMallison (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, better. --JN466 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Sellosaurus is also seen as a synonym, but Moser does not state clearly whether he considers S. gracilis to be identical to P. engelhardti." As this sentence is cited to Moser, the "does not state clearly" comment on Moser is a bit OR-ish. --JN466 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thinking about the previous point further – we say "P. gracilis, formerly known as Sellosaurus". So Sellosaurus gracilis = Plateosaurus gracilis. Moser (ref 4) accepts the distinction between P. engelhardti and P. gracilis, according to the first sentence: "As of 2009, only two species are accepted as valid,[4][8] the type species P. engelhardti and the older P. gracilis, previously referred to as its own genus Sellosaurus". If that is so, isn't Moser then clear that S. gracilis (= P. gracilis) is not identical to P. engelhardti? --JN466 12:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We have both Gressylosaurus and Gresslyosaurus in the article. Both spellings occur in reliable sources, but Gresslyosaurus appears more frequently and is probably correct (I suspect the genus is named after Amanz Gressly). --JN466 12:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed HMallison (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Sellosaurus: Moser is not clear - which is not OR, but simply reading his text. He says that the validitiy of Sellosaurus as a genus is questionable, but he does not say anything on the question at species level. Not even a 'no comment'. Regarding the first sentence: :it should read like this: "As of 2009, only two species are accepted as valid, the type species P. engelhardti[4][8] and the older P. gracilis, previously referred to as its own genus Sellosaurus".[8] Moser and Yates accept P. engelhardti, and Yates puts S. gracilis into P.. Does the above version reflect the facts better? HMallison (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean that Moser does not mention P. gracilis at all, and in fact does not mention there being two valid species? (Please bear with me if I appear slow here.) --JN466 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Not slow at all! Moser says all prosauropod stuff supposed to be a bunch of Plateosaurus species and a long list of genera is P. engelhardti. However, he cautions that not ALL prosauropd material is P. engelhardti. Of Sellosaurus, he says that the supposed differences are not sufficient to warrant generic separation. He does list preliminarily differences to Gresslyosaurus, based on figures in the literature, but does not disprove Galton's suggestion of synonomy.
Thus, he does say that Sellosaurus is Plateosaurus, but does not say anything about the species level at all. it is purely a discussion at the genus level. This automatically means that S. gracilis should turn into P. gracilis, but Moser does not write this in the taxonomy section, and Moser does not discuss at all if that then is a synonym of P. engelhardti HMallison (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the elegant solution is to limit ourselves to what Moser actually has said. E.g. we could say, Moser also considers Sellosaurus to be the same genus as Plateosaurus., leaving the species question unaddressed, just as it is unaddressed in the source. --JN466 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, after a quick re-read of Moser I am re-writing. HMallison (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We sometimes give von Huene's full surname "von Huene", and sometimes we just have "Huene". Unless there is a different precedent in the English sources, I think we should say "von Huene" throughout. --JN466 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
will fix. HMallison (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "In contrast, von Huene interpreted the sediment as aeolian deposits, with the weakest animals, mostly juveniles, succumbing to the harsh conditions in the desert and sinking into the mud of ephemeral water holes" -- the wikilink on aeolian deposits doesn't help a young reader very much. I believe we are trying to say that the sediments in which the bones were embedded gave the appearance of having been wind deposits or dunes. Am I reading it correctly? And could we indicate which site(s) von Huene is talking about -- Trossingen, Frick and/or Halberstadt? --JN466 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right on target, he wrongly thought it was wind deposits. I'll reword after I have done this:
need to re-read the old papers to make sure I list the localities correctly. HMallison (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Another thing that strikes me about this paragraph is that we have von Huene implying that the remains found are primarily those of "juvenile" animals, whereas in the previous paragraph we have said they are "all adults or sub-adults; no juveniles or hatchlings are known". Perhaps this reflects different uses of the term "juvenile" (nearer the hatchling vs. the sub-adult end of the spectrum), but if possible we should resolve the contradiction in the way we use the terms in the article. --JN466 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
My fault, it is indeed different uses of the term that caused the confusion (FIXED). Additionally, Huene called animals non-adults (juveniles) that were fully grown, because he did not know about developmental plasticity in P. HMallison (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Current interpretation": This paragraph does not cite its sources (or rather, it needs an inline citation to Sander). --JN466 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
is the fix sufficient? HMallison (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to add an inline citation to Sander. Is it Sander 1992: "The Norian Plateosaurus bonebeds of central Europe and their taphonomy". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 93(3–4):255–299? One at the end of the paragraph will be enough; we don't need one after each sentence if the whole para is sourced and attributed to Sander. --JN466 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Gagh! I should not work after midnight, I forgot to add the ref tag I opened the edit window for! HMallison (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 :) --JN466 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The old, widely cited idea that large dinosaurs, including Plateosaurus, swallowed gastroliths (gizzard stones) to digest food because of their relatively limited ability to deal with food orally has been refuted by a study on gastrolith abundance, weight, and surface structure in fossils compared to alligators and ostriches by Oliver Wings." I am confused here. On the one hand, the sentence sounds as though Plateosaurs didn't have gastroliths. On the other hand, we are saying that this conclusion was based on "gastrolith abundance, weight, and surface structure in fossils", meaning that there must have been gastroliths. What am I missing? --

JN466 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

what you are missing is what is not said, but should be: the gastrolith hypothesis was based on a few finds, none of the Plateosaurus. It was expanded into a universal claim. It is false for all. I'll fix.HMallison (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Similar to all non-avian dinosaurs studied to date, Plateosaurus grew in a pattern that is dissimilar to both extant mammals and other dinosaurs." The apparent logical contradiction needs to be resolved. --JN466 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"other" relates to the "non-avian dinosaurs", thus equals "avian dinosaurs". Fixing. HMallison (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Are the comments about humans' atypical growth habit also sourced to Sander & Klein? --JN466 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
No, and I can't remember where that is from. Textbook probably. I'll have to check HMallison (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Due to the absence of individuals smaller than 4.8 metres (16 ft) long, it is not possible to deduce a complete ontogenetic series for Plateosaurus, or determine the growth rate of animals under 10 years of age." -- This sentence lacks a citation. (I am also thinking: if the researchers were able to identify that an animal was 12, or 27, years old, would they not also know how much the individual grew during each of its first 10 years? I suppose telling that an animal was 12 years old involves some sort of functional equivalent to tree rings -- and the tree rings of a 12-year-old tree do enable an assessment of how fast the tree grew in the first 10 years.) --JN466 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sander and Klein again (I'll add). And no, since growth can be wildly non-linear, growth from 10 to 25 does not tell you anything about growth before. Also (I did not want to go too far into details), there is the problem that if growth was very slow initially, the ten year estimate may be off, because more 'rings' (lines of arrested growth) may have been absorbed. Alternatively, extremely fast growth may not have produced LAGs...... I glossed over this, because it has no place in this article, it should have its own. HMallison (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
When you say "growth from 10 to 25 does not tell you anything about growth before", how then do you know that 10 is 10 and not, say, 17? After all, the animal was 25 (say) when it died. Somehow you can tell how much it grew from 10 to 25. The task of telling how much it grew from 10 to 25 does not seem to be different in nature from telling how much it grew from 8 to 20, or 6 to 15, or 3 to 12. And if you knew that, you'd also know how much it grew from 3 to 6 to 8 to 10. (Just out of interest ...) --JN466 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I did say this needs its own article *grin* Indeed, 10 may not be 10, because this is a number estimated from what is preserved. THe innermost, early LAGs are always demolished when the marrow cavity expands. Os you can tell grows from a certain point, which initially is 0 years, but then moves up. Thus, you need a series that includes babies to be sure - and we lack them for P.. So we can estimate the amount of material missing, as well the number of LAGs missing, and this gives us an average estimates growth for the missing time period, but no details. If the curve was not linear, we are off. HMallison (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks; it makes sense now! :)
  • I am now once through. Just as a general point, FAC reviewers may ask you to add plain English paraphrases for the more obscure scientific terms like "aeolian deposits", "lagerstätte", "digitigrade", "pronate" etc. just so we don't lose our younger audience. Additional points you could mention, sources permitting: The paleobiology could perhaps mention significant predators and likely types of plants eaten. The evolutionary relationship to sauropods might be worth a mention as well somewhere, given that Plateosaurus is the most prominent prosauropod. Otherwise it looks good. Impressive range of scholarly sources. --JN466 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very' much! You have been most helpful and thorough, and your work has greatly improved this article! I'll follow your additional suggestions, too, because they make a lot fo sense. HMallison (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Pleasure. Do let me know if and when you take the article to FAC. --JN466 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Roger, wilco! HMallison (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was promoted to GA last year, and I would like to see if it can be taken to FAC in something approaching its present state. It is a contentious topic, one of the few recent sources of diplomatic tension between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States, highlighting different approaches to religious freedom.

Thanks, JN466 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


JN, nice article, and quite interesting to read. I knew nothing about Scientology in Germany, other than it was a fraught topic, and the Germans were quite upset about it. This has the potential for FAC, I think, but its prose needs some help, especially at the beginning, and there are a couple places of structural weakness.

  • You've beat around the bush on some of the verb structures. For example, in the lead, A majority of the German population is in favour of banning Scientology altogether. ...In xxxx, a majority of Germans favoured banning Scientology altogether.
  • Strangely enough, the weakest part seems to be the background section. I would identify up front that the movement has Utopian aspirations, rather than waiting for the end of the first paragraph. You might even include a more detailed section on "what is Scientology". I know you've linked to the article, but I don't really want to go there, not for a whole article on it, yet I do need to know more than one or two sentences for this article to have its best impact.
  • Some of your sentences seem to combine two ideas (or more) ideas into one sentence, and probably should be more carefully planned out. Sentences like this one: The financial aspect that ties self-improvement to donations has brought controversy to Scientology throughout much of its history, with governments classing it as a profit-making enterprise rather than as a religion. First, that Scientology connects self-improvement to an individual's donations is unclear to me. If I cannot make a donation, then I cannot improve myself? Or that to get rid of those engrams, I have to improve myself, and must make donations. And is this different from fee for service (which isn't a donation).
  • the information on the population of scientologists -- 5,000 by the official German count, 30,000 by the Scientology count, is very interesting, and is a bit buried. I think there could also be some comparison of the statistics of religions in general. and if it is 5,000, this is, what, 6/100,000th of the population? How does this stack up with Jehovah's witnesses, or Quakers?
  • why did Travolta meet with Clinton? Was it to discuss Scientology? or just to have a beer?
  • minor stuff: in a few places, your quotation marks are outside the punctuation, and in some others, inside.
  • I fixed a few glaring points, hope that's okay. I'll be glad to go through this with an edit pencil if you'd like, but it would be next week or the week after. Let me know. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks very much for your feedback and your edits. I think you've laid your finger on a few sore spots, and I'll get to work addressing them. Your editing pencil is very welcome when you have time! The prose and flow can definitely do with a bit of fluffing up. --JN466 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    I believe the number of Quakers in Germany is even smaller, just a few hundred. Jehovah's Witnesses are far more significant at around 165,000 members in Germany; they have also been very controversial, but have recently won some religious rights. I've added a little more info on membership estimates for Scientology, and clarified the passage about the monetary aspect. --JN466 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The statement you made below about the connection to Catholicism and Lutheranism....that was interesting, and is a possible reason for the German state's strong opposition. Also, it would be interesting to have brief comparisons to Belgium and France. I think you linked there, but perhaps a short explanation of what the differences are would be in order.
The other comment about the active voice in the beginning is appropriate, and perhaps it would make some sense to go through and work the active voice into the later sections as well. Active voice versus the convoluted use of verbs (not necessarily passive voice)—it's a germanism ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Me?? Germanisms? Nevvah! :) I'll do some more research on the role of the churches, neighbouring countries, and other NRMs in Germany. And I'll try to get hold of this paper: [2] Unfortunately, right now RL is impinging again. --JN466 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Panyd Comments - Just looking at the first few sections of this.

  • There is no need to say: Scientology, a new religious movement with a long history of controversy in countries all over the world in the introduction. You are already saying that the movement has encounter antagonism in Germany, anything else is superfluous.
  • There is also no need to say: A majority of the Herman population favors banning Scientology - this is relevant but doesn't seem to fit in the opening paragraph. Especially as you go into more depth about it later on in the article.
  • Unless you use a direct quote it isn't good to say: but views it as an abusive business masquerading as a religion etc. That's slanderous. However, I know you have quotes so it's a good idea to put them in there!
  • In the background section the second mention of Scientology as a controversial new religious group also seems superfluous.
  • Everything from The fact that Scientologists have to pay to significant sums of money for Scientology courses is unnecessary as this is dealt with on the Scientology article itself and isn't specifically relevant to the movement in Germany. Same with Germany is not alone in opposing to Belgium, Greece and the UK.
  • The introduction to the comparison of Scientology to the Nazis isn't handled very well. There is obviously a lot to be said about this but saying: Given the lessons of Germany's 20th century seems to be clumsy phrasing and suggests a POV as opposed to later where it seems you are talking about the scholarly research into the similarities.

Just a few thoughts on the opening sections. It's a fantastic article, just needs the POV squeezed out of it! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'll look into these. --JN466 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Lambanog comments:

  • Early on there seem to be a lot of active voice statements. Some variety in sentence structure might improve flow a little.
  • Related to the above Scientology seems to be repeated over and over. Maybe a way to apply more pronouns and synonyms can be found.
  • The article is Scientology in Germany but it doesn't seem to go into great detail on why Germany in particular treats Scientology the way it does. Yes there's the Nazi analogy, but could there be other reasons?
  • Are there other groups that fall afoul of the German government in the same way? For example do The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Unification Church, and Soka Gakkai meet with the same reception? Why or why not?
  • Despite the criticism section I detect a German slant to the article. Maybe instead of isolating the sides in their own sections, more attempts at portraying the other side should be made throughout the article. Lambanog (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll look into the repetitiveness. It is a difficult article to weight right. Earlier on I had people shouting at me that the article was "racist" and against Germans. :) The background section at the beginning was partly a result of that. As for your question about other reasons for Germany's behaviour, the German state still has strong links to the two established and dominant Christian churches (Catholics and Lutherans, for whom it has traditionally collected taxes). There is not such a broad and varied religious landscape as there is in the States. Of course, there is a similar situation in other European countries, especially France and Belgium, whose treatment of religious minorities has been criticised as well. (See [3].) Germany has a particular thing about Scientology though. No other group is so vilified and stigmatized. Does this make sense?
I may not have much time to work on the article the next couple of days, but will drop you a note once I have gotten round to it. If you have any further ideas in the meantime, please just add them below. --JN466 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
No need for a response. I simply wanted to make what I hope were some constructive comments since I read the article. Good luck with it! Lambanog (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I very much appreciate the feedback. --JN466 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about whether there are some statement that need more support and to see how well it conforms to Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. But most of all, some outside the box ideas on how to improve this page in any way and make it an easier read for the viewer. Reviewing this article is quite a task, but I think it could really make FA status with some new suggestions from uninvolved users to improve it's readability.

Many Thanks, Outback the koala (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Danger comments:

  • This is not a list. If you would like to have this article featured, it will need to comply with the featured article criteria. More to come.--Danger (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My suggestion regarding size: Make sure to use summary style. Consider moving details, for example, of specific events to the articles for those events. This article needs a lot of paring down. It nearly crashes my browser and my technology is up to date. 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Wow! It's a hell of an article. It's very big. The stats are:
    • File size: 584 kB
    • Wiki text: 186 kB
    • Prose size (text only): 77 kB
      • If you wish to get this to Featured Article status you may have to bring it more into line with WP:SIZE. I confess its length did start to grind me down after a while, so I would approve of some streamlining. However, I do appreciate that part of the reason for its length is the desire to report the conflict from all sides, which is something I support.
  • Good maps and pictures, they really add to the article, well done.
  • However, some of the images have 'permissions' given only in a foreign language. These should be translated.
  • A couple of the images, eg File:Georgian_army_leaving_South_Ossetia.jpg have watermarks on. The file has a notice saying that the watermark should be removed.
  • Very good work overall; lots of references, incredibly thorough, good job. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to the Science of Hadith[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to know how an article I have put a considerable amount of work into is received by those reading it, including suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, Supertouch (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha

I have no knowledge, so am no in a position to do a real review. But I noticed only thing you need to fix - I gone through a step of 3 wikilinks from Introduction to the Science of Hadith, and still have not found what "Hadith" means. You need a clear, concise definition. --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with Pilcha, some context is necessary. A one sentence (or in brackets) definition of hadith would really help in the lead.
  • Similarly it would be much improved if there were a section, perhaps called Background, that tells us a little more about hadith, hadith science, hadith terminology and such. Also useful would be some sense of what was going on in the Islamic world at this time; was there anything happening within the religion or politically that inspired the writer to produce this book?
  • Nothing is said about the writer; I know we have an article on him, but perhaps some brief points could be added to this article.
  • All in all, it's not a bad article, it just doesn't help a non-Muslim to understand the subject very much. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Drexel University alumni[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've overhauled this list over the last two months and think that it could be ready for FL but I'd like some feedback beforehand. Prose isn't my strong suit and this is my first time adding alt text so any comments on those particular areas would be appreciated as well as any comments/improvement suggest on the list in general. Thanks, --ImGz (t/c) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Medicine and NASA seem to be subcategories of the broader Science and engineering category. I suggest that you reorganize the list as such. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I've moved NASA into a subsection of the Science and engineering heading but I've left Medicine as is for now. Drexel's medicine curriculum is relatively separate from it's S&E curriculum, so I'm not sure it would fall under the heading. --ImGz (t/c) 05:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting list, nicely illustrated. I have several suggestions for improvement.

Alt text

  • You asked about alt text. The portrait subsection at WP:ALT has good examples of how to describe portraits. I think yours are generally pretty good, but I'd suggest eliminating mentioning that each image is a photo, and it's best not to include background information not apparent in the image itself. For example, "A black and white photo of a group of seven male graduate students in suits, three sitting and four standing, against a dark background" does not need the phrase "A black and white photo" and should not include the idea that these are graduate students since nothing in the image suggests that. Better would be "Seven men, three seated and four standing behind the three, look straight ahead with solemn expressions. Formally dressed in suits and ties, the men are about age 20."
I'll work on this today Looked at ALT and a few recent FA's - tried to clean these up a little.


  • I don't think this layout will survive FLC. You need to find a way or ways to pull the material together without all the huge white spaces. I often find it useful to look for models to imitate among the articles at WP:FA or WP:FL. See, for example, how List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni handles the space problem. If you like the looks of the Georgia article, you can imitate the coding to get a similar result. Or, if you look at other FLs that you like, you might find other solutions.
Could you explain what you mean by huge white spaces? Perhaps it's my browser/screen size (1280x800 and I've checked on 1024x768) but I'm not seeing a ton of white space besides the one section without a photo. I based the formatting on this list off of the most recent alumni list to pass FLC, List of University of Central Florida alumni, which also has sections without photos, but like List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government I can extend that picture-less section table to take up the entire screen width if that's the problem.
Ah, glad you asked. I looked at the list article just now on two other monitors, and it looks fine. It's only on my laptop, set at 1024 x 768, that the problem appears. On my laptop, the images in the main text (but not the lead) are completely separated from the tables. The pattern is (1) table, (2) big white space with images to the far right, (3) table, (4) big white space with images to the far right, and so on to the end of the main text. Setting the table width to 75 percent rather than 80 percent appears to solve the problem. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks! I've changed it from 80% to 75% so hopefully that will fix that, odd that it never showed up for me. --ImGz (t/c) 18:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks fine now on both laptop and desktop. Finetooth (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


  • It would be good to mention that Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is in the United States. Not all readers who live elsewhere will know that. Then "the nation" in the second sentence will make perfect sense.
  • "inventor of bar code technology" - Wikilink bar code?
Done, the lead has it spelled out with the abbreviation beside it and the list uses the abbreviation
Done, same as above


  • "American architect, founding dean of 3 architecture schools and official architect for 2 universities and one state system of 3 universities" - Generally, numbers from one to nine are written as words.


  • "American architect known for his work in the Art Deco" - Link Art Deco?

Science and engineering



  • Consider linking individual states on first use since readers who live outside the U.S. may not know what Alabama, for example, refers to.
Done, I think I got the first usage linked --ImGz (t/c) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PSR B1937+21[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that while the article is fairly complete, it is not perfect, and another set of eyes would be very useful. I would like to see it reach at least good article status, and perhaps even use this process to try to help the article reach featured status.

Thanks, James McBride (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Prose is great, sources are great, flow is good. My only suggestion would be to add a star map showing the location. Even without that, I think this is ready for GAN. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and the suggestion. I am not sure what to do regarding a star map though other than just take the image from the Vulpecula constellation article. Is that what you had in mind, or is there something else I might do? James McBride (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • More along the lines of starting with that star map and having a dot on it showing the relative position of the pulsar. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 05:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Is there something other than PP3 (which was how the Vulpecula map was generated) that you know of that Wikipedians use? I looked in to using that, and it seems like something of a hassle to get installed and use to generate a single plot. James McBride (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Nothing fancy needed. Just take the current PNG and add a dot to it in your favorite image editing software. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that this looks very good and think it is at least at GA quality, and probably would do well at FAC with a few tweaks. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • et al. is Latin and is usually italicized
  • The disambiguation link finder finds two dab links (tools in the top right corner)
  • I am not an astronomer, so I do not know if this is comprehensive or not. What is there reads well and is clear and does a good job explaining technical things in laymen's terms. Still it seems to me that there are at least two things that probably need to be added to the article to insure comprehensiveness (a FA criterion)
    • I would explain the origin of the name - I imagine this only needs a sentence or two and it seems likely that PSR means pulsar and the 19 and 21 seem like they have something to do with the first two digits of the Right ascension and declination, but I would still explain it.
    • I also think the article would benefit from a brief explanation of how pulsars are formed. I think this could be a short paragraph, but think it would help clarify some of the rest of the article.
  • Would File:Pulsar schematic.svg be a useful image to add?
  • I think the internet refs need an access date added per WP:CITE (unless there is some sort of WikiProject:Astronomy guideline on this
  • I also like it when all of the authors of articles are listed (and not just et al.)
  • There are a few places that seem to need references - This implied that if no external mechanism had accelerated the pulsar's spin rate, PSR B1937+21 had to be very young. or this The data are consistent with a companion having a mass similar to Ceres and located at 2.71 astronomical units from the pulsar, but data over a longer period of time are required in order to verify the proposed companion.

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 ><>°° 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • This is very useful, thank you! I addressed some of your first points already, and will address the rest in the next few days. I have one question though. I think the only web citation is to the ATNF database, which does have an accessdate. All of the rest of the references are journal articles. James McBride (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think when there is an external link in the ref, the access date is generally provided (so for example when a newspaper article available online is cited, the print information and the URL are both given, and the access date for the web version is given). Again there may be Astronomy article conventions I do not know that do not require this, but it may be one of those things asked for at GAN or FAC. Glad to be of help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Review by RJHall It looks pretty good. However, some of the wording could perhaps be tightened up a little per Ton's criteria.

  • "The remarkable properties..." 'Remarkable' here seems possibly to be edging toward hyperbole and may be considered unencyclopedic to some. You could quote it, if you have a source.
  • In "...that pulsars are actually highly...", I think the 'actually' is unnecessary here.
  • In " of a massive star", this might be considered unnecessary vagueness because all stars may be considered massive. Perhaps list a minimum mass instead.
  • In the "Background" section, you might add that the magnetic poles are not necessarily aligned with the poles of rotation (as per the illustration).
  • The 'scintars' term should be wikilinked, per WP:JARGON.
  • In "Even so, the initial search plan..." the 'Even so' may be unnecessary.
  • In "Backer finally determined" the 'finally' is unnecessary.
  • In the "Spin down rate", it may help to briefly explain why pulsars spin down.
  • In "centrifugal force overcomes the self-gravity of the pulsar and it is ripped apart", would it be ripped apart or just shed matter (during collapse) until the two forces were in balance?
  • Perhaps I am missing something, but to me the example presented with, "A simple indication of this is that assuming...," doesn't seem to demonstrate the issue. I.e. it is just used to give the equatorial velocity, rather than comparing the forces.
  • In "The exact value of..." the 'exact' appears unnecessary.
  • For the "Such a low age for the pulsar was at odds..." paragraph, I think it is important to explain the connection between SNRs/X-ray sources and the formation of pulsars. It would also help to explain to the reader why the SNR/X-rays sources would need to be in the vicinity to justify the low age estimate for the pulsar.
  • Per "65,000 janskys", usually some fussy person will come along and convert entries like this into SI units. For stability, I find it helps to list both values with one of them in parens. (Example: see the lead of Cyg X-1.)
  • "As of 2009, it remains..." Please disambiguate "it" here.
  • "As the first discovered... it provided..." Which of the two 'as's is appropriate?

Thank you for developing this article.—RJH (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this list of suggestions! I'll have to take a closer look at that style guidelines articles soon. I think I addressed all of your points except for the one about the centrifugal force. I'll look more in to that point later. In a couple of cases, I just eliminated the issues. For instance, scintar does not need an article, as it was discarded soon after it was suggested. Also, I debated the "simple indication" for awhile before adding it, and six months later, I do not think it adds anything. James McBride (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I have addressed all issues now. Thank you again for the extensive comments. James McBride (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Glad I could be of some help.—RJH (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave Smallen[edit]

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

I've made it for Dave Smallen personally, and he's provided me with all of the provided information.

Thanks, Arielphipps (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Danger comments: The most obvious improvement that needs to be made is including references. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable and this means providing reliable sources to support the information in the article. The subject himself does not count as a source because there is no way for other editors to verify the information that he has supplied to you. Because the subject is a living person, this is especially important.

Additionally, the article currently does not prove the notability of the subject. Wikipedia requires sources independent of the subject to meet this criterion. The subject's MySpace is not a third party source, while a review in a magazine or newspaper would be. --Danger (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This article is not suitable for peer review, which is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." The article is very slight, and has two major cleanup banners. The review should be closed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

  • Agree this needs refs to establish notability. Without them it may be deleted.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded beyond one sentence.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Any chance for a free image of him?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many articles on musicians at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be good models.

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
In the last week, I have given this article a complete overhaul in a major push for the FA nomination. The article now contains 180 citations from 69 books, five (reputable) internet sources, and 1 academic journal. At 109 kb, it's fairly short for such a popular subject. I feel very confident that it meets all FA criteria. However, I know that it still needs a few finishing touches before I nominate it, like way more links and some copyediting.

I have an extensive history with featured articles, having single-handedly written and nominated five already. But this is the first time in four years that I'm trying to nominate a new one and I really would appreciate your strongest criticisms. Be brutal and deliberately scathing. I don't want to hear what you like or what you think I did well. I know all of that ready. I want you to hit hard and tell me what you think I did wrong. I want to be well-prepared for the FA nomination. Thank you in advance for your help!UberCryxic (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No feedback here: a GA review might get the necessary attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment No substantial comment from me, but one incredibly small nitpick: we don't use ibid on wiki (it's especially troublesome on such a widely read article as this). See WP:IBID. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'll get on that.UberCryxic (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed.UberCryxic (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a GA of decent length and I believe that sufficient information is available to fill any gaps currently in the article in order to get it up to FA. However, I've never worked on a FA before so am unsure where to go with the article. I've checked out the Beagle article, which is currently the only dog breed FA article.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: These are really cute dogs, and the article's illustrations are quite charming. The article text is pretty good but needs another copyedit for small errors. I found and fixed quite a few small things, and I mention others below. You'll need to add alt text to meet FA requirements and make sure that all of your sources meet the WP:RS guidelines. I think the "History" section should come first rather than last.


  • "Breed standards state that height of a Cavalier should be between 30 and 33 cm (12–13 in)... ". - Here the metric units are primary and the imperial units are secondary, but in the infobox you have the reverse order (lb. and kg). It would be best to decide which order is best and then stick with it consistently throughout. Since the article is more-or-less U.K.-centric, probably imperial as the primary would be best.
  • The primary units (pounds, inches) should be spelled out and the secondary units abbreviated.
  • "The tail is usually not docked, and is well feathered with long hair, although standards record that it should be free from curl. The Cavalier has a silky coat of moderate length. Standards state that it should be free from curl, although a slight wave is allowed." - Repetitious.
  • "It can grow feathering on their ears, feet, legs and tail in adulthood." - Not sure what "it" refers to.


  • I'd suggest merging the two one-sentence orphan paragraphs at the end of this section with the first paragraph.


  • "Being a spaniel they have a strong hunting instinct, and therefore should be watched around birds and small animals." - "Should" makes this sound a bit like a set of instructions to the reader. It might be better to say, "Spaniels have a strong hunting instinct and may endanger birds and small animals."
  • "However, owners have reported that through training their Cavaliers live happily with various hamsters, gerbils and so on." - Tighten by deleting "various" and "and so on"? Wikilink hamsters and gerbils? Add other specific animals to replace "and so on". Or just stop after hamsters and gerbils.


  • "English Toy/King Charles Spaniels" - In general it's best to replace the front slash with a word because the front slash may be misinterpreted. Here and elsewhere in the article, "English Toy and King Charles spaniels" would be better.
  • "The health problems shared with English Toy/King Charles Spaniels include mitral valve disease, luxating patella, and hereditary eye issues such as cataracts and retinal dysplasia." - Move link for "luxating patella" up to first instance (a few sentences above this one). Add links for cataract and retinal dysplasia?


  • "Although symptoms of syringomyelia can present at any age, they typically appear between six months and four years of age in 85% of symptomatic dogs, according to Dr Rusbridge" - Full name needed here on first mention of Rusbridge. Also, instead of "Dr." it would be better to say what kind of doctor he or she is or to use a descriptive phrase; i.e., Clare Rusbridge, a research scientist.
  • The third paragraph of this section needs a source.
  • Wikilink ear mites?

Episodic Falling (EF)

  • "Except for severe cases, episodes will be in response to exercise, excitement or similar." - Missing word? Perhaps "... excitement or something similar"?
  • "Although it is often misdiagnosed as epilepsy, the dog remains conscious throughout the episode." - The dog isn't diagnosed as epilepsy. Suggestion: "Although EF is often misdiagnosed as epilepsy, which typically results in loss of consciousness, the dog remains conscious throughout the episode." I'm not sure if my added phrase is true or not, so you might think of a better way to put this.
  • "The onset of symptoms is usually before five months but can appear at any age." - Perhaps "usually occurs" rather than "is usually"?

Hip and knee disorders

  • This section needs citations to sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, every direct quotation, and every paragraph.
  • "Cavaliers can be subject to a genetic defect of the femur and knee... " - Wikilink femur?
  • "The grading system on the patella is grade 1–4; 1 being a tight knee to 4 which the knee cap will come out of place easily." - Awkward. Suggestion: "The grading system for the patella runs from 1 (a tight knee), to 4 (a knee so loose that its cap is easily displaced)."
  • "If your cavalier has a grade 1–2 you can use physical rehabilitation therapy and exercise to reduce the grading and potentially avoid surgery." - It's best to avoid addressing the reader directly as "you". Suggestion: "If a cavalier has a grade 1–2, physical rehabilitation therapy and exercise may reduce the grading and potentially avoid surgery."

Eye problems

  • "If treating with the ointments vets prescribe, careful attention to the dog's eyes should be paid, as they can be under- or over-medicated." - This sentence implies "you" and reads like part of a set of instructions (a how-to manual) rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • "They include hereditary cataracts, corneal dystrophy, distichiasis, dry eye syndrome, entropion, microphthalmia, progressive retinal degeneration, and retinal dysplasia." - Link or explain the ones that haven't already been linked or explained?


  • "Attempts were made to create the original King Charles Spaniel as early as the turn of the century 1900s... ". - Not sure what this means. Does it mean 1900 or 1800?

Divergence from King Charles Spaniel

  • "In 1926, an American named Roswell Eldridge offered a dog show class prize of twenty-five pounds each as a prize... ". - It's not clear whether "dog show class prize" means a "class prize" or a "dog-show prize" or a "dog show-class prize". Also, twenty-five pounds should be expressed as £25.
  • "Blenheim Spaniels of the old type, as shown in pictures of Charles II's time, long face, no stop, flat skull, not inclined to be domed, with spot in centre of skull." - Here and elsewhere in the article direct quotations need a citation to the source directly after the end punctuation of the quote.
  • "World War II caused a drastic setback to the breed, with the vast majority of breeding stock destroyed because of the hardship." - "With" makes a weak conjunction. Suggestion: "World War II caused a drastic setback to the breed when the vast majority of the breeding stock was destroyed because it was too expensive to maintain during the hardship." Or something like that.
  • "The first recorded Cavalier living in America was brought from Britain in 1956 by W. Lyon Brown, together with Elizabeth Spalding and other enthusiasts, she founded the Cavalier King Charles Club USA which continues to the present day." - Run-on sentence.


  • What makes and reliable as sources. Do they meet WP:RS guidelines?


  • The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt text is not the same as captions. WP:ALT has explanations and examples, and you can also see ongoing discussions of alt text at WP:FAC.
  • The link checker tool at the top of this review page finds two dead urls in the citations.
  • The dabfinder tool reveals three links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • Arrangement of material: I'd suggest putting "History" first as more logical than putting it last.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm exploring what would be needed for this article to reach FA status. Thanks, Thegreatdr (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  • At the moment I only have time to comment on the lead, so I might come back later and add a lengthier review. I should also say that I know next to nothing about meteorology, so my feedback is that of a layperson. That said, in my opinion the lead suffers from two problems which are typical of many detailed articles on WP:
    1. The lead is trying to cover the entire article in a couple of paragraphs. The result is a sequence of unrelated sentences such as "The METAR code for rain is RA. Rainfall is measured through the use of rain gauges.... Australia is the Earth's driest continent." The purpose of the lead is not to contain everything in the article but to give a readable, concise overview of the topic. For this purpose it is not necessary to specify the pH of rain or its METAR code, unless those are directly relevant to a point being made within the lead. If I came to this article wanting to know only what the pH of rain is, I could jump to the Acidity section, or even search for pH. Rather, when I read the lead I want to know (a) the definition of the subject (currently well covered, I think); (b) what are the most important questions that experts ask themselves about the subject, and if possible, very brief answers. In the present case, the pH info could perhaps be combined into the issue of human influence (pollution, urban heat island), which (if I understood correctly) is one of those interesting questions. But other snippets of information (like the one on Australia) shouldn't be here.
    2. Some of the lead is overly technical. Especially in the lead, you should make an effort to help non-experts understand the material without clicking too many links. The first sentence does this really well - rather than just giving the definition "Rain is liquid precipitation", there is a further explanation "as opposed to other kinds of precipitation such as snow, hail and sleet". This is excellent - you don't even have to know what precipitation is in order to understand the definition. In the second paragraph, however, I was unable to understand most of the sentences, without clicking through to read about weather front, cumulonimbus, rainbands, and so on, not to mention terms that are neither linked nor explained such as convective cloud, upslope flow, compressional heating, etc. The problem is that many of these articles also have long, technical leads, so I run into a vicious cycle.
These points aside, the article looks detailed and informative, and I managed to learn quite a bit from this review. Thanks! Zvika (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • An effort has been made to explain terms within the lead to make it more understandable to the lay reader. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The Koppen map should be cropped and the information on the bottom right side should be merged with the caption. Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Håkan Andersson (ice hockey)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like suggestions on how to improve the article and bring it up to at least Good Article status.

Thanks, Rejectwater (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived peer review request. On further review peer review is not appropriate for this article at this time. Rejectwater (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that I have exhausted my translation sources, and with my trip there still far away, would like to know either: What to reaserch over there, or what to add before I go. I personally think the grammer is not up to par, and that a couple of the paras (economy and famous people) aren't top notch also

Thanks for your time, Buggie111 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Gimme a month, there's more sources oh history than I can digest in a shorter time (too bad sometimes it's not easy to tell these Bronnitsy from other places of the same name so any source must be double-checked). NVO (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Done, still needs photos. NVO (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is interesting but, as you say, is just getting started. Its main problem at the moment is a complete lack of sourcing. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for details. WP:FOOT explains how to embed inline citations in the text.

  • Sourcing. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every direct quotation, every set of statistics, every claim that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and at least one source for each paragraph.
  • Images. It sounds as if you will be in Bronnitsy perhaps later in 2010. If I were going, I'd take my digital camera and bring back lots of images of Bronnitsy to choose from. Impressive buildings, sports complexes, government buildings, skyline shots of the main street(s), parks, the river, schools, or anything else that appears (or might appear) in the article are possibilities.
  • Ideas for expansion: Health care (hospitals), airports, railway stations, climate, geology, employment statistics, churches, theaters, art galleries or other art venues such as concert halls, river infrastructure such as loading docks, bridges, crime statistics, local government, media, demographic data beyond bare population figures, history of the area before 1453 (if known). If there's a local newspaper and you read Russian, you will have a reliable source perhaps for data about some of these things. Having never been to Russia, I don't know how much printed data will be available to you.

Have a good trip. Good luck with the article. I hope these few suggestions prove helpful in some way. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Homologous recombination[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article reached GA status in September, and I'd like to complete any hole-filling and balance-tweaking necessary to bring it to FA quality. As with other lesser-known topics in biology, I think one of the main difficulties in explaining homologous recombination is being both accessible to a general audience (e.g. high school students) and informative to more advanced readers (undergraduate and graduate students in life sciences). Suggestions on how I could address that concern, along with anything else, would be appreciated. Emw (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

I found the lead paragraph a bit confusing, since it is not immediately clear if homologous recombination is restricted to bacteria and viruses or also occurs in eukaryotes. One needs to read further down to get this information. In addition, I believe that the lead paragraph is not as clear as it should be for a general audience. Below is a suggested rewrite in which I have attempted to address these issues:

Homologous recombination, also known as general recombination, is a type of genetic recombination used in all forms of life in which nucleotide sequences are exchanged between two similar or identical strands of DNA. The process involves several steps of physical breaking and the eventual rejoining of DNA. This process is most widely used to repair potentially lethal double-strand breaks in DNA. In addition, homologous recombination produces new combinations of DNA sequences during chromosomal crossover in meiosis. These new combinations of DNA produce genetic variation in offspring which allows populations to evolutionarily adapt to changing environmental conditions over time. Homologous recombination is also used in horizontal gene transfer to exchange genetic material between different strains and species of bacteria and viruses.[1]
  1. ^ Alberts, B; et al. (2002). "Chapter 5: DNA Replication, Repair, and Recombination". Molecular Biology of the Cell (4th ed.). New York: Garland Science. p. 845. ISBN 0-8153-3218-1. OCLC 145080076. 

