Wikipedia:Peer review/May 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.



This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have done a lot of work on this article and would like it to be peer reviewed by editors with a better knowledge of the topic than mine. Can it be brought up to "A" class at least? It needs a better summary of "The Origins of the Second World War" by A. J. P. Taylor and of modern historical opinion. Thanks, Marshall46 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments from RJHall:
    • You may not have enough inline citations for an A class article. Usually I'd expect to see one or two per paragraph.
    • My understanding was that the policy of appeasement evolved out of a powerful public desire to avoid repeating the horrors of World War 1 (rather than just to avoid a war). That doesn't seem to be reflected in the text.
    • I was surprised to find the article doesn't cover the Anschluss, which I thought was a key component of the history of appeasement. Without it, the succeeding events make less sense to me.
    RJH (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: My first thought was that "Appeasement" sounds an awfully general title for an article. I think if the article is to comply with the requirement of comprehensiveness, the title needs to reflect the main focus of the article's content, which is the appeasement policies of the 1930s.

Here are some further concerns:-

  • It is not appropriate to begin the article: "Appeasement is..." followed by one historian's unattributed definition of the term. This wording has no particular status. If you think the phrasing is particularly apposite, you might begin: "Appeasement has been defined by historian XYZ as..." but personally I would paraphrase into my own wording, perhaps using the thoughts of other historians.
  • The lead is inadequate at present. According to WP:LEAD it should be an overview of the whole article, rather thn a brief intro to the subject. There is plenty in the article that is not touched on in the lead.
  • The article is seriously under-cited. Long extracts read like editorial opinion; sometimes whole paragraphs are without citation to a source, even when the material is potentially contentious. Take, for instance:-

By showing that appeasement was a popular policy and that there was continuity in British foreign policy after 1933, he shattered the common view of the appeasers as a small, degenerate clique that had mysteriously hijacked the British government sometime in the 1930s and who had carried out their policies in the face of massive public resistance; and by portraying the leaders of the 1930s as real people attempting to deal with real problems, he made the first strides towards attempting to explain the actions of the appeasers rather than merely to condemn them.

None of the above is cited. As a rule of thumb, every significant fact should be cited; every direct quotation should be cited; every paragraph should end with a citation.
  • References:
    • Some of the on-line references lack publishers and access dates.
    • Some of the book sources are incomplete, e.g. "Hunt, The Making of the West lacks a year and publisher.
    • Many of the source books look rather dated. There's nothing wrong with using a balance of new and older scholarship, especially with such standard texts as Taylor's. But there does not seem to be much use made of contemporary historians.
    • What is the purpose of the long "Further Reading" lists? Why weren't some of these used in compiling the article?
  • Broken link: the "Churchill tribute to Chamberlain" link is not working

The article is in general fluently written, but attention to all the above is necessary before this can be a first-class encyclopedia article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Marshall46 (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the standard of the article is of a very good standard. It is currently listed as a good article and am considering putting it forward as a candidate to become a featured article, however am interested as to what could be done to improve it further before doing so. Any comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, TheStig 10:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I don't have time to do a thorough read-through but I will give you some overarching thoughts on what can be worked on to help bridge the considerable gap between GA and FA.

  • The lead should include mention of the songs prominence in "Wayne's World" as well as discussion of live performances of the song. These are subjects in the article not explored in the lead. An article of this length could easily have a three paragraph lead.
  • The lead also has a lot of phrases like, "it is considered..." Take care when using terms like this, they can be construed as weasel wording. I know it's in the lead and there are licenses you can take in the lead, but I still would watch the use of terms like that.
  • You should probably look for a couple more images, it may be difficult to find free use images for a song but if it's possible it would be good to add a couple more. Also be sure to add ALT text to the images that you have and that you add.
  • You have several short paragraphs. Consider combining or expanding these to make the reading easier.
  • You need consistency in your referencing format. See WP:CITE for various formats. All website refs should have title of the article, url, publisher and accessdate as a minimum. You can use the {{cite web}} template as a guide.
  • Make sure your references are credible and that you are ready to defend refs that the FAC reviewers question. Some of the refs I would question are: ChC media, Sound on Sound, Record Collector, These are sources I'm not familiar with (that's not to say they aren't credible I just don't recognize them).
  • You're going to need to get more references, especially book references (6 books in the "General" section) Are all those books actually referenced in the article with in-line cites? If not you should otherwise the books should go under a "Further Reading" section. A song of this magnitude with the level of exposure and impact it has had on the music industry should have been written about in several books. Check google books for a start. Book references are more credible and looked on more favorably at FAC than website refs. I see you have a section entitled "General" in the references section, I'm assuming that is for the books, and then "Specific is for websites and page numbers of the books used. I've never seen this format before. Be sure it follows one of the MOS-accepted referencing formats.
  • When working on an article for FA I like to look at current FAs on the same subject to compare my article to. For this article I've chosen 4 Minutes (Madonna song) as an example for no particular reason other than that it is a popular song FA. Try to include all the subjects found in this article if possible. Note the Track listings and formats section as well as chart, sales and procession section. This would be good content to add to your article. The article also has 63 references, double what Bohemian Rhapsody has. Note there are no book references so you can have an FA with no book references but keep in mind that this article is about a fairly recent song (2 years old), with no where near the fame of Bohemian Rhapsody. Bohemian Rhapsody has been around for over 30 years. To see an FA for an older song look at Hey Jude. It's shorter than the Madonna song without some of the chart and