Boghog (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a definite improvement. I'd like to emphasize that HGT also results in new gene combinations and is important for bacterial and viral evolution, but I can't think of a wording that's as clear as that above. I've moved the proposal into the article.
The use of "DNA" in the first sentence (and possibly the second as well) seems slightly questionable. In viruses, homologous recombination occurs between strands of RNA; thus those two sentences may be construed as inaccurate. Given that, I'm thinking of changing those two instances of "DNA" to "nucleic acid" or "DNA or RNA". But that would make things less immediately accessible. Let me know if this concern seems too pedantic, or if there's a way to fix the problem while maintaining accessibility. Emw (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments by mav
Some of the more technical terms that might be difficult to parse for somebody with only a vague recollection of high school biology, such as meiosis, should be briefly explained in-line per WP:JARGON. Any term that can be understood well-enough in context does not need to be explained in-line. Ref notes can be used for longer explanations that would otherwise break the flow of the prose. This sentence from the article is a good example of doing this correctly; "Two well-known versions of the pathway are the RecBCD pathway, which aids in the repair of double-strand breaks in DNA, and the RecF pathway, which promotes repair of single-strand breaks." Just something to watch out for. The article already does this correctly in many places but another pass before FAC would be a good idea. Other than that, the article reads well, appears comprehensive and is well-referenced. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Clark[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping for it to attain GA status. I've gathered about as much info as I could find on the character's creation, casting, story lines, reception, and her real-world impact on production. I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks, James26 (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha

I don't usually work on this to topic, but to my surprise I enjoyed this article. I notice you're aiming for GA, and suggest you check the GA criteria. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Coverage (Philcha)[edit]

Looks OK, but I'm not expert in this type of article. You might ask others to look this aspect. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure (Philcha)[edit]

  • The article is structured on series. This is reasonable, as themes and characters can change from one series to another. But I suggest the account of all the series should have a similar structure, especially if there are further series. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I feel that the "Season 1" and "Season 2" sections simply have natural differences. However, I do intend for future sections to follow the same format as the "Season 2" section. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Conception and casting (Philcha)[edit]

The first sentence labels her "a Kelly-type." -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right. --Philcha (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Naomi Clark: The New Kelly Taylor has gone 404. Unfortunately Internet Archive doesn't have a backup, so that citation is unusable - and "... draw quick comparisons to Kelly Taylor ..." now has no citations. You must remove it, and IMO it's not a serious lost. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of that. There is actually a third source present which compares the characters (TV Guide), which I have moved up to replace the 404 and complement the other one. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The first citation supports "... draw quick comparisons to Kelly Taylor ...", so the 404 is not a important here. If you like a update, OK. --Philcha (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "As production of the spin-off began, the role would become more defined, with actress AnnaLynne McCord labeling Naomi an intelligent girl who possessed both manipulative and sensitive sides" has 3 issues:
    • Does not make it clear that McCord plays Clark. The only place where this is clear is in the lead - but WP:LEAD says the lead can't can info tha's not in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I've now made that more explicit. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, she uses the exact words "intelligent" and "manipulates" while describing the character. She does not use the exact word "sensitive," but instead says that "you see her heart out there on a plate and you see it get hurt and you see how she has to cope with that. . ." -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It is rather long. How about e.g. "AnnaLynne McCord, who played Naomi Clark, description the character as "an intelligent girl who possessed both manipulative and sensitive sides" and as "someone with the principal and then someone else with her mother and then someone else with her friend."" --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Addressed above. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In the 2nd para, "The actress later stated, "I tend to reach out to people like Clark because I can see they are putting on a facade and are not as bad as they seem. They will eventually let their guard down and become nice people" repeated the same points made in 1st para. --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction (in Season 1; from Philcha)[edit]

  • "during which several aspects of the character's personality are revealed" is to uninformative that you should remove it. That leaves "Her first on-screen birthday coincides with the birth of the series" very short, and you should combine it with the previous sentence, which is also short. -Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "during which several aspects. . ." is intended as an intro to the examples which follow. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If "she becomes offended when others express doubts about her ability" is about Naomi's been caught and her mother's doubts about her ability, I wouldn't say "she becomes offended when others express doubts ...". As the source is not 100% clear, I'd remove "becomes offended". --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The one part I got from the source was "Naomi is gradually shown to have a friendly nature during her introduction, while fidelity is revealed to be of much importance to her as well. When her personal life is explored, she displays a deep capacity for love and commitment, valuing her longtime boyfriend Ethan Ward (Dustin Milligan). However, her birthday party is disrupted by the news that Ethan has been unfaithful to her." If there is relevant such in the source, it's your job to make it clear - articles are meant to the public reader, not just on fans / specialists. --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • How does the source supports "Social power is also said to be a priority of Naomi's in the pilot, along with social prominence". This looks like a summary / evaluation the article produced. --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "revealed a secret that came to hurt Silver and her family" is not 100% clear - how about e.g. "hurts Silver's family by revealed an old incident". --Philcha (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Progression (in Season 1; from Philcha)[edit]

  • Re "Several of the foundations laid in the pilot are built upon as the series progresses", the article show how incidents from the pilot play out in later episodes - otherwise "built upon as the series progresses" has no grounds. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied (IMO). -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Re "She again reveals her friendly nature when she pacifies Ethan's autistic brother", IMO the source says N uses her concern with the autistic brother as a way to influence Ethan. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The article says "When her friend Adrianna (Jessica Lowndes) encounters problems due to her drug habit, Naomi's good will is displayed again, as she eventually steps in and attempts to intervene", but the source says "Naomi's name is cleared when Adrianna owns up about her drug addiction". --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Source for "In the eighth episode, her intelligence is further hinted at when it is revealed that Naomi speaks Spanish"? --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Source for "Also like Kelly, Naomi endures the experience of a family torn apart by adultery, and is later faced with the matter of an absent parent, as her mother departs town unexpectedly. After her parents have officially split, Naomi seeks temporary refuge in a hotel"? --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The very brief item in TV Guide can't support all the claims in "Later, Naomi expresses an attraction toward a West Beverly student named Liam Court (Matt Lanter), which appears mutual ... are heard due to Annie reporting the underage drinking". --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Remedied. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Impact (in Season 2; from Philcha)[edit]

  • The article must focus on the character, not the actress. So the following are not relevant, or need very careful phrasing:
    • "AnnaLynne McCord gained recognition as the show's breakout performer" --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "the actress was later nominated for a Teen Choice Award in the category of "Breakout Star Female"". --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of these statements are in relation to the character Naomi (as opposed to another role the actress played). I've attempted to make this more direct. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "Silver and Adrianna, who did not associate often in the first season" - Silver is character, Adrianna is actress. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Adrianna is a character in the series (as is Silver). -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I got confused. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "The actress also promoted ..." is about ... --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Regis and ... seems to provide no relevant information. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Tonight Show With Conan O'Brien ... says "this video is expired". I also dislike videos as source, as: I'm not sure they comply the "fact check" plause of WP:VERIABILITY; they're unusually hard to understand, as they have laughter, injections, etc.,so there's sometimes doubt as what they say; they're most slower to "read" than text, and I'd want the equivalent of page numbers in a book. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, this PR rather than GA review. In PR I don't go into long discussions about comments, as there's no pass / fail grade - it's your decision whether you use my comments. GA review is a different matter, because of the pass / fail grade, and on both sides of GA reviewersa I've have had some long discussions. --Philcha (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (restored after finger trouble --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Common to check[edit]

Some common issues in this article - please check the whole article to make should they're all fixed:

  • Citations don't supports what the article claims.
Remedied (so far) or questioned above. -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The prose needs to be more concise - especially if the article growing longer as the series and the character continue. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
What prose needs to be more concise in your opinion? -- James26 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You'll see a few more. After some point, I'll stop, as it's your responsible to check the whole article. This would be the attitude of a GA reviews from the start - the reviewer may fix isolated slips, but would be expect the nominator to most of the work, and most before the review starts. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC) --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Don't misunderstand me; I actually have read through the article thoroughly. That's why I asked about the "concise" comment, because I think that the prose generally is concise (particularly in "Progression", "Impact", etc). Thank you for your review. -- James26 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Focus on the character, not the actress.
Thank you again for your helpful suggestions. -- James26 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thinks I've provided a realise selection of what you wish improve the article. Good luck. --Philcha (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1957[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am planning to nom it for FA and want feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nawa-I-Barakzayi District[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to be able to nominate this page for a Good Article. Unfortunately, this is my first time doing a Geographical Place so I'm sure there are plenty of errors in it. Comments and criticisms are appreciated.

Thanks, Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by doncram Interesting article, glad to see you contributing.

  • About the administrative district. How long has this been an administrative district. Of what entities is it a sub-district? Does the name Nawa-I-Barakzayi refer to a town / village / area, historically and/or currently, in addition to applying to a current, official district of some kind?
  • About references for Stars and Stripes: I just edited the references for one source to display as "John Vandiver (February 4, 2010). "Stable now, future uncertain for Afghan town". Stars and Stripes (a publication of United States Armed Forces)." You should create one main reference for each source, like that, then invoke it multiple times where appropriate. For this one, I was aware that Stars and Stripes is a U.S. military publication. For an article like this in a world-wide encyclopedia, the Stars and Stripes can be used as a source, but I think it is important to disclose clearly, even heavy-handedly, that it is in fact a U.S. military-controlled publication. Perhaps similar concerns apply for other sources used.
  • About general article tone: I think it is important to provide some distance between encyclopedic view and the view of U.S. military or any other potentially biased sources. In the article it is stated that "In November two officials were killed by insurgents." with source being the Stable now... Stars and Stripes article. That might be an innocuous statement. I don't have knowledge or perspective, myself, to know whether there is possibility of contention or bias in the statement. Could someone else contend that they were killed, but by non-insurgents? Is "insurgent" a biased term? It sounds like a U.S.-military-centric term, perhaps. So, a way to avoid that would be to cite/quote more explicitly. Perhaps then: According to the Stars and Stripes (a U.S. military publication), two officials "were killed by insurgents" in November. Please understand, this is just an example of a possible rewrite. Honestly i don't have perspective to say which are potentially non-encyclopedic statements. But I do have general concern that the article could be perceived as reporting a very U.S. and/or U.S. military perspective.
  • About scope coverage of history. Obviously the article's history section is substantially covering U.S. involvement, and obviously it lacks many thousands of years of other history. The gap is huge. I am not familiar with sources that might be available to address the gap and cover older times, or provide different perspectives. I suspect the gap may make it difficult to attain a high article rating, like a Featured Article rating, if not addressed.

Hope these quick comments are helpful. --doncram (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, but I share User:Doncram's concern that the article presents a narrow view. I also have concerns about Manual of Style issues. Here are my comments and suggestions:

  • You mention the goal of achieving Good Article status, and I applaud the goal. A succinct re-statement of the first of the six Good Article criteria (listed in full at WP:GACR, is that the article be well-written and that it comply with Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. I see problems with the lead, the layout, and jargon.
    • The lead, per WP:LEAD, should be an inviting summary of the whole article. It's easier to write a good lead after the rest of the article is done or nearly done. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not discussed in the main text. If you imagine a reader who can read only the lead and nothing else, you get an idea of what the lead needs to be.
    • The existing article has more images than the text can support, and that's a layout problem. If you expand the text (which very well may happen), the problem may go away. Meanwhile, I'd suggest removing the image from the References section, and I'd remove the Gallery. Readers who want to see more images can click on the link you've provided to the Commons. In addition, images should normally be placed within a single section rather than overlapping two sections. Some of the individual sections are too small for images to fit; they won't fit properly unless the sections are expanded or merged with other sections.
    • The audience for Wikipedia articles is global and diverse. Many readers will know little about Afghanistan or the Marines. They will appreciate any help you can give in understanding the basic terminology. For example, readers may not know that FOB is the abbreviation for "forward operating base" or that IED is the abbreviation for "improvised explosive device" or that NGO means "non-governmental organization". The Manual of Style suggests spelling out most abbreviated terms on first use; then the abbreviation alone makes sense on second and subsequent uses; e.g., Non-governmental organization (NGO). Likewise, many readers will not know what the 1/5 stands for in "1st Battalion, 5th Marines (1/5)". They will not know what "M-K" refers to in "was built by M-K replacing the old system". They may have no idea what "USAID" is. I see other terms like "shura" and "mujahideen" that should probably be linked or briefly explained.
  • Another of the GA requirements is that the article be broad in coverage. Many questions arise in my mind about the Nawa-I-Barakzayi District. What was its history before 1978? How far is it from Kabul? How many square miles does it cover? What is the name of the river mentioned in the geography section? Where does this river go? What sort of climate does this place have? What kinds of soil? Has anything been published about the geology of the region? What is the elevation? What's the topography like? Are there any mountains in the district? Lakes? What kinds of rocks, trees, animals? What are the buildings like? What are they made of? How do people get around? Cars? Trucks? Horses? By walking? Where do the roads go? Are there any parks, public buildings, places of worship, public art, places of entertainment? How big are the villages? What goes on at the bazaars? What special holidays are celebrated here? What language or languages are spoken here? You don't have to answer all these questions. What I'm getting at is that I don't get a broad sense of the place from the article. Only two of the images include Afghans; to judge by the images alone, the article is about American soldiers rather than a place in Afghanistan. The article is heavy on foreigners and light on locals, the reverse of most Wikipedia articles about places. I realize that reliable information in English about the missing things may be hard to come by. Perhaps the NGOs have published material that could be cited, and historians no doubt have published general accounts of Afghanistan and Helmand province. Geologists have probably written about Helmand. I'd suggest looking for a wider variety of sources. A map of the region would certainly be helpful.
  • Most of the citations are incomplete. For example, citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, url, date of publication, and date of most recent access, if all of these are available. Citations to books should generally include author, title, publisher, place of publication, date of publication, ISBN, and page number. Something like citation 3 is mysterious because The Bear Went Over the Mountain might be a book or it might be a journal article or book chapter; it's impossible to tell from the data provided. Part of the idea with a reference section is to make it as easy as possible for readers to find more information on the subject.

I could say more, but perhaps this is enough. I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Good luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments
  • I agree with pretty much everything doncram and Finetooth have said above. While it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article, it needs a fair amount more work to get a place where it would pass GAN.
  • When you expand the lead, it can be up to four paragraphs long - see WP:LEAD for details. Currently the lead is just one sentence. As noted above, it is often easier to write the lead last to summarize the whole article.
  • Would this map File:Helmand districts.png be helpful here? It shows all the districts in Helmand. I do not think that all four adjoining districts are currently even mentioned in the article.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Mullah Mohammad Nasim Akhundzada is a (red) link twice in the same section, or Lashkar Gah is linked twice in the article.
  • When a reference USE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, the WP:MOS says it is acceptable to rewrite that as "Uses All Capital Letters" here
  • One of the things that I try to keep in mind when writing is to Provide Context to the Reader - not only does this apply to the geography (name the surrounding provices and the river or lake) but it also applies to things like the "Operation Khanjar" section. The year is not given in the section (assume it is 2009 from context and the previous section). There is never a simple statement that the military operations described in the section were indeed part of Operation Khanjar, or even what the goals / objectives / rationale for Operation Khanjar was. There is a Main article tag at the top of the section, but it is to an article with a completely different name, Operation Strike of the Sword. Now a click on this link shows that this is just another name for Operation Khanjar, but I think the article could briefly explain this.
  • I also look for gaps in chronology - there is an 11 year gap here bewteen the last date mentioned in the Afghan Civil War section (1995) and the Operation Enduring Freedom section (2006) - not to mention all the history before the civil war.
  • The dab finder tool finds one disambiguation link.
  • There is no alt text for images per WP:ALT (not a GAN requirement, but is a FAC requirement)
  • Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they impede flow
  • A model article is useful for ideas and example to follow - Ratanakiri Province is a very recent FA and seems like it would be a good model here (in Cambodia, so it also deals with war in its history section)
  • I also wonder if this article might be renamed - perhaps if it were something like "Nawa-I-Barakzayi District since 2001" or "Nawa-I-Barakzayi District in Operation Enduring Freedom"? Not sure if this would even work, but you get the idea?
  • I would also read WP:RECENT

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Palm dogg comments: Many thanks for your input. I think I have a good roadmap to GA status now. Palm_Dogg (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Concatenated error correction codes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because in it current form it is unreadable to the general population.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I can only offer comments from the point of view of someone with superficial understanding of computer codes. On the other hand, I know the Manual of Style pretty well. Here are my thoughts, questions, and suggestions.

  • Most of the article lacks sources and therefore does not meet WP:V. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged.
  • The lead is to be a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about the main text but is instead an introductory paragraph. If you imagine a reader who can only read the lead and nothing else, you can see the problem.
  • The lead might be more clear if you explained or linked "concatenation" and "block length". Even though you might not be able to make a technical subject like this clear to a wide audience, the more jargon you explain, the more readers you might attract. Other terms in the article that will be mysterious to most readers unless explained include "code rate", "channel", "codeword", "block code", "constraint length", "hard decision block code", "iterative decoder", and "convolutional code".
  • Would it help to include a relatively non-technical explanation, if such a thing is possible and can be reliably sourced?
  • Would it be possible to give a specific example of a concatenated code? Can you show us one? What does it look like? Would it be possible to show a concatenated code in action, showing a result?
  • Could you show us five iterations of the Galileo code? Or five iterations of any concatenated code?
  • The description section reads like a mathematical proof rather than an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, it reads like original research rather than an explanation based on a secondary source or sources. Who is the "we" referred to in "We regard this as a channel which can transmit one symbol from the alphabet A, also of size k"? Wikipedia doesn't present original thought or original material; it is a tertiary source that summarizes material from reliable sources outside itself. Therefore, it never refers to itself as "we" or "I".
  • "Turbo codes: A parallel concatenation approach" - I'd suggest shortening this to "Turbo codes" to avoid repeating main words of the article title.
  • The dab finder tool shows that Deep Space links to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.
  • I'd suggest adding the place of publication to the references. You can usually find missing data via WorldCat.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Welch[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because would like to go for FA, and it needs another set of eyes. Currently a GA. This is my first attempt at a FA.

Thanks, Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: What is here is good and well written, with a few MOS nitpicks. I did not know of this artist before reading this (though I know the songs she sings on in the "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" soundtrack). My main concern with the article are issues of organization and perhaps omission. Here are some detailed suggestions for improvement.

  • MOS Issues first - the direct quote in the lead needs a reference per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
  • The article is inconsistent on the way it capitalizes, italicizes, and links "the" before names.
    • For example in the lead there is "... described by The New Yorker as ..." but the article and official names is "The New Yorker", so the link should include the "The", just as later in the article The Tonight Show links "the".
    • The official name and link are Berklee School of Music so it should not be "The Berklee School of Music" but just "the Berklee School of Music" (nitpicky I know, but such are the requirements of FAC
    • Last example (not a complete set) are the names of newspapers and magazines, for example "Dave McKenna of The Washington Post praised their version" (The should be italicized and in the link)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you Ruhrfisch, I have made the suggested updates. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome - I got busy IRL, have a few more points to make.

Reply: Again, Ruhrfisch, I really appreciate your time. My replies are below
  • One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, and I am concerned about some of her work not being described in the career section, though at least some of it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The biggest example is Dave Rawlings Machine, which is described in the Influences and collaborations section, but oddly not in Career. Since she cowrote five songs and sings on all (?) it seems like her contribution is greater on that album than in O Brother... (where she sang on two songs and co-produced). There is also a lot of critical material on the 2009 album linked on her web page
I re-read some refs on the Rawlings Machine album, and Welch is given pretty significant coverage. I moved the info on the Dave Rawlings Machine album, with some more content, to a new subsection under "Career". I also added a little more to the collaborations section, to make it seem less of a mere list.
As for "O Brother" (this applies to the next reply too) — more weight was given to this because of the critical and commercial success of the album. Note that GW was an associate producer on the album, in addition to contributing to a couple songs. Also, as a ref says, it was a "career boost" for her.
  • There is a fairly detailed discography on her website - could some of this be listed in her career as well? I have seen articles where the divisions are by albums, but years are also listed and career work in those years are also discussed in those sections.
None of the non-album releases, whether they are singles/new songs on films soundtracks, collaborations, etc. have received significant coverage. Note that I did create a discography article, which essentially reflects the discography on her website.. it is linked on the GW article in the discography section.
  • I also wonder about the Personal section - it is only 2 sentences long and except for the dating aspect, the information is almost all already in the Early life or start of the Career section. Could this be combined - mrntion the dating when they meet in college? Or is there more information that could be added to this? Is she politically active? Does she support charities? Does she have pets or hobbies?
I think that's a good point, and agree it's weird to have a section so sparse. This is one area I'm still a little unsure how to handle. She doesn't talk about her personal life, and brief mentions of her and Rawlings relationship beyond music are in a couple refs, but never in detail. I included to follow a common practice (including a personal section) more than anything. Thing is, beyond what is known about their relationship, there really isn't anything in the refs about her personal life besides what's in early life.
I'm favoring removing the personal section, and as you said, just say they starting dating in college. A reader may be curious if they are married (given that they starting dating in college, which would be appx. 20 years ago) , but perhaps we can trust the astute reader to realize that no mention of marriage means that they're not, and not much is in ref? Not sure.
  • The lead is a bit sparse for the detail in the article. I work on the rest of the article, then make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article.
My preference is to keep the lead concise. I feel that the major aspects of the article are summarized as it currently is.

Overall this is well done, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again. I welcome any more comments from Ruhrfisch, or other reviewers. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rumination syndrome[edit]

Previous peer review

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

  • Its been about 4 months since I've viewed it, and I want to tackle it with two pairs of fresh eyes.
  • I want this page to be a featured article to appear on the main page and hopefully raise awareness of this condition. It failed its FA candidacy when I took it to WP:FAC four months ago, and so I hope to have it pass next time.

As such, I would greatly appreciate the help of a reviewer who can:

  • Scrutinize everything
  • Deal with me scrutinizing everything they scrutinize.

Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting but still needs work. I read the comments from the previous peer reviews and the FAC before starting. I should say at the outset that I'm not an M.D. or scientist, and I know nothing about this disorder beyond your article. I couldn't say whether the article is comprehensive or not or whether its sources are the most recent and reliable or not. That said, I have quite a few suggestions for improvement.


  • "Rumination syndrome presents itself in a variety of ways, especially when comparing an adult without a mental disability to an infant or to a mentally impaired individual." - A bit awkward since a rumination syndrome can't compare anything, as the sentence structure implies. Slightly better might be "Rumination syndrome presents itself in a variety of ways and is especially different in an adult without a mental disability compared to an infant or to a mentally impaired individual."
  • "and are often misdiagnosed due to the number of symptoms, and the clinical similarities between rumination syndrome and other disorders..." - I'd replace "due to" with "because of".


  • The italics are running wild here, partly because of a typo. In addition the first sentence is awkward because it seems to say that the esophagus is a disorder and repeats the word "functional". Perhaps this could be recast without italics in this way: "Rumination syndrome, a gastroduodenal disorder, is an eating disorder that affects the functioning of the stomach and esophagus."
  • Pica links to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.

Signs and symptoms

  • "While some only experience symptoms following some meals... " - I'd suggest adding "people" after "some".
  • "However, some long-term patients will find a select couple of food or drink items that do not trigger a response." - I'd replace the word "patients". The individuals you are describing might or might not be patients. I'm not sure what word would be better, but perhaps "sufferers" would do.
  • "Weight loss is often observed (42.2%) at an average loss of 9.6 kilograms... " - Convert to imperial units as well; i.e., 9.6 kilograms (21 lb)?
  • "Depression has also been linked with rumination syndrome,[7] though the effects of it on rumination syndrome are unknown." - Is it necessarily an effect of depression? Isn't it more likely to be a cause?


  • "In adults and adolescents, hypothesized causes generally fall into one of either category: habit-induced, and trauma-induced." - How about "one of two categories" rather than "one of either category"?


  • "Costly and invasive studies such as gastroduodenal manometry... " - Link "manometry" to Esophageal motility study?
  • " esophageal PH testing are unnecessary and will often aid in misdiagnosis" - Use "pH" and link?
  • "Patients visit an average of five physicians over 2.75 years before reaching being correctly diagnosed with rumination syndrome." - Delete "reaching"? Merge this sentence with the paragraph above it?

Differential diagnosis

  • "This is due to the similarities in symptoms to an outside observer - "vomiting" (purging) following food intake (binging) - which in long-term patients may include ingesting copious amounts to offset malnutrition (followed by a hasty retreat to the washroom), and a lack of willingness to expose their condition and its symptoms." - Somewhat awkward. Suggestion: "This is because the vomiting (or purging) followed by food intake (or binging) look the same to an observer; in long-term sufferers the signs may include ingesting copious amounts to offset malnutrition (followed by a hasty retreat to the washroom), and a lack of willingness to discuss their condition."
  • "Like rumination syndrome, patients with gastroparesis often bring up food following the ingestion of a meal." - Rumination syndrome isn't a patient. Also, "patients" only describes a subset. How about "As with rumination syndrome, people... "?


  • "and a number of theories have speculated the mechanisms that cause the regurgitation" - Should this be "have speculated about the mechanisms"?

Treatment and prognosis

  • The "citation needed" tag should be addressed.


  • "Among the latter, it is described with almost equal prevalence among infants... " - "The latter" seems to refer to "females of all ages and cognitive abilities" in the preceding sentence. Is that really what you mean?


  • "mentioned in the writings of Aristotle... " - Wikilink Aristotle?

In other animals

  • "Such behavior, though termed rumination, is not related to human rumination syndrome, but is ordinary behavior nonetheless." - Tighten by deleting "behavior nonetheless"?


  • The alt text for the lead image was not working. The fix was to change "alt" to "Alt". (I did not know this would be the cure, but it seemed worth trying. Sometimes the magic works.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my delayed response, I have been all over the place recently and editing several topics. I will implement all of your suggestions very shortly. Thank you for reviewing this... I know it's a pretty obscure topic and that medical topics usually require access to paid sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've waited the mandatory 14 days after the last failed FAC before listing this for a peer review. I've listed it because I feel like it's very close to FA class, but despite having previously passed a GAN review, a peer review here, and serving as the main article of a GT, the feedback I got at the last FAC was that the prose could still use some work. (As far as I can tell, this is the only real complaint I received during the FAC.) I'm hoping whoever takes on this review will pay particular attention to the prose, and give me feedback on anything else that might hold it back at FAC. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement from reading the article.

  • Unclear In apology, Leslie refers Pawnee officials to a social-networking website about the pit to highlight all her positive accomplishments, ... maybe something like Leslie refers Pawnee officials to a [social-networking] website about the pit to both apologize and to highlight all her positive accomplishments, ... could it just be to a website - social networking sites and pits just seem not to go together
  • Zoner? When the zoner resists the idea, Leslie's mother suggests blackmailing the official with information about her husband's drinking problem. maybe Leslie's mother suggests blackmailing the official, who is resisting the idea, with information about her husband's drinking problem.
  • "decides against the blackmail plan" seems a bit unclear in ...but soon finds herself uncomfortable with the seedier aspects of politics and decides against the blackmail plan. not sure what she did, so not sure how to restate it
  • Avoid passive voice Mark, disillusioned with his career, makes a pass at Ann but is harshly rejected. could be Mark, disillusioned with his career, makes a pass at Ann but she harshly rejects him.
  • Same thing in The season was produced by Deedle-Dee Productions and Universal Media Studios. (try it active)
  • for whom in ...served as a casting director for Parks and Recreation,[14] along with Nancy Perkins, after whom the character Ann Perkins was named.[15]
  • leader character sounds odd in ...but the concept for Parks and Recreation did not start to form until they learned Poehler would be available to play the leader character.
  • seems out of order (concept comes before first script?) also could any of these be active voice (not sure if they can easily) Once that casting was determined, the script for the pilot episode was written and the general concept for the series was established.[24]
  • immediately and evntually seem at odds here Andy was originally supposed to appear only in the first season, but the producers liked Pratt so much that almost immediately after casting him, they decided to eventually make Andy a regular character.[30]
  • Seems a bit repetitive The character traits of Ron Swanson, a government official who believes in as little government as possible, was inspired by a real-life Libertarian elected official Schur encountered in Burbank who favored as little government interference as possible and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job."[25]
  • tighten this? Daniels and Schur personally wrote the script for the pilot episode in the summer of 2008.[24]
  • missing word? The characters were made more likable after the episode was shown [at? to?] press tours and focus group screenings.[41]
  • contradiction? "hand dug hole" - to me this means that they used shovels and sweat The construction pit featured throughout the season was hand-dug by the episode's producers ... but later we are told it was dug with rented equipment, which sounds like they used big machinery
  • Needs a ref Parks and Recreation season one is set to be released in Australia on March 3, 2010.

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, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PS There are some copyediting volunteers listed in the last section at WP:PRV Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

American Life[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have already fixed the problem of sources and I have arranged the tables

Thanks, TbhotchTalk2 Me 07:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by DragonZero

Well my grammars not really good but here are things that sound strange to me.

  • The second paragraph in the lead, using But to start a sentence sound strange, maybe it should be combined.


  • Album Information section.
"Is often considered a concept album with its recurring themes of the American Dream and materialism." Sentence seems fishy.
"Madonna started recording the album in 2002, after filming the movie Swept Away. While recording the album in London, England, she also worked on other projects, such as her West-End appearance in the play, Up For Grabs, and filming her cameo-appearance in the James Bond film Die Another Day." Seems irrevalent to the album itself.


  • Downloads sections
"It is unknown who hacked the website, although many investigations lead that the hacking was a result after Madonna leaked faked song titles, as it was a prank to insult Madonna's way of counter-attacking illegal downloads." Original Research, though obvious.


  • Title and Cover

"According to unconfirmed reports, the photo shoot cost 415,000 U.S Dollars."- Meaning no source?


  • Reception
"received mixed or average reviews", sound strange and not certain.


"At the end of the video is shown, then President George W. Bush." Grammar.


  • Overall
Seems like it needs a copy edit, some refs need to be placed in some places. And the reference dates should be changed to month, day, year. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


  1. The certifications table should be modified as per List of music recording sales certifications. See The Fame for the modification. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


  1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Doing...  Done (I guess) TbhotchTalk2 Me 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Huskies of Honor[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am submitting Huskies of Honor for peer review with the goal of improving quality so that it can become a featured list. Note that this is my first attempt to create an article from scratch, so all constructive criticism will be greatly appreciated. Huskies of Honor is the equivalent of a hall of fame for the Connecticut Huskies men's and women's basketball programs. I used existing featured lists such as Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame as a model for creating this list.

Thanks, Grondemar 05:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Reference 2 would be better at the end of the sentence, and would look tidier than in the middle of the sentence. I don't know if it is appropriate to have a whole section just for a key. I took a look at the article you've used to assist you with this article and that one has many more positions, so looks less empty. I don't know, it just looks wrong. This is only a few comments I had though, not a peer review. Just to add though, the lead is engaging and it is a good list. Calvin (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved reference 2 as you recommended, and agree it looks better. I reviewed a number of the NBA featured lists, and noticed they in general spelled out the full names of the basketball positions throughout the list; I removed the key and replaced the position abbreviations with the full name accordingly. Thanks for the input! Grondemar 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, well-sourced, reasonably well-illustrated, and has few errors that I could detect. I found and fixed a few minor prose glitches, and I have a few other suggestions about prose and style.


  • Huskies of Honor is a University of Connecticut-sponsored recognition program, similar in concept to a hall of fame, that is designed to honor the most significant figures in the history of the Connecticut Huskies men's and women's basketball programs." - Rather than using such a long string of modifiers of "program", it might be better to re-cast. Suggestion: "Huskies of Honor is a basketball recognition program sponsored by the University of Connecticut (UConn). Similar to a hall of fame, it honors the most significant figures in the history of UConn's men's and women's basketball teams." I'd also suggest avoiding run-on links where possible. Visually, the reader can't tell where one link stops and another begins when multiple links bump together. It would probably be good to add UConn in parentheses here as well.
    • How about as follows: "Huskies of Honor is a recognition program sponsored by the University of Connecticut (UConn). Similar to a hall of fame, it honors the most significant figures in the history of the Connecticut Huskies, especially the men's and women's basketball teams." I added especially since one inductee, John Toner, was part of the athletic administration for the entire school and not just the basketball programs; before becoming the athletic director, he was acutally the head football coach. I also clarified this point later in the paragraph where I forgot to note his induction specifically. Grondemar 06:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "UConn has enjoyed unprecedented success, winning six national titles, with three of them at the conclusion of an undefeated season." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "UConn has enjoyed unprecedented success, winning six national titles, including three during undefeated seasons."
    • Sounds good, except maybe a small adjustment: "Under his hand, UConn has enjoyed unprecedented success, winning six national titles, including three at the end of undefeated seasons." You wouldn't really win the national championship during a season as much as at the end of the season because you win the championship by winning the championship game which is the final game of the season. Does that make sense? Grondemar 06:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Men's basketball has been played at the University of Connecticut since 1901, then bearing the predecessor name, Connecticut Agricultural College." - Since 1901 didn't bear the predecessor name, I'd tweak this slightly. Suggestion: "Men's basketball has been played at the University of Connecticut since 1901, when the school was known as Connecticut Agricultural College."
    • Sounds good, incorporated. Grondemar 06:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


  • "Only includes seasons with the Connecticut Huskies in the listed position." - I had to think about this for a while and look again at the "Position" column to feel certain what it meant. Would "Seasons with the Connecticut Huskies" be more clear?
    • The issue is that a few people on the list had other roles with the Connecticut Huskies, such as John Toner serving as the head football coach and Dee Rowe serving for years as a fundraiser after his retirement as the men's basketball coach. I wanted to make clear that the listed seasons were the ones where they held the job listed in the table, rather than any other job at the university. Do you have any suggestions as to a better way to phrase this? Grondemar 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Would it be better to shorten "Men's basketball" and "Women's basketball" to "Men" and "Women" to avoid repeating "basketball"? The caption under the Auriemma image explains the only unusual circumstance.
    • I'd lean toward keeping "Basketball" as part of the headers because "Administrators" apply to the whole UConn athletic department rather than just the basketball teams, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I'll think about this one. Grondemar 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed review! I'll reply in detail when I get a chance either later today or tomorrow. Grondemar 00:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Above struck since I've replied. Thanks again! Grondemar 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comment: When you removed the key and changed the tables, it had an unfortunate side effect. The layout probably looks fine on your monitor and it did on mine before the change. Now, however, the tables are so wide that on my laptop monitor the images are displayed by themselves above the tables and next to huge empty spaces. I noticed this same problem recently on another list I was working on, and the fix turned out to be setting the table width to 75 percent rather than the original 80 percent. The other article is List of Drexel University alumni. Finetooth (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The split positions (i.e. Foward/Center) appeared to be the cause of the issue. I put spaces between the positions and the separating slash, the first space being non-breaking so the slash will stay on the first line. Please review and let me know if this fixed your issue. Grondemar 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It looks fine again. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Policing and Crime Act 2009[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to get Featured Article status, Good Article at least. I need a bit of leading on how best to improve it further. I am aware it needs more work, but it would be great to know what else needs to be improved.

Thanks, Calvin (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Well, it strikes me as being far away from being a good or featured article at the moment. I sense there's quite a bit missing:
    • We're told what the police made of the bill, but what about the political parties? I'd like to know what the Tory and Lib Dem positions were.
    • We're given the position of a prostitution support group on the relevant area; what about alcohol retailers' response to the bits of the bill affecting them?
    • A number of the references point to the Act (eg refs 22 to 25), is it not possible to make these links to the material online?
    • Doesn't seem to be much about the aviation aspects of the bill.

These are the things that strike me at the moment. Good luck with improving the article as I do think these articles are important and help democracy. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much for having a look at it, you've certainly given me a lot to add to my To Do list! With regards to your point about the references, when it is references to the legislation, is it required to link to the legislation, seeing as there are links to the legislation already in the article. The only thing I think would be beneficial would be the date the legislation was viewed, what with amendments very likely to be added in the future. Calvin (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Il ritorno d'Ulisse is the first of Monteverdi's three late operas, all composed in Venice during the last years of the composer's long life. The middle one of the trio is lost (at the moment, but these things have a habit of turning up), so Il ritorno forms a companion piece with L'incoronazione di Poppea. I have structured the article largely in the Poppea format. If you don't want to read the article, then at any rate listen to Penelope's lament on the sound file, and savour that. I hope, however, that you will want to read it, and your thoughts and comments on all aspects of the article will be greatly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley: The article is first rate – easy to read (even by a lost soul who can't abide Monteverdi), full of relevant information and beautifully referenced. I have corrected a dozen or so minor typos – though please check that you're happy with my changes. Otherwise, here is a modest clutch of suggestions, most of them quite minor.

  • Opening para (after lead)
    • Venice carnival/Carnival – consistency of capitalisation throughout the article.
      • All "carnivals" now successfully decapitalised. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Le nozze d' Enea in Lavinia – an unexpected preposition: ought it to be Le nozze d' Enea con Lavinia?
      • Tim Carter and Geoffrey Chew both use "in Lavinia". Mark Ringer uses "con". Ellen Rosand uses "e Lavinia". It seems there is no established form, but I reckon it's OK to follow Carter and Chew, unless there is an authoritative reason not to. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Libretto
    • "All but one of the 12 identifies Badoaro as the author, the other gives no name" – stronger stop than a comma needed? And shouldn't it be "All but one … identify" (plural)?
    • "Some of the libretto copies indicate locate" – needs pruning.
      • Both these amended as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Composition
    • "the medium of opera which he had mastered and then left, 30 years earlier" – this doesn't actually contradict the earlier statement "Alongside his steady output of madrigals and church music, Monteverdi continued to compose works for the stage" as no pukka operas are listed at the earlier entry, but it brought me up short till I had checked back. ("He wrote several ballets and, for the Venice Carnival of 1624–25, the semi-opera Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda ("The Battle of Tancred and Clorinda".") I wonder if it might be helpful to mention at that point that he wrote no actual operas for 30 years?
      • I have clarified in the earlier section that Monteverdi wrote no actual operas for the 30 years following Orfeo. I have also removed the description "semi-opera" from Il Combattimento, since none of the sources use it and I think I probably made it up. The sources all call it "unclassifiable". Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Roles
    • "This approximates to the normal forces employed in Venetian opera." – Ought this statement to be backed by a citation?
      • All the information in this paragraph is covered by the end-of-para citation to Carter, pp. 101–03. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "Modern performances tend to transpose" – this reads a bit oddly, as if the operas did it of their own volition; perhaps "usually" rather than "tend to"?
    • In the table "Barcelona" makes a sudden and highly unexpected appearance (with two further mentions later in the table). Is this a spell-check accident for "Bologna"?
      • Can't blame the spellchecker I'm afraid. It was me, daydreaming about the prospect of a Spring citybreak, perhaps. I have amended. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Act 3
    • "Melanto, whose lover Eurimacus was slain with the suitors, tries to apprise Penelope…" – Perhaps "killed" and "warn" might be plainer.
  • Early performances
    • "The opera's revival in Venice only one season after its première was very unusual, almost unique in the 17th century" – another statement that might be better for a citation.
      • The citation is at the sentence' end. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "the 1639–40 and 1640–41 performances were at the Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paolo" – this has earlier been labelled Teatro SS Giovanni e Paolo. Would it be better to call it Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paolo at first mention and then Teatro SS Giovanni e Paolo at all later ones?
    • "Alan Curtis dates the manuscript's arrival in Vienna to 1675, during the reign of the Emperor Leopold I." – Is there some significance to the particular reign – e.g. was Leopold I a famous patron of music? If not, it is relevant to mention him here?
      • Leopold was indeed a famous patron of music and a reputable composer. I will find an authoratitve source to that effect, and put it into the text. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Modern revivals
    • "The BBC introduced the opera to British listeners with a radio broadcast on 16 January 1928, again using the d'Indy edition." – Citation wanted?
      • Covered by [38] a couple of lines down, but I have repeated the ref to avoid confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "The opera entered the mainstream in the early 1970s" – "mainstream" is stretching it a bit, I'd say. It isn't in the Bohème, Carmen, Meistersinger class when it comes to regular performances. Memory tells me (perhaps wrongly) that it has yet to be staged at, e.g., the Garden or the Coliseum.
      • You are right about ENO and ROH - no performances from either. "Entered the mainstream" is Rosand's wording, but perhaps "entered a wider repertory" might be more accurate. I've changed to that. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "a production in Edinburgh later described as "infamous"." – I think readers would like to know the nature and extent of its infamy.
      • Unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate. Possibly the reviewer was having a dig at Harnoncourt. I'll look around, and maybe take it out if it can't be substantiated. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • On looking into this I see that Stanley Sadie praised the singers but roasted the production in The Times (4 Sept 1978, pg. 9) for "the frivolity and indeed coarseness of the production" Tim riley (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Music
    • "JN" in The Gramophone was Jeremy Noble. You can confirm this from the list of reviewers on p. 41 of the issue in question.
      • Overlooked - sorry, now amended. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "a reiteration of E flats that, per Ringer" – according to Ringer?
  • Recording history
    • "The first recording of the opera was issued in 1964, a version incorporating substantial cuts." – Would it be worth naming the forces responsible for this pioneering recording?
      • It's in the discography list, but I've now mentioned Vox in the article
  • Notes
    • Note 4: "However, Ambros died in 1876, so the year of discovery would have been earlier" – This reads like a glimpse of the obvious, and might perhaps be more neutrally expressed if inverted, thus-ish: However, if Ambros made the discovery, the year must have been earlier, as he died in 1876"[1]"
      • Yes, your phrasing is better and I've adopted it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • References
    • You make five mentions of Kennedy, p. 732 (note 38) but he doesn't appear in the list of sources below.

Hope these few comments are useful. – Tim riley (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Very useful indeed and very helpful - many thanks. Could I ask you to do one more thing? I've added a non-free image to Act 1 of the synopsis, showing the Faeci ship turned to stone. Would you mind reading the rationale on the image page, and telling me if you think the justification I've given is adequate? Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The crux, it seems to me, is whether your reasons meet the criterion "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I think they do. As you rightly say, readers of the article will wonder how the petrification of the ship could be depicted on an operatic stage, and the image demonstrates how. I'd be inclined to underline this point in the caption - adding something like " – showing how the effect was managed in the opera house" – Tim riley (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments:[edit]

It is always difficult to peer review one of your articles, Brian, because the overall quality of your work is always so high. In general, this article is impeccably phrased and sourced. My comments therefore are of minor issues that can be ameliorated easily.


  • This differs in many respects from the numerous surviving versions of the libretto, and after publication in 1922 the authenticity of the score was often questioned during the next 30 years, performances remaining rare. This sentence feels long and convoluted, with "performances remaining rare" seeming tacked on. Would it be better split into two?
  • I know this is the lead, but the final sentence in the third paragraph still needs a reference since you use a direct quote.
    • I've split the long sentence. As to the ugly duckling remark, this is cited to Arnold in the text. We don't want it cited twice, so I've evaded the issue by removing the quote marks in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical context

  • The theatre's inaugural performance, on 6 March 1637, was L'Andromeda by Francesco Manelli and Benedetto Ferrari, received with great enthusiasm as was the same pair's La Maga fulminata the following year. I know what you're saying here but the sentence is a little hard to follow.



  • Most of these appear to be 18th century copies, possibly from a single source; some are literary rather than performance versions. No problem on phrasing here, but I'm curious what the difference is between literary and performance versions of a libretto. Would a few words of explanation be helpful for those who would like to know?
    • A performance version is one prepared for a specific performance of the work, at a particular theatre, with a particular stage design and with other local factors in mind, including directorial whim. Cuts may be made, scenes shifted around, characterisations changed, etc. A literary version is the pure text presented as literature, independent of performance considerations. I don't want to have to explain all that, so I've changed it to "some are literary versions, unrelated to any theatrical performances." Does that clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Not really, but I can see your point and how explaining can really bog things down unnessarily. Probably best to leave things as you have them now. Jonyungk (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Act 2

  • After Eumete leaves to inform Penelope of Telemaco's arrival, a bolt of fire descends, transforming Ulisse who now reveals his identity to his son. A little convoluted.
  • Eumete's message is overheard by the suitors, who plot to kill Telemaco but are unnerved when a symbolic eagle flies overhead; they abandon their plan and decide to renew their efforts to capture Penelope's heart, this time with gold. Should this be two sentences?

Reception and performance history

Early performances

  • From markings in the extant score, it is likely that the first Venice performances were in five acts, the three-act form being introduced either in Bologna in the second Venice season.[31] Missing "there or" after "either"?
  • It did, however, demand some spectacular special effects; a ship turns to stone, an airborne chariot transports Minerva, a bolt of fire transforms Ulisse.[36] Colon instead of semi-colon.
    • I hate colons in prose. However, as a list of more than two items follows, I suppose it has to be so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Modern revivals

  • The Vienna performance used a new edition prepared by Nikolaus Harnoncourt, whose subsequent partnership with the French opera director Jean-Pierre Ponnelle led to the staging of the opera in many European cities, including a production in Edinburgh later described as "infamous";[42] at the time, critic Stanley Sadie praised the singers, but criticised the production for its "frivolity and indeed coarseness".[43] This sentence is reasonably clear but so long that I keep losing my way mid-way through it. Would it be easier to read split into two?


  • Later analysts were more positive; to Mark Ringer Il ritorno is ... Colon instead of semi-colon.
    • Not this time - two-item list conjoined with an "and"
  • Speech", usually in the form of recitative, delivers information and moves the action forward, while musical utterances ... Should "musical utterances" also be in quote marks?
    • There are too many quote marks round about here, so I've limited them to first mentions. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

An excellent job overall. Jonyungk (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and trouble, and for your help in improving the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Laser brain's comments It's really good! I performed some minor fixes that were stray MoS problems or slippery fingers on the keyboard. Please treat the following as suggestions only, not "make or break" items.

  • "the unclassifiable Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda" Is "unclassifiable" the fairest description? From the linked article, it seems difficult or contentious to classify.
  • You have a bit of a penchant for beginning sentences with the imprecise "this" without restating what. Consider "This (score) differs in many respects from the numerous surviving versions of the libretto", "This (opera) was received with great enthusiasm", and so on. I understand the construction is quite difficult for ESL readers to parse without the precision.
  • I'm not certain I agree with your reasoning for omitting the quotes around "ugly duckling" in the lead. You are still quoting Arnold and thus require attribution in both places, correct?
  • "The first recording of the opera was issued in 1964 by Vox, in a version which incorporated substantial cuts." This nagged at me a bit, because the "in a version" seems to be attached to "issued" (It was issued ... in a version). Can we omit "in" safely?

Another fine piece. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review and the helpful comments. I have tweaked accordingly; I had not realised my tendency to begin sentences with "This..." and have clarified several instances. I'm still not sure about the need to cite Arnold's comment in the lead and in the text, but I've added the lead citation anyway. Any view you have on the fair use rationale would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Elcobbola (talk · contribs)

  • Brianboulton asked me to check licensing for File:Head Odysseus MAR Sperlonga.jpg and File:Mnesterophonia Louvre CA7124.jpg. Both works are well-described (specific physical location, dated, etc.) and the derivative photos indeed have the characteristics one would expect to see in "self made" photos (high resolution, camera meta-data, etc.) Licensing seems verifiable and correct. To be overly pedantic, however, it's generally a good idea for derivative photos of 3D works to have licenses for both the original and the derivative (i.e. add {{PD-art-70-3d}} or Commons equivalent).
    Unfortunately I can't establish what the Commons equivalent licence is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding others:
  • Hope this helps. Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this very quick response to my request. Your comments are a great help. The one outstanding problem I have is how to make the ship image lower resolution. Is there a procedure? It's the most interesting image in the article and I don't want to lose it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No real procedure other than finding someone with an image editing program and a minute of spare time [4]. Does the reduction look ok? Эlcobbola talk 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks fine. It's hard in fact to see any real difference from my version and it still illustrates the article effectively - thank you for doing this. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments Very nicely done - here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement

  • Since the article title is italicized in the article itself, would it help to use {{italic title}} - see Croesia semipurpurana for an example of this in use
  • Would it help to link Ulisse, Penelope, Telemachus and any other characters from the Odyssey in the lead? I think most people who know who Ulysses is will recognize "Ulisse", but you never know. This is done later in the Roles section
    • I have added links in the lead for Ulisse, Penelope, Telemaco and Ithaca. To avoid a "double-blue" with Trojan Wars I have linked the second Ulisse mention.
  • Since it is not a direct quotation (not "ugly duckling"), not sure why the ugly duckling phrase is cited in the lead. Or does it need to be in quotes?
    • I thought that as the quote is cited in the text I needn't do so in the lead, but I was told otherwise during this PR. As the words are precisely quoted they ought to be in quotes, which I have now restored.
      • It used to be (have not checked recently) that both WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE said that direct quotations in the lead should be cited. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this needs to be clearer English wordings used in the synopsis are from Geoffrey Dunn's translation, based on Raymond Leppard's 1971 edition;[29] and from Hugh Ward-Perkins's translation issued with Sergio Vartolo's 2006 recording for Brilliant Classics.[30] I owuld make clear that the "English wordings" are the English names of the arias (or whatever they are) that are sung. I would also say here that the Italian names are given in the notes.
    • The English translations in the synopsis are lines (not necessarily first lines) from the "scenes" into which this opera is divided. Each scene is a compound of recitative, arioso, aria and occasional ensemble. I have altered the text to make this clearer, and drawn attention to the Italian versions in the footnotes.
  • Could an introductory sentence or two be added to the List of musical items section?
    • Introductory note added.
  • Would it be possible to inidicate here which of the numbers are arias, ariosos, recitatives, etc.?
    • Not really, because of the nature of the "scenes", as explained in the introductory note just added. Most scenes contain all these elements, quite apart from the fact that Monteverdi tended to blur the boundaries between them.
  • In the alt text, I think the text of the book page visible is supposed to be given in full per WP:ALT
  • I am also not sure that the average reader would recognize the stone head as that of Ulysses for the alt text there. in WP:ALT, Proper names Alt text typically should not name people or objects in an image
    • I have amended both alt exts as recommended.

Seems fine to me otherwise - I listened to the sound clip too, which I liked. Hope this helps, and let me know when this is at FAC, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, all more or less adopted. Most helpful as always. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Very glad to help, these were all nitpicks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is in need of a new direction. There was a drive to improve the article in July 2008 (there was also a peer review and a good article nomination, where suggestions from both were incorporated into the article), during when the article improved immensely, but two years later now, it can do better. So, I'm looking for suggestions on what to improve. Gary King (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha[edit]

Coverage (Philcha)[edit]

(comment) no gaps at the high levels - I may comments on specific sections. --18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure (Philcha)[edit]

(comment) no issues at the high levels - I may comments on specific sections. --18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Early life (Philcha)[edit]
  • "... that the man was abducted by gypsies at the age of four ..." - the man, at four? How about e.g. "While little is known about Smith's early childhood, his biographer, the Scottish journalist John Rae, recorded that Smith was abducted by gypsies at the age of four and eventually released when others went to rescue him." The sentence also is an example of 2 difficulties that are common on the article and for which you'll need to check:
    • Longer, more "fancy" words / phrases / sentences where simpler, more concise ones would be better - both to be easier on the reader and to use the space for more explanation. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The article often uses a pronoun (usually "Smith") where it's slightly ambiguous because a preceding phrase / sentence contains 2 names. Almost always the reader can resolve it in a fraction of a second, but that slightly breaks the reader's concentration on the content. There's an other example at "While there, heSmith studied Latin, mathematics, history, and writing" --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Formal education (Philcha)[edit]
  • "Here heSmith developed his passion for ...", as the previous sentence has Smith & Hutcheson. --Philcha (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "In 1740, Smith was awarded the Snell exhibition and left the University of Glasgow to attend Balliol College, Oxford" is more concise. --Philcha (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The 2nd & 3rd paras lead on The Wealth of Nations' criticisms of teaching at Oxford ("Smith considered the teaching at Glasgow to be far superior to that at Oxford ..." and "In Book V of The Wealth of Nations, Smith comments ..."). Needs to be structured and made more concise. --Philcha (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If "Smith considered the teaching at Glasgow to be far superior to that at Oxford, and found his experience at the latter to be intellectually stifling" survived the structure, it can be more concise, e.g. "Smith considered the teaching at Glasgow to be far superior to that at Oxford, which he and found his experience at the latter to be intellectually stifling". --Philcha (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Smith had originally intended to study theology and enter the clergy, but his subsequent learning, especially from the skeptical writings of David Hume, persuaded him to take a different route" suggests that Hume's writings (in a later time) influenced Smith to avoid theology and the clergy (in an earlier time). I'd remove it. --Philcha (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Teaching career (Philcha)[edit]
  • "The alignments of opinion that can be found within their writings covering history, politics, philosophy, economics, and religion indicate that they shared a closer intellectual alliance and friendship than with the others who were to play important roles during the emergence of what has come to be known as the Scottish Enlightenment" is a monster. How e.g. "In their writings - covering history, politics, philosophy, economics, and religion - Smith and Hume shared closer intellectual and personal bonds than with other important figures of the Scottish Enlightenment"? --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "When the Chair of Moral Philosophy died the next year ..." is corrected but very old-fashioned metonymy. "Professor ..." would be ambiguous, as the term is senior in UK but junior in USA. I suggest "When the head of Moral Philosophy died the next year ..." --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In "He would continue academic production for the next thirteen years ..." is stilted and verbose. How e.g. "He worked as an academic for the next thirteen years ..."? --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In "Smith published The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 ...", the article uses "sympathy" twice but does not explain it. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Smith's popularity greatly increased due to the The Theory of Moral Sentiments ..." - but how popular was Smith previously, and why? --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what "The development of his ideas on political economy can be observed from the lecture notes taken down by a student in 1763, and from what William Robert Scott described as an early version of part of The Wealth of Nations" contributes. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I assume "rather than the nation's quantity of gold or silver" means S was critising mercantilism. If sources support this interpretation, you need a concise explanation of mercantilism. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "the academic senate of the University of Glasgow conferred on Smith the title of Doctor of Laws " --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • For once a sentence is rather short - "Smith subsequently resigned from his professorship to take the tutoring position". As "At the end of 1763, he obtained a lucrative offer ..." is fairly long, I'd combine ""Smith subsequently resigned ..." with "Because he resigned in the middle of the term ..." --Philcha (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Tutoring and travels (Philcha)[edit]
  • I don't see how "Smith's tutoring job entailed touring Europe with Henry Scott while teaching him subjects including proper Polish" contributes. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Smith was paid £300 per year plus expenses along with £300 per year pension, which was roughly twice his former income as a teacher" looks as it should fit better with "he obtained a lucrative offer" in the previous section. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "After touring the south of France, the group moved to Geneva. While in Geneva, Smith met with the philosopher Voltaire" should be combined. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The physiocrats believed that wealth came from production and not from the attainment of precious metals, which was adverse to mercantilist thought" suggested that physiocrats supported mercantilism against some doctrine about attainment of precious metals. Need rearrange to make it clear who supported what. And "attainment"? --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "They also believed that agriculture tended to produce wealth ..." - tended? --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Character (Philcha)[edit]
  • The usual prose issues. --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 2 paras about S's absentmindedness. --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why the quotes in "Smith "never" sat for portraits"? --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Religious views (Philcha)[edit]
  • The usual prose issues. --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • How is an examination of Hume's beliefs relevant to S's? Especially as ther's debates about H's? --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Philcha)[edit]
  • I have severe reservations about the P. J. O'Rourke sentence and citation. At present I'd remove or comment out (by HTML) this passage - it's not necessary, as the para has enough good text and citations:
    • The passage mentions O'Rourke's commentary On The Wealth of Nations but shows not citation of that work.
    • The actual citation for O'Rourke's comments is P.J. O'Rourke Takes On 'The Wealth of Nations'. This is not WP:RS, as it's a spoken discussion with no opportunity to fix any problems.
    • O'Rourke is an journalist with a degrees in literature, not economics or philosophy (which are generally quite to very technical discipline).
    • As far as I can see, as soon as O'Rourke gets into economics, he gets it totally wrong when he says "the idea of mercantilism - the idea that you should import more than you export, and that the way a country gets rich is by importing". Every account I've seen about mercantilism says: the state wishes to accumulate reserves of gold and silver, in modern words by running a positive balance of payments; to do this, the state must export more than it import, so that other states have to pay the difference in money rather products. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The rest of the section has a lot of redundancy. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wealth of Nations (Philcha)[edit]
  • In the phrase "a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital" , "fair" could be misinterpreted as the medieval idea of the just price, which is based on ethics. The next sentence of the article says "optimally allocate society's resources", as in Stiglitz's proposotion (later) that all uses of the resource should yield a risk-adjusted equal rate of return; otherwise resource reallocation would result. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • S's ""real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" is the modern concept of opportunity cost. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • IMO labour theory of value is not "variations on Smith", it's a competing theory that excludes all the factors S includes, except for labour (how measured?). The sentence also has no citation. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Classical economics focused on the tendency of markets to move to long-run equilibrium" looks irrelevant to the rest of the para, has no citation, and does not make it clear whether the proposition is a tautology or a empirical hypothesis. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Common issues (Philcha)[edit]

I've noted some, check the article for others: --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Need for concise explanations of some terms in economics and philosophy.
  • Need to make prose more concise generally.
  • A sentences that should be combined.
  • Please avoid ambiguous pronouns.
  • Factual details that don't contribute to the reason or explanation or narrative.
  • A few sentences give the exact opposition of what's correct.
  • Economics issues. It's a technical discipline almost from the start. And interpreting 18th cent ideas can difficulty because the meanings of terms change in that time. The economics parts of the article need to be checked by an expert (I can see a lot of the issues, but fixing them needs much greater knowledge).
End of review (Philcha)[edit]

I've stopped as I think the article needs a lot of work to reach GA standard. I suggest the first priority is to deal with the economics issues as these need an expert. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotten to most of the points here. There's still a lot of copyediting to do, as you said, and help is required from experts, so I'll get on those before bringing this to GA. This has been a long-time project of mine (almost two years now), so don't expect for things to move quickly with it. I'll be sticking with the article, but just in small increments, as usual. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by doncram[edit]

Wow, Philcha has some substantial comments above. The point made that nations which export more do better, seems like what i understand, too. Upon seeing this item in the PR pipeline, i visited but got sidetracked on the house pictured in the section on The Wealth of Nations (I have interest in historic sites). Anyhow, i created Adam Smith House article which, despite help from two others, is still a sorry stub article, not worth much linking from this much better article. Hopefully the link from the pic caption is now okay. And, I wonder if, perhaps for the "Portraits, monuments, and banknotes" section which might be retitled, perhaps it may be appropriate to mention the Edinburgh house of Adam Smith, now covered somewhat in the Adam Smith House article. But there is not a pic or very solid information to draw on from that article yet, so if you mention it at all perhaps you should do so without a link to that article. Hope this helps in a very small way. :) --doncram (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rings Around the World[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been taking various Super Furry Animals article to GA for the past few years and want to make this my first FA. Any help would be greatly appreciated to help get the article up to scratch.

Cheers, Cavie78 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. As per WP:ALBUMS: "Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section." TbhotchTalk2 Me 03:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done YesY The reviews in the infobox are already described in paragraph form in the critical reviews section and, last time I checked, it wasn't mandatory to move them to a template but looks like things have changed. Don't agree with this personally but moved them nevertheless. Cavie78 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: , here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The external link checker finds two dead links that need to be fixed (upper right corner) Done YesY Cavie78 (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The album cover and video art need alt text per WP:ALT Done YesY Cavie78 (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Per the MOS, dates usually do not have "st" or "th" after them, so should this ref be fixed? Animal Attractions". The Big Issue [Scottish ed.]. 21st-27th June 2001. Done YesY Cavie78 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Could this be made a bit more emphatic - when I read it in the lead I thought it was more limited, so was the first album [ever? in history? worldwide?] to be simultaneously released on both audio CD and DVD.
  • The second paragraph in the lead is almost all in past tense, except for this sentence Ex-Beatle Paul McCartney and former Velvet Underground member John Cale make cameo appearances on the album.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, these should be double quotes, i.e. ", not single quotes ' in Critical reception was generally positive with the album being nominated for 2001's Mercury Music Prize and being awarded 'album of the year' by Mojo. Done YesY Cavie78 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Add year here to provide context to the reader? Rings Around the World was the Super Furry Animals' first album for Epic Records following the [1999?] demise of their previous label Creation and ... Done YesY Cavie78 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Could the month be added here too? The band moved to Bearsville Studios, New York [in MONTH] before returning to Monnow Valley some months later ...
I tried to look for a specific date the band moved to Bearsville but couldn't find it in any of the sources I have. Will add if I come across it though. Cavie78 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Gruff Rhys is linked 9 times in the article, usually once in the lead and the first time in the body of the article is enough (plus captions and tables if needed there)
  • This sentence is a bit long and confusing - it might help to identify Guerilla and Mwng as some of their previous albums, and the sentence might have to be split (perhaps after the first mention of Mwng?): Rings Around the World is "very cinematic" and falls somewhere between the "instantaneous, easy to grasp, and almost disposable" Guerrilla and its "exact opposite" Mwng [split here??] with the band applying the technology they used for the former and the simplicity of the latter, with "just the band playing in the studio".[3]
Is this better? - "Rings Around the World is "very cinematic" and falls somewhere between the Super Furry Animals' 1999 album, the "instantaneous, easy to grasp, and almost disposable", Guerrilla and its "exact opposite", 2000's Mwng. The band combined the technology they used for the former with the simplicity of the latter, with "just the band playing in the studio"." Cavie78 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, much better, though how about ending the second sentence ...with the simplicity of the latter, which featured "just the band playing in the studio".? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Done YesY Thanks for your help here. Cavie78 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed a few typos, but mostly read for comprehension, not proof-reading. I think it would help to have someone else proof read this or else put it aside for several days then look at it and read it out loud slowly.
  • In places it seems a bit quote heavy - not sure if this would be a problem at FAC or not, but it might help to paraphrase some of them quotes.
  • The prose is generally quite good, these are fairly minor quibbles. 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 ><>°° 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Ruhrfish, working my way through them now. Cavie78 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You are very welcome - the dead links show up as red with the external link checker in the toolbox (top right). One is here and the other is here. You might see if they are archived at The Internet Archive or other such places. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Free State of Galveston[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I would like to push it to FA. The article has been reviewed before, though not specifically with an eye toward FA. I think it meets the general criteria. The main thing that I wonder about is whether the quality of the writing is sufficient.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article about a very interesting place and era. I think it's almost ready for FAC. I did some minor tweaking as I went along. (Please revert any tweaks that you don't agree with.) I have just a few additional suggestions.


  • "This free-wheeling period was at its peak during the Prohibition and Depression eras, but lasted well past even the end of World War II." - Delete "even"?
  • "The "Free State" moniker embodied a belief held by many locals that Galveston was beyond what they perceived were repressive mores and laws... ". - Link mores?


  • "Nevertheless, after the destruction of the 1900 storm and then another in 1915, many investors were reluctant to reinvest in a location that could eventually be the target of a similar disaster." - Tighten to "Nevertheless, after the 1900 storm and another in 1915, many investors avoided the place." Or something like that.
  • "rapidly overtook Galveston's role as a leading port and commercial center" - Tighten to "rapidly overtook Galveston as the leading port and commercial center"?

Prohibition and the Maceos

  • "The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1919 forbidding the consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages initiating the Prohibition era." - A bit of a run-on. Suggestion: "The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1919, forbid the consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages and initiated the Prohibition era."
  • "These institutions were so accepted that at one point the city even required health inspections for prostitutes to ensure the safety of their clients." - Tighten by deleting "even"?
  • "Rum-running became big business with liquor being imported from overseas and distributed throughout the city, the state, and other parts of the country." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "Rum-running became big business; liquor was imported from overseas and distributed throughout the city, the state, and other parts of the country."
  • "the "father" of organized gambling on the island because of his establishing organized poker games in 1910" - Tighten to "the "father" of organized gambling on the island because he established organized poker games in 1910"?
  • "The Maceo empire extended beyond Galveston very early on expanding throughout Galveston County." - Suggestion: "The Maceo empire soon extended throughout Galveston County."


  • "The entertainment venues regularly attracted some of the biggest names in the entertainment business, including Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., Guy Lombardo, Jack Benny, Gene Autry, Phil Silvers, Jane Russell, George Burns, Duke Ellington, and Bob Hope.[66][2][25]" - Footnote numbers normally are arranged in ascending order; i.e. [2][25][66]. Ditto for any other instances in the article.

See also

  • I'd remove as redundant any of these items that already appear linked in the main text. I also doubt that the Texas portal is relevant enough to include; it's too broad.


  • Some of the images still need alt text. In addition, the alt text for the lead image needs expansion for sight-impaired readers. "Beach Boulevard" by itself would reveal little to someone who can't see the postcard. WP:ALT has explanations and examples, and you can see ongoing discussions of alt text at WP:FAC.
  • The disambiguation tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended target.
  • Citation 55 seems to have a dead url.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List of causes of fever[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel it is a fairly comprehensive, is well referenced (all diseases listed have a reference certifying that they cause fever) and deserves to become a featured list.

Thanks, Immunize (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from liquidlucktalk

Thanks for writing the article. It appears comprehensive and well researched, but it is not yet ready for Featured List status. Here's a few pointers:

  • In order to take this from a directory to an encyclopedic list, it requires an introduction written in prose. For this article, the lead should define both fever and each of the categories you've listed — infectious, rheumatic/autoimmune, and malignant — and a bit of background on them. It should also state the list's inclusion criteria- what qualifies an item for inclusion in the list and in, in this case, the category.
  • For FL standards, this lead should be engaging and well written.
  • The references need to include as much as possible of the requirements listed at WP:CITEHOW. In my experience, the easiest and preferred way of doing this is by using citation templates. Just copy the code and fill in as many parameters as possible.
  • Currently, the list isn't very useful. Perhaps add details about how common each disease is.
  • Add images to make the list visually appealing.
  • The external link needs to be given a title and a (very) brief description about what it is. For example, [ The official website of fever] would produce a link to the nonexistant official fever website: The official website of fever

Hope that helps. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Good luck, liquidlucktalk 23:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, the list was nominated for deletion this morning, and I am concerned that deletion could occur, as so far there appears to be some concensus that the list is not useful. Feel free to comment at the lists page at articles for deletion. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Deutsche Mark[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I Think It Is A Detailed/Good Page, It Would Be Good For WikiProject Germany To Have Another Featured Article, And It Is An Important Page. Thanks, Craigzomack C.Zomack (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. Currencies are not capitalized in English. Therefore "mark" should not be capitalized. It might be the same as the German term, but it should nevertheless adhere fully to English spelling rules. Compare with Japanese yen, United States dollar or Austrian schilling.

Peter Isotalo 13:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article, it needs a lot more work before it would stand a chance at becoming a Featured Artcile (or even a Good Article). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem with this article is a lack of references - many sections have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • External links within the article need to be converted to inline citations - see after this The masses and dimensions of the coins can be found here for example
  • The citation needed tags have to be addressed too
  • What nmakes some of the sources used reliable - luckylukeonline?
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Germany is linked twice in two sentences in the lead, for example
  • Explain abbreviations after the first use of the full name - DM is never explained, probably should be in the first sentence.
  • Article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which break up the narrative flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
  • Dabfinder tool (top right corner) finds 4 or 5 disambiguation links that need to be repaired
  • For WP:FAC images will all need alt texts for those who cannot see them - see WP:ALT
  • Per WP:HEAD section headers should not repeat the article title if at all possible, so things like "The German mark's role in German reunification" could just be "Role in German reunification" (the reader already knows the article is about the German Mark).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to GA, A, or maybe even FA status. It is hoped a peer review aside from helping to improve the article will give a reality check on what is achievable. I have made extensive revisions since the last time this topic came up for a GA nomination, strengthening the reference area and editing to make the language flow better. Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you very much. — Lambanog (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I will be pleased to review such an attractive-looking article. It may be a few days before I can provide detailed comments on the text, but meantime there are a few general issues:'

  • There are several links to disambiguation pages. Use the link in the box in the top right corner of this page to identify and remedy these. Done
  • Ref [58]: the link to the online source is marked as a deadlink Note: now [57] Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite a bit of alt text needs to be written.
  • Although the pictures are in general wonderful, I am wondering whether 30+ is possibly a few too many. There is s feel of clutter in places; sometimes text is squeezed between images on left and right, contrary to MOS  Done

I will return with a full review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Further comments Although quite absorbing to someone with very little knowledge of Philippines history, the article has significant prose and punctuation problems, some of which I have fixed. It could do with a top-to-bottom copyedit from an uninvolved editor. Here are some specific points requiring attention:-

  • Infobox: the location map is unhelpful to anyone trying to establish the location of the Philippines. Where is the "green" referred to in the caption?
  • Lead: the final sentence is confusing, and grammatically suspect. Basically it needs to be two sentences, separating the specific overthrow of Marcos from the underlying institutional weakneses. What, exactly, are these institutional weaknesses?
  • Etymology
    • The sentence beginning: "Eventually, the..." has structural and punctuation problems Done
    • "The official name of the Philippines changed throughout the course of its history." Rephrase: "The official name of the Philippines has changed several times in the course of the country's history." Done
    • "...the name Philippines began to appear, a name that has become its common name.[15] The official name..." Note four instances of "name" in rapid succession. Rewording needed, to avoid this repetition. Done
  • History
    • General points:
      • The section would be easier to follow if divided into subsections, dealing for example with (a) the pre-Spanish period, (b) the Spanish period and (c) the American period. The postwar history of the Philippines as an independent country probably needs a full section of its own; at the moment, for example, the information on the Marcos period seems very superficial, contained basically in a single sentence: "By using political divisions, the tension of the Cold War, and the specter of communist rebellion and Islamic insurgency as justifications, he was able to govern by decree." We need some narrative on what was happening in the country, in the years between 1972 and 1983.
      • there is an over-reliance on links rather than explanations of specialist terms
    • "In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos was elected president, his wife Imelda Marcos at his side." Is the second half of the sentence necessary, bearing in mind there are no further references to Imelda in the article?
    • Important statements are uncited, e.g. in the latter part of the seventh paragraph and sentences the final paragraph of the section.
    • Example of an awkwardly constructed sentence: "This led to the People Power Revolution instigated when long time Marcos allies Armed Forces of the Philippines Vice Chief-of-Staff Fidel V. Ramos and Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile resigned, withdrew their support, and barricaded themselves in Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame". The descriptions of the two rebels are are far too long and the sentence loses its meaning. Try something like "This led to the People Power Revolution, instigated when two long-time Marcos allies—Army Vice Chief-of-Staff Fidel V. Ramos and Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile—resigned and barricaded themselves in Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame respectively." (I think "withdrew their support" can be deduced) Done

This is as far as I can take it for the present, but there is sufficient here for you to get busy on. I shall be interested to see your response. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lambanog: Let me start off by thanking you for agreeing to review the article! It's quite large and hopefully not too daunting to review in great detail. I will try to address and incorporate your concerns and suggestions. I will elaborate on some of the points you have made so you have additional background as to why the article has developed as it has.

  • It's a country article so editors have been trying to follow the the format and outline recommended in WP:COUNTRIES. Adding subheadings to the history section was done before but I noticed it had the unfortunate effect of encouraging the addition of more and more information making the section disproportionately large in comparison to other sections. Country articles have a tendency to grow large and this one has already grown close to 130kb. 100kb is recommended. In some ways I'm a little concerned the history section is too detailed. The featured article on India for example has a history section that is very cogent although that is probably too spare in the view of the editors working on this article. The history section also seems to be a lightning rod for controversy. It seems as if over 80% of editorial disagreements are about the section. Changes can be made since I think all editors are interested in seeing the article improved but I'm wary of introducing or opening the door too much to new material or going beyond copyediting lest it touch off another edit war. I'll see what I can come up with.
  • Too include Imelda or not to? Maybe she could be cut but it would probably be fair to say that she and her 3000 pairs of shoes are as (in)famous as her husband. She was also Governor of Manila, Minister of Human Settlements, and a special envoy. In my view though, more important in relation to this article, is that she in her person probably exemplifies the nepotism, cronyism, and kleptocracy of the Marcos years and the absolute disconnect or dichotomy between brutal reality and farcical fantasy that characterizes many aspects of Philippine culture and politics. I think some mention of her is needed.

Will work on this but will have to do so later since I'll be busy for much of the day. Thank you again. Lambanog (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has expanded rather quickly and I have concerns due to the friction that has developed between anti-Stratfordian and Stratfordian editors on the article talk page. I am particularly concerned that the article maintains NPOV and that neither side of the debate makes disparaging statements about the other, but, rather, concentrates on the debate topics and rebuttals clearly.

Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The citation format is rather inconsistent. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There are some major problems in the article, but the first problem might be whether this belongs, at this point, in peer review. My conception of peer review is that it handles fairly non-controversial and technical issues - related to footnoting format, length of the lede, use of images, etc. As I understand it, this PR was proposed as something of a conflict resolution procedure. Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think that Peer Review is intended as part of conflict resolution. That said, here's a few things that caught my eye:
    • The pictures - especially the 2nd - tend to push a point of view
    • The topic is a classic example of a borderline "fringe theory." The anti- theory has been around a long time, but it's never been - to my knowledge - a mainstream theory. It could be a fun article documenting the history - step-by-step - of the anti- theory - but any attempt to say that the anti- theory is true, mainstream, or widely accepted is bound to be POV.
    • The tone through much of the article is breathless - you're simply arguing against each other, trying to blurt out everything at once - not taking the time to organize the documented facts.
    • Taking the time to properly and consistently document the facts would add a lot to the article. By facts - I mean that Mr. A said "xyz," but Miss B wrote "abc." You will never find the FACT that Shakespeare did not write the plays, or that somebody else did - that doesn't seem possible at this late date.

So, in short, calm down. Smallbones (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

      • Smallbones, your concept of FACT is not commensurate with the problems of the article. The dispute exists because 1) Not every agrees on what the facts are; 2) even those facts that everyone stipulates to have multiple possible interpretations. For example, the traditional attribution is based substantially on the name on title pages. But what does this mean? When you measure a man whose name is on the title page but for whom one can trace almost no real connection to the works beyond the name, with another whose name is not on the works, but whose life "reads like a rough draft of Hamlet," as Don Oldenburg put it in the Washington Post, how do you decide which is more important? Of course there is no single "FACT that Shakespeare did not write the plays." But, after almost twenty years studying this question as a topic in intellectual history, it is my personal opinion that your conclusion that "it doesn't seem possible" that there can be a definitive solution to the debate is wrong. In fact, the case for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford will, I predict, soon become far more well known and accepted than it is today. The only reason you don't know how well this theory has already been articulated is that there is an entrenched English literary establishment which does not understand the case itself, and doesn't want you to understand it either. I would be happy to elaborate at any time. --BenJonson (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Two different versions of this peer review were opened within a short time of each other. I have copied Smallbones comments from the second PR here, to the first. I agree that PR is not for dispute resolution. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for Featured Article status, once it is of sufficient quality to be pass. I'm willing to do all the legwork and make whatever improvements are necessary.

Thanks for the feedback, ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Noraft, I welcome your ambitious goal and appreciate your willingness to improve this article. I had a quick look to it and can suggest several areas of possible improvement to start with:
    • Clarification: does "largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture" refer to the length of the nave, height of the towers or internal area of the church?
    • I think the reader would like to know more about the size of the Catholic community at the time the church was built.
    • A bit more background information about the Divine Word Missionaries (and their linkage to Germany) would be useful.
    • Imagery:
      • The lead image is very low resolution and has a strong perspective distortion - a better lead image should be possible.
      • The historic image is tilted, and needs to be rotated CCW.
      • An image of the church in its urban context like this or this would be very useful for the article.
    • Is the building currently heritage listed?

Hope these comments will be useful. Elekhh (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are both helpful and appreciated. I'll get to work on improving the images. I'm not sure which dimension makes it the largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture, but I think that was taken from a literary source, so I'll verify that. The building is listed as a Provincial Historic Building by the government of Shandong province (which is why I gave it High importance under the architecture wikiproject). I got this piece of information from a sign on the church grounds, of which I have a photograph. I think I can cite a sign, right? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have altered the historic image, but am unsure of whether to upload it to Wikimedia Commons as a replacement of the current (cocked) image, or if I should upload it as a separate image. If I replace the old one, the cropping removes the Bundesarchiv registration number, which materially alters the image, I think. How should I proceed? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Answered my own question. A retouched version of the image is now in the article. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. Citing it is akin to citing Wikipedia. You really need to find a new source to replace it. Nothing else jumps out at me in the sourcing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the facts mentioned in that translation (that the crosses were removed by the Red Guard, etc) are sourced from other (more reliable) sources, so the factual accuracy is not in much dispute. The Baidu Baike translation gives an interesting first-person account of what happened, which is why I had it translated into English. If the facts in the translation are verifiable, do you really think it needs to be removed? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Then why not use Baike as a bibliography- track down, read, and cite the sources they're using? You will not get this through FAC citing a website that can be changed by anyone. (In other words, citing it is as much a problem as citing the Chinese Wikipedia. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Because it doesn't list any references. That's a shame that it won't go through FAC, because everything it mentions is verified elsewhere, in other (better) sources. I really think it adds depth and color to the article. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
But "colourful" cannot replace verifiabile, at least not on Wikipedia. This should have been picked up at the GA assessment already. Elekhh (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My point is that all the facts in that account have been verified. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
How? If they've all been verified in reliable secondary-sources, then why is the citation to a user-generated tertiary source still necessary? (I'm also mildly concerned the GA reviewer didn't catch this) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The other references in the article verify the facts of the account (church defaced, crosses cut off, etc). The user-generated tertiary source provides a first-hand account, which I think adds depth and color. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


I've organized this section into tasks, so I can easily track what has been done and what is yet to do.

  • Clarification: does "largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture" refer to the length of the nave, height of the towers or internal area of the church? All of the above, from what I've been able to tell.
  • I think the reader would like to know more about the size of the Catholic community at the time the church was built.  Done
  • A bit more background information about the Divine Word Missionaries (and their linkage to Germany) would be useful.  Done
  • The lead image is very low resolution and has a strong perspective distortion - a better lead image should be possible. Not done Having trouble finding another good lead image.
  • The historic image is tilted, and needs to be rotated CCW. Fixed
  • An image of the church in its urban context like this or this would be very useful for the article.  Done
  • Is the building currently heritage listed? Yes and now stated in the article.
  • If you happen to find information about the year of listing, it would be valuable. Elekhh (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. In Discussion

Nefirious's thoughts on the article

  • I think enough has been done in order to improve the article, the article has all the requirments for GA status. Hence it should be given what it deserves. If the editors promise to improve the article further and take it to FA status. Protect the wonderful article from vandalism. It is neither too small nor too big, it is just the size it is required to be. Nefirious (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. To clarify, the article was given GA status before this peer review was opened, in order to prepare it for FA candidacy. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

List of FC Barcelona legends[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, it's been through a FL candidacy in another form. PR was suggested, here it is.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bog turtle[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Alright ladies and gentlemen, we are up for another round of peer review. Our first pass was a huge success, it resulted in a GA article several months ago. This time however, we hope for this article to be reviewed to the highest of expectations...that's right, to FAC expectations. If there's anything at all you can suggest or ask questions about, please do. Let it begin. Thanks, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article, generally well-written and nicely illustrated. I did quite a bit of minor copyediting as I went, and I have suggestions for further improvement.


  •  Done "The bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is the smallest North American turtle, measuring roughly 4 inches (10 cm) when fully grown." - It might be helpful to say whether this is the length or the width and, if possible, to give the other main dimension.
The current sources offer "carapace length measurements," which I assumed to be length...maybe I can dig up a width measurement.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done "The bog turtle looks similar to (and lives in the same habitat as) the Painted turtle and the Spotted turtle because of the similarities between their carapaces and plastrons... " - Since you use lowercase for "bog turtle", the other turtles like "painted turtle" and "spotted turtle" should probably be lowercase too.
  •  Done "as the females only lay an average of six eggs per clutch and one clutch per year" - Wikilink clutch on first use?


Distribution and habitat

  • "The bog turtle prefers calcareous wetlands... ". - Wikilink calcareous?
On the discussion page, I was told to clarify it rather than link it by JimmyButler, my teacher!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done "Early successional habitats lack mature trees that block sunlight from reaching the ground level and prevent the subsistence of the turtles." - Seems upside down, in a way. Would it be better to say, "The mature trees of late successional habitats block sunlight and prevent bog turtles from thriving."
No, no, no...the lack of the trees allows the turtles to live their in the first place. If larger trees were there, the turtles wouldn't be able to bask in sunlight.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you mean now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fossil record

  •  Done Where are Cumberland Cave and the Giant Cement Quarry in relation to the nearest big population centers?


  •  Done "Bog turtles spend a great deal of the day basking. It does so to reach an internal temperature... ". - Be careful about switching from singular to plural and back again; they are not interchangeable. In the quoted sequence, "it" refers to "turtles", which doesn't quite work. You could fix this by saying "The bog turtle spends... " or by saying "They do so to reach... ".
  •  Done "An attacking male will crawl toward intruders with their necks extended and mouths open or closed." - Here's another example of the singular-plural conflict. "Male" is singular but is apparently linked to "their". At first glance, the sentence seems to be saying that the intruders have their necks extended.
  •  Done "As they approach the intruder they will tilt their carapace... " - Here the plural "intruders" has suddenly become singular "intruder". For clarity, this section needs copyediting to make sure the nouns and pronouns are consistent in number (singular, plural).


  •  Done "Males move an average of 2.1 meters a day and females move an average of 1.1 meters a day." - Conversions to imperial units?
  •  Done "Home-range migration distances have been recorded at 87 meters for males and 62 meters for females." - Imperial conversions?


  •  Done "The bog turtle is omnivorous and is known to eat aquatic plants (such as duckweed), seeds, berries, worms, snails, slugs, frogs, and insects." - It's best not to link words that most readers of English are already familiar with. I'd unlink "seeds", "berries", "worms", and "insects" for sure, and I might unlink "snails" and "frogs". It's a judgment call.
  •  Done "Although an uncommon dietary item, the turtles will eat carrion." - Misplaced modifier. The turtles aren't a dietary item (at least not to the turtles). Suggestion: "The turtles will eat carrion, although this is uncommon".


  •  Done "The bog turtle is commonly taken from its natural habitat by poachers despite it being illegal to catch, barter, import, or export one." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Poachers commonly take bog turtles from their natural habitat even though catching, bartering, importing, or exporting them is illegal."


  •  Done "There are several things that must happen if the bog turtle is to rebound from its current condition." - This expresses the point of view of one source. It would be better to describe actual efforts to protect the bog turtle than to present only a single opinion, even if it is the opinion of a source. Perhaps other opinions exist; they usually do.
I took this sentence out altogether.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done "The encroachment of overshadowing trees and brushes... " - Perhaps "bushes" rather than "brushes"?
  •  Done "The first people to do this privately were Fred Wustholz and Richard J Holub during the 1960s and 1970s." - Who were they? Why were they interested?

Protective legislation

  •  Done "This extremely short section repeats what has already been said earlier in the article. I'd remove it.

Public awareness

  •  Done This section is extremely short as well, and it expresses a point of view of one source. Would it be possible to describe one or more education programs that have actually taken place?
I reworded this section to make it more factual and less opinionated. Was that your concern?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


  • It's generally a good idea to merge or expand extremely short sections to prevent the article from seeming fragmented.

Alt text

  •  Done I'd suggest adjusting the alt text slightly to remove information that's not available from the images themselves. For example, the alt text for the lead image says, "A bog turtle lifting its head while walking from the viewers right to left across a dry patch of land." This might be better as "A turtle, its head lifted slightly, is surrounded by brown and green grass." The alt text for the second image says, "A drawing of the bog turtle in several orientations, side and bottom. These views show both the plastron and the distinct blotch on the side of the neck." Suggestion: "A pair of drawings illustrate the top and bottom of a turtle, the body of which is encased in a shell from which the legs, head, and tail protrude. The turtle is mostly brown and black but has an orange spot on its neck." The trick is to describe only what you can see and not to include much specialized knowledge that comes from outside the image. Doing this well is a bit tricky. WP:ALT has explanations and examples, and you can read current discussions of alt text at WP:FAC.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This helped greatly, thank you so much. Anytime you need a peer review, I'm your man.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You were very helpful. Thank you!--Merry Beth (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. Looking at this again today, I noticed the "done" templates. They should be removed per the PR instructions: "The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Use the non-image templates,  Done/ Not done, instead." Finetooth (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You got it. Thanks again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has straddled the lines of GA, FA and fancruft on many occassions but it seems to be looking more promising than ever at present, although I will admit it reads rather "bumpily". If anyone could give advice on how to strike a balance between factual, knowledge and flowing then that would be helpful.

Thanks, IndigoSeptimus (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by MelicansMatkin
  • External links all look good, though I'd recommend archiving them using Webcite and the {{cite web}} extensions |archiveurl= and |archivedate=
  • Three disambiguation links are present; Ling Ling, Red (Pokémon), and Pokémon Mystery Dungeon. These need to be fixed.
  • Every single image needs Alt text, so that visually impaired readers can create a mental image of what they are supposed to be seeing. See the guidelines at WP:ALT for more information on this, and the Charizard and Mewtwo articles have examples of how to describe a Pokémon.
  • The fair-use rationale for File:Pokémon episode 1 screenshot.png needs work; how does the use of the image critically enhance a reader's understanding of the subject? Other image rationales look good.


  • A unified format needs to be used for the dates and accessdates in the references. Some use "2008-01-19" and others use "January 19, 2008". Use one or the other, but not both.
  • Speaking of which, the references themselves need work. There are an abundance of references which do not qualify as reliable sources. PokéBeach, Pojo, Pokézam, Pokémondungeon, and Pokémonelite2000 all fail via WP:SPS. These all need to be replaced.
  • The work should always be provided in the reference along with the author, title, and date. I see at least one instance where this is not the case (a New York Times article incidentally).
  • In one instance, Anime News Network is italicized; in the a second, it is not but it is linked. Only the first instance should be linked, and the format should remain consistant.
  • I'd recommend not citing those websites for Smash Bros. appearances; some (such as destar) may be unreliable. Cite the actual games instead (WP:CITET should have something that you can use for this).
  • References should be allocated for print sources that are used multiple times. In so far as I can tell, none of these are actually even mentioned in Notes. If they aren't being used they should either be removed or used to replace some of the unreliable sources. If they are used only once, they should go under Notes (as is the case with Pikachu's Global Adventure).


  • The lead should be a summary/overview of the rest of the content in the article. As a result, very little usually needs to be sourced in the lead. The information regarding its habitat should also be included under Characteristics, and the rest of the locations outside of forests also need to be sourced.
  • Since it's basically a mini-version of the article, the lead also needs to describe aspects of it's legacy.

Other sections

  • "In Popular Culture"; I recommend renaming this section to "Legacy", and merging the portion on Pikachurin into it. "In popular culture" sections come across as being trivial or fancruft by virtue of their name; "Legacy" better describes how the subject has endured in notability and importance.
  • Lots of statements need references; the whole anime section is covered by a single reference which is absolutely not good enough. References needed for the evolution (Raichu and Pichu), being the most popular Pokémon, illness from magnetic fields or an ability to discharge, sprites, etc. If it doesn't have a reference at the end and it's something a person completely outside of the fandom wouldn't know, it needs one to be added.
  • Outside of the lead there should be no repetition of information in the article. In two places it is mentioned that Pikachu was a Starter in Yellow; I'd recommend removing the sentence from concept and creation and keeping it instead in the video games part.
  • "Other Pokémon media" needs expansion; some info from Legacy could be shifted here. Likewise, I'd like to see more detailing Pikachurin. If it's that important to Pikachu's legacy, it should warrant more than two lines. Add as much to Legacy as you can; that's what defines why the subject (Pikachu) is notable, after all.
  • Much of the prose is very awkwardly worded. It needs a thorough copyedit and polishing.

MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those points. I knew about the unified date thing but the rest is new to me, 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems to be fine in terms of content and refs (with one exception), but I think the language needs some work before it would pass FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The last paragraph of the Video section needs a ref.
    • The summary of the music video doesn't need a source. Unless, I'm mistaken. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The alt text for File:Justin Timberlake ♫ SexyBack.jpg mentions white shirts three different times, which seems a bit much.
    • Removed.
  • Would File:Jtstpaul.jpg be useful in the article? It is from the tour after the album was released and he has the shaved head like the single cover
    • I was thinking of using the image, but it's not clear if he's performing the song. Also, I've seen first hand that they frown upon that sort of stuff, so.
  • OK, on to the language. I will give as many examples as I can, but this is not a full list - I think this needs a copyedit.
  • Lead In discussion of the song, Timberlake revealed that he went "left", in regards to going more rock in the way he sang the song.[1] might read better as something like Discussing "SexyBack", Timberlake revealed that he went "left", singing the song in a rock style, not a R&B style.[1]
    • Done.
  • The song received mixed reception by many contemporary critics. could be The song received a mixed reception from critics.
    • Done.
  • In the third paragraph, I would go from the most important chart and accomplishment to less well known stuff, so perhaps "SexyBack" became Timberlake's first number one single on the Billboard Hot 100, staying seven weeks at the top spot. It also topped several of Billboard magazine's other component charts, including the Billboard Pop 100, Hot Dance Airplay, and Hot Digital Songs charts, and entered the top ten on most singles charts. Internationally, it became Timberlake's first single to reach number one in the UK Singles Chart. In Australia, the track was Timberlake's second number one single, spending two consecutive weeks at the top.
    • Done.
  • Fourth paragraph - I think I would put the Australian and Canadian performance in the preceding paragraph, and start this one with the Grammy. Again, the Grammy is
    • Done.
  • This is just awkward - not sure how to fix it all: The music video was filmed in June 2006 and Timberlake's decision to work with director Michael Haussman was for the latter of his work in Madonna's 1994 music video "Take a Bow".[1] perhaps something like The music video was filmed in June 2006; Timberlake decided to work with director Michael Haussman based on the latter's work on Madonna's 1994 music video "Take a Bow".[1]
    • Done.
  • Another awkward one Within three weeks, "SexyBack" was one of several songs that were recorded.[5] I think this means "SexyBack" was one of several songs that were recorded in a three-week period.[5] but am not sure
    • The song, along with "My Love" and "Sexy Ladies", were the first songs created.
  • Why is the word "covering" in quotes in the lead, but not in the quote in the body of the article?
    • Paraphrasing, I guess.
  • OK, that gives you some idea of what needs to be fixed. I will try and make some more comments in the next day or so.

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 ><>°° 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch, I appreciate your comments. If there's any that I missed, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Legolas2186: What I find mostly is formatting issues with the article, which they tear off at FAC. The prose is quite good in my opinion. Here are my comments.

  1. Writer and producer: Be consistent, either use their birth names or the common names.
I think I got this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. In infobox, internal wikilink redirects like See relese history should be avoided.
  1. The certifications should use × and not x.
  1. Remove the word singles from the chronology, see "4 Minutes", this is done because in the chrono, not everything is released by Timberlake. "Signs" and "Dick in a box" are not his singles.
Done, and added his last single and then then the song after "SexyBack".
  1. Remove the 4:00 radio edit. The timings are not significantly different. Its just 2 seconds.
  1. Why not combine the first and the second paras? It would look more filled content wise.
IDK, I feel as though it should be like that.
  1. He described the song as musicians David Bowie and David Byrne "covering" James Brown's 1970 song "Sex Machine -> Rephrase, sounds like as Timberlake was describing the song, Bowie Byrne was covering it.
How 'bout, "His interpretation of the song was that of musicians David Bowie and David Byrne 'covering' James Brown's 1970 song 'Sex Machine'"?
  1. The song features -> Consecutive lines featuring the same phrase "the song"
I think I made a consistency, not sure.
  1. 3x platinum, 6x platinum --> Why not three-times and six-times?
  1. There's an issue of WP:OVERLINK in the CRIA, RIAA with the ones in infobox. Keep either one.
  1. A brief one-line description of the music video is needed.
I'll work on this.
Music and lyrics
  1. In the sample, mention the amount of time the sample is and the portion of the song used. this is for user's who don't have an Ogg player installed in their system, or phone.
Critical reception
  1. Why are the live performances in the critical reception section? Both the references cited has short descriptions of the performance, hence this can easily be made in to a new para.
Because creating a "Live performances" section, for me, would be difficult to describe.
Chart performance
  1. becoming the first male artist since Usher in 2004 to have three or more consecutive number one hits from one album --> Not exactly necessary for this article, rather suits in "What Goes Around".
  1. weeks in the number one position --> weeks at the number one position
  1. 3x Platinum --> word
Done, and just one "3x Platinum" or the rest (Ex: 2x and 6x)?
Music video
  1. Looks absolutely fine, however, an image would have been helpful. Particularly the one where the explosion happens. That seems to be satisfying WP:NFCC.
Formats and tracklist
  1. Actually "Formats and tracklisting" is the correct word
  1. Although its not mandatory that the tracklisting should be referenced, but still, try to do so for sake of FAC. Also, use en-dash before the times.
Added dashes.
  1. Replace the references beside the chart names as per WP:CHARTS. At present, the arrangement doesnot work with the parameter "sortable".
Got the refs. to the charts, and I'm confused to what you're asking about the "sortable" thing.
  1. The internal wikilinks for the charts are re-directs in most cases.
I'll work on this later.
  1. Wikilink Swiss Music Charts to Swiss Singles Charts.
  1. doesnot show Turkey, remove that.
Cover versions
  1. That infobox is really not needed as it is overlapping the sections, and Poison doesnot have any other single after "SexyBack".
It was there when I first began working on the article.
  1. Try moving up the section before tracklist, so that flow of prose is not broken.
  2. And remove the bulleting and make the content into a single flowing prose.
Done [on both].
  1. Ref 9. is to be made a treelink, check "4 Minutes"
  1. Online sources like Slant Magazine are not to be italicized.
  1. Check the publisher and accessdates, which are missing in most.
Not if the sources are "cite journal", since you can't really add an accessdate.
  2. Ref 65-71. All of them are Hung Medien references and has the same content in all of the pages. Hence combine them into one Hung Medien reference. Saves article space :-P
I'll work on both.
External links
  1. Only the official website will lead to WP:SPAM as per WP:ELN. Hence add a link, which actually has something to do with the song, may be the music video link from MTV, or VH1 etc.
I had the MTV link but it wasn't working anymore.

These are my two cents regarding the article. Feel free to ping me if you are not sure of anything that I pointed out. Regards --Legolas (talk2me) 11:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Legolas, I think I've gotten your concerns, while the rest I'll work on that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Philadelphia Flyers players[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to take it forward to Featured list status, but would like some input on what more this article may need before meeting the requirements there. I have got a couple of cricket lists to FL, but this would be my first hockey article.

Thanks, Harrias (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

General comments

I like the fact that this list is robust- it only needs to be updated once a year. I'm not familiar with the sources but the list is comprehensive and the lead covers the important points. Also, I'm very impressed with what you've managed to do with the sort function.

Thanks, there are still some issues with the dashes that will need sorting (literally) out, but other than that I'm pretty happy with them. Hopefully sort playing in my sandbox will help there.

Pre-FLC comments/suggestions

  • Done: added alt text for all the images. But I'm rubbish at it, so feel free to alter any that I've messed up! Harrias (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead covers the things I would expect from a sports player list, but specific claims need inline citations. I'd suggest citing the fact that there have been 17 captains, the fact that Bobby Clarke is the all-time leading scorer, a citation for seven hall of famers, and one for the retired jerseys.
  • I've added references for everything I think needs it in the lead, let me know if I've missed anything else you think needs one? Harrias (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ideally the individual footnotes should be cited with the player's bio. This can be achieved either with a reference alongside the note:
[note 1][5]
Or by citing inline:
{{#tag:ref|Mike Knuble was born in Canada, but grew up in Michigan and has played for the U.S. internationally.<ref>citation goes here</ref>|group=note}}
  • Done referenced as suggested. Harrias (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's worth communicating records in the table? For instance, giving Clarke's points total a different symbol and color for that cell, and doing the same for other records such as most assists, most games played etc.
  • Not sure I agree with you here to be honest, I think that's kind of the point of a sortable list, that by sorting it you find that information out. Have you seen any other lists that do this? Harrias (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to return to this tonight, but hopefully those will help for the time being. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments so far; I have read and appreciate them, but unfortunately I don't have the most amount of time to make any changes at the moment. But I am grateful, and will hopefully be able to dedicate some time to this later in the week. Regards, Harrias (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Let me know when you'd like me to take a second look. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Second look

Sorry it's a little later than advertised.

  • Is there a real benefit to the notes columns being sortable? I am a fan of doing it in certain circumstances (for instance, I've got a sortable notes table for List of Watford F.C. players so that the player-managers and players of the season can be compared to one another). But as the Stanley Cups were in consecutive years, won't the same result be achieved sorting by year?
  • No, probably not, I agree. Will remove it later with some other work. Harrias (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The ♠ symbol has only been added for goalkeepers, not skaters.
  • I need to work on the sortability with regards to debutants and dashes in the skaters table, and will add it with those changes which I'll work on in my sandbox. Harrias (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • s needed at the end of "Flyer" in reference 2.
  • What makes a reliable source?
  • Pass, it certainly doesn't look like one! It was on there before I got to the article. As I said, I'm relatively new to hockey articles. I could remove it, as all info sourced from there is also sourced from hockeydb, with the exception of Flyers HoF details, which I think I can get from the Alumni Association site. I'd prefer to leave it as a supporting source, but it is up to you. Harrias (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The alt text is very good, and there are no DABs or external link problems.
  • Thank you :) Harrias (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph could do with a bit of sourcing, for the total number of players and if possible a source covering the statistics on the number of Stanley Cup winners. A source for the Stanley Cup rosters would suffice, you wouldn't need to find one that explicitly gives the number of players used.
  • Got one, although again I'm not 100% sure on whether it would be considered a RS. But it is the best of the sites that I found listing it. The UK isn't great for written literature on the subject either! Harrias (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a slight inconsistency over the total number of players. states that there are 510 players, although presumably that's as of the end of 2008–09. The list states that there have been 518 players, but 44 goaltenders + 475 skaters adds up to 519.
  • Fixed, the totals must have got muddled at some point, I went through and they should now be correct. Harrias (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Once those are resolved I think I'll have taken this list as far as I can, and I would be happy to support at FLC. WFCforLife (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cass Business School[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to find some ideas to improve the article before going for GA status.

Thanks, Mephiston999 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: In its present form the article reads more like a promotional blurb for the college rather than an objective encyclopedia article. There is no history of the school. The main content seems to be nothing but lists of courses, achievements, alumni and associated institutions, with much of the information coming from the school itself. Needs to be re-prepared from the ground up; perhaps a study of some of the school or college articles at WP:GA or WP:FA will help you to develop the article in a more appropriate manner. At present peer review is premature. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Laughlin[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated it for a good article status last April. I now realize that it was nowhere close to GA status at that time. But I've had almost another full year of editing under my belt since then and this past weekend I decided to take it on again. I feel that I fixed all or at least most of the problems the original GA reviewer encountered. However, I still feel it would be rather hasty to submit it for GA again. So I am asking for a peer review and I hope to someday nominate it for GA status again. The major issue with it as I see it now is the lack of a photograph. After months of searching, I can assure you that a usable one simply cannot be found.

Thanks, BillyJack193 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about an interesting guy. It's broad in coverage, stable, neutral, and verifiable. I have no solution to the image problem unless a fair-use claim might work for a DVD cover (and I'm not sure that it would since it might still be possible to find or create a free image). The prose has problems in places, and the article does not always follow Manual of Style guidelines. I did a fair bit of copyediting as I went, and I have suggestions for further improvement, below.


  • Rather than saying "present", which is ambiguous (different tomorrow than today), it would be better to leave the space after the en dash blank.


  • "For a period in the early 1960s, Laughlin left his film career behind for and began a Montessori preschool in Santa Monica, California that became the largest school of its kind in the United States." - Awkward. Suggestion: "In the early 1960s, Laughlin temporarily left his film career behind to start a Montessori preschool in Santa Monica, California; it became the largest school of its kind in the United States."

Early life and career

  • "He was involved in an athletic controversy while at the high school that made headlines throughout the city." - Awkward. Suggestion: "While in high school, he was involved in an athletic controversy that made headlines throughout the city." What was the controversy about? Every reader will want to know.
  • "He later transferred to the University of South Dakota... ". - Wikilink University of South Dakota?

Leaving Hollywood

  • "In 1959, Laughlin and his wife Delores Taylor founded a Montessori preschool... " - No need to link Delores Taylor again in this section or to repeat her name.

Billy Jack years

  • "Although made independently, like all of his films, and with his own money, several studios were on board to distribute it at various points in time." - Misplaced modifier. Suggestion: "Although he made the film, like all of his films, independently and with his own money, several studios agreed to distribute it."
  • "American International Pictures refused to release the film unless a lot of the political references were cut out, leading to the Laughlins taking the film's sound reels, making it so the studio had, in effect, a silent film." - Awkward. Suggestion: "American International Pictures refused to release the film unless many of the political references were cut. This led the Laughlins to withhold the film's sound reels, which in effect made it a silent film."
  • However, the film was embraced by much of America's youth, with Laughlin stating in 1975, "The youth of this country have only two heroes, Ralph Nader and Billy Jack". - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "However, the film was embraced by much of America's youth, leading Laughlin to claim in 1975 that "The youth of this country have only two heroes, Ralph Nader and Billy Jack".
  • "It is currently the highest-grossing independent film of all time." - "Currently", as noted above, is tricky because it is not specific. Much better would be to say "As of X, it is the highest-grossing... ". For X, fill in the latest date supported by your sources.
  • "As part of the film's promotion, Bong Soo Han, the man in charge of the martial arts choreography for the film, toured the United States giving hapkido demonstrations." - As noted by the GA reviewer, one-sentence orphan paragraphs should usually be merged with another paragraph. Another alternative for such orphans is to expand them.
  • "However, it was Laughlin's unique promotion of the film, which was its real legacy." - Tighten to "However, Laughlin's unique promotion of the film was its real legacy"?
  • The film forever changed the way films are marketed and has been called "the first blockbuster". - Actually, it was Laughlin's marketing technique rather than the film that "changed the way". I'd suggest revising slightly.
  • "and it proved to be Laughlin's last film as a director to date" - The phrase "to date" has the same problem as "currently". Something like "through 2010" would be better.
  • "Tom has blamed individuals within the United States government... " - "Laughlin" rather than "Tom".
  • The quote about Hartke appears to be long enough to set off in blockquotes. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

Later career (1978– )

  • I replaced "present" with a blank, but "Later career" would be just as good. So would "After 1978".
  • "His last acting role to date was in a 1991 BBC production entitled The War that Never Ends." - Another "to date".
  • "Laughlin also gained notoriety at this time for making a citizen's arrest of a man after an argument over Laughlin's driving." - I would merge this with the paragraph above it.
  • "Laughlin has been seeking funding for a fifth Billy Jack film since at least 1996, when he spoke about it during a lawsuit against a man who Laughlin said had illegally changed his name to "Billy Jack",[51] and at one point had plans to make a Billy Jack television series." - Ambiguous. Did Laughlin have plans to make a television series, or did the man who changed his name have plans to make a television series?
  • "Laughlin promises it will be a "new genre of film" and a great deal of social commentary on politics, religion, psychology, etc. will be discussed... ". - Delete "etc." or fill in the missing words?


  • "Laughlin later heavily protested not being on the primary ballot in his home state of Wisconsin, despite former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke being on the ballot." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "Laughlin later heavily protested being excluded from the primary ballot in his home state of Wisconsin at the same time former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was included. " Or something like that.

Personal life

  • I'd unbold the names in this section. Bolding is generally reserved for the article name in the lead and is rarely used elsewhere except in heads and subheads and other places where it is automatically added. You could use quotation marks instead.
  • "His daughter Teresa (known by the family as T.C.) is currently a fashion designer." - "Currently" again.
  • "He has written The Psychology of Cancer, a book about faith, attitude and such factors that may have an alternative effect on the progression of cancer." - Wordy. Suggestion: "His book, The Psychology of Cancer, is about faith, attitude and other factors that might affect cancer."
  • "In the video, he announced that he had the condition under control, has updated the website, is continuing his plans for a new Billy Jack film. - Which condition?

See also

  • I'd delete all of the items in this list that already linked in the main text.


  • Citation 55 is incomplete.
  • Citation 57 lacks an access date.

External links

  • Not sure what the "no include" line is doing or how to get rid of it.


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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

An Ideal World[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want advice on how to fix any issues, particularly with prose. Comments regarding information I might want to add would also be appreciated. Overall, I'd like to know what I should do in order to get this article ready to be a GA nomination.

Thanks, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally clear and informative, verifiable, stable, and neutral. I have a few suggestions about prose and style and a couple of suggestions for possible expansion.


  • "An Ideal World was licensed by various other companies and released simultaneously as the originally publisher." - I'm not sure what this means. The next sentences suggest that several versions or translations were released at different times rather than simultaneously.
    • I've changed it so that it's clear the series was published between 2006 and 2007. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "An Ideal World follows the struggles of A You, a young man who believes he has no luck and doesn't attempt to succeed in life, despite others advising him to take control and that his view on life directly affects luck." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "An Ideal World follows the struggles of A You, a young man who, believing he has no luck, doesn't attempt to succeed in life even though others advise him to make his own luck."
  • "After waking up, A You stumbles across an old man's house, who sends him to an alternate world so that he may resolve his troubles." - Suggestion: "After waking up, A You happens upon the house of an old man, who sends him to an alternate world so that he may resolve his troubles."
  • "An Ideal World garnered mixed reception from Western critics, with criticism drawn mainly from its beginning, and praise from the overall story, artwork, and themes." - Suggestion: An Ideal World garnered mixed reception from Western critics, who objected mainly to the beginning and praised the overall story, artwork, and themes."


  • "A You enjoys his time away and takes shelter in a large tree when it begins to rain." - Does he shelter in the tree or under the tree?
    • I think either might be technically correct. The book is packed away because we're painting, but I'll check out the artwork when I find it. I believe the tree was completely hollow and he crawled inside of it, or beneath it between the roots. I'll change it to coincide with the artwork and mention that the tree is hollow. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


  • "An Ideal World has received mixed reviews from Western critics, with praise directed towards the book's artwork and latter half, but garnering criticism from its beginning." - Suggestion: "An Ideal World has received mixed reviews from Western critics, who praised the book's artwork and second half but did not like the beginning."


  • In citation 1, instead of IDEAL WORLD in all caps, Wikipedia should use its own house style, Ideal World, even though the source uses all caps.
  • In citation 3, a single page should be abbreviated p. rather than pp.
  • The others look fine to me.


  • The image needs alt text, meant for sight-impaired readers. WP:ALT has details.
  • No dead links, no dabs; that's good.
  • Can anything be added about the author and illustrator? Is their work well-known? What other work have they done?
    • I can use information provided by the English edition, and I believe some of my sources discuss other works. I'll look at them. Their work is well known to an extent; according to the Yen Press volume, comics weren't very popular in China until more recently, and the artists really helped with that. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Can anything be added about the commercial success of An Ideal World? How many copies were sold? How did its sales compare to similar works?
    • Unfortunately, I doubt it. Very little manhua is sold outside of China, with maybe the exception of France, and I don't see much sales reporting going on in either country (regarding manhua, in any case). I'll look around, though. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! It was definitely useful. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAR. I'm particularly interested in improving the quality of the prose as I feel it drags in places.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a long article, and the review will be spread over time. First instalment soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An impressive effort. Here are a few initial points before I get to the prose:-

  • Alt text required on all images
I will work on this very soon, but see below. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sources: the listed books are all good, but I am surprised that you have not consulted any of the Yorkshire CCC histories that are available (at least three relatively recent ones). And what about the long Wisden obituary from 1974 - presumably that is online? There is also a tiny vignette in the History of Harrow School, for which I can give you text and references if you're interested.
The Harrow stuff would be great. I haven't got access to the Yorkshire histories, unfortunately, otherwise I would use them. The obituary is referenced in there quite a lot, should I add it to the bibliography? --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I've posted the Harrow stuff to your talkpage. I don't think that a biography of so characteristic a Yorkshire cricketer as Rhodes can be considered as based on the best sources without the use of at least one county history. Two of these were published in 1989: Derek Hodgson's Official History of Yorkshire CCC and Tony Woodhouse's The History of Yorkshire CCC. I'd recommend the latter; if you are in the UK, either should be available via inter-library loans. They may be more difficult to access otherwise. I don't see the references to the 1974 obituary - can you point them out? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ref 18 is to the obituary in the online Wisden archive (it was by Cardus). Re county history, I believe one of the county histories may be available in a local library but it may be some time before I can get hold of it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Refered to the Woodhouse history. Not much in that isn't just extra detail which would make the article even longer. Added some extra info and added book to bibliography. May add some refs to his position in national averages (when he came top in bowling) from the book. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Images: both photographs require source and publication information. You can't rely on a "source unknown" statement; the pictures must be traceable to a reliable source. Likewise, without publication information how can you justify a licence that says they were published before 1923?
The images weren't added by me, I'm afraid so I don't know about them. I have seen them in other publications, but I've no idea where they are from. I have no facilities for scanning pictures myself, either. If they are dubious, would it be better to remove them completely? Until this is sorted, I won't add alt text, just in case.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The main thing to establish is that these photos were published before 1923, otherwise their PD licences will be challenged. Certainly the group photo has been published many times, but we need to tie both pictures to a pre-1923 publication. I wonder if any of the Wikipedia cricket community can help with this? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I will ask if anyone knows.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A few points on the article's general structure:-
    • Subsection 1.1 would be better as "Professional club cricketer"
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Section 3 heading should specify which war
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • More generally, it seems odd that you have not separated out his Test career from his county career. This leaves one having to search for details of his international career. Most of the cricketer biographies that have made FA (all Australians as far as I see) have separated out Test match information.
As far as I can tell (looking at Loxton, Barnes, O'Reilly, Ponsford and Trumble) other FA biographies follow a chronological order, with Test appearances put in between domestic cricket without much separation. For an English cricketer from this time, there was far, far more county cricket than Shield cricket for an Australia, so there is more to say about Rhodes than, say, Trumble. With his Tests quite spread out over time, I believed it was better to follow this approach to give his Tests some context, such as his gradual transformation to a batsman which explains his lessening success as a bowler. Talking about his Test career in the 20s would not make much sense without domestic cricket. However, would it make the article clearer if the Tests were made more distinct? E.g. in an international season, do any domestic cricket first and then add the Tests after in a new paragraph? I'm open to suggestions, but don't feel a separate "domestic" and "test" section would make sense for Rhodes. (Sorry, long response!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In the biogs of older players, the domestics are just put in chrono order, as in those days, the pre-Test tour matches were used for selection trials and all that, whereas today, with so many ODIs, usually there is only one tour match before the Tests and nothing more, often an informal 2-day match where 15 players and subs etc are used. And in those days, a full-time national team player often was also available for 60-70% of the domestic games as well, these days many only play one state/county game a year, or even if they are free, they just skip it. Also in the modern day, the national selectors just choose on what happened in the last Test series, whereas in 1948 Neil Harvey was dropped after scoring 153 in the Fifth Test against India because he did badly in the 12 warm-up matches in England. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
When discussing a fringe Test player, or a Test player who was fringe at that time in his career, I would definitely go in order, as doing well in a domestic match affects their selection for the next Test. But once they have become a senior, then if they do badly in the domestic matches, they would get picked anyway becuase of their track record in Tests, so in those cases, putting the Tests and other tour/domestic matches in the same season in separate paragraphs side by side won't be jarring. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful so far, much appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the lead. I'm sorry this review is proceeding so slowly, but I will try to pick up the pace over the next few days.

    • "He holds the world records for both the most appearances made (1,110 matches) and the most wickets (4,204) taken in first-class cricket." Needs rearranging: "He holds the world records both for the most appearances made in first-class cricket (1,110 matches), and for the most wickets taken (4,204).
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "...1,000 runs and 100 wickets in a single English cricket season" The word "single" is unnecessary.
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The last two sentences of the first paragraph should be run together, thus "He played for Yorkshire and England into his fifties, and in his final Test in 1930 he was, at 52 years and 165 days, the oldest player who has appeared in a Test match."
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ungainly beginning to para 2: "Beginning his career for Yorkshire in 1898, he began..." Suggest change "began" to "started"
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Words such as "in due course" need to precede "establishing a reputation as one of the best bowlers in the world."
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "By the First World War he had improved his batting to the same extent." He had indeed improved his batting, but not to the extent of being considered to be one of the best batsmen in the world, so I'd delete the words "to the same extent".
Reworded --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Last sentence of lead: A bit telescopic and abrupt; he was coaching at Harrow in the early 1930s but was not fully blind until the late 1940s, and he lived for another 25 years after that. It would also be worth mentioning his honorary MCC membership in the lead - this was a very big deal at the time. So I suggest some extension to the final part of the lead.
Done: is there enough in the article to justify what I said? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Early life and career: I have copyedited this section. I think the preamble should form a separate level 3 subsection, titled (perhaps) "Beginnings"
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Professional club cricketer
    • I have copyedited the first paragraph. I suggest you move the second paragraph to the opening of the next section, which deals with the start of Rhodes's Yorkshire career.
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • In any event the paragraph should not begin with "He". To avoid a third successive paragraph starting with "Rhodes" you could reword along the lines "In response to an advertisement, Rhodes applied..." etc
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Beginning as a bowler
    • I know "friendly matches" is good cricket parlance, but for the uninitiated it might be better to say "unofficial matches".
I've put both, if that's OK. I feel it needs "friendly match" in there for those who do know the term or it might look like some break-away, Packer style match! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "The result of this was that he made his first-class debut..." Wouldn't it be better to amplify by saying something like: "His performances in these matches led to his first-class debut..." - and say who he was playing for?
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "In his second match, against Somerset,..." This was presumably his County Championship debut, which should be noted and a date given.
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "Springing to fame" is a once-off action; you don't do it "throughout" a season, so I'd alter the sentence beginning to: "In the 1898 season..."
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • To avoid confusion you should not use the word "wicket" to describe the pitch, or you get problematic sentences like: "In 1899 he took 179 wickets at an average of 17.10 in a reasonably dry season with fewer wickets to suit his bowling." I have changed a couple of these to "pitches", but I suggest you go through the article and look for other possible instances.
Not done yet, but I will check for this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "In this first test he opened the bowling, took seven wickets and was described by Wisden as bowling “steady and well” on the first day." This doesn't really do justice to the occasion of Rhodes's Test debut. You could mention: that as well as Grace his team-mates included Fry, Ranjitsinhji, and George Hirst (by the way, the team photo caption is wrong - Brockwell, not Hearne, was 12th man); that he opened the English bowling; that his debut bowling performance was 4 for 58 in an Australian total of 252; that his first Test wicket was Monty Noble (he got Noble in the second innings, too). I think the text is worth expanding to include at least some of this information.
Totally agree. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I notice that curly quote marks are being used. These should all be changed to "..." - I've done a couple.
I hope it was just a lapse from something my computer did when I copied something, but I'll keep an eye out as I go over the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you should mention that his 7/17 in the first 1902 Test was in an Australian total of 36 - worth repeating any time.
 :) Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "In a well-known story..." Well known to cricket historians, but a general encyclopedia article needs to explain. Cardus tells the story - I remember reading it in his autobiography. Was he the originator? Whether or not this is so, a source should be indicated.
Rephrased the "well-known story" which I didn't really like in the end. At the moment, my only source says that there was a story but not where it comes from. Not too sure what the original source was, haven't read the Cardus autobiography, and if it was a Cardus story, he would have said so before, probably. He wrote at length about the 4th and 5th Tests of 1902. Do you know where he wrote it? On a slightly related point, do you know where the stories about MacLaren and Hawke clashing over selection ("Look what they've sent me!") comes from? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The "We'll get them in singles" story is told on p. 157 of my extremely tatty 1949 copy of the Cardus' autobiography (my grandad's, I think, pub. William Collins). Cardus says "the story goes that..." so it doesn't sound like he's the originator, but you can cite it to there if you want. I don't know the other story - not referring to the Oval 1902 match, surely? The England side looks pretty strong there! Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Added ref, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Another review slice: (I have continued to copyedit)

  • From all-rounder to specialist batsman
    • "Warner selected Rhodes when he captained the MCC tour of Australia in 1903–04." You need to explain who "Warner" was. Were touring captains also sole selectors? If so, this needs to be explained. too.
Clarified, although I think it is a bit vague how it worked at this distance. I think Warner was claiming sole credit in his book. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Too many quotations of straightforward expressions in the first paragraph. The Ranji quote is OK, but thereafter I suggest you remove the quote marks from "the mainstay of the team (everyday phraseology) and slightly paraphrase the other two.
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The partnership with Foster was a 10th wicket Test record, and remained so for about 70 years. This should be mentioned.
Done. Still England record. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You also need to explain the nature of the 15 for 124 Test record (best match bowling analysis in a Test?)
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "...and the break up of the successful Yorkshire team of 1900 to 1902." Seems rather a short period in which to establish a successful team - you'd expect a decade or so. Apart from that, you need to explain why the break-up of the Yorkshire team affected Rhodes's bowling. You should add something like: "...meant that the county relied increasingly on Rhodes's batting.
I think I've covered this; not quite sure I agree with Rogerson's reasoning here, but don't want to just include the reasons I agree with. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It's a bit confusing to find, having just read that Rhodes was a declining bowler after the 1903-04 tour, that in 1905 he was considered "at the top of his form" as a bowler–especially when you read the last sentence of this paragraph which implies something else again.
The "top of his form" referred to one game where Australia were bowled out easily. I've clarified this. Hopefully, it now shows that he was not as effective overall but capable of good spells. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • England won the 1905 series 2–0 not 3–0
Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "...and it seems that it was around this time that he was decided upon as the batsman who would replace John Tunnicliffe..." Whose view ("it seems that") is being expressed here?
Took out "it seems that". Does it still need clarifying? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ungrammatical: "Passing 2,000 runs for the first time, Sidney Rogerson believed that this was the season that "the days of his apprenticeship in batsmanship were ending". Needs to read something like "Sidney Rogerson believes that by passing 2,000 runs for the first time, Rhodes was ending the days of his batting apprenticeship". The sentence needs to be split at this point, to avoid becoming overlong
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • A general prose problem which I have hinted at before: a tendency to put in quotes too many short unmemorable phrases. In this paragraph we have "Rhodes alone bowled well" and "batting admirably"; neither of these are worthy of quotation marks, which should be reserved for more vivid phrases or where there is a specific need to report verbatim. I'd recommend a check through the article to deal with other instances of this.
Done as much as I could. Will check for more later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We're approaching halfway through now. I will need to break off for a couple of days to attend to other pressing chores, but I'll be back. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More stuff

  • Opening batsman (I have copyedited quite heavily)
    • "However, Rhodes received only £750 from the match, and even when Yorkshire launched an appeal to boost the total which raised it to £2,200," The figures sound low in 2010, but their present-day equivalents, in terms of purchase power, are respectively £57,000 and £167,000 (per This rather affects the use of "however", "only" and "even" in the above sentence. Also, I understand that Hirst's 1904 benfit was a record. I don't see any point in the Haigh comparison. The whole sentence needs recasting along these lines: "In 1911, when Yorkshire finished seventh in the County Championship, Rhodes was given a benefit match against Lancashire from which he received £750 (around £57,000 in 2010). After Yorkshire launched an appeal, the total was boosted to £2,200 (around £167,000 in 2010), still considerably less than the record benefit total of £3,703 raised for George Hirst in 1904." You need to cite for the equivalent values, and to find a source for the Hirst total (Wisden has it) if this is not in your existing citation.
Hirst is covered by existing citation. Have altered sentence as you recommended. However, will not give a url which gives the equivalent amounts, it is just a "results" page with no data. I have cited the page with an explanation of how it works and with the calculator. Is this good enough for a source, or is there another way to do it? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I usually cite to this page. The links are there if people want to examine the theory. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Batting success in Australia (again I have copyedit heavily)
    • "...a Test record at the time" (Hobbs/Rhodes opening stand) What was the nature of the record?
Done and added more info about it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Should "a remarkable display of careful batting" be in quotes?
Done (Got carried away taking out unneccesary quotation marks!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have inserted references to the results of the Tests, which seems necessary. I imagine these are covered by existing citations.
Yes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Triangular tournament (still copyediting)
    • The Wisden quote beginning "a splendid pair" is far too long to make the simple point (already made a couple of sections ago) that Hobbs and Rhodes had a good understanding when running between the wickets. I would shorten this considerably.
Done. Just general comments about how good they were. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have divided the section, since only the first paragraph relates to the Triangular Tournament. I have called the new subsection "Last pre-war seasons" but feel free to replace this if you have a better idea.
Your heading is fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Last pre-war seasons
    • I think that the 1000-run/100 wicket Test double was quite rare at that time. Do we know how many players, and specifically how many England players, had done this previously? I think the significance of the feat should be noted.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Will continue later Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

  • Returning to bowling (the copyedits continue)
    • The heading implies that Rhodes had given up bowling before the war. In fact, as your figures show, he took 118 wickets in the 1914 season and 86 in the season before that. So the phrasing that he "made a surprising and successful return as a bowler" is not really warranted by the facts, and I have removed it. The facts are that, before the war, Rhodes virtually ceased as a bowler at international level, but continued bowling in domestic cricket, though to a reduced extent due to his concentrating more on his batting. After the war he made bowling his first priority and was very successful, at least in county matches. The section covers a great deal more than Rhodes's "return to bowling", not least the 1920-21 Australian tour which occupies about 75% of the section. The heading should reflect this.
Fair enough, but I'm not too sure what it should be! I feel it should reflect his renewed emphasis on bowling rather than the 20-21 tour as this was a major change when compared to before the war: he may have taken wickets but was considered a change bowler and was not the main strike bowler for Yorkshire. After the war, he was almost the last one standing and pretty much headed the English bowling averages for two or three seasons. He continued as a leading bowler for the rest of his career. This is why I chose that heading. In terms of his international career, the Ashes tour was a strange one as he did very little but it was not the end of his Test career. More like the end of his regular international career. So to cut a long story short, if the heading needs changing, should I go for "1920-21 tour to Australia" which neglects his change of emphasis, or "Leading bowler again" or words like that? Suggestions appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion – which I have implemented but feel free to change if you don't like it – is to rename the first paragraph "Leading bowler again" and to create a new heading "Australian tour 1920–21" for the remainder of the section. That seems to work. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • First sentence: the suggestion that the 2-day match experiment was undertaken simply because "no-one was sure how popular county cricket would be" comes from where? This article gives more details of the reasoning behind the experiment, and I am sure that Wisden 1920 has even more to say.
This comment is referenced from the 1920 Wisden editor's comments. The article from cricinfo doesn't really explain why it happened other than saying that English administrators like to tinker with the Championship. The idea that they were afraid no-one was interested tallies with what I've seen elsewhere; I'll try to dig out another ref. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I recommend you cut the information about Rhodes's supposed disagreement with Toone. It's uninformative, and an unnecessary distraction in what is already a very long article
I've taken out the financial disagreement but left in Toone's comment at the end of the tour as I think it's a good judgement on the tour. Also, Toone was involved in the (probable) plan to try to oust Rhodes from the Yorkshire team so that Sutcliffe could take over as captain. If you think that this comment also needs to come out , I'll remove it too. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it's OK as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Likewise "but it was rumoured that there may have been a problem between Rhodes and Douglas." This is a loose end, unless you are able to indicate what the "problem" might have been. I don't think myself that it adds anything worthwhile, so I'd remove it.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost there...

  • Senior professional: this section is too long and is overdetailed. Here are ways of reducing it:-
    • Too many illustrative stories all making the same point - that as senior pro Rhodes often took charge on the field over the head of his captain. This is clear after the sentence about Lupton deferring to Rhodes and Robinson, and most of the stories are legens rather than facts. This article is pretty long and needs to be cut down, so I'd excise everything between "Emmott Robinson" and the sentence beginning "However biographer Sidney Rogerson..."
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • For the same reason I would cut out everything from "On the other hand, Geoffrey Wilson..." to the sentence beginning "Beverley Lyon..."
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Recalled to the Oval
    • There's an unwelcome lapse into "cricketspeak" with: "Rhodes had only bowled to Woodfull once before, bowling him second ball with an arm ball. Now, Rhodes bowled two maiden overs to Woodfull before making him play on with an identical ball. Apart from the specialist terms ("arm ball", "maiden overs", "play on") this is unnecessarily detailed. Again, this section is overlong and will need cutting down. I suggest you cut out the details and just say that Rhodes's victims were Woodfull and Arthur Richardson.
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have removed other technical terms, e.g. "made the ball turn", "caught at slip" etc.
    • I have split this section, since only the first half is about the Oval, 1926.
    • Measuringworth estimates that £1,821 in 1927 has a current purchasing power of over £80,000.
Cited --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "...not least prompted by his wife's suspicions of a plot." Unattributed, probably best withdrawn
Ref in wrong place, this is part of the ref I had from Rogerson. So it is attributable. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "...with some believing that Rhodes should have been appointed captain." Some who? Players, writers, members, the general public?
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you extend the final Wisden tribute a bit? It reads rather limply at present.
Not too sure how. The Wisden tribute just says this then talks how he went from bowler to batsman and back again. Any suggestions? I agree its not a good finish.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Final comments

  • Style and personality
    • What is the "Wilfred Rhodes Career Batting Performance" chart actually showing? What are the red bars, what is the blue line? Is this related to his whole career or his Test career? Also, as he was as much a bowler as batsman, why is there no equivalent chart for his bowling career?
Added explanation of lines and colours. Not sure why there's no bowler equivalent, it just seems to be standard on the cricket project. I'll ask and see what is said.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "Wisden, in Rhodes's obituary..." Name the writer, not "Wisden"
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "He was an expert at bowling to his field so that the batsmen hit the ball where he, the bowler, wanted it." Incomprehensible to those without a knowledge of cricket. Suggest: "When bowling he was able to force batsmen to hit the ball to places where he had positioned his fieldsmen" - or something like that.
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "commanded very sharp spin" is equally obscure to non-cricketers (and presumably should be in quotes) Suggest replace with "In his early years as a bowler Rhodes was able to spin the ball very sharply"
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Overdetailing, labouring the point – suggest you cut out everything between "batsmens' weaknesses" and "He was also considered..."
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Personal life
    • Too much small detail for an encyclopedia article. Suggest delete everything between "Bog Hall, near Kirkheaton" and "On 25 August 1902...". Also delete the trivia about the telegram on the field of play.
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Whose phrasing is "lacking geneosity"? Should it not be in quotes?
Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all the specific points, but I would recommend you consider each of the following carefully:-

  • Length: At 9,200 words the article is too long. In my review I have recommended cuts that total about 500 words. You should go through and see if you can cut out at least another 500 – try and get the total below 8,000 if you can. Look for instances where you have given two or more examples where one will do. Look for trivial information that doesn't really add anything to the article.
  • Use of quotes: I have noticed that some of the phrases sounds as though they come directly from a book or other source, but it's not in quotation marks; I have drawn attention to one or two instances of this. I suggest you go through carefully and deal with any other cases.
  • Images: Make sure that any images you use were published before 1923 to ensure teir PD status. I'm pretty certain that both the current images were, but we do need publication details. Have you asked other cricketing editors if they can help with this information, or whether they can supply alternatives?
I've asked about the images but no response yet. I may approach a few individuals to see if they can help. I'll do alttext as soon as it's sorted. I'll go through the article again over the next few days and see if I can shorten it and tidy up the quotes. I should also be able to get hold of the Yorkshire CCC histories in the next day or two as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And thank you for all your assistance with this, you've been a huge help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on this article and managed (with others) to get it to GA status; I was wondering whether there were any areas which the community thought could be improved, and ultimately whether it was possible (or worthwhile given the relative brevity of the article) to try for FA nomination.

Are there any parts of the article which need further development and explanation? I'm thinking primarily in terms of general improvements, but also in terms of FAN.

Are there any gaps (obvious or otherwise) in the article's coverage of the subject? I went about as far as I could with the sources I had, but maybe I missed important areas.

Are there any formatting issues / spacing / labelling and citations which could be improved?

Any feedback (further to the GA-review) would be appreciated.

Thanks, Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: My general reaction is that this article is at present too slight, and needs to be expanded if it is to be a comprehensive account of this musical work. There are also issues of accessibility, particularly in the "Form" section. Otherwise this is interesting stuff, but it needs to be developed if it is to meet the FA criteria.

  • Lead:
    • The brief lead does not conform to WP:PR, which requires a concise summary of the entire article rather than a brief introduction. Anything mentioned in the lead should be developed in the main text.
    • The number of citations in the lead is distracting. The citations would be better placed in the body of the text where these matters are raised.
    • "It was the first Joplin copyrighted work since his wife Freddie's death..." What is the significance here of "copyrighted"? Was this Joplin's first composition after his wife's death?
    • When you say this was played "throughout" the Benjamin Button film, does this mean it was literally played non-stop? Or that it was "used" throughout the film as the basis of its story?
  • Background
    • "Fall does not require capitalisation
    • "unidentified" rather than "unknown" associate
    • What is the distinction between "seeking commissions" and "writing for hire"?
    • "On 6 March, Joplin registered the copyright of Bethena, A Concert Waltz, and dedicated the work to the otherwise little-known "Mr. and Mrs. Dan E. Davenport of St. Louis Mo"." Needs a citation
    • "...and the identity of the woman featured on the cover of the work is unknown." Clarify that this refers specifically to the original publication of the music
    • I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph of this section. What is the significance of: " but had frequently advertised in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper"? The rest of the information in the paragraph doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to the article's subject.
    • Also, this section covers rather more than "Background". Since it also covers the writing, dedication and publication of the work, perhaps a broader title should be used.
  • Form; It seems to me that this section is almost impossible to understand by anyone without a significant knowledge of music theory, and has to be rewritten in a form much more friendly to the general reader. Here are some examples of "difficult" sentences:-
    • "The alternate unaccented eighth notes and accented quarter notes is the rhythm of the Cakewalk minus the final note."
    • "The combination of the waltz and the syncopation, with the simultaneous sounding of two independent rhythms, has an effect similar to a 4 against 3 polyrhythm with many subtle variations occurring throughout the work."
    • "The B theme presents its counterpoint with the contrary motion of the bass and treble in bars 29-30 being exchanged in bars 31-32. This pattern repeats itself during the theme. In the opening phrase of the C theme, bars 77-81, counterpoint is evident with the melody line in the treble complementing the bass line."
  • Critical reception: I am not sure that the opinions of two Joplin biographers and two unnamed critics can be fairly said to represent the critical reception of the work. However, should there not be some information in the article on its public reception? Was it popular, did it sell well, etc? For it to be used in a film 100 years later is an indication that the work endured, but what was its general history over this long period?

I hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. It is most appreciated! I'll take a look at improving the article in line with your comments. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have edited the article in line with the above comments, hopefully addressing all of the issues. Any comments further to the above would be appreciated.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just had a quick look, and made a couple of alterations in the lead. Please note that if direct quotations occur in the lead, they must be cited. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A further point occurs to me: there is no mention of the work having been recorded, though I assume it must have been. What about adding a very brief recording history, mentioning when it was first recorded and perhaps a few of the more recent issues? Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Exploration of Io[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This page was created last week as an expansion to the Io (moon)#Observational History section of the article on Jupiter's moon Io. Over the next few days, I expanded each section to provide comprehensive coverage and added sufficient citations. My goal is to submit this article as a Featured Article Candidate. I would like to ensure that this FAC goes pretty smoothly, so I get some of these fixes done now. In particular, this is the first large article of this type that I have worked on in more than a year, so obviously there maybe new parts of the MOS I am not aware of.

Thanks, Volcanopele (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara


  • Alt-text is needed.
  • "sulfur dioxide" and "SO2" are both used throughout the article; the first instance should have the abbrievation in parentheses (i.e. sulfur dioxide (SO2))
  • I believe "Jovian" should always be capitalized (i.e. anti-Jovian). Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
  • The article is included in a hidden category Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. This should probably taken care of before going to FAC.
  • Date ranges need En dashes, per WP:MOSDASH.


  • "The Exploration of Io, one of Jupiter's..." — "exploration" should be lower-case.
  • I'd explain what "5th magnitude" means, or at least link it. (I should also point out that I noticed that that sentence is an exact duplicate of another farther down the page; any chance one could be reworded so it doesn't sound stale).

Galileo era

  • Mention what a "safing event" is.

Interesting article...well written...shouldn't have too much of a problem at FAC. Hope this helps, if I spot anything else, I'll add it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. In this last edit of the article, I think I have addressed all your comments. I have seen anti-jovian and anti-Jovian in the sources I've used for the article. I have no problem going with Jovian capitalized. Safing event is now described in the text (it is mentioned first in the table, but it might be better to leave such detailed discussion for the body of the text, while the table acts more of a summary for each flyby). --Volcanopele (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines Flight 253[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I started this article a few months ago, and haven't really touched it for several weeks now. I think that it certainly has the potential to become a GA or FA, but I want detailed information on what to improve, particularly minor details (that are important during an FAC, for example). I know it's a lot to go through, but even giving a solid review of just one section would help a lot! Thank you,  fetchcomms 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'll be back with more comments later, but I thought I'd list three for starters.

  • The alt text tool in the tool box at the top of this review page shows that most of the images need alt text. You probably won't need alt text for GAN, but you will for FAC. WP:ALT has explanations and examples, and you can see other examples under discussion at WP:FAC.
  • The link checker tool finds 15 citations with dead urls.
  • I'd suggest reviewing the citations carefully. I see several that lack access dates, a few that have newspaper names that need italics, and some like citations 42 and 58 that are broken. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More Finetooth comments: This is most interesting, seems comprehensive, stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and professionally written. It has surprisingly few low-level errors, which made it much easier to read and comment on than many articles that come my way. I think you are close to GA, and I agree that FA is possible, though the alt text and dead urls and several other things need fixing. Since the article is in some way a breaking news story, the dead urls and frequent updates are apt to be a continuing problem until the story has become old news. Here is my second set of suggestions:

  • I find puzzling the doubts and allegations about the passport. If Abdulmutallab boarded the plane with his passport, it would have been found on the plane or his person after his arrest. If no passport was on him or the plane, he must have boarded without one or deliberately parted with it between the time he showed it to the boarding agent and the time he boarded the plane. Didn't the McClatchy reporter or any of the others investigating this matter ask about this? If they did, I think this should be included in the article.


  • You might add "United States" to the information in the first sentence. Since the new sentence might be a bit too complicated, you might consider altering it along lines like this: "Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was an international passenger flight that was the target of a failed al-Qaeda bombing attempt on December 25, 2009. Originating at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Netherlands, its destination was Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in the U.S. state of Michigan."

Getting on Flight 253

  • I'd remove the wikinews link from this section. It's already covered in the "External links" section, which I think is the right place for it.

Bombing attempt

  • "Flight 253, a Northwest Airlines Airbus A330-300 twinjet with 279 passengers, 8 flight attendants, and 3 pilots aboard, left Amsterdam around 8:45 am local time."[1][10][5][11] - Serial refs like these should be arranged in ascending order; i.e. [1][5][10][11]. Ditto for similar instances here and there in the article.

Analysis of explosives

  • "The suspect apparently carried the PETN onto the plane in a six-inch-long... ". - Metric conversion? I used {{convert}} to do the first of the unconverted ones I encountered.

Umar Abdulmutallab

  • For better flow, I'd suggest merging the two one-sentence paragraphs that occur in the middle of this section. The first one begins, "On June 12, 2008, Abdulmutallab applied for... ". Ditto for any other one-sentence orphan paragraphs in the article.
  • "On November 11, British intelligence officials sent the U.S. a cable indicating that a man named "Umar Farouk" had spoken to al-Awlaki, pledging to support jihad... ". - I think this is the first mention of al-Awlaki in the main text. If so, it would be good to include a brief description of him here rather than in the next section.

United States

  • The Manual of Style recommends using blockquotes only for quotations of four lines or more. The intelligence officer quote is only three lines long on my laptop screen, while the Hoekstra quote is only two lines long.

Effect on travel

  • "However, on January 3, 2010, Stuart Clarke, a photoreporter from the British newspaper Daily Express claimed to have smuggled on a jet from Schiphol Airport, bound for Heathrow Airport just five days after the Christmas Day terror attack, a syringe containing fluid, and which could have contained a liquid bomb detonator like that used on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, in spite of the extra measures that were said to have been put in place to forestall a follow-up attack." - This sentence has a few too many clauses. I'd suggest re-casting as two separate sentences.

U.S. political fallout

  • "... the Senate hearings will begin on January 21." - Needs updating. A general problem with articles based largely on breaking news is that they require frequent updating. This can be fun but begins to feel like high-performance juggling if you have several articles like this in circulation. (This is not an objection to news-pegged articles, just an observation.)

Account of pre-boarding event

  • "Kurt Haskell, a U.S. passenger on Flight 253, said he saw two individuals approach the boarding agent." - It might be helpful here to add "in Amsterdam". This is a long article, and people are used to the idea that planes often take off and land more than once. This one didn't, but a reminder of that wouldn't be out of place.


  • The description of File:Awlaki 1008.JPG says, "Imam Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen October 2008, taken by Muhammad ud-Deen", but the metadata at the bottom of the licensing page says that the photo was taken in June 2007. It's good to clear up discrepancies like this if possible.


  • I'm not sure why some of the references have been tagged with "verification needed", but that will have to be sorted out.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for the detailed, in-depth review. I hope to be able to make the suggested changes over the next few days!  fetchcomms 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed most of the minor wording, etc. stuff; now it's on to checking all the refs. About the al-Awlaki image, I would say that the metadata is the incorrect one--it relies on the camera's internal calendar, which would probably be out of sync if, say, a battery was removed or something. (I know that my own camera's date is off, but I always remove the batteries to preserve them, and don't use it often enough to change the dates each time i turn it on again.) At least, I hope the photographer knew when he took the image!  fetchcomms 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
About the passport, I can't seem to find much on it—seems like either nobody bothered to find out, the information was withheld, nobody knows, or something of that sort.  fetchcomms 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Synetic Theater (Arlington, Virginia)[edit]

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

I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor and plan on working in the Washington DC Theater area. I have been working on this article for several months and would like some feedback as to its quality

Thanks, Ecragg (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, here are some of my quick observations, seeing that i have written a few pages about theaters before. I will come back later when i have more time and say more specifics.
  • "Other Items Of Note" - this is a trivia section and Wikipedia does not like trivia sections. Try to integrate this stuff elsewhere in the article like the History section.
  • "Awards" - I hate awards sections on the theater's page. This list belongs wrapped into a much larger one on the Helen Hayes Awards page or perhaps even a new page like Helen Hayes Award Recipients or something like that.
  • "Current Season" and "Recent Productions" - Again these realy do not belong on the Wiki page. Wiki is not advertising. These can all be accessed by a link to the theaters page in the "External Links" section.
  • "Significant Past Productions" - All of this is good for the article, but should be in prose, not as lists. If they are significant then there should be enough references to flush out a good section, written in prose, about them.
  • "References" - Your first reference is right, but every other reference that is not from a news article is missing it's second part; the name of the company that the website is from.

This is just a start.. i will come back later to give you more when i am not eating lunch.

Comments by --Found5dollar (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad (album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the GA nominee log has a long waiting period, so I think that it would be better if the article has a peer review to correct its current problems so the GA review could go faster, when its reviewed. I'd be very grateful if any users could list problems with the page so that I could correct them. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find a copy-editor. The article's prose is quite poor and needs a lot of sprucing up. Also, make sure you have the information well-organised too. For example, the lead mentions in two different places that 5 of the 10 singles hit number one in the US.—indopug (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the redundancy you mentioned about the albums lead. I do not know of any copy editors on wikipedia, could you list one of them. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I copy edited 'Background and production'. Can you use this sample to copy edit the rest of your article? I didn't read the entire article (I'm not a fan of Jackson); it looks well researched.Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, which is broad in coverage, verifiable, neutral, and stable. However, it needs careful proofreading and copyediting to have a chance at GA. At least one of the images (the gold-plated jacket) has a licensing problem that may be insurmountable. I also have doubts that a fair-use rationale for a second album cover will stand up; the two cover images are nearly identical.

Background and production

  • "Following Jackson's career as a solo artist, while still a member of the band, he received more creative freedom on his studio albums Off the Wall (1979) and Thriller (1982); both albums were commercial successes." - This doesn't seem logical. It seems to say that Jackson's solo career and his career with the band were simultaneous and that after they were over, he had more creative freedom. But his solo career wasn't over.
 Done I reworded the sentence to "When Jackson began work on solo music projects, while still a member of the band, he received more creative freedom on his studio albums Off the Wall (1979) and Thriller (1982); both albums were commercial successes. Bad echoed the same option of Jackson being given creative freedom on the albums music.[1]" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Bad echoed the same option." - I'm not sure what "option" refers to.
I re-worded the sentence to "Bad echoed the same option of Jackson being given creative freedom on the albums music.[1]" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Jackson began recording demos for the anticipated follow-up to Thriller few months after the 1984 Victory Tour with The Jacksons." - Missing word?
 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


  • ""Dirty Diana" was viewed by critics as a "misogynistic", and its lyrics pertaining to a sexual predator, do not aim for the "darkness" of "Billie Jean"; but instead, sounds equally intrigued by an apprehensive of a sexual challenge, while having the opportunity to accept or resist it." - This makes little sense as written. A reader who does not know what "Billie Jean" is about will not be able to compare the two. Furthermore, "apprehensive" means "fearful", and is not a noun although it is being used like a noun.

Release and marketing

  • "The album stayed at the top position for eleven consecutive weeks, before be succeeded by Stevie Wonders album Characters on the issue date December 19, 1987... ". - "Before be"? Wonder's, not Wonders.
 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


  • I've just noted a few of the small errors in grammar, logic, and syntax in the article. I agree with User:indopug that it would be helpful to find a copyeditor. That's sometimes a tall order, because there's almost always a shortage of copyeditors and reviewers. You might try asking people on the copyediting list at WP:PRV, or someone from WP:ALBUMS might take an interest, or you might ask a writer or editor friend on or off Wikipedia to go over the whole article looking for small errors. If you want to ask someone who is off-line, you can print a copy for proofing.


  • The gold-plated jacket is a nice image, but its license won't pass close inspection. Its source is a Flickr image that is marked "all rights reserved". Thus the uploader had no right to re-license it as CC-by-SA 2.0. This is not your fault, but the image should not have been posted to the Commons.


  • In the lead, numbers like twenty million are written as words, while in '"Background and production" they are written as digits. Generally, numbers bigger than nine are written as digits, although there are some exceptions listed in the Manual of Style. In any case, you should be consistent throughout the article. This "words or digits" question is a sort of nit-picky thing to point out, but I see other nit-picky things in the article that begin to add up after a while. WP:ORDINAL has details about numbers.
  • Another nitpick is that the date formatting in the "Reference" section needs to be consistent. Since you are pretty much stuck with m-d-y format in the citations, probably switching to m-d-y throughout is the only sensible way to achieve consistency.
  • The "Reference" section is overlinked. A large fraction of it is blue and linked, which makes the links not special. I would not, for example, link or Nielsen Business Media more than once. You can probably justify linking them and similar things on first use, but no purpose is served by linking the same things over and over.
  • In the "Reference" section, the author's last name should come first. For example, citation 60 should start with "Silverman, Stephen M.

This is not a complete line-by-line review, but I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Woman's Bible[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed GAN and I wish to take the article to FAC. My close connection to the article may be preventing me from seeing a problem that would affect its ability to move forward.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Article looks pretty good; interesting on a subject I knew nothing about. However, I do feel that there's a great deal more about the response to the book in the article than material that tells us what was actually in the book. I realise it's hard to summarise an entire book, but I'm keen to know more of its contents. That's my criticism of the article as it stands. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial brief comment: My first impression of the article was that it was rather dominated by its images which were over-large for the text. As an experiment I have reduced all the image sizes, and think this improves the overall appearance. I have also absorbed the shorter blockquotes into the text, to reduce the amount of unsightly white space that otherwise disrupts the article. You are of course free to revert these changes, but I'd ask you to consider them before you do. More detailed comments on the text will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Detailed comments: A most interesting subject, and a generally absorbing article.

  • Lead
    • The opening sentence has three "ands", and needs to be split. Thus: "The Woman's Bible is a two-part book, written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a committee of 26 women. It was published in 1895 and 1898 to challenge the traditional position of religious orthodoxy that woman should be subservient to man."
    • "By producing the book, Stanton wished to promote a radical liberating theology..." Slightly cumbersome wording; could be simplified to: "Stanton's objective was to promote..." etc
    • Overlinking: Bible
    • I recommend reorganising and slightly shortening the first two sentences in the second paragraph as follows: "Many women's rights activists who worked with Stanton within the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) were opposed to the publication of The Woman's Bible; they felt it would harm the drive for women's suffrage. Although it was never accepted by Bible scholars as a major work, it became a popular best-seller, much to the dismay of Stanton's fellow suffragists."
    • "Because of the widespread negative reaction, including suffragists who had been close to her,..." Not quite grammatical as it stands. Needs to say "including that of suffragists".
  • Background
    • "Independently from Mott, Lucy Stone determined for herself..." As you have said "Independently from Mott", you don't need "for herself"
    • I'm not sure that "disarming", in the context you use it, is the best word. It carries a connotation of winning over by charm. Perhaps "combatting", or simply "answering"?
  • Revising committee
    • Date confusion: can you clarify what the first sentence means? Does it mean that the Revised version was produced in instalments in the years that you mention, or that it was produced as a draft in 1881, revised in 1885 and further revised in 1894? There is further confusion by the mention of "the revised edition of 1888" in Stanton's subsequent quote.
    • You might mention earlier that the committee was international in character, and indicate in the list of names the non-American countries.
    • "Clark questioned whether Stanton's liberal views had shocked some in attendance" Odd wording, which doesn't really make sense. Should it be "Clark wondered whether..."? That would be consistent with what follows.
    • "Gage determined that the Church had acted against women's interests in important ways: from Roman Catholic canon law, to Scripture, to its advocacy of celibacy and more." I can't discern a clear "" range here. Needs revision/clarification.
    • "Especially troubling to Gage was the story of Adam and Eve." This is rather left dangling. Why was this myth particularly troubling? (presumably because it specifically associates woman with original sin, but you should say so.)
    • "It included a Preface written by Stanton..." Does "it" refer to Part 1 or Part 2?
  • Missing section: as with all book articles, we need a section that summarises the contents of the book. This need not be particularly long, but it is necessary to the coherence of the whole article. It's on Gutenberg so this should not be a problem.
  • Reaction
    • "At its introduction" is awkward-sounding. "On its publication" would be better.
    • "Some were put off just by its prejudicial, sacrilegious title, especially those who did not take the time to read the book."[15] There are problems with this statement. First, it isn't clear whether "Some" refers to the clergy, from the previous sentence, or to readers generally. Secondly, who is describing the title as prejudicial and sacriligious? Most important, however, is the fact that the statement is not backed up by the citation. This NYT letter, by the "female reader" mentioned later, is an attack on the book written "on behalf of those who have not the time nor the inclination to read the book", which is quite different from what the statement implies. For there reasons I would omit the statement altogether.
    • "Others countered the book's more extreme conclusions one by one in public fora such as letters to the editor." Again, problematic; whose judgement is "the book's more extreme conclusions"? The sentence tells us very little beyond that people wrote letters to newspapers, which we can deduce anyway from the next few sentences, so I suggest this is omitted, too.
    • "One female reader..." Since her name is known, why is she left anonymous?
    • "Stanton's best and most faithful collaborator..." POV?
    • First two sentences of this paragraph look in need of citation.
    • I may be wrong, but phrasing such as "Anthony was unhappy at the futility of the effort, a harmful digression from the focused path which led to woman suffrage" sounds like either quoted material or a very close paraphrase, and perhaps should be attributed.
    • "Led the battle" is a little too forceful for a neutral article. Bland phrasing: "led the efforts" or "led the moves"?
    • "Avery's opening report of January 23 was adopted with the part about The Woman's Bible expunged.[26]" I'm curious to know why, given that her resolution was passed, the meat of her opening comments should then be expunged. Any explanation?
  • Legacy: awkward repetition of "place of honor" in final short paragraph. Suggest rephrase.
  • References and sources
    • Why use this to quote from the book when you can refer to the text itself?
    • Sandra M Gilbert's book is not listed in the bibliography
    • Kern's book is in the bibliography but does not apear to have been used as a reference.

If you have any questions relating to this review, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent observations. I will use your critique in improving the article, when I get the chance. This article is in fifth place on my "To Do" list, so my work on it will not begin immediately. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

List of FC Barcelona seasons[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. This list matches List_of_Ipswich_Town_F.C._seasons in type of sourcing, exceeds it in information and illustration. Comments appreciated.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good to me (a non-fan). I have several suggestions for further improvement.


  • "played its first friendly match" - Should friendly be linked or briefly explained?
    • Yes. Done.
  • "members of La Liga in 1929, and is to this day one of three clubs" - The phrase "to this day" is ambiguous. Does it mean 2009? 2010? What will it mean in 2011? Perhaps "through 2010" would be better.
    • Yes. No longer caught in time.
  • Should "relegated" be linked to Promotion and relegation or briefly explained?
    • Okay, linked.
  • "from 1899 to the most recent completed season" - It's probably better to say "from 1899 to 2009–10".
    • Ok, done. Thank you for the comments! Will go through more extensively later. Sandman888 (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


  • The trophies image is displaced on my laptop screen to a position above and to the right of the table. To the image's left is a large blank space. Would it be better to move this image up to the right of the smaller "Amateur era" table?
  • upsized.


  • The amateur table includes the abbreviation "Other comp". Perhaps this should be spelled out in the Key.
    • It's changed.
  • Should a note explain the meanings of Round of 16, Round of 32, and Round of 64?
    • W-linked.
  • W is defined in two ways, as "Games won", and "Winner". It would be more clear to choose something other than "W" for "Winner". Perhaps "C" for Champion?
    • Done.


  • "Last updated: 8 March 2010" - I've never seen the "last updated" line added to a Wikipedia article before. The problem is that it's a semi-private note that other editors might not see when they make changes to the page; when that happens, the note will not be accurate. I'd suggest removing that particular note.
    • Deleted
  • "1 FC Barcelona participated 1959–60 season in UCL and ICFC" - Missing words, "in the"? I'd suggest turning this into a regular in-line citation between a pair of ref tags placed perhaps right after "League" at the top of the table. Also, the abbreviations should be spelled out as well as abbreviated. What do UCL and ICFC stand for?
    • Deleted
  • Citations 5, 6, and 17 need terminal periods because they are complete sentences.
    • Done
  • Citation 17 is odd in that it has an external link embedded in it. There are probably multiple ways to add a note with an inline citation. I've recently started using a "Notes and references" that makes it easy to add notes with their own citations. See Frank Dekum, for example. Just a suggestion.
    • Good suggestion! How do you make multiple references to the same note though?
Um, good question. I don't know the answer. Finetooth (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant. Thank you Struway. I'm saving the link for future reference. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Sandman888 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2

  • You probably wouldn't know that by consensus, featured seasons lists don't include the ongoing season. Reason being, it affords too much opportunity for incomplete updating to pass the stability criterion. Add a hatnote link to the current season article: {{for|details of the current season|FC Barcelona season 2009–10}}
    • I didn't. hat added.
  • A season list is basically a timeline, so consider expanding the lead section to talk a bit more about the history: when their best season(s) was/were and why, periods of relative lack of success, anything interesting... At the moment, it's little more than a list of how many times they won things.
    • Yes, good idea.
  • Alt text on the team photo says "11 bearded men" and "They sit on chairs". Most of them aren't bearded and several are standing...
    • Now it's so much better.
  • For the amateur era section, include the League record Pos/Pl/W/D/L/GS/GA for the regional competitions
  • GS/GA isn't standard English usage. You'd normally expect GF/GA (usually just F/A) for goals for/against, but if using GS for goals scored, you'd pair it with GC for goals conceded.
    • OK, chg.
  • I wouldn't have C for champion rather than W for winner, certainly not in the cups columns. You can be a League champion, but you're a Cup winner. Given that the two usages of W were in different sections of the table, I don't really see the opportunity for confusion.
    • I'm going with the outsider on this one.
  • What is confusing, is using R16 style for round of 16, and R2/3/4 for numbered rounds; would the formats of the comps where you use R2/3/4 work if you used the R16 style instead?
    • Yeah that was someone else. Chg.
  • I'd head the Cup column Copa del Rey rather than just Cup, so the reader doesn't have to click or hover to find out what it is; and don't abbreviate Other competitions
    • it makes the column v. wide.
  • For the professional era section, you need to include each season's result for the Campionat de Catalunya, not just the seasons when they won it. Same with any other comps (League Cup, Latin Cup?)
    • Surely that's not customary.
      • If the competition is a first-team comp important enough to include at all, then it is customary to include it for all the seasons the club plays in it, as you have for the European comps. Reason being this is a list of seasons, not honours. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Need to reduce the size of the trophy image. Using FF3.5 at 1280x960 it causes a large white space between the Professional era heading and the table, and at 1024x768 it fills half the page. Also, the alt text mentions three golden trophies, but they aren't golden.
    • Reduced.
  • Personally, I'd left-align the top scorers, and where there are joint top scorers, I'd put them on separate lines rather than separated by commas, but that's probably just a matter of taste
    • Not sure I agree.
  • Clearly the notes and referencing is a work in progress at the moment, so all I'll say on that is to make sure it's clear where all the information comes from, and make sure web references include: title, work and/or publisher (not just domain name), author if any, publication date if any. If the source isn't in English, the ref should say what language it is in; there's a cite templates parameter language=
    • It's already a lot better now.
  • Don't let yourself get talked into making it sortable, as happened here. It's a timeline: it's already in the only sensible order :-)
    • I won't.

hope some of this helps, and sorry if I've repeated stuff the other reviewer already said, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for comments, Appreciated! Sandman888 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to have it reviewed for GA soon and would like some input on where to go from here.

Thanks, iBen (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As your goal here is to get to GA, I will focus on the GA criteria. There are others more familiar with the company who can provide better guidance on the completeness and accuracy of the coverage. If you have not, I would urge you to seek out reviewers on the Google WikiProject (or any of the other projects tagged on this article) for an expert opinion.

Here goes:

General observations:

  • The products discussion needs the most work. It is confusing to read and seems incomplete. It does not leave the reader feeling like they understand what Google does and what they sell. Someone intimate with the products themselves would be invaluable for improving that.
  • The article assumes a lot of industry knowledge. Who are all these companies? What does all this stuff do? It tends to lapse (unintentionally, of course) into jargon which someone new to the topic would not understand. A review by an utter newbie (someone’s proverbial grandma) could help highlight a lot of these issues.
  • The article uses Summary Style quite a bit, which is a good thing, but feels like it cuts off discussion of a lot of interesting points to do so. It seems abbreviated. Some examples are below. Even a little more discussion and explanation would go a long way to improving the quality of the prose and sense of completeness.
  • The prose is good and grammatically correct. But like a lot of articles that came together through the work of many hands over time, it makes a choppy read. A good copyeditor, with a fresh set of eyes, can help smooth it out.

Some comments:

  • You should either cite everything or only direct quotes and extraordinary claims in the lead. You current do a bit of both. I would suggest only citing the quotes and extraordinary claims, as it would make an already heavily linked lead more readable.
  • The google logo needs the correct Fair Use Rationale. I doubt that the current text logo rationale is going to fly. Use this template {{logo fur}}. Non-free logos must also be reduced resolution, which this one is not. I would try to find a lower res version to avoid potential problems in the future.
  • The caption on the 1998 screen shot could be better. What’s should we notice or think about this image? This more or less true of all the images. See WP:CAP for good advice.
  • The server rack image is good, but the claims that (1) it represents “The first iteration of Google production servers” and (2) was built with inexpensive hardware and was designed to be very fault-tolerant” should be referenced.
  • Captions that are complete sentences need periods. Fragments do not.
  • You should avoid sandwiching the text between two images, as happens at the top of the History section.
  • You cite more than one source in many places, which is not wrong, but detracts from the readability. In general, it is a good idea if the statement supported is highly controversial and/or likely to be strongly challenged. For most things, you should just pick the one best source and use it.
  • Watch out for overlinking. Things like PhD and US$ really don’t need links.
  • You link Brin and Page more than once in the body. Check for other cases of overlinking.
  • On the other hand, things like “domain” and “link” do need wikilinks for a non-technical audience.
  • You should define acronyms before using them. For example, “initial public offering (IPO)” before using “IPO”.
  • Don’t use bold in the body. GOOG and GGQ1 can be normal text.
  • Why is the appliance image next to the Advertising section? You don’t describe it until later. It might make more sense there.
  • Why were uploads to Google Video discontinued?
  • “Google has promoted their products in various ways. . .” This paragraph seems really thin. Is that ALL they do to promote their products? Are these especially noteworthy? This discussion, along with those on Android, Chrome, Wave, and Chrome OS seem out of place in the Search engine section. Most of this section is about other products. Is there a better name for it?
  • The Products and services section as a whole could be better organized. Why is Books its own section and Desktop is not? What about Scholar? Finance? Calendar? Groups? Doesn’t Desktop go with Productivity tools? There is a huge range of products, I realize, and some of them only distantly related, but this section is hard to follow. I fear it would be incomprehensible to readers who do not already understand the products. This is where an expert reviewer could help this article a lot.
  • All of the [citation needed] flags need to be cleared up. That would be a quick fail at GA.
  • “On 7 July 2009, Google announced the project to develop Google Chrome OS…” Why? What was the “window of opportunity” all about?
 Not done
  • What is an “invitation-only beta release”? What’s a “beta product”? I know what they are, but non-technical users will not. As a general comment, you have a tendency to slide into net jargon throughout the article. Avoiding WP:JARGON is an explicit GA criterion. You should pay close attention to fixing that here.
 Not done - Hopefully everybody knows what an invitation is. As for beta program, the best explanation for it is the word that appears directly before it: "invitation-only". — Parent5446 (msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You have several broken links: Custom Search Business Edition, Google Security Services, Netshops. Check for others.
  • “Platform” is not obvious to non-technical people. Would “Technology” or “Computer platform” be more self-explanatory?
 Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 (msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The [dubious ] tag at “Prior to 2004, Schmidt was making …” should be resolved
  • The direct quote at "personal information for 18 months" should be referenced.
 Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 (msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • YouTube is linked more than once. So is Yahoo! So is IPO. I notice many of the Google products are also repeatedly linked.
  • “The privacy deal also applied to other litigants including the FA Premier League, the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organisation and the Scottish Premier League.” I am not sure what this means. The whole Viacom discussion is hard to follow. What was it about? Why was Google involved?
 Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 (msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)�
  • “The parties therefore will further meet on the matter lest the data be made available to the court.” This sounds like a quote. Is it?
 Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 (msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • “Google has faced allegations of sexism and ageism from former employees.” Can you elaborate? Certainly worthy of additional detail.
 Not done - The sentence is self-explanatory. Google has faced allegations of sexism and ageism from former employees. That means that former employees claimed Google was sexist and ageist. To add any more would just be putting in names and descriptions of lawsuits, which is not really necessary for this article. — Parent5446 (msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you need pictures of both the building and the sign? Are there available photos of the interior? I want to see the piano, lava lamps, old server clusters, and a projection of search queries on the wall.
  • “In 2008 Google announced its "project 10^100"...” Is there more to say? What kind of ideas? Have they done anything interesting?
 Not done - Unfortunately, that's it. There is nothing else about the project other than that it was launched by Google. — Parent5446 (msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure using the block quote to define net neutrality is the best way to go. Maybe define it yourself (including why it is an issue at all), and then use the “In our view . . . “ part of the quote to highlight Google’s position on it?
  • Is it worth mentioning in the article that Google is in the NASDAQ 100 and when that happened?
  • Only include links in the See only section that you have not already used, and try to work as many as you can into the body of the article. You could probably do without that section altogether. See WP:ALSO
  • You should pare the external links down to the official links, and remove any you have already used as references. See WP:EL
  • References should all have publishers and dates. Websites all need accessdates. You should pick one date format and use it consistently.
  • There are several dead links. Go here and it will show you which.
  • You are linking to a couple disambiguation pages. here will show which ones. Link directly to the article you want instead.

Overall it is a very-well researched article that needs some polishing and re-organizing but could certainly be a good GA candidate.

I hope you find these comments helpful. They are, of course, one editor’s opinion. Others may disagree. Good luck with the article!

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've went ahead and made some major changes to the list so that we can hopefully get it back up to Featured List status, as it was delisted last year. What I've done:

  • Wrote a three paragraph-long lead, with citations, describing the Court and (more relevant to the list) its membership. Also added a photo of the current justices.
  • Revamped the table:
    • Added row colors to denote Chief Justices and currently-serving justices (per WP:MOSCOLOR, I also denoted these with a dagger † and "Currently serving" in the "Reason for termination" column, respectively).
    • Replaced full dates with years (many, if not most, of the other lists of court judges using the "U.S. judgeship" template do this. It makes the table look a lot cleaner. The justice's names are linked to their articles, full birth dates, term dates, etc. can be found there.) Note that sorting by the exact dates is preserved because the hidden text (using display:none) that prefixes all of them is still there.
    • Cleaned up some of the capitalization and formatting to make it uniform.
    • Replaced all of the various "(none)" and "(N/A)" entries with "—". Again, this just makes everything uniform and it looks cleaner.

I'd like to get some suggestions regarding:

  • Citations: Should individual rows be cited? Almost all the information in the list can be found in single pages elsewhere, so it would seem that simply repeating the same cite over and over would be a bit redundant. Also, some are more footnotes than links to sources.
  • The timelines: I think they're redundant but maybe someone else can see a reason to keep them?
  • Several of the justices were appointed by two presidents (first as an associate justice, then as Chief Justice). Any suggestions for sorting here or should it just be left how it is now, i.e., by the first president's name?
  • Anything else that you can think of!

Thanks for your feedback! Rorschach 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I think mostly this is OK, but here are a few things for you to consider. They are suggestions for improving the list; you don't have to adopt them all:-

  • Get rid of the timelines. They were highlighted as redundant when the list lost its FL status, and I can't find any real argument for keeping them.
  • There is a lot of information in this table, and we need to be sure that we are not overdoing it. I'm looking for ways it might be simplified; for example, there are four "dates" columns in the table. Obviously the Born/died and Active service columns are essential, but I wonder if the other two are? For the majority of Chief Justices, their terms as chief were the whole of their active service periods. Why not just add the word "Chief" in their active service column? For the few associate justices who became Chief it would be possible to have two date ranges in their active service column, marked to indicate service as associate and chief. The column giving years of retirement seems a bit of a waste of space; it's mostly dashes, and I don't think the information given is either important or relevant. We can see when justices retired, we can see when they died. I would strip this column out.
  • Acting Chief Judges: it would help to add the word "acting" rather than requiring consultation of a footnote. One or two other notes, like that relating to Rutledge, need to be made clearer for the general reader.
  • Is it necessary to have two means of identifying past Chiefs (daggers and blue strips)?
  • Tiresome point: dates (and dashes) look much tidier if they are centred.

Otherwise, I think you have come a long way towards satisfying the specific criticisms which led to the delisting. You have a good image; boldface violations have been deleted; the article is properly cited; it has a proper lead. Give me a buzz on my talkpage when you've thought about these points and maybe implemented some of them. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I looked at the two templates and do not know how to make the columns optional. I can ask Niagara, who is pretty good with templates. I also note that the symbol and color is one of those things that WP:ACCESS requires. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I went and put code in to make the "Term as Chief Justice" and "Retirement/Senior term" colums optional. Addition of |senior term=N and |chief term=N (or any other value) to {{Start U.S. judgeship}}, as well as removing those parameters from {{U.S. judgeship row}}, will suppress those columns. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

jrkenti comments: Mine seems to be the dissenting opinion, but I feel the timelines are not at all redundant. They are a graphical representation of the list which enables readers to get a 'whole-picture' view of the progression of the court without reading the 200-some dates in the list - a picture is worth a thousand words. 'Conciseness' is good, but 'limited scope' is not, and I feel that seems to be what this page is being reduced to.

  • Also, I feel the 'Reason for Termination' column needs attention: 'Death' and 'Resignation' (and 'Rejection') were the only options for justices before the occasion when 'Retirement' was made available (1937 or 1910?) to Supreme Court Justices. As a result 'Retirement' has a special meaning when taking about why a justice left office. Justices before this date who ended their service to spend more time with their family (or whatnot) did not 'Retire,' independent of how they might have phrased it on the occasion, they 'Resigned.' Since that date, some justices have 'Resigned' to spend more time with their family, and other 'Retired' to continue judicial work on a limited basis with a salary. This column needs to be verified for accuracy, and I don't seem to be able to find out even when 'Retirement' became an option.Jrkenti (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion about 'acting chief' has been made before (here). In sum, it should not be mentioned on this page.
  • What are others' thoughts about adding columns to this list, things that cannot be gleaned from reading any other pages, things that can be interesting ways to sort the list. I am thinking specifically about age at appointment and age at termination.Jrkenti (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Cade[edit]

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

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting corner of sporting history. Specific points:-

Unfortunately, none of the contemporary newspaper accounts specify which form of sodium citrate was used. Perhaps that's part of the secret formula. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead needs to be extended, per WP:LEAD, to form a summary of the whole article, rather than a brief couple of introductory sentences.
  • Early life:
    • "While in high school, Cade ran the mile in 4:20." This bald fact needs some context. At present I've no idea why this is included. If the point is to establish Cade's early interest in athletics you should say so, and perhaps follow up with further information, if available. In any event, "4.20" needs to be explained; not everyone will be aware that this means 4 minutes 20 seconds.
I have added context regarding his early interest in athletics, as well as a footnote reference to Roger Bannister's 4-minute mile in 1956. A 4:20 mile is still a damn fine time for a high school runner, and would have been even more so in the early 1940s. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "While in college, he joined Delta Upsilon fraternity." Is this relevant information?
In an American university context, it is. Very often, American undergraduates eat, sleep, study and socialize within their fraternity, and the fraternities even sponsor intramural athletic leagues. Bit like the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, but with more liquor and without the supervising dons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • alma mater requires a link (it's not a quality article but it's better than nothing).
 Done "Alma mater" is now wiki linked. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Invention of Gatorade
    • At the start of the section it is not necessary to repeat that Cade was a faculty member of the University of Florida College of Medicine - we've just been told that - but a year would be useful. Thus: "In 19xx Cade was approached by Dewayne Douglas..." etc
 Done Repetitive redundancy deleted and removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "During 1965 and 1966, Cade, together with his team of research doctors Dana Shires, James Free, and Alejandro M. de Quesada, conducted a series of trial-and-error experiments with his glucose-and-electrolytes rehydration drink..." Hang on, we don't know about "his glucose-and-electrolytes rehydration drink" yet. You need to say before this that Cade and his research team had developed the drink.
    • Anyway, this sentence gets impossibly long and convoluted. It needs to be split - and the mention of "Ray Graves" seems superfluous.
 Done Sentence split and re-written. Regarding Coach Graves, he was actually a significant part of the story, as he allowed the doctors to experiment on his players, and when he saw the value of it, immediately began to use it in competition. I am expanding this section to discuss more of it.
    • Did the player who "spat it out" actually use the term "bodily waste"? Just curious (the correct term is probably "body waste").
Just double-checked my American Heritage English Dictionary, "bodily" is a legitimate adjective on this side of the Pond. The only context in which I have ever heard it used, however, is in the term "bodily waste," which is a polite American way of referring to the products of defecation and urination. In answer to your question, I believe the football player in question actually said that the experimental formula "tasted like piss," but the newspaper accounts were a little vague on this point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Legacy
    • It is not WP policy to name offspring of subjects unless the offspring are themselves notable, which is not the case here.
    • Mention of his "eccentric" collection of violins (why eccentric?) and his Studebaker collection might be thought to be trivia.
Trivia? Perhaps, but we are dealing with an eccentric professor/inventor, so it does provide some insight into his personality, together with his maintenance of the same home after he made his millions. I have, however, deleted the word "eccentric" at your suggestion. Sounds like an editorial comment, now that you've pointed it out. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • References: On-line sources need an access date in each case.
 Done Retrieval dates now included for all on-line references. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Bibliography" means a list of books. This list looks like a partial list of sources, with no rationale as to why these, and not the other sources, are included. The one book in the list does not appear to be cited in the article.
 Done All non-books deleted per your suggestion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not watching my reviews at the moment (too many), so if you want to raise anything with me, please use my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to make these comments and suggestions, Brian. I will continue to re-work the article based on your thoughts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephen C. O'Connell[edit]

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

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

  • Alt text requested for both images. I have reduced these in size (350px tends to overwhelm the text).
  • In August 2009 you posted a six-point list on the talkpage, requesting further details in various areas. It is not clear what, if any, extra information was forthcoming, and as a result the article still looks rather thin. Were you able to expand the article, and if so in what areas?
  • Sources: all the cited sources are from University of Florida publications or websites. The two additional boooks listed in the bibliography, not cited in the article, are also University publications. From so narrow a base it is hard to be convinced that the article is an objective and neutral account. As a public figure, and one-time state Supreme Court judge, there is surely material in the form of press reports, articles in journals, legal publications etc, that can help give substance to the biographical picture.
  • There are several statements of an opinionated nature which are uncited, e.g. "On balance, O'Connell's administration did much to further integrate African-Americans into the mainstream of the University of Florida's academic life." Where is the objective support for this statement? Likewise: "O'Connell began a reversal of policy and attitudes among many state legislators and academics who had previously opposed large-scale private fund-raising and endowment of the Florida's public universities."
  • There is a large hiatus in the article – the lack of any explanation of O'Connell's retirement from the University at the relatively early age of 57, after a mere six years in office. Why did he go? Was he driven out? There must be a story here, and the article looks shorn without it.
  • A very small point: is it common US practice to refer to university presidents in the style "President O'Connell"? Perhaps within their institutions, but surely not in the world outside?

In short, I am inclined to agree with your own apparent August assessment, that the article still needs considerable further input before it can be considered a viable GA candidate. I am not watching my peer reviews at the moment (too many), but if you have any queries on this review please contact my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm planning to take this to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. The format of this list is different from the previous FL's I've done, so I'd like to have some feedback on this before I do that. The article is based on the FL List of Test cricket records. I'm still working on it, and I believe the prose particularly needs a bit of improvement. Any and all suggestions, comments would be most welcome. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks good to me, although I know little about cricket. My suggestions mainly have to do with sports jargon that might baffle outsiders. If the jargon can be linked or briefly explained, the article will be more accessible to a wide audience. Otherwise the article is well-written and clear, and the tables look very nice indeed.


  • "The highest partnership... ". - Wikilink partnership?
  • "Sri Lankan players also hold the highest partnerships for the second, third, fourth, and sixth wickets." - Perhaps "highest partnership scores"?
  • "Sri Lankan players also hold the highest partnerships for the second, third, fourth, and sixth wickets." - Would it be helpful to link wicket on first use?
  • "dominates the bowling records for Sri Lanka" - Link bowling on first use?
  • "the most number of five-wicket hauls" - Link or briefly explain "five-wicket haul"?
  • Link or briefly explain "innings" on first use?


  • The second link (highest wicket partnerships) does not seem to work.
  • "In the case of tied records for the fifth place, they will be listed as well." - Tighten to "Tied records for the fifth place are listed as well"?
  • "Explanations of the general symbols and cricketing terms used in the list to present various information are given below." - Tighten to "Explanations of the general symbols and cricketing terms used in the list are given below"?
  • "Specific details will be provided in each category where appropriate." - "Are" rather than "will be"?
  • "Player is currently active in Test cricket" - Since "currently" might mean 2009 or 2010 or something else, it's usually better to use a specific date; e.g., Player is active in Test cricket in 2010.
  • "Player remained not out/ partnership remained unbroken" - "Or" rather than front slash? The front slash is ambiguous.
  • "Innings was declared (eg: 952–6d)" - Not knowing much about cricket, I don't what 952-6d means. I'm guessing 952 runs, but what does the "6d" stand for? Also, "eg" should be "e.g.".

Team wins, losses and draws

  • "Only two matches have ended in a tie in Test cricket history, and no game played by Sri Lanka has been tied." - This is interesting. Could you add a sentence explaining what unusual conditions might cause a match to end in a tie?

Greatest win margins by innings

  • Should "Innings" have a number associated with it in each entry? I'm not sure how win margins by innings differs from win margins by runs.

Fastest Test half centuries

  • What is the meaning of "Strike rate"? It's a ratio, I see, but a ratio of what to what?

Most ducks in career

  • What is a duck?

Best career average

  • How is the average computed? It's a ratio of what to what?

Most catches in a career

  • Does this mean catches of a batted ball or catches of a batted ball before it hits the ground?

Most dismissals

  • What is a dismissal?

Most stumpings

  • What is a stumping?

Highest wicket partnerships

  • The first date in the date column is missing its month.
  • "Sri Lanka holds the most number of partnership records in Test cricket, with the records for the second, third, fourth, and sixth wickets." - Suggestion: Sri Lanka, the record-holder for the second, third, fourth, and sixth wickets, has highest number of partnership records in Test cricket.

Highest partnerships

  • The last entry is missing its month.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed review. I think I have addressed all of the issues. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone; I've listed No Line on the Horizon for a Peer Review request for a couple of reasons. The big one is that the article has twice been at FAC and has twice not promoted; I'm confident that it meets all of the FA criteria with the possible exception of prose. If anybody could take the time to look over the article and offer suggestions for improvement, it would be most welcome, especially if it relates to the prose.

Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not into music, so I'm not qualified to judge the article's contents. I scrolled down the pages and the article seems well researched and complete. I DID edit the Introduction. Based on that, your article does need proofing.Bettymnz4 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick skim, but I actually reverted your edits. Per the manual of style, album, film, and book titles go in italics, and the only part of the article that should really be bolded is the name in the lead. To avoid having a mixture of numerical characters and words (except when as a proper name, in the charts table, runtimes, etc.) we've elected to just spell them out throughout the article (hence the selection of twelfth instead of 12th). Also, U2 articles on Wikipedia use British English instead of American English. In British English band names are treated as a plural noun, which is why we've used "U2 are" instead of "U2 is" on just about every U2-related page. The full discussion (including a seperate archive) on that can be found at Talk:U2; we carry it over to other U2 articles for consistency. You'll find it's not an uncommon practice; Oasis (band), Pink Floyd, The Corrs, etc. all use the plural are/were instead of the singular is/was. Cheers, and thanks again for the quick review; MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I've reviewed this one before, and I can add a few more thoughts. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I know next to nothing about U2 except what I'm reading here. I can't, therefore, give anything like expert advice on the content. On the other hand, I can give advice about prose. The prose in this article falls short of professional quality chiefly because it's too wordy. Fixing it will be time-consuming, but you can do it. Although I didn't do a complete line-by-line review, I've made quite a few specific suggestions below about tightening the prose. I'm sure you can find other places in the text where a small number of words can replace a bigger number without changing the meaning.


  • "The material was originally intended to be released as two EPs, titled Daylight and Darkness, but it was decided to combine them into one album." - Rather than the passive "was originally intended to be" and "it was decided that", could you make this active? Suggestion: "U2 originally intended to release the material as two EPs but decided to combine them"? Note that my suggestion uses 15 words, whereas the original uses 25.
  • "A companion film, Linear, was developed and released in conjunction with No Line on the Horizon." - Passive voice is necessary sometimes, but it's generally better (more punchy and efficient) to flip passive to active if possible. To do this, you need to say who developed and released; i.e., X developed and released a companion film, Linear, in conjunction with... ". Also, is it really necessary to say "developed and"? If not, the sentence can be tightened to "X released a companion film, Linear, in conjunction with... ".
  • "The band collaborated with producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois from June 2007 to December 2008 for the album, allowing them to be involved in the songwriting process." - This could be tightened to "The band collaborated with producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, allowing them to be involved in the songwriting process from June 2007 to December 2008." The original is 28 words long, while my version is 25. The words "for the album" are not strictly necessary because the context makes this thought clear without saying it. If I were rewriting the article, I would try to reduce every sentence to the minimum number of words needed for clarity.
  • "No Line on the Horizon was planned for release in November 2008 when the band had written approximately 50–60 songs, but it was delayed as they wished to continue writing." - Would this be better as "after" rather than "when"? Otherwise it might mean that the band wrote 50 to 60 songs in November. Also, "50 to 60" would be better here than 50–60. Also, this sentence is passive. Maybe, "The band had planned to release "No Line on the Horizon" in November 2008, after they had written about 50 to 60 songs, but they re-scheduled because they wanted to keep writing."

Recording and production

  • "In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers of, confirming that the band had begun work on the follow-up to 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb with producer Rick Rubin in the south of France and in Abbey Road Studios." - Everything is here that the sentence needs, but the arrangement has an unintended and slightly comical effect (how to dismantle an atomic bomb with producer Rick Rubin). Suggestion: "In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers of confirming that the band were collaborating with Rick Rubin on the follow-up to 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. They were working in southern France and in Abbey Road Studios."

Sessions with Brian Eno

  • "The six of them traveled to Fez and rented out the courtyard of a hotel Riad, turning it into a makeshift recording studio." - Tighten by removing "out"? Also, Riad seems to mean a building with an inner courtyard. Would this be more clear as "The six of them traveled to Fez and rented the inner courtyard of a hotel, turning it into a makeshift recording studio"?
  • "Recording in Fez at the same time as the World Sacred Music Festival allowed the band to listen... ". Tighten by changing "at the same time as" to "during"? Anyplace you can tighten like this will make the prose more professional.
  • "The initial intent behind the album was to create a series of "future hymns", songs that would last and continue to be sung forever." - Tighten to "They intended to create 'future hymns', that would be sung forever"?
  • "The open-air Riad allowed the band to hear the overhead birdsong during their sessions, as captured in the introduction to "Unknown Caller", but the birds also defecated on Mullen, Jr.'s drum kit." - Suggestion: "In the roofless courtyard, the band could hear birdsong during their sessions—as captured in the introduction to "Unknown Caller"—but the birds defecated on Mullen's drum kit." If the defecation was a one-off, maybe "but on one occasion the birds defecated..." would be better.


  • "No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Larry Mullen Jr. experimenting with several different drum beats... ". - Suggestion: ""No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Mullen's experiments with several different drum beats... ".
  • "Magnificent" is an uptempo song that begins with synthesizer line by Eno before the song's guitar riff begins." - Missing "a" before "synthesizer line"? Also, should "riff" be linked on first use? Also, delete the second "begins"?
  • "created out of a series of chord changes during a jam, was worked continuously by Bono" - Should "jam" be linked on first use? Tighten by replacing "out of" with "from"?
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find no dead links and good alt text. The dabfinder tool spots one link to a disambiguation page. It's kind of an odd one, "Time Out", because the redirect page goes to the dab page.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all of that feedback! That'll definitely give me a good start, and I think I know what to look for now. Thanks very much for the review! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get another pair of eyes to look at it before nominating it as a Good Article. This article was pretty much a collaboration between me and another user, and the article was written relatively quickly, so not many other editors have contributed to it. I would like some outside perspective on the article, as it is tackling both a political and a musical subject at the same time, and I want to ensure the article is written for general audiences.

Thanks, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, highly readable, interesting. It's certainly broad in coverage, well-sourced, stable, and reasonably illustrated. I have suggestions about tightening the prose in a few places, but the article is generally well-written. It seems nearly ready for GAN to me, and you might think in terms of an eventual FA. The politics make this article more substantial, I think, than the average concert article. Here are my other thoughts:

  • The last two sentences of the "War in Sarajevo" section should be examined carefully to make sure they are precisely accurate; otherwise they might not be neutral. "Frequently shot at" is vague, and so is "many mines". Perhaps other sources can confirm these claims in a more precise way and thus head off any concerns about exaggeration.
  • The images need alt text, meant for readers who are sight-impaired. WP:ALT has details. You can also see ongoing discussions of alt text at WP:FAC.


  • Instead of linking U2 in the bolded first sentence, I'd link it on second use.
  • "U2's 1997 concert in Sarajevo was a concert held in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, at Koševo Stadium on 23 September 1997 during the group's PopMart Tour." - Tighten by deleting repetitions? Suggestion: "U2's 1997 concert in Sarajevo was held at Koševo Stadium in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 23 September 1997."
  • "Approached by aid worker Bill Carter about bringing attention to the Bosnians negatively impacted by the Siege of Sarajevo... ". - "Negatively impacted" sounds like a politician's weasel phrase. How about "hurt by"?
  • "With the aid of United Nations ambassadors and peace-keeping troops, the group scheduled and played a show in Sarajevo on their 1997 PopMart Tour." - Tighten by deleting "scheduled and"?

U2's involvement

  • ""U2's effort to discuss any humanitarian issue have sometimes been accompanied by a false instinct that U2 is also obliged to resolve that issue." - I wonder if this has been quoted correctly because "effort" is singular and "have" is plural.
    • Quote is exactly as it appears in original publication (U2 at the End of the World). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to add an "s" in brackets; i.e., effort[s]. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "One such act was the organization of a beauty contest, with the woman organizing the event saying that the women of Sarajevo would fight the war with "our lipstick and heels". - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and the sentence is too wordy. Suggestion: "One such act was a beauty contest organized by women who planned to fight the war with "our lipstick and heels".
  • "Miss Sarajevo" was recorded with Luciano Pavarotti and released as the first single from the group's side-project with Eno entitled Original Soundtracks 1 under the pseudonym "Passengers". - I'm not sure what this means. Was "Passengers" a pseudonym for Eno or a pseudonym for Pavarotti?

Scheduling and preparation

  • "Music journalist Andrew Mueller described their experience in a single van as a "logistical and administrative nightmare". - Probably "U2" would be better than "their" to avoid confusion with China Drum.
  • "We've blagged a lot of equipment... " - Should that be "bagged" rather than "blagged"?
  • "Bono offered for the group to perform a benefit concert or small show in Sarajevo, but it was requested that they perform the full PopMart show as they had performed elsewhere in the world." - A bit awkward, wordy, and passive. Suggestion: "Bono suggested that the group perform a benefit concert or small show in Sarajevo, but (somebody) asked that they perform the full PopMart show." If you adopt something like my suggestion, you'll need to fill in a word for "somebody".
  • "Up until that point, tickets had sold very slowly," - Tighten to "Until then, tickets had sold very slowly... "?
  • "Despite this, a day prior to the concert... " - "Before" rather than "prior to"?
  • "On the day of the concert, trains ran into Sarajevo for the first time since the start of the war." - Just "ran" instead of "ran into"?

Concert overview

  • "The concert was broadcast live internationally on radio, with all proceeds from the radio sales being donated to the War Child project." - "With" is weak here. Suggestion: "The concert was broadcast live internationally on radio, and all proceeds from radio sales were donated to the War Child project."


  • Mullen and The Edge both agreed that playing the Sarajevo concert had been the highlight of their careers, with Mullen saying, "[t]here's no doubt that that is an experience I will never forget for the rest of my life." - You can get away with an occasional "with" connector, but usually something else is better. Suggestion: "Mullen and The Edge both agreed that playing the Sarajevo concert had been the highlight of their careers. Mullen said, "[t]here's no doubt that that is an experience I will never forget for the rest of my life."

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the help! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Halo 3: ODST[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting it to FA status in the near future. I think it's quite comprehensive, but knowing myself the biggest areas that it probably needs help with are prose and accessibility for the non-video game reviewer; specific points to that are what I'm looking for, but any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • "Adding to the difficulty are skulls that give enemies new abilities; the "Catch" skull, for example, causes enemies to throw greater numbers of grenades." <-- complete unexplained. What is a skull in ordinary terms and why/how would one use it?
  • "...the aftermath of the shockwave..." What aftermath? A shockwave is a shockwave; you get a ringing sound, deal with it, and move on. Perhaps you need more destructive wording.
  • 'Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, known as ODSTs or Helljumper' <-- no mention of the similarity to paratroopers?
  • 'After looking at the proposal and the budget, studio head Harold Ryan gave the go-ahead.' <-- well obviously they looked at the proposal and budget; studio heads aren't in the habit of waving through new games.
  • 'The genre also influenced the character names and archetypes. The player character, for example, fits the concept of a lone, hardboiled detective.' <-- since when do noir detectives gun down a couple of aliens every other building? What's detective about ODSTs?
  • 'Members of Bungie were fans of the defunct television series Firefly, ' <-- every TV series gets canceled eventually; there are no immortal series.
  • '"instead," Molina wrote, "roughly two-thirds of ODST's combat feels very much like a traditional Halo game" instead of exploring promising new stealth-based mechanics.' <-- in general, the article fails to give a good idea of those new mechanics; having played some ODST, I know what he means, but others wouldn't. --Gwern (contribs) 21:17 6 March 2010 (GMT)
    • I've reworded the skull bit and fleshed it out a bit more, and removed "defunct". A shockwave is a shockwave, but any such wave can carry a great deal of energy; it's plenty destructive, and I'm not sure what else you would call it. Noir is what they called it; while I think the ODSTs are a bit more bloody than your average 40's thriller, that's what the source says. Surprisingly, no one really discussed the paratrooper aspects. I'll take a look at adding in info about the stealth gameplay. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gene expression[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was the Collaboration of the Month article of the Molecular and Cellular Biology project for a long time and it looks pretty good to me. However, I am interested what still needs to be done to bring the article to GA or FA status. Thanks a lot, Firefly's luciferase (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Biggest problem I see with this article getting to GA is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. There are whole sections, especially towards the end of the article, which do not have any references at all.
  • The lead is only two paragraphs long - per WP:LEAD it can be up to four paragraphs long. As a summary, 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.
  • Make sure that symbols and abbreviations are explained at the first use - for example T and U should be clarified in Therefore, the resulting 5' → 3' RNA strand is identical to the coding DNA strand with the exception that thymines [(T)] are replaced with uracils [(U)] in the RNA. This helps to explain what is going on in the next sentence A coding DNA strand reading "ATG" is transcribed as "AUG" in RNA. See Provide context to the reader  Done
  • Another place to provide context is to add wikilinks or make sure they are linked at the first use, for example intron is used three times before it is linked (should be at first use), and eukaryote is used 13 times before it is linked the first time.  Done
  • There are a fair number of fairly short (one or two sentences) sections and paragraphs, which impede the flow of the article. Can they either be combined with others, or perhaps expanded?
  • Some headers do not follow WP:HEAD - for example watch capitalization in "Post-Transcriptional regulation" and try to avoid repeating the title of the article or parts of the title in the headers if at all possible. For example "Expression system" - can this be changed (it is OK if it cannot). Or "Gene networks and expression" could just be "Gene networks" (we already know the article is about expression). By the way, this section has no refs and is only two sentences long. Done
"Expression system" can hardly be renamed since this is the common expression in the field. --Mashin6 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Watch use of bold text per WP:ITALIC, and also use double quotes " not single quotes per WP:MOSQUOTE: see "For example the simple repressor 'switch' expression system in Lambda phage and the lac operator system in bacteria." Done
  • The article uses bullet point lists in a few places. If possible, could these be converted to text?
  • Text is generally good, but watch WP:JARGON in places.

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 ><>°° 04:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all these helpful comments, which are an excellent guide to improve the article. It still needs work as I see now. :-) More inputs are appreciated as well. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You are very welcome, while this is not a WP:GAN requirement, it is for WP:FAC - the images will need to have alt text for readers that cannot see them - see WP:ALT  Done
I also forgot to mention that a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - one possible model may be Cell nucleus, or there are others listed at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article just went through a brief but extensive FAC nomination, where I withdrew it because of various concerns relating to length, prose, and content. The FAC resulted in major changes, however. The article was downsized from 113 kb to 88 kb, in keeping with summary style guidelines, and most of its images were taken down because their sources could not be verified. I look forward to more ideas and suggestions about how to improve it, after which I plan to try for another FAC in the next few weeks. Thank you very much for your help!UberCryxic (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Pivovarov. The new version (NV) is much better than the old version (OV) in design, readability and neutrality. Unfortunately, OV addressed a lot of topics that are missing or superficial in NV.

  • All facts and discussions that were present in OV should also appear either in the NV parent article or in its child articles, such as History of liberalism (HOL) or Philosophy of liberalism (POL).
  • This may cause the size of the article to explode, so you can move all DETAILs into new child articles and add them to the navigation side bar. However, most important topics (keywords and perhaps key names) should be clearly visible in the summary sections.
  • NV lists liberal democracy as a fundamental idea of liberalism in the lead, which is incorrect. Liberal democracy is a "marriage", or compromise, of liberalism with democracy. Also, NV often assumes that the spread of democracy is a victory for liberalism, which is contestable, for example, Fareed Zakaria argues that you cannot have liberal democracy without liberalism.
  • Written constitution is not a fundamental idea of liberalism. The constitution of UK is uncodified and USSR in the 1930's adopted a "constitution," so what? Constitution is just an instrument of the rule of law.
  • Not all liberals strongly support international organizations like EU or UN. Some of them consider these organizations a threat to national sovereignty and ultimately to the liberties of the citizens.
  • HOL should talk about Scottish Enlightenment and include David Hume along with Adam Smith.
  • HOL should explain why communism was a threat to liberalism.
  • A good deal of 20th century liberal thought was on the causes of dictatorship — this should probably go to POL.
  • HOL should emphasize that all major parties in post-war UK embraced political liberalism and should clarify the reasons for divisions between the left and the right.
  • The descriptions of modern movements should include the principal actual policies, such as privatization or environmentalism.
  • POL should discuss, as separate topics, the rule of law, the role of the state, natural rights, human (civil) rights, free market, liberal society, democracy, economic vs social liberalism, international policy. All these keywords should be present in the summary section, too.
  • HOL should mention a lot more names in the context of discussions. For example, in the discussion on the causes of the Great Depression the article talks about modern and classical liberalism, but it mentions only one name — Keynes.
  • Political, economic and cultural liberalism have to be defined in the parent article. POL should give even more details.
  • Social liberalism emerged long before Great Depression and lead to liberal reforms in UK. Also, immediately after WWII it dominated liberal thought. Please include the names, such as John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • Libertarianism should be listed as one of modern movements in HOL. The parent article should mention about it, too. Again, there should be names, like Ludwig von Mises.
  • HOL should mention about Rousseau's contributions to the concepts of the rights of man and of the social contract.
  • Benjamin Franklin should be mentioned in the context of the Declaration of Independence and in the discussion of the role of the state.
  • Karl Popper should be mentioned in the context of consequentialism and open society.
  • HOL should carefully mention about the modern discussions on the religious fundamentalism and on the causes of the economic crisis.
  • NV never talks about the criticism of liberalism as such (except, perhaps, in the context of fascism). Every concept of liberalism has opponents and the article only mentions about internal discussions.

pivovarov (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your specific suggestions. I'm in the process of addressing them and I'll get back to you shortly.UberCryxic (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok I've done the following:
  • As requested, significant and appropriate chunks of the old version have been moved to the History of Liberalism article.
  • I've included a brief explanation about why the rise of communism represented a threat to liberalism.
  • I've mentioned privatization in context of neoliberalism.
  • Political and economic liberalism are no longer mentioned, and cultural liberalism was never mentioned, so I don't know how this came up.
Most of your other proposals center on adding individual names and ideas, but I think this strategy is flawed if those ideas and individuals essentially repeat the views or concepts of people that the article mentions right now. Again, I would sincerely hope that you appreciate the length restrictions under which I'm working. I really do not want to make this article even one iota longer, especially with unnecessary changes, after what I heard in FAC. For a few examples of what I'm talking about...
  • Adam Smith is mentioned in HOL in the context of classical liberalism, as are Hayek and Nozick in POL. Why add Mises? Sure he's a notable classical liberal thinker, but we only need to mention a few for people to get the gist of libertarianism or classical liberalism. We don't need to start listing every major classical liberal theorist.
  • Same thing for social liberalism. Why add Galbraith when we already mention Rawls and Keynes, who are both more important than the former and who all said similar things? It just doesn't feel like the article gains anything but monotonous detail.
  • And same thing on older liberal ideas and thinkers. Why mention Rousseau and social contract when that idea is already explained through Locke and Hobbes? Rousseau is already mentioned for the themes he struck on with his famous paper to the Academy of Dijon. Why mention Franklin and his ideas on the state when similar concepts are expounded through analyzing other philosophers? Once again, it doesn't feel like the article gains anything new but one more name in one more place.
Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hayek were among some people that you suggested in FAC, and I gladly inserted them into the article, to reveal the diversity of liberal thinkers if nothing else. But I hesitate to stuff this article with even more names if those additions will not aid our readers in understanding the topic. On some of your other points...
  • Whether you agree that liberal democracy is a fundamental idea of liberalism or not, you missed the point of the lead, which is simply saying that most liberals currently support liberal democracy. That's just a sociological reality. I don't see what's controversial here. If you're suggesting that they do not, then you are certainly making news. Wouldn't Fareed Zakaria have to say that you can have liberal democracy without liberalism in order to support your point? If you can't have liberal democracy without liberalism, it means that the spread of liberal democracy was, in fact, a victory for liberalism, contradicting your assertion.
  • On constitutions, same thing. All the lead is saying is that most liberals currently support written constitutions, and the HOL reinforces that point. You are completely wrong, just on factual grounds, when you claim that constitutions were not a liberal idea. They are very much a liberal idea, and liberals often went to war to establish or preserve them (see Spain for a prominent example). The fact that non-liberal regimes used them later on does not mean they cannot be associated with liberalism; it just means they had become so popular by that point that they had spread even among illiberal states. But again, regardless of whether you think they are or are not a liberal idea, most liberals do support them, and for that reason they count as an important part of liberal history and philosophy.
  • Same thing on EU and UN. True, not all liberals support these institutions, but most do, and I don't think this point needs additional clarification.
  • POL already discuses the vast majority of the principles you listed. Natural rights and rule of law are mentioned in the context of social contract theory. Opposition between economic and social liberalism is clearly mentioned extensively in context of positive and negative liberty. International policy (ie. liberal internationalism) is left for later on (see Impact and influence).
  • As you mentioned, there was extensive criticism of liberalism from fascist perspective before I had to make major cuts to HOL. Article currently does contain criticism against liberalism from feminist and conservative perspectives (see Relation to other ideologies). It also contains strong and explicit criticism of liberal internationalism (see Impact and influence). In short, it's very unfair to suggest that the article "never" criticizes liberalism. It does so in several places. I would advise you to give the article another look.
Again, thank you very much for your help! I found many of your ideas very helpful.UberCryxic (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Individual names are implied references. My concern is that when the article says, for example, "classical liberals posited that completely free markets were the optimal economic units," some readers will first ask {{who}} and then {{when}}. This is why I suggest adding more names at least to the child articles.
  • The choice of stable political systems today is rather limited and of what is available, most liberals support liberal democracy; others prefer variations of liberal aristocracy, anarchy, etc. The article says that by the beginning of the 21st century liberal democracies had prevailed around the world, but the list of its fundamental characteristics does not include the rule of law and the protection of individual liberties—and without them the spread of democracy is hardly a victory for liberalism.
  • Moreover, most liberals prefer secular society, while others condemn laicism (a lot of European countries have state religion, too). Human rights include social and third-generation rights, which are preferences of some liberals, but not fundamental for liberalism. Thus, the phrase in the lead mixes fundamental ideas of liberalism (free trade, civil rights) with political preferences (democracy, secularism). Also, it does not mention market economy (e.g., labor market is not a special case of free trade) and the transparency of the government.
  • Constitution was a liberal idea, but not written constitutions. The struggle was not for adopting a document called "Constitution" which authorities could override or would consider as a declaration of intentions. Liberals wanted actual rule of law and they wanted the government to recognize existing social norms on liberty and equality.
pivovarov (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok I've addressed your concerns as follows:
  • "Written" has been removed from the lead and it now just says "constitutions."
  • "Individual liberties" are now included in introduction to HOL as part of liberal democracy.
  • "The market economy" has been added to the lead as part of fundamental concepts that liberals support.
  • Ludwig von Mises has been added to the sentence that you brought up.
Have another look and tell me what you think of my changes. Thank you very much.UberCryxic (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nasty Housecat: Here are my initial comments on the article, focusing on the content and the philosophy in particular. The main problems I see with the article are a lack of context for a lot of the discussion and a treatment that leaves a lot of gaps in the intellectual history. I think several sections will need to be reorganized and the philosophy discussion expanded, even at the cost of adding more length. If the goal is to be comprehensive, the whole train of thought needs to be here. Particularly because none of the related articles do much justice to the philosophy, either. So if not here, where?

Here are some specific comments.

  • Combining the political history and the philosophy is confusing and distorts the intellectual history. I would keep the intellectual history in the philosophy section and call the rest “Historical impact”, summarize it even more than you have, and keep the bulk of it in the History article.
  • The History sections need to make the case that these events were directly influenced by Liberal ideas, which I know seems obvious, but it is not. There were many causes of the French Revolution, for example, and some would argue that liberal ideas were the mantle but not the motivation. The discussion should focus on how and where liberal ideas factored into these events, without claiming more cause-and-effect than you can possible prove.
  • The other point is that these major events (American Revolution, French Revolution) contributed to Liberal thought (Jefferson, Madison, etc) which should be mentioned, but did not create their own schools of thought. The political and intellectual history run in parallel in many ways. The tendency to combine them here makes things very confusing.
  • The etymology discussion is a bit rambling and does not add much. A fuller discussion when/how the term first appeared in various contexts would be much more helpful.
  • The article tries to break the intellectual discussion of liberalism down into the big debates. The various viewpoints are discussed out of context and without an overall framework of what the arguments are about. The various critiques of Liberalism suffer in the same way – they appear as overly general arguments and not responses to anything in particular. The arguments and critiques should be kept together as much as possible. I agree it is difficult, but I would suggest the following:
  • It needs a brief grounding in Enlightenment as context (with a link to the main article, which is sadly not very strong on the philosophy, but whatever). The current discussion is not helpful as it just glosses the historical events without making the main intellectual points. Discuss the collapse of traditional sources of authority and values (monarchy, church), and elevation of reason as the source of truth, and by extension the empowerment of the individual. This sets the context for Liberalism, which grappled with the political implications of a new world view devoid of traditional sources of authority and political values. Maybe discuss Erasmus and Spinoza. This is a good place to talk about Hobbes, too.
  • The Enlightenment (and Humanism in particular) is the intellectual heritage of Liberalism. But Liberalism is an part of the Enlightenment, as well, which some say ended with (or even after) the French Revolution. That seems like an important point.
  • Establish that the fundamental principle of liberalism is liberty, and all other issues stem from that. The core belief that man is naturally free and political liberty is the highest value is what binds all liberal theories together. The many debates and differences are about what liberty means and how to make liberty compatible with a political order. That ties together all of the discussions of varying theories and flavors of liberalism, which at the extremes, have nothing more in common that a fundamental commitment to their own concept of liberty.
  • It is worth mentioning the Roman concepts of liberty (the opposite of slavery, Cicero), but only as a contrast to modern concepts of liberty. Liberty fell out of philosophical conversation after Rome and did not reappear until the Enlightenment (in Machiavelli), in which it meant something very different. Liberty is a whole new philosophical problem which Liberalism had to solve. This sets up the discussion of Positive and Negative Liberty.
  • Discuss liberalism as a response to questions raised by Enlightenment thinking. If man is his own authority, what is the justification for government and what are its proper limits? Is there a political order that is compatible with human freedom and the primacy of reason? Which sets up John Locke and Classical Liberalism.
  • Locke’s main contributions were his concept of natural rights and theory of property. These are important to frame the liberal debates that follow.
  • Social contract theory is an attempt to justify limitations by political authority. This should include Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes, with a focus on how their views of the state of nature, the sovereign, and the social contract differed. Critiques: Hume
  • The nature of liberty deserves its own discussion, in three forks:
  • Positive liberty
  1. True will (Rousseau)
  2. Self-direction (Green)
  3. Effective power to act (Socialism, Tawney)
  • Negative liberty (absence of coercion)(Berlin)
  • Private Property as a necessary condition of liberty (Hayeck, others?)
  • Modern liberalism is a major break with Classical liberalism, grounded in the view that prevailing institutions had failed to preserve liberty. It is less an intellectual debate than a response to real world events. Themes include:
  1. Suspicion of free markets (Keynes)
  2. New faith in government intervention (successful economic policies, global democratization)
  3. Distrust of private property (concentration of property = inequalities in power)
  • Modern Liberalism redefines liberty in a radical way. First, positive notion of liberty that counts economic welfare (right to work, living wage) as a property right and associated individual rights more strongly with the common good (social justice).
  • Classical Liberalism actually becomes a critique of Modern Liberalism and the intellectual property of more conservative political movements post-New Deal. Critique: Neoliberalism.
  • Social Justice theory responds to a philosophical problem posed by modern liberalism. How can the good of the whole be compatible with individual freedom? Liberal theories of distributive justice. (Rawls, Dworkin)
  • Communitarian critiques – Taylor, Sandel, Walzer
  • Natural Law critique - Nozick
  • There are also debates about the scope of liberalism. Is it a political idea, and ethics, a world view? Viewpoints worth mentioning:
  1. “Purely” Political (Rawls again). Liberalism is a political construct that mediates between all kinds of different views and values.
  2. Perfectionism and liberal virtue. Freedom a good because it alone allows man to become his best. (Mill, Green, Dewey)
  3. Contractualism. Society presupposes no greater good, merely a contract among persons. (Kant, Hobbes)
  4. Pluralism. Values are plural and none more justifiable than another. We must be free to choose our own ends. (Berlin)
  5. Subjectivism. Values rest of individual experiences and desires. (Hobbes, Locke)
  • The last big debate would be Individualism vs. Collectivism. On the one hand is the view that Liberalism is based on an inherently individualist view of society (Hobbes, Popper) and on the other that such views of the individual are implausibly abstract and that cultural attachments and social commitments are unavoidable aspects of human experience. (Sandel, others). This sets up the discussion of centrist liberalism vs. social liberalism, etc., which revolves around the relative importance of the community vs. the individual.
  • There is a whole range of debate, as well, as to the proper scope of liberalism. Is it about one state or the whole world community? How should liberals respond to illiberal regimes? How should liberalism accommodate non-liberal constituencies (e.g., religious groups)? I don’t know if you want to get into that here, but it is an important discussion with wide-ranging implications on liberal policies.
  • Economic liberalism deserves its own section, which I can comment on as well, but in another post. The development of economic liberalism is independent enough of liberal philosophy and has such wide ranging implications on its own that it really makes sense as its own discussion. It would make things a whole lot clearer.
  • The “Relation to other ideologies” section doesn’t really work. It is far too brief and lacks sufficient context. To repeat, I would discuss the various critiques as part of the discussion of specific ideas, and make this section instead an overview of “Contemporary schools of thought.” Since this is a capstone article, it should touch on at least most of the related articles and then link to them. The obvious candidates are Anarcho-liberalism · Conservative liberalism · Democratic liberalism · Green liberalism · Libertarianism · Market liberalism · National liberalism · Social liberalism. Or perhaps separate the intellectual schools of thought from the political movements. Again, for clarity.
  • For the same reason, some mention should be made (with brief discussion) of most of the Major Figures with links. These include. John Locke · Adam Smith · Thomas Jefferson · Thomas Paine · David Hume · Baron de Montesquieu · Immanuel Kant · Jeremy Bentham · Thomas Malthus · David Ricardo · John Stuart Mill · Thomas Hill Green · Alfred Marshall · John Maynard Keynes · Friedrich von Hayek · Milton Friedman · Isaiah Berlin · John Rawls · Robert Nozick. Some of these are here already. This is just my A-list.

I won’t comment on the Worldwide section right now. I am sure this is plenty for now. It know it is a lot. I hope it is helpful.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! I'll get cracking on them soon, but because, as you said, this is a lot of material to fix, I also fully encourage you to make some of these changes yourself, especially some of the big decisions on categorization and philosophical analysis. I just think you would do a fundamentally better job there, so I'm open to your contributions. I understand most of your criticisms, but there are a few points on which I'm somewhat unclear, and I don't want to let my confusion get in the way of the article's clarity. I'll bring these up in the next few days as I make these changes. Thank you again.UberCryxic (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Myles Standish[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently been working on a major re-vamp and expansion of this page, adding a large amount of narrative, images, etc. I'm considering submitting it for FA status and would appreciate any suggestions, comments, contributions, etc. that might help it to qualify. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is close to FA quality. The images and their licenses need a bit of work, and I have several suggestions related to the Manual of Style. Generally, though, this is excellent and makes an enjoyable and informative read.


  • You might add to the first sentence that Plymouth Colony was in what became the U.S. state of Massachusetts.


  • The image File:MylesStandish.gif should be replaced by a larger JPG uploaded to the Commons and described more completely. The description page should include a link to the source document or to the main page of the site it appears on, (here maybe)
  • The image File:MayflowerHarbor.jpg has a description page on the Commons with a link to the source that is circular; that is, it should link to a page that explains what the source is (museum, gallery?) and provide other details about the image rather than simply linking to the image itself with no explanation.

Birthplace and early military service

  • The Manual of Style in WP:MOSQUOTE says, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." For that reason, I'd unlink "Ormskirke" and anything else linked inside the direct quotes in the article. After you've unlinked these, you might want to link them on first use elsewhere; e.g. Isle of Man.
  • "Dr. Jeremy Bangs, a leading scholar of Pilgrim history... " - WP:CREDENTIAL advises against using academic titles such as "Dr.". The description, "a leading scholar of Pilgrim history" is fine, but the "Dr." should be deleted.
  • "However, the Pilgrims ultimately passed on Smith partly because his price was too high but also due to fears that his fame and bold character might lead him to become a dictator." - Maybe "... and because they feared" rather than "... but also due to"?

Establishment of Plymouth Colony

  • "They had originally intended, and been given permission by the Crown... " - Replace "They" with "the Pilgrims" for clarity?

Settlement in Duxbury

  • "There are indications that, by 1635 (after the Penobscot expedition), Standish began to seek out a quieter life... ". - Tighten by deleting "out"?
  • "Although the coincidence would suggest that Standish had something to do with the naming of Duxbury, Massachusetts, no records exist to indicate how the town was named." - Needs a citation to a source.


  • "At the top of the monument, which is 116 feet (35 m) overall, stands a 14-foot (4.3 m) statue of Standish." - Needs a citation. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged. In addition, I always give at least one source for every paragraph whether or not it has a direct quote, stats, or unusual claims. I would, for example, cite a source for the unsourced paragraph that ends this section.


  • The tools at the top of this review page find no problems with links, dabs, or alt text. Excellent.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I'm glad it's a good read. I've addressed your suggestions as follows:
Lead: I added as phrase about present day Massachusetts to the first sentence.
Images: The Myles Standish portrait I haven't fixed yet but will very shortly. I have access to an original copy of the Memorial History of Boston in which this was first published and I will make and upload a new scan so that I don't have to rely on this low-res one from off the web. Can't do this 'til Monday, though. On the second image, I've edited the file description on Wikimedia Commons and added a better link to a page which shows the file and describes the museum from which it came. Hope this satisfactorily resolves the issue with the Mayflower image.
Birthplace: I made all these corrections. Thanks for helping to tighten the prose.
Establishment: Added "The Pilgrims..."
Settlement: Made the edit. Added a new citation for the naming of Duxbury.
Legacy: Added the two citations you suggested.
I think about covers it. Thanks again! Your help is much appreciated. I'm looking forward to giving this a try at FAC. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I just uploaded my own version of the Standish portrait from the Memorial History of Boston. It's much higher res and includes a better description and a link to the source on Google books. I think this resolves the issue with that image. Historical Perspective (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one albums of 2009 (México)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want opinions about this list in order to take it to featured list status. I have been working the past years in American record charts (Top Latin Albums and Top Latin Songs charts) and this is the first time that I am trying to make a list for another country charts. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I can't find much wrong with this. Here are a few minor points:-

  • The single image lacks alt text
  • Prose (I have made a few minor edits)
    • "composed by" is wrong phrasing. "made up of" is correct
    • You have "physical and digital", both terms linked. "Physical" links to "compact disc", "digital to "Music download". Why not use these terms so that the sentence reads: "This association tracks sales of compact discs and music downloads..."
    • "EMI" should be wikilinked. "Sony Music Latin" could be pipe-linked to "Sony Music Entertainment"
  • Chart: no problems.

There isn't a lot more I can say. Hope these brief comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Chaucer's special manuscript words[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I ultimately wish to have it as a Featured list candidate.

Thanks, Doug Coldwell talk 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: What a cool idea for a list! With WP:WIAFL in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem as I see it with this making FL is references - it is not clear to me from reading the article what the sources are for the words listed. It is OK in lists to have general references, but the source of the words has to be provided. If each tale or work has a different ref, this should be noted in each section. See WP:V (since there is a very long list of References at the end, I am guessing this will not be a problem).
  • To make clearer I have put in the wording: Below is a complete list of the 1977 Chaucer's special manuscript words that are first found in the existing manuscripts below as listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as being the first cited author.
  • Some of the references are incomplete and need more information. For example, the OED needs publisher, date, edition. See WP:CITE
  • Not sure which particular references you are speaking of?
The OED inline citation has below and has as second reference instructions for OED Online to get first cited author:
Simpson, J. A., Weiner, E. S. C., The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford UP, 1989, Reprinted 1991. ISBN 0198611862.
WP:CITE uses example:
Ritter, Ron. The Oxford Style Manual, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 1.
  • 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 3 is just "Chaucer's words"
  • URLs use the recommended {{cite web}} template
  • The image should be identified as the manuscript for Balade to Rosemounde. I also wonder if any of the images of Chaucer from his article would work here? I know most of them are much later.
  • I prefer to stick with just this one image to keep it simple. It has a Chaucer original manuscript with words - what this article is about.
  • The image also needs alt text for the visually impaired - see WP:ALT
  • Don't know anything further I can do here. I asked the Help Desk and they had no further suggestions.
  • Did give reference on each image for the wording.
  • Per WP:HEAD the headers should not also contain wikilinks
  • fixed.
  • There are many places where the article could provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, there could be a few sentences on Chaucer, or a sentence or two on each of the work (each of the Tales), or even listing the minor works
  • I also wonder how the words were identified / chosen. Is it a complete list or is it a selection of the words? Again this needs to be explained, and is also a matter of refs (which sources were used?)
  • I noticed that "Dives" is linked to wikt:dives which is about Diving (aquatics), but I think Lazarus and Dives is meant
  • I also wondered if the list of words might be made into a table, perhaps give the original spelling (maybe even quote the line), the modern spelling, maybe etymology, not sure what else.
  • Made table of 5 dozen examples of Usages showing Middle English and Modern English usages, with the name of Chaucer's poem and estimated year it came out.
  • Language needs some polish / work in places - needs a copyedit / tightened in places - here are a few examples
    • The first sentence seems to be missing some words: English words first attested in Chaucer are a set of about two thousand English words that Geoffrey Chaucer is credited as being the first [to?] use[, which are?] found today in existing manuscripts.[1][2][3]
    • Europe? Were early English words really in everday speech in Europe too? The words were already in everyday speech in fourteenth century England (especially London) and other parts of Europe.[6][7]
    • Awkward? These manuscript words first found written in Chaucer's work, from the The Canterbury Tales and other of his publications were published in the fourteenth century.[10][11]

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 ><>°° 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Death of Jeremiah Duggan[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm considering submitting this for FAC, and I'd appreciate reviews from uninvolved editors as to whether it's appropriate, policy compliant, and ready.

Thanks, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I knew pretty much nothing about this topic until I read this article. Having done so, my immediate reaction was this: Very simplified, there seems to be three different opinions about what happened. There's the opinion of the German police/judicial system, the opinion of the LaRouche representatives, and the opinion of the Duggan family/British coroners. Now, the latter two are given ample coverage in the article, but the opinion of the first felt lacking.
My initial thought was "Well, this is just because the article is primarily based on articles from English-language newspapers, of course those will have a tendency to imply that there's something fishy and inconclusive about the German judicial system in this case." But having read up on some German-language press coverage of this event, they seem to be saying the same thing, namely that there's something iffy about the whole thing. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the article feels biased against the German police, even though I can't pinpoint anything about that is biased. Probably the article isn't biased, but I can see that at least one other editor seemed to feel the same way. Is it possible to somehow assuage this concern? I have no clue on how to do so.
This is more of a reaction rather than any specific suggestions for improvement, I don't know if that's really helpful. Overall I think it's a great, well-written and quite interesting article. However, I have little practical experience with the FA criteria, so I'm totally at sea as to whether it is "ready" for FA. Gabbe (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gabbe. This is helpful. (The account that you linked to, by the way, is one of the banned LaRouche accounts so far as I know.) What you notice stems from us not having good access to the German media. I asked for a translation today [5] of parts of the most recent German court case, and if I can get that done, I'll add something from it, including to the lead if it seems appropriate, so that might provide a bit more balance. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Khachatur Abovian[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like tips on how to improve the article towards the eventual goal of turning it into an FA, it's been a GA for a couple of years now but I find that the prose can be tweaked and improved further.

Thanks, Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article that I was glad to read. It falls well short of FA at this point, in my opinion, but it has potential. I think you need to add more context for the non-Armenian reader and to make more clear how Arbovian's social and political views affected his literary output. It seems odd to an outsider that his work was unpublished for so long. Did he try to publish? Was the work suppressed? Here are my other thoughts and suggestions:


  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article and should include nothing important that is not mentioned in the main text sections. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead mentions his Abovian's influence on Armenian literature (which is not mentioned in the main text) but does not mention his early life, the mountain climbing, his Dorpat years, or his portrait, and it does not say much about his other writing. If you imagine a reader who can read only the lead and nothing else, you get a sense of what the lead should be.

Early life and career

  • "At the age of ten his father took him to Echmiadzin to study for priesthood." - Suggestion: "When he was ten, his father took him... ". Otherwise at first glance the sentence appears to say that his father was ten.

Dorpat years

  • "Abovian entered the university directly without additional preparation and studied in the Philosophy faculty of the Philological-Historical department... ". - Suggestion: "Abovian entered the university directly without additional preparation and studied philosophy... ".


  • "Given his love for his children and their young age it is generally disregarded that Abovian committed suicide." - "Disregarded" isn't the right word. Suggestion: "Because he loved his young children, it is generally doubted that Abovian committed suicide."
  • "A bust of Abovian in front of the Yerevan State Pedagogical University named after him" - If the school is called Yerevan State Pedagogical University, how is it named after Abovian?

Other works

  • "Pedagogical compositions of Abovian include the book for reading Introduction to education (1838), a textbook of Russian grammar and an Armenian language novel History of Tigran, or a moral manual for the Armenian children (printed in 1941)." - By "the book for reading" do you mean "the reader" or "the reading book"? Is 1941 the correct date?


  • "Yerevan's State Pedagogic Institute was named after him." - In what sense? His name does not seem to be part of the institute's name.
  • "On February 28, 1964, a medal was also named in his honor (Աբովյանի Անվան Մեդալ) and which was awarded to school teachers who showed exceptional abilities in teaching and education." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "On February 28, 1964, a medal was also named in his honor (Աբովյանի Անվան Մեդալ). It is awarded to school teachers who show exceptional abilities in teaching and education." (I assume this is an annual award rather than a single award given only in 1964.)



  • I'd suggest moving the Armenian Wikisource link to the External links section.

Further reading

  • You can usually find missing bibliographic information via WorldCat. For example, here is a link to the Harper and Bros. edition of the Parrot book.


  • The dabfinder in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
  • The alt text viewer shows that all of the images need alt text. WP:ALT has details. You can also see ongoing reviews of alt text at WP:FAC. Suitable alt text is one of the FA requirements.
  • Would it be helpful to readers to include a brief description of where Armenia is in the world and how it is or has been related to Russia, Turkey (the Ottoman Empire), and the Persian Empire?
  • Why did it take so long for Abovian's work to be published? What eventually caused it to be published? Why was the establishment of the Armenian SSR important to his reputation?
  • This suggests to me that the image of the statue should not have been uploaded to the Commons because Armenia has a non-commercial (NC) restriction in its "freedom of panorama" law. It would be wise to delete this image and look for another.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article to a certain extent, but, while I have a rough idea of what I think needs to be done (as I mentioned on the talk page), I'm not really satisfied that I'm going about it in the right way. I think the article needs a much clearer idea of what needs to be done, as I think it ought to be completely rewritten to improve it - the "History" section is especially problematic, but it does have some decent information in it. Another problem that I've come across is that I'm struggling to differentiate between the "Research and discovery" section and "Applications", and I'd ideally like someone more knowledgeable than me in this area to give me some ideas about how to approach this: what sort of information is most relevant, how the article should be organised, what's missing etc. I can see the problems with the article, but I'd like some more detailed ideas to look for ways to improve.

Thanks, Jhbuk (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: I'll take a further look, but just for starters the link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two dead urls in the citations, and the alt text tool shows that the images need alt text for sight-impaired readers. WP:ALT has explanations and examples. Finetooth (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: If I were re-writing this, I would read carefully the general advice listed at WP:MEDMOS and look at the organization of the example articles listed at WP:NEURO. In general, I'd be inclined to put "Definitions" first, "History" second, "Neurobiology" third, and "Applications" last. I would probably modify these as I went along, changing the heads and adding subheads as necessary.

  • I'd move away from organizing the "History" section around a series of individual paragraphs on particular researchers and instead organize by chronology. This would mean finding and citing secondary works that have evaluated trends (first this, then that, then the next thing). As it is, we hop from James in 1890 to Lashley in 1923 to Bach-y-Rita in 2006 to Merzenich in three unspecified decades to Nudo in an unspecified time, and so on. The sense of an orderly progression is lost.
  • I would greatly reduce the attention given to individual researchers. Something like "His first encounter with adult plasticity came when he was engaged in a postdoctoral study with Clinton Woosley" will mean nothing to most readers. Who is Clinton Woosley? Does it make any difference where Merzenich first encountered adult plasticity?
  • I would try to find sources for all of the article's significant claims. As it stands, many of the article's claims are unsourced. For example, the "Treatment of brain damage" section begins: "A surprising consequence of neuroplasticity is that the brain activity... ". This claim and the rest of the paragraph it's embedded in lack sources. Who says it is "surprising"? My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every direct quotation, every set of statistics, every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph. If after careful searching I can find no source to support a dramatic unsourced claim, I delete it (giving an explanation either in my edit summary or on the article's talk page or both).
  • I would remove from the "See also" section any linked terms that appear in the main text.
  • I would turn all of the references that are not already in-line citations into in-line citations and, simultaneously, make the two-part reference section into a unified whole.
  • Instead of a long "Further reading" section, I'd try to reduce or eliminate it by incorporating its most important ideas in the main text.
  • I'd look for ways to reduce the number of links in the "External links" section.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm aware of most of these problems, but I was hoping for some information on things that should/shouldn't be included, missing information etc, although thanks for the review. Jhbuk (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Donner Party[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article about the wagon train disaster has been expanded by nearly 10x in the past few days. User:Karanacs, User:Malleus Fatuorum, and I are working toward getting this to GA and FA. We welcome any comments you have to improve the article. Thank you. Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that jumped out at me was the last paragraph of Background, where the montains are mostly described in the past tense, which is very odd. The mountains still exist, no? And occasionally, they are described in the present, which just adds to the confusion. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth, I'll take a look at that. Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Beccariophoenix alfredii[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created the article and really want to improve on it's potential as much as possible. I want to make sure everything is sourced as best as possible and the article is fluent in language. Let me know what can be improved and I will try and fix it. It would be really cool to see it go as far as featured article, but even getting it removed from the "start class" would be nice. Let me know how this article can be made better!

Thanks, Zeeth (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will try and fix all these problems. The only reason that forums are cited so much is that this species is so new that the people from the forum growing it and trying it out is one of the only ways that it's requirements is known. I'll try and find some more non-forum sources though. Thanks for your help, I'll try and get everything better by the end of the day. Zeeth (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've added taxonomy, but I couldn't find enough about ecology to add a separate section. I added another non forum source, and referenced more into the original journal source, which actually contains most of the information within the article. The Jungle music source is only used once, and just references trunk thickness, as I thought Jungle music would be a more reliable source than adding another forum source. I could only find Beccariophoenix madagascariensis in the IUCN list, as I think alfredii has yet to be evaluated due to it's recent discovery, so I removed the conservation status for now. I removed the requested articles from the "see also" and added the requested article. Anything else that is needed? Zeeth (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Some comments:
    1. The image is copyrighted and higher resolution than the originals in the pdf description of the species. I suspect this and another you uploaded on Commons come from the describing author, but we have no documentation of that (see WP:OTRS for instructions - and contrary to what you say here, permission must come from the copyright holder, not palmpedia, which only has a copyright notice on its website anyway).
    2. The forum references are unreliable sources, see WP:RS for guidelines on this. I've used a forum post or two in the past, but they are only accepted if and only if the post is by a known expert in the field, e.g. the describing author or a palm expert posts a description on a forum.
    3. Is the entire cultivation section sourced to the one forum reference? Unfortunately, if it's not a reliable source, then we can't include the information. Wikipedia is also not the place to publish original research.
    4. What's this about Beccariophoenix sp. windows? Is this an undescribed species or a cultivar? I couldn't figure that out.
  • Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


  • I've tried to get in contact with the author with no response, but I will continue trying and see if he can either upload a picture himself, or give me permission. How can that permission be properly documented so that the file doesn't violate copyright? Until then I will upload a picture of one in cultivation that I took in South Florida, but it won't be as nice a picture.
  • I'll try and find some better sources for the sections which have forum references.
  • Some of this section comes from the journal, some from the forums. The part that comes from the forums comes indirectly from Jeff Marcus, who is currently one of the resident experts on this genus. How would be best to cite him? I will try and email him to see what we can work out for a source, but It would be nice to know in which direction we should go.
  • Beccariophoenix sp. windows is a species which has yet to be given an official name. John Dransfield is going to be naming it soon, and it is believed he is going to call it Beccariophoenix fenestralis, but nothing is official yet.

I'll try and fix as many errors as possible, and get in contact with people to get the picture allowed for use. I have emailed Alfred Razafindratsira from Madagascar, but he has not returned my email, so I will send him another, and also Mr. Rakotoarinivo. Zeeth (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • The Madagascar catalogue lists two species of Beccariophoenix: B. alfredii and B. madagascariensis. So Beccariophoenix sp. windows is apparently too new for that. Unless a name has been published, we should keep calling it Beccariophoenix sp. windows (or some such name), rather than using a name which looks like a scientific name but which isn't published. As for asking for permission for photos, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission - failing to ask in just the right way can make the permission not usable. Information on cultivation is usually harder to source than botanical information (especially if the species hasn't made it into the gardening books and extension service pamphlets and such), but keep looking around. Do be willing to leave out some material, though. It isn't wikipedia's goal to try to collect and summarize unpublished information on how to grow something (see WP:NOT), which is good news in the sense that it makes writing the article easier (although if you want to also write a companion article along those lines, there probably is some place for it - wikiversity or whatever it is). Kingdon (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info on requesting copyright permission. Since most cultivation info on this palm is either contained in forums or websites selling the palm, I removed the cultivation section until I can find a book that has the info published. It looks much more plain now, but I guess the info is more reliable now. I have emailed about 6 different people who would be able to either get me the email of the person who can grant the permission, or who can give me a picture that would be suitable until that permission is given. I have about 4 of these palms in pots in my yard, but are way too small to be put in the article. I also have seed that I can also use a picture of in the article, but I'll wait until I can get a better plant picture to put in before I put the seed picture in. Zeeth (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian Fitzgerald (academic)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I was on Wikipedia:Random page patrol this artical came up. It was Orphaned, wasn't sure what "Orphan Article" was, after reading about orphan's I decided to see what I could do. I feel I've Improved it enough to De-Orphan the article (hence the removal of the tag). I added the "see also" section, links to related subjects, looked up ISBN # for the book section and also noticed his sister was mentioned in most of the book searches, so I felt she deserved mention, she a Dr. of "something". I also tag the article "Please help improve this article by expanding it". Thanks, Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I appreciate that you are trying to develop this article, but that process seems at the moment hardly to have begun; the article has only 300 words and is little more than a list of facts about Brian Fitzgerald, with none of the structure or general information one associates with a biographical article. Peer review is intended as a process for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." (see WP:Peer Review introductory paragraphs. It is completely inappropriate for this article's present embryonic form. Should be withdrawn and brought back when and if more work has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the author of this article, I don't even know who Brian Fitzgerald is, I was using the "Random Article" link and this one poped up, believing the purpose of the of the random article patrol is to see if you can contribute, add appropriate referecnes, useful internal links, improve continuity, etc. just any constructive input to improve, enhance what ever article may pop up, by NO means was I even thinking of GA , FA all I was doing "contributing". All I can say is that, when I clicked "Random article" and this article poped up it was taged as an Orphan Article, I filled the requirements to remove the orphan tag, let me see, what did I do Here's the Diff's I think. Where do us below standard editors post a couple of sentences find out how bad we're doing ? I know not to ever post anything I work on at same place I did this one, that lesson I've learned. Sorry to clog up those important pages with my trivial request, sorry to bother you, and always thanks for your "bedside manners"Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since you are looking for feedback on how you are doing or what else to improve, this is a good start and what is here is interesting, but the article needs a lot more work to get to GA, let along FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FA as the ultimate goal (even if you do not want to take it there).

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - but the books section is not mentioned in the lead now. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs many more references - there are only three inline citations in the article. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The direct external links in the article need to be converted to inline citations and as Internet refs will also need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per the WP:MOS, once he is named in the lead, the subject should just be called "Fitzgerald" not Brian Fitzgerald or Professor Fitzgerald
  • One of the FAC requirements is that an article be comprehensive "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" this is so short right now that it seems very doubtful that it meet this criterion. When was he born? What about his family? Is he married or does he have children? When did he attend university?
  • Another FAC crtierion is 1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; - there are only three references in the article now.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many example FAs at Category:FA-Class biography articles

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please direct any further comments to the author of this article. I've had about as much as i care to read thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to archive this PR as it's clear the nominator is no longer interested; plus, it's been nearly two weeks without any activity. María (habla conmigo) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Texas Oil Boom[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I'd like to push it forward to FA. Any advice and criticism is appreciated.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing...Mono·nomic 03:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This will probably take me a while, since I have many comments for you. You can view my current progress at my sandbox if you like, but please don't change anything yet. I'll post my final comments here when I'm done, though, so you can just wait for them all at once if you like. —Mono·nomic 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done See below. —Mono·nomic 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much! --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas Oil Boom/archive2.

Africa (Petrarch)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring the quality up to that of a Good Article.

Thanks, Doug Coldwell talk 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

Honestly, I think the article needs a lot of work before GA, but I'm so excited that you are taking it on! A Petrarch poem! How wonderful!

  • The "Inspiration" section does not have a coherent structure. The first paragraph discusses when and where the poem was composed (in a disorganized fashion). The second paragraph is an unattributed quotation (that is, it is unattributed in the text - the reader does not who is speaking) - this quote needs to be integrated into a paragraph somehow. The third paragraph attempts to explain why Petrarch wrote about Scipio in particular, but it does not make this purpose explicit - it introduces other figures in a confusing fashion. Take the reader through all of this information slowly and connect each thought to the next by showing the logical connections. For example:
  • Current version: The first sections of Africa were written in the valley of Vaucluse after Petrarch's first visit to Rome in 1337. The design of his epic poem and also the De Viris Illustribus were inspired after he visited Rome on his grand tour.
  • Revision: Africa and De Viris Illustribus were partially inspired by Petrarch's visit to Rome in 1337. After returning from his grand tour, the first sections of Africa were written in the valley of Vaucluse."
  • I suggest reworking the the "Inspiration", "History", and "Coronation" sections into a "Background and composition" section (with some subheadings). The current division of the sections does not make all that much sense. For example, the last paragraph of "History" seems like it belongs with the Scipio material, as it address what is in the poem, rather than the circumstances of the writing of the poem.
  • The "Editions" section ends in 1874 - surely there were editions published in the 20th century?
  • I would place sections describing the poem, such as "Allegory", before the "Reviews" - this is the typical structure of literature articles on Wikipedia. It is difficult to comprehend reviews of something one does not know the subject of yet.
  • The "Reviews" section is a long list of quotations - this needs to expanded into a "Reception" section that explains how the book was read over the past 500 years. A summary of the history of that reception would be a better idea than a list of quotes. Sometimes scholars provide this kind of summary in their articles and books.
  • The "Allegory" section needs to explain in much more detail and much more clearly what the different allegorical readings of "Africa" are.
  • I would suggest renaming the "Books" section "Synopsis". It also needs to be dramatically cut down - it should briefly summarize the work. I would suggest not summarizing each book individually but rather the work as a whole.
  • Information from the "Commentaries" section should be threaded throughout the article where it is most useful, not listed in bullet-point form.
  • The article needs the following sections:
  • A section describing the themes of the poem
  • A section describing the structure of the poem - the lead mentions it is an epic, for example, but nowhere in the article is this explained in any detail
  • A section describing the language and meter of the poem - the lead mentions hexameters, for example, but nowhere in the article is this dissected and explained to the reader
  • A section describing the influence this poem had on later literature

I have not commented on the prose, images, or MOS issues, as I feel that these larger issues should be addressed first. I am always willing to rereview articles, by the way! I look forward to seeing this one improved - this is definitely one that we should polish. You might look at some literature FAs, particularly those on poetry, to help you out. See, for example, Ulysses (poem), The Raven, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hibernian F.C.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to move it towards FA status. It already passed GA and I have finally got around to making some of the changes suggested in the summer of 2008 by User:Dweller.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • One thing that jumps out is that the history section seems unduly weighted towards recent events. One example: "Hibs got off to an excellent start in the following season, which prompted speculation that they could challenge for the championship. Injuries and the sale of Garry O'Connor to Lokomotiv Moscow exposed a lack of depth in the squad, which meant that the club finished a distant fourth in the SPL and were beaten by Hearts in the Scottish Cup.". So essentially, you're saying that in that season nothing of note happened. Would you give a similar level of coverage to a season in which nothing of note happened in the 1920s? You need to ensure an even coverage of all eras of the club's history and not give excessive coverage to recent seasons just because they were recent...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair comment, the auto checker thingy is suggesting that there were too many sub sections. Perhaps if I merge the recent history into one section and get rid of some of the less significant content... Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The main thing that struck me was that the wikilinking needs looking at: see WP:LINK. Things like: don't link ordinary English words (like "green" and "white" in the Colours section); in the prose, only link the first occurrence of an item, unless there's a good reason to link it again; make sure the reader knows what to expect when they click on a link (see WP:LINK#Piped links). Some FA reviewers are quite keen on cutting down the amount of blue in an article: see Tony's comments towards the bottom of Arsenal F.C.'s FAR.
  • In the references, single book pages should have a single p, so p98 not pp98; page ranges should have an endash not a hyphen (WP:DASH); titles in all capital letters should be rewritten with capitals just at the start of words (WP:ALLCAPS).
  • When you reference e.g. the SPL or Edinburgh City Council websites, the site owners are publishers rather than works, so shouldn't be in italics.
  • Make sure you can justify your sources as reliable; personal websites and fansites tend not to be.
  • First-team squad and Honours sections are unreferenced, and a few of the Records don't have sources.
  • And once you think it's nearly ready to submit, get someone to give the prose a copyedit. It's impossible to check your own :-) hope some of this helps, Struway2 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Struway2, I have tried to address all of those points apart from a third party copyedit. Hibs handily removed their honours page when they moved the whole site from to a few months ago (rolls eyes). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks also for finding the web archive link to the previous honours page. I haven't included the Tennents' Sixes and BP Youth Cup mentioned in that link because the first of those competitions was for an indoor six-a-side tournament, (similar to Masters Football, but with the current players!) and the second is for 18 year old players (similar to the FA Youth Cup). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
User:SMasters has undertaken a copyedit of the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, in my opinion it is very close to GA quality. The "deposed house" section is all that needs doing before it is nominated and I just wanted to see if there is anything else it needs.

Thanks, Yorkshirian (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from vernajast: The first step to cleaning up this article will be cleaning up the prose. I suggest finding a willing copyeditor to do so. In particular, the overuse of commas makes reading this article extremely difficult and confusing. I apologize for not giving a line-by-line review, but this problem inhibited me from clearly understanding the information being presented.

I don't know much on the specific subject, unfortunately, but I would like to point out a comment left on the article's talk page regarding French lineage (entitled "Terrific article !!!"). I'm concerned by the implication of bias against French involvement in the matters discussed in the article, and whether this is a real issue or not, it should be addressed, clarified, or otherwise made transparent.

Good luck with this article! It seems very interesting, but I don't think it's ready for GA just yet. vernajast|angstwhore 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Nasty Housecat: This is a very good article, well researched and well-referenced, and does a nice job summarizing a complicated topic. Nice work. I will agree with vernajast that the prose is a bit tedious in places and could benefit from a good copyedit by someone not so close to the topic. I will disagree that it is far away from GA. I think the prose is up to the GA standard of "clear" and the spelling and grammar are correct. In my view it is not far from GA, with some improvements noted below:

  • The lead should summarize the article completely without introducing material not found in the body of the article. Here, you oversummarize the article in the first paragraph, and discuss culture and politics in the last two, which you do not actually cover in the article. I might suggest dedicating the first to the background and Henry II, the second to Edward and the Hundred Years War, and the last to the dynastic dispute and House of Tudor. Or something similar that might make more sense to you.
  • “After three ruling Lancastrian monarchs, the crown returned to senior primogeniture.…” This is confusing. Is primogeniture important here? Or is it important that Yorkists held the throne?
  • “killed in battle during 1485.” Perhaps “in 1485”?
  • At first glance, the “Tardy Adoption” article appears to be self-published, but it is actually a journal article, is it not? You might want to use the {{cite journal}} template to make it clear and display all the required information. And you need page numbers for each reference to it.
  • For web references, the website is the work, not the publisher. So,, publisher = Encyclopedia Brittanica.
  • “The system and reforms put in place by Henry restored law and order to create a self-standing system which used…” Maybe “…and created a stable system of government managed by competent…”?
  • “It could operate smoothly with common law prevailing…” Maybe “it operated efficiently and common law prevailed, even if…”?
  • Would it be acceptable to use the anglicized spellings of the Irish and Welsh names?
  • “Henry allowed MacMurrough enough soldiers to instigate…” Maybe “Henry gave MacMurrogh enough soldiers to launch…”?
  • “Scotland who” You mean “Scotland which”?
  • The discussion of Beckett and his murder does not read well. It is too colloquial, you should cite the direct quote, and the last sentence appears apropos of nothing. Needs to be reworked.
  • Be careful in placing images not to sandwich text between them, as the Richard Lionheart and Magna Carta images do. Happens again a bit later.
  • English folklore. Does this need a link?
  • “Sold the island to Guy…” Guy who? Is there a link? This needs a citation, too.
  • Section headings generally cannot begin with articles. It should simply be “English Justinian.”
  • “Hereditarily “ Is that a word? Is there a better one?
  • “National Identity.” Does this need a link?
  • The Black Prince died in 1376. Needs citation.
  • The {{Main}} template is used “when a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section.” Perhaps {{Details}} or {{Further}} would be better here. See WP:LAYOUT.
  • King of France is linked twice in the body. So is Tower of London. I happened to notice that, but do check for WP:OVERLINKing.
  • Does mental breakdown need a link?
  • You mention Eton College and then use an image of King’s College. I wonder why?
  • Watch for WP:WEASEL words. “Some have suggested.” “It is claimed.” Etc.
  • The Henry II of England image is a candidate for deletion due to copyright issues. You might want to find another one.
  • Many of the images have the wrong license tags. They are using PD-old when they should have PD-art. I went ahead and fixed the ones in the body of the article. Someone should fix the rest.
  • The Henry IV of England and Henry VI and Edward V files have been superseded. You might want to use the new ones.
  • The Baldwin and Almaric note needs a citation.
  • Please alphabetize the Bibliography for ease of use. “Bibliography” is problematic, as well. I suggest “Notes” for the note, “References” for the citations, and “Works cited” for the book list. There are other ways to do it. See WP:LAYOUT. Also, they should all be level 2 headings, level 3. See the example.

Of course, these comments are one editor's opinion and others might disagree. Thanks for all your hard work on this and good luck with the article in the future!

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and positive comments. I'll work my way through these. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie (1990 film)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I am looking to get the article to FA Status. Its been in the FA queue twice in the past, but failed both times. I added much more thorough content to the article and before taking it in for a 3rd shot, I'd like help with a copy-edit for any prose issues.

Thanks, Mike Tompsonn (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Mike Tompsonn 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • The Plot section does not have any citations. Neither is the article free from gramamtical errors. we need more editors to work on the grammar and to quote appropriate citations needed in the plot section. If adequate citations are added on the plot section, then you can nominate this article for Good Article category. The article has to first filter through B, because it is still a C class article. Nefirious (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, well the plot section along with the lead does not necessarily require citations. Almost every film that met FA requirements do not have cited sources for the plot. Two recent articles that just met FA Status are not cited with sources for the plot either. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and American Beauty). How exactly is one supposed to reference that section anyhow aside from citing to watch the DVD. I think almost every FA film does not have s cited plot. And the lead section sometimes contains elements from the plot along with cited information from other parts of the article. Oh, and by the way, I retrieved this particular line from WP:MOSFILM which says the following: Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. As far as the grammar is concerned, I do need help with it. I'm open and waiting for the suggestions. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There has to be atleast one citation in the Plot. Any editor can manipulate the story of the film if citations aren't quoted. Even Star Trek III: The Search for Spock has one citation. In addition to this WP:MOSFILM mentions a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, which makes it mandatory for you to quote atleast one source. Moreover, the article nominated still has a C class status, it has to be checked for B status first, only then it can be nominated for Feature Article class. Request for deployment of copyeditors from the Film task force and get rid of the grammatical errors. I am sure if you do the above, the article will definitely get a GA status, if not an FA status. Nefirious (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Expand the lead section using citations. According to WP:lead, the lead section has to be appropriately cited so that no one can challenge and remove the material. Nefirious (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Brianboulton: Nefirious is wrong on a number of issues:-

  • On the question of citing the plot summary, Mike Tompsonn is correct, per WP:MOSFILM
  • Citations are not required in the lead, provided that the material is appropriately cited in the body of the article.
  • There is no rule that says that the article "has to be checked for B status first, only then it can be nominated for Feature Article class." This is a misconception; any article can be nominated for FAC, whatever its class, provided that the nominator believes that it meets the featured article criteria. Peer review is a voluntary stage in which editors help nominators to bring their articles up to FA standards. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Boulton Thank You. Anyhow, here was my response for Mr. Nefirious: Well, to expand the lead section is easier said than done. The popularity and influence of this particular film does not really warrant an Avatar-sized introduction. I have limited resources at my disposal. I think for what the movie is, its sufficient. As far as including citations for the lead; alot of the information thats in there, is featured in other areas of the article. And in those other areas, they are cited with sources. Both Star Trek III and American Beauty plus dozens of other FA film articles do not even have a single cited reference in the Lead Section. Now as far as that citation in the plot for Star Trek III, thats a joke. Its one minor detail. What about the other 700 words in the paragraphs? .... There's nothing. And American Beauty lacks a single citation in its Plot section too. Look, by the way, I referenced numerous important details that occur in the plot in the Production Section using the DVD. I think thats sufficient for now. Can you volunteer for a copy-edit????? Mike Tompsonn (talk) 1:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I am pretty right as per WP:MOSFILM not only on one issue but all the other issues and I have clarified my stand. As far as improvement of the article is concenred why dont you nominate it on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. It should help you. As far as your article is concenred, it still has to be checked for B status, which I will do shortly. Right now this is all I can do. Nefirious (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go by what I see. If every other film article is the opposite of what your saying, then your still wrong. If you want to check for B status, fine. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The article still does not qualify for a B class status, because of the grammatical errors it has in certain sections. Did you nominate it on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive ? Please do not get discouraged. I am helping the article to get a GA status which it deserves. Nefirious (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. One of the issues that came up during FAC was the article's comprehensiveness; with that in mind, I've dumped a list of potential sources on the talk page. Some might only mention the film in passing, but there should at least be something usable in there. In addition, I'll repeat a previous offer: I have until April 4 until I let my HighBeam access lapse, so if there's anything you want me to get you from this list, please let me know and I'll be happy to oblige. On content, it's looking a lot better; the plot section is a little long, so it might be worth seeing where trims could be made. Also take a look at your reference formatting; where one source is used twice or more, it can be given a reference name to allow neater formatting. See WP:REFNAME for more information. Steve T • C 11:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Response Hi, Steve. I looked through the table of contents from your Highbeam page on the talk section of The Rookie (including the Italian-Language ones, even though though I don't speak a foreign language); but I just feel it might be what you would call repetitious content. The bases were pretty much covered from what I got so far. But I will continue looking at the list to see if I can integrate more details. Now as far as the Plot Section is concerned; I believe it clocks in at around 740-750 words. On the Wiki Film page, it states the plot should be between 400-700 words. I realize it went slightly over that amount, but I did my best in trimming unnecessary details. The way it is now, is the only way to fully understand the details of the plot. When it was trimmed earlier, some people questioned certain aspects. I had to re-insert then, some more details for people to understand it. Now as far as the formatting is concerned; I saw that!! And I realize the page looks a little goofy on that end. I didn't know how to properly reference the citations in that format. But now with that link, I will make an effort to fix that. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary:: Hello again Mike. When you make changes or additions to the article, also make sure that you describe us what changes you have made so that we know how and in what way the article is being improvised and what aspects have been covered. According to Help:Edit summary, a good editor who is editing an article viewed by tons of people has to summarise the changes he/she makes. Nefirious (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Themes in Avatar[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its main editors suggested that it get a fresh overall feedback and possible suggestions for improvement before being proposed for GA.

Thanks, Cinosaur (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

From a standpoint of structure, I think the article looks fabulous now. Also, the lead is much more engaging to the reader. I am really impressed. I think Ssilvers is right about the love theme now that I think about it. Nothing new about it other than it being between an alien and a human. I guess there is no reason to justify its inclusion so I will strike it out and consider all of my other points addressed and resolved. DrNegative (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's changed considerably since last assessment, and I'll like a critique of it's current status - in particular what needs to be done to consider this a featured article.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do a full review later, but the most obvious issue is that the history section is almost completely unreferenced.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
it's sourced, but mainly with 'one' source Sandman888 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added a tag to highlight that one section of the history (the Nunez presidency) is unreferenced. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've sourced it mainly with the FCB webpage history pages Sandman888 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The book references at the foot need ISBN numbers. I will add the one for Jimmy Burns because I have a copy lying around somewhere. Actually, this gives me an excuse to re-read it and compare it to this article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
At first glance, the history section suffers from a bit of recentism, there is too much minutiae from the last two seasons - in particular, the details of a preseason tour should not be in a general summary history of a football club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've cleared it out, but it's hard to say whether the sextuple section is a sort of recentism or if it's because the recently made history. Sandman888 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: Just glancing at the article, I agree with ChrisTheDude and Jmorrison that at least some and perhaps many of the significant claims in the article are not verifiable because they lack in-line citations to reliable sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.

In cases where a whole paragraph has one citation at the end, the cited source should cover the whole paragraph, not just the last sentence. However, the claim that "History says that Gamper was inspired to choose the club colours, blaugrana, by FC Basel's crest", which appears in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Birth of Barcelona section, is not supported by the source cited at the end of the paragraph. It's quite difficult and time-consuming to check unsourced claims entered by other editors who may have disappeared since making their entries. Even so, it's necessary to make sure everything meets WP:V for an article to be promoted. Claims that assert things that are common knowledge don't need a source, but the claim that Gamper was inspired by the FC Basel crest is not common knowledge and must have come from a source (not "History" and not the only cited source for the paragraph). I found this one problem by randomly checking; if I checked further, the odds are high that I would find more. Finetooth (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate the article for Featured article candidate and would like my felow editors to point out if htere is any issue that can stop it from being an FA. I have developed it to be a comprehensive biography of one of the most important faces of contemporary music.

Thanks, --Legolas (talk2me) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems overall well done, but I think the language could use a bit of polish before FAC and there are a few minor issues too. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Sorry you've had to wait so long on this PR.

  • External link checker finds one dead link (toolbox in upper right corner)
  • I would imagine the Barbie doll is copyrighted by Mattel or whoever made it so I am not sure it is a free image.
  • Some of the alt text seems a bit odd - a few examples (not an exhaustive list)
    • The doll is holding the veil in its right hand and is kept on black, polished floor. What does "and is kept on black, polished floor" mean here - is it "and is standing on a black, polished surface"?
    • Or one image is a photo identified as a bust image, but I think a bust (sculpture) is not an accurate description of a photo
    • Or this redundancy A female blond woman standing on a stage. can use female or woman, but does not need both
  • Awkward - probably needs to be split into two sentences They established her as a pop icon, [known?] for pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and [for the? or is she pushing boundaries here too?] imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV.
  • More awkward language in the lead Her recognition was augmented by the film Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) which widely became seen as a Madonna vehicle, despite her not playing the lead. how about Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) which was widely seen as a Madonna vehicle,...?
  • More work needed here: Expanding on the use of religious imagery with Like a Prayer (1989), Madonna received positive critical reception for her diverse musical productions, while at the same time [she?] was criticised by religious conservatives and the Vatican. if possible avoid passive voice and try to swtich it to active voice, so the end here could be something like ...while at the same time religious conservatives and the Vatican criticised her.
  • Even things that are grammatically OK could be tightened in places, like In 1992, Madonna founded the Maverick corporation, a joint venture between herself and Time Warner. could be In 1992, Madonna founded the Maverick corporation as a joint venture with Time Warner.
  • Or During the 2000s, Madonna released four studio albums – namely Music (2000), ... could drop the word "namely" I think
  • I would also mention her two marriages and the adoption case in the lead - they seem at least as important as the Vatican criticizing her.
  • These examples are all from the lead, but looking at three paragraphs in the lead at random I found these examples:
    • 1986-1991 last paragraph The video was deemed too sexually explicit for MTV, and was banned from the station.[60] MTV is a network or perhaps a channel, but not really a station
    • or same paragraph At the end of the year, Madonna decided to leave the Jennifer Lynch film Boxing Helena.[62] this needs to provide context to the reader - IIRC she agreed to star in the film, then left it, so perhaps At the end of the year, Madonna decided to leave the Jennifer Lynch film Boxing Helena, which she had previously agreed to star in.[62]
    • 1997-2002 second paragraph - First two sentences could be combined. This one is just awkward The latter's music video, depicted Madonna committing murders and accidents, with cars and was banned by MTV and VH1 from airing.[94] first off one does not commit accidents (that is why they are accidents), the commas after video and accidents seem unnecessary, as does "from airing" (if MTV bans it, what else does it mean?) so perhaps The latter's music video depicted Madonna committing murders and involved in accidents with cars, and was banned by MTV and VH1.[94]
  • The Michael Jackson and Bob Dylan FAs both put dates last in headers and in parentheses.
  • So overall this seems OK in terms of content and references, and just needs a copyedit. There are people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and WP:PR/V (last section) who will help with copyedits

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 ><>°° 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    • Thank you for these wonderful comments Ruhrfisch. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
By 2002, Madonna had changed to a hand-held Sennheiser SKM-3072UX wireless mic fitted with a 300E capsule. For the Re-Invention tour in 2004, she used the SKM-3072 hand-held but sometimes switched to a custom headset mic with Sennheiser ME105 capsule connected to an SK5012 body pack transmitter. Sennheiser clearly hoped to capitalize on Madonna's name—in August 2006, they wrote "Longtime Sennheiser endorser" Madonna was using her "much-favored SKM 3072 super-cardioid handheld transmitter", and in February 2010, they crowed about her "wielding her trademark chrome SKM 5200 with the ME 3005 capsule". Trademark? Wishful thinking. The headset mic became an iconic look for Madonna, but the hand-held mic not so much. Anyway, all the preceding material is far more than I would push into the Madonna biography article; all I want is to see some brief mention of her connection to this essential technology, her response to it, her preferences, her experiences. How the term "Madonna mic" came into use. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Appreciate teh hard work, but I'm baffled as to why the microphone thing is at all needed in a biography article? Shouldn't they be suitable for the toura articles? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Madonna is one of two people in the world who are associated with the headset mic, and the term "Madonna mic" comes from her usage. She influenced many people by this mic choice. I think it suitable that this might be mentioned in the bio article. As it is, there is no photo of her wearing a headset in a performance, and no mention of her wide influence in this regard. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article has Featured Article potential. The article is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other FA television episodes (South Park episodes for example) I think that "Stark Raving Dad" meets the FA criteria. Before I even come close to nominating this article for FA I'd like to do a peer review so other editors could give suggestions on how to help the article, etc. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • The third passage in the lead doesn't really properly summarize the incident it's relating. It sort of leaves the reader hanging. What's more, if that little factoid warrants inclusion in the episode summary, why not the info about the tribute airing following Jackson's passing? (personally, I don't think the lead would suffer from it's removal, but it might work in a more robust state)
 Done I added mention of the episode re-airing in the third paragraph in the articles lead. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with adding mention of the re-airing of the episode in 2009. The alternate opening has received a tonne of coverage over the years, and is a lot more notable than the 2009 tribute. Sure, the tribute also received coverage, but not as much and not over as long of a timeframe. -- Scorpion0422 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The Production section - in particular, the second passage of the Production section - reads like a list that has been lumped together. In other words, it's just several short sentences, one after the other, that really takes the reader out of the experience. Definitely needs some transitions and polish.
  • I think the article is close. It certainly contains a lot of valuable and interesting content and seems to be well-sourced and properly structured. Overall, I'd say the contributors have done a fantastic job in assembling the critical elements. Now it just needs polish. Polish polish polish. Having seen the episode so long ago, examining the article was unexpectedly reminiscent. Keep up the good work!
    --K10wnsta (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ansel Adams[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd really love to bring this article up to good article, if not FA, status. I've been working right now on the citations, and getting them all in the same style (I'm converting everything to shortened footnotes. There's a ton of content on this page, so I figured peer review would be better than a request for feedback—please advise if this article would belong there instead. I'd like to hear any of your comments, but especially in the following areas...

  • ...over-citation (which ones can be removed?)
  • ...content focus (which sections have too much/too little emphasis?)
  • ...and images (are the ones present appropriate? Should they be moved or removed?)

Thanks very much in advance. —Mono·nomic 02:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question/comment The article mentions up front Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico but it is not in the article or in the commons gallery. And there are various other Ansel Adams pics of Yosemite and elsewhere that many readers would look for. Are these pics not available for display here or in commons? I wonder if providing a hatnote at top: "for photographs by Ansel Adams, see (link)", or otherwise providing upfront direction to readers would improve reader experience. Perhaps some heavy-handed explanation that such photos are copyrighted and cannot be made available in wikipedia, if accurate, should be given early on. I do appreciate the portraits of Ansel Adams himself, but i was distracted, looking for the Yosemite pics. Hope this helps in a small way. --doncram (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be sure to look into it. Thanks for your response and sorry I'm so slow (life is hard!) —Mono·nomic 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and detailed account of a famous and talented guy. I've tried to answer your direct questions, and I have other suggestions for improvement.

  • You asked about over-citing. That was not something that bothered me. On the other hand, I'd suggest setting off quotes of four lines or longer in blockquotes and adding a source for any direct quote of any length. Sometimes it's not worthwhile to use a direct quote for a two- or three-word phrase that then requires a citation. It's a judgment call. Do you really need a direct quote, or would a paraphrase be just as effective?
  • I agree with User:Doncram that readers may expect to see more of Adams's work. However, copyright law makes that tough for Wikipedia. I think a note explaining the copyright difficulty might be worth trying. I've grown fond of a footnoting system that allows me to write notes that appear in a separate subsection of a "Notes and references" section instead of mixing them with the Harvard citations. This system gives me a freer hand in note-writing and allows me to cite sources for the notes. See Frank Dekum for example. Just a suggestion.
  • You may have a tough time justifying two fair-use images of Adams. The lead image is much better than the one of Adams at Big Sur. Since the second one, as far as I can tell, is not necessary for a reader's understanding of the material (assuming that the reader has looked at the first image), it should probably be removed.
  • The third photo of Adams, standing with camera, is free but not as interesting (to me) as his work. I'd be inclined to move The Tetons and the Snake up to where Adams at Big Sur is and to move the last two images out of the Works section and up higher in the main text. I'd try making them bigger than thumb size; just fool around until you hit a combination that looks really good to you.
  • If any section is too detailed, it is the Career section. Perhaps, though, the problem is not that there's too much detail but that this long section doesn't have any resting places. Readers like an occasional break; the cure might be to split this long section into perhaps three logical subsections.


  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the entire article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing leads does not mention his youth, family, interest in music, his publications, or much about his awards and legacy. When you finish revising the main text sections, it would be good to rewrite the lead to make it more of a true summary. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you'll get an idea of what it should say.


  • "Adams used a variety of lenses to get different effects, but eventually rejected pictorialism for a more realist approach which relied more heavily on sharp focus, heightened contrast, precise exposure, and darkroom craftsmanship." - Should that be "realistic" rather than "realist"?


  • This section is awfully long. Would it be helpful to split it into subsections arranged chronologically? Maybe "1920s and 1930s", "1940s and 1950s", "1960s and later"? Or something like that.
  • "President Carter commissioned Adams to make...". - Wikilink President Jimmy Carter? It is linked further down but links should occur on first use rather than subsequent use.
  • Set off the long Adams quote in blockquotes?

Contributions and influence

  • "But it was Adams's black-and-white photographs of the West which became the foremost record of what many of the National Parks were like before tourism, and his persistent advocacy helped expand the National Park system. He skillfully used his works to promote many of the goals of the Sierra Club and of the nascent environmental movement, but always insisted that, as far as his photographs were concerned, “beauty comes first”. His stirring images are still very popular in calendars, posters, and books." - In some places in the article, unsourced claims appear that are apt to be challenged. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every direct quote (like the unsourced one in this paragraph), every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, every set of statistics, and every paragraph. The third and fourth paragraphs of this section are completely unsourced yet are not common knowledge.


  • It's generally best to avoid orphan paragraphs consisting of only a single sentence. I'd suggest merging some of the "Death" paragraphs.


  • The Manual of Style suggests turning lists into straight prose when feasible. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details. It wouldn't be hard to turn this list into prose. On the other hand, "Works" would be difficult to render as prose and is probably fine as a set of lists.


  • The em dashes in some of the page ranges should be converted to en dashes.


  • When you finish adding or removing images, they will all need alt text, which is now an FA requirement. WP:ALT has details, and you can see ongoing discussions of alt text at WP:FAC.
  • The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.
  • A caption consisting solely of a sentence fragment doesn't take a terminal period.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Finetooth, thanks a bunch. You're living up to your name all right! I'll get to those comments and post revisions here. I'm still open to any other comments you (or anyone else) may have, so let 'er rip. —Mono·nomic 21:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this – “One of his most famous photographs was Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, California.” – belongs in the first paragraph. It's not so overwhelmingly famous that it outshines all the rest of his work. –jacobolus (t) 06:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: fair use images. Does Wikipedia have any clear policy about articles covering recent artists? It seems like such articles can't be complete without including many more examples than are at this article currently. Maybe we could argue for including a bunch at 200 pixel size, as “fair use”? Maybe someone could even write to the Adams estate, asking about specific permissions to use low-res thumbnails on this wiki article. –jacobolus (t) 06:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the Ansel Adams talk page here. Please feel free to voice your opinions there: it seems like four people have opinions and it would be unwise for me to just make the final call. —Mono·nomic 00:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Saganagan Orogeny[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to know if this article is long enough to be considered for a peer review. Would it qualify for featured article status based on its length?

Even if it is too short to be considered for a peer review, I would appreciate feedback if it would qualify based on citation notes, etc.

I chose this topic because it was the first redlink in my Rove Formation article.

I have spent a lot of time Googling the topic, using any and all terms I could think of. Because this geology is so near to the time of Earth's creation, most of the evidence has been subducted. I will check out whatever the library has.

I would appreciate any and all feedback. Thank you. Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: while this is a good start and what is here is interesting, the article needs a lot more work to get to GA, let along FA. here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • One of the FAC requirements is that an article be comprehensive "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" this is so short right now that it seems very doubtful that it meet this criterion.
  • Another sign that this is too short is that is has no sections and lacks a lead. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
  • Another FAC crtierion is 1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; - there are only four references in the article and they all have some issues. For now I think this would need additional references to print sources, not just lecture notes and a blog.
  • Blogs are usually not relaible sources, lecture notes are better but books or journal articles or perhaps a USGS type website would be better.
  • Article needs more references, for example The collision of at least two of these probably created the Saganagan Mountains. The theorized first supercontinent, Vaalbara, existed during the early Archaean Era. have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Any chance for a map or other illustrations?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many example FAs at Category:FA-Class Geology articles

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What is there reads well and is interesting, but the length is about the size that I'd expect a fully-developed article's lede section would be. A search does indicate that there isn't much more to say though... Some background on where this occurred (near equator, mid-latitudes, or near poles), how high the mountains may have been, how long they lasted, where the eroded sediment went, etc are needed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would agree that at this point, the article doesn't appear to be comprehensive enough for a FA. It doesn't help that only the first few sentences actually discusses the Saganagan Orogeny. The rest just summarizes the geological context. My suggestions would be to do a literature search. Right now most of your sources are just lecture notes. Not saying those are bad, but the article can only summarize someone else's summary of this topic. With a specialized topics such as this, you really need to look at the available papers on the geology of this orogeny. You said, "Because this geology is so near to the time of Earth's creation, most of the evidence has been subducted." This begs the question, what is the evidence for this orogeny? Compared to other Archaen Eon orogenies, is this among the oldest? --Volcanopele (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of literature, Google Scholar (play around with the precise search terms if needed) seems to have a few good articles on this orogeny. My suggestion would be to take a look at those, peruse them for relevant info on this event (particularly what evidence exists for it), and use that to expand the article. You created sections for the article, but personally, those could all just be combined into one section, titled "Geologic context" or something similar. --Volcanopele (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Those look promising!! I'm becoming too tired to really look at that tonight, but I did browse. Thank you. If I don't develop more information on the 'sections', I'll combine them per your recommendation. Again, I truly appreciate your help. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rock Show (Parks and Recreation)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually nominate it for featured topic. I'm positive that the article is comprehensive and includes all the available sources that are out there, but it is in need of a thorough copy edit from an uninvolved editor. Please feel free to be thorough and nit-picky, and make any suggestions you might have that will help this survive the FAC process. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: I don't see any particular problem with the prose. I found only one proofing error (an em dash that should have been an en dash), and I fixed it. The tools at the top of this review page find no errors, which is good. I find that I have only one suggestion. Since I've never seen any episodes of Parks and Recreation, I bring a kind of innocence to my reading. (I did review at least one other episode here at PR, so I'm not a total blank slate.) Would it be helpful to readers who have never seen any of the episodes to provide more general (series) context? The Plot section gives details of the episode but not of the series. For example, there's nothing in the Plot that explains who the Andy and Ann of the first sentence might be or what they have to do with the parks and recreation department. Perhaps you could turn the Plot section into two subsections, "Back story" and "Plot", or something like that. "Back story" could fill the reader in on what happened before the episode in question. Just a suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Do you like association football (soccer)? Want to learn about how Seattle Sounders FC, a successful Major League Soccer expansion team, managed to win the U.S. Open Cup in its inaugural season? Then click the link and start reviewing!

Thanks, SkotyWATC 23:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1.

82nd Academy Awards[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this list could be a FL and I want to know what is wrong.

Thanks, TbhotchTalk C. 05:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order with the article/list; but a few references are not properly formatted and reference number 26 does not seem to be a reliable source and reference number 7 (Digital Spy) is not considered a reliable source. Also in the "Submitted films qualified for consideration for nomination" section I think it would be easier to read without the red link and I also think the article/lists lead does not completely summarize the pages content, the page is over 76 bytes long so the lead should be about three paragraphs long. Granted, I haven't gone over this article word for word so there could be other problems with this article that I can not identify. Other then the problems I've listed, this article appears to be FL status. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • number 26 does not seem to be a reliable source — I'll ask to other users
    reference number 7 (Digital Spy) is not considered a reliable source Done changed to Telegraph Daily
    the lead should be about three paragraphs long. Doing... I think it's  Done
Your welcome : ) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 08:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Horses in World War I[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to FAC at some point soon, and would like to know what else should be done before then. Comments on completeness/comprehensiveness are especially welcome, as there have been extensive talk page discussions about what should and should not be included.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Rod Serling[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. I have spent over a month rewriting much of it as I added a ton of references. It had a notification about poor references before I began. Also, it's on the bounty board, so I figured...why not.

This is my first attempt at a Featured article, and I would appreciate any feedback to help me get better at writing high-quality articles.

Thanks, Sabiona (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Rove region[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like the feedback, AND I'd like to nominate the article for Featured Article status. I chose this topic because I live within 100 miles of the Rove Formation, have an interest in geology and it was a redlink.

In the discussion page of the article I do have three concerns relating to the article.

Thanks so much, I do throughly appreciate your help. Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Fetchcomms

After perusing the article, there are a few things that stick out and need to be fixed.

  • Is this officially the Rove Formation or region, and which is capitalized/lowercase? if the article is mainly about the formation, then move the page to that name, otherwise, maybe refer to it as the region in the lede section?
  • Some wikilinks in the lede might help especially for those unfamiliar with geology
  • first section heading needs to be level 2
  • give images captions and maybe cut down their size, especially the one in the first section and the one under puckwunge formation
  • for measurements/units like 10-mile (16-km), etc. use the {{convert}} template
  • image under human history is broken
  • references are cited ok, but format should be fixed: links need titles, authors, publishers, accessdates can be changed to DD Month YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD? etc. as well. Maybe use {{cite web}} or other citation templates?
  • also for references: yahoo! answers and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable, and the one that is complicated to get to, just put the main link anyone can access should be fine

Hopefully this has given you something to work with, although not very detailed about the prose itself. Regards,  fetchcomms 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It is officially Rove Formation. The red link was Rove region. I'll correct it.
I didn't want to clutter up the lead with wikilinks. They are in the main article. If you feel strongly they should be there, I'll add them and delete them from the text.
Good eye! I thought I had caught all of those. I have corrected it now.
I KNOW I need captions. When your message came up, I was in the process of trying to determine why the captions weren't showing. It appears to my eye that I entered them the same as the image that has a caption. Can you tell why the captions aren't showing? I do notice that both of these are maps. Does that make a difference?
I did downsize the first map. It didn't show that much detail anyway (the Rove Formation is that narrow grey area at the border).
I resized the Puckwunge Formation image; not by much - the text on the map is important.
I'll insert the convert template
I just uploaded that image to Commons and noticed it didn't work. I'm hoping there is a delay from the time an image is uploaded until it "shows up". If not, I'll troubleshool tomorrow.
I'll look again at the citation you referred to.
OK, maybe I'll put hidden notes for the Yahoo and answers references. I'll take card of the Grand Portage citation. I'll look at the complicated one again; as I remember I couldn't access that from the web address, so I have to enter by the "back door".

Thank for your help and comments. I'll continue working on the article!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Betty, I'm glad to see that there is finally an article on this important feature. Suggestions and comments:

  • Use the "Move" button at the top of the page and move the article to "Rove Formation". The talk page will go with it automatically, and the "Rove region" will remain as a redirect.
  • Confine the article to the formation itself and its geological aspects-- I think ecology goes too far afield as there really is no way to differentiate the flora and fauna atop this area that those of the Duluth Complex, Saganaga batholith (another idea for an article, or section within your other new article), etc. It is valuable material, but would more properly belong to other articles on the region.
  • For the same reason, I'm not sure the human history section is needed, at least to the present extent. It is already covered elsewhere. Keep your focus here on the Rove formation. (As in this case geology did influence human history, you may want to simply cut back this section, at least the last paragraph.)
  • An example of this: When Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben was first created it concentrated on geology. It then accreted a lot of stuff on human history and culture,[6] until that material was split off into Ottawa Valley. Now the article is refocused on geology, and addresses human history only as influenced by geology. It shows how you could handle similar material here.
  • You should get some print sources, and not rely so much on web sources. A good general work on the region's geology is Ojakangas, Richard W.; Matsch, Charles L. (1982). Minnesota's Geology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-0953-5.  It mentions the Rove in several places, but I haven't looked in detail to see if adds anything more than you already have.
  • I've looked at this source, and pp. 175–76 would be a good source on how geology influences history; in this case, the Grand Portage. Kablammo (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've looked at some of your sources and I think your text in places uses too much of the source language. To avoid unintentional plagiarism, here's a suggestion: Rather than copy-and-paste text into your editing page, print out the source, and refer to it while drafting. That makes it more difficult to simply adopt the wording and phrasing of the source. Use your own words.
  • The article is a long way from Featured Article status. You need a consistent citation format, with the requisite elements for each source, including author, title, publisher, and date, and page numbers if available.

Good luck with this. Kablammo (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.

I will move the to article to Rove Formation.

I included some of the ecology because those plants are found only on the north-facing cliff faces in this part of the continent. Otherwise those plants are usually found in sub-Arctic environments. I had realized I had too much emphasis on the ecology and had already cut half of my text. Would it be inappropriate to mention that the micro climate of the north-faing cliffs is unique for this part of the continent, and cite just the names of the flora?

I just finished cutting down on the verbiage about the flora. After your comments I did remove half the verbiage and tonight I removed the subsection headings, so each plant has a paragraph. This also resulted in making the flora seem less bulky in the table of contents.

I have done an article on the Saganagan Orogeny; it should be in the Peer Review process. I didn't find much (online) on the batholith.

I will cut back on the human history portion.

Earlier I cut about half the content of the Human history. If possible I'd like to leave some in because the Grand Portage is completely within the Rove Formation; I think it adds a human interest slant to the article. BUT, if I'm off base, please let me know.

I do have a copy of "Minnesota's Rocks and Waters" by Schwartz and Theil, 1963. The Rove Formation is mentioned several times, but in no great detail. I used it mainly to affirm information retrieved from inline. I'll go the library to find more reference works.

Needless to say, with a 1963 copywrite date, they give NO coverage to plate tectonics! lol

I do print out my sources; I did try to reword them, apparently I wasn't too successful. I'll work on rewording.

Fetchcomms also talked about citation. Last night I printed off the guidelines and haven't had time to work on that yet. I will.

I continue to work on this. It's not difficult (I have two screens open on the monitor), it's just tedious.

Again, thank you for your invaluable feedback. I will work on them. Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. It may have been another article where I was struck by similarity of language. If there is a direct relationship between geology and flora, by all means include it. I think a trip to a library would be helpful-- those sources won't disappear, and are more likely to be well-regarded by reviewers (especially if they are peer-reviewed, or by known experts) than are many on-line sources.
On citation, if you do not want to use parantheticals (which most do not), you can either just cite the source directly in the footnotes (eg. Midcontinent Rift and Traverse Gap) or list the sources separately (eg. Geology of Minnesota and Duluth Complex). There are variations of these, but just be consistent. Kablammo (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
For the images, don't forget to add the |thumb parameter. Otherwise, good work on the improvements; as I don't know much about geology, I can't provide much advice about the content, but the only thing now for me is fixing those refs! Very nice work so far, I was pleasantly surprised by this article's coverage.  fetchcomms 05:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, thank you so much for your help. I really do appreciate it. (I haven't gotten to the library yet, but do plan to go.)Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this an article on a geologic formation? If so, this article seriously lacks focus. If not, it is confusingly named. It looks more like an article about the geology of a region. Either way, the lede and location sections are not detailed enough. Wired, class notes (example:, student papers, mailing list posts, Star of the North Concert Band, etc are not reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Mav, thank you for your comments. I've been pondering about changing the title to better reflect the contents. Do you have a suggestion other than "Rove Formation geology", "Rove Formation area" or "Rove Formation region"? If not, which of the above do you think is the best title?
I'll work on expanding the lead and locality (may not be for a couple of days). I have printed off the WP:V and WP:RS to read. (I'm aware of using reliable sources, but wasn't aware of these pages. Thanks for pointing me to them.) After reading them, I'll work on the footnoting (again, probably not for a couple of days).
Again, thank you for your comments and additional help with my above questions. Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Angrez[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on it for sometime and made it reader friendly and it still has a start satus on it. I have quoted several authentic references from the internet and other sources. The article is not too big nor too short, just the way it should be for the readers. I will try and improvise it as soon as I get hold of more sources from the internet and newspaper, journals and other books. At the moment I only need a peer review against B status.

Thanks, Nefirious (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, there were two peer reviews opened for this article within 7 minutes, so I have deleted the second and added the one comment it had that was not already here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Nefirious (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]</ref> .,</ref>,,
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Comments by H1nkles There are several writing issues that I've found in my initial run through the article. I'll bring them up here:

"However in the movie, it is a term used by the comical gang of residents from the Charminar locality in Hyderabad to refer to the NRIs they encounter at an Irani hotel."

Usually you need to spell out an abbreviation when it is first used. Linking it isn't enough.

"The real funny bunch of Muslim guys from the Old City Area, the ones who just live in their own pride of silly things."

This sentence is not very encyclopedic. You want to convey the information in a professional tone. Also "really funny bunch of Muslim guys" is an opinion. Please try to keep editorial opinions out of the article.

"Based in the old city, the Ismail bhai gang meets up in char minar and starts their daily routine with gossips, babble and talks of bravery. Ismail bhai is apparently the gang leader and his gang comprises Salim, a habitual liar, Jahangir, a self claimed hardcore gangster and Gafoor and Chaus who follow Ismail bhai throughout the film. While visiting the old city, Pranai and Rochak meet the Ismail bhai gang in hotel in the old city. The Ismail bhai gang and Pranai and Rochak enter into a spat. In a bid to get his camera from Ismail bhai Rochak accidently tears off Ismail bhai's shirt."

This section of prose is one example of a larger problem with grammar. I would rewrite a portion of it thus: "...the gang meet up in the char minar (is this a proper noun? If so it should be capitalized: Char Minar) and start their daily routine of gossip, and boasting". Watch comma usage, there are several spots like, "In a bid to get his camera from Ismail bhai, Rochak accidently tears off Ismail bhai's shirt." Where a comma is needed. A thorough copy edit is needed on the article.

"He met numerous people and also learnt of the life in call centres and the NRI's."

Another example of grammatical problems. Learnt should be Learned. Also "...and the NRI's" doesn't make sense in the sentence the way it is written. I know what you're trying to communicate but it is not written properly. "He met numerous people, investigated the culture of NRI's living in Hyderabad, and learned about the working conditions in call centres." This is an off-the-top-of-my-head rewrite of the sentence.

  • What is "bonalu to baraat"? A reader unfamiliar with the subject would not understand what it is you're trying to communicate about Hyderabadi culture. Also no need to link to Hyderabadi culture if no article exists.
"The producers had to do a lot of running about since there were only a few takers."

Another example of unencyclopedic language. I'm not sure what is trying to be conveyed here.

Now for general comments:

  • Ref 16 is a dead link, which should be repaired.
  • Hyderabad, Old City, Script, and Spoof are Disambiguous links, see WP:DAB for more info on this, basically it's links that could apply to more than one article. You'll need to specify which article you want it to apply to.
  • You need to add alt text to the film poster. This will help people who can't view the image to know what the image is portraying.
  • Reference formatting for websites should have the article title, publisher and accessdate as a bare minimum amount of information. Adding date of the article, author, and work will help fill out the reference. Just referencing to a website like Refs 2-5 and 16 is not sufficient. Also any magazine, newspaper, or other periodical should be italicized. Is The Hindu a magazine? It should be italicized if it is.

For future reference you don't need a peer review to move an article up the line of quality ranking. The first time an article undergoes external review is for GA consideration. This is done by nominating the article at WP:GAC. You can then move the article to WP:FAC for FA review, though this should only be done after considerable improvement after it passes GA. Articles don't have to go through the GA review process but it is a very helpful procedure. I would say that the article is a strong C class right now, given a good copy edit and improvement in the language to be more encyclopedic I would then put it at B class. I hope this has helped, please contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions or concerns. H1nkles citius altius fortius 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Points you've raised are valid and a lot of material is not encyclopedic but an opinion. I will rewrite the plot or make major changes and i've checked the 16th reference, it works. Whatever content has been written has to be written in a way that the readers understand every word of it. Especially those who are alien to Hyderabadi culture. I will do the needful and thanks for the comments, they were indeed very helpful.

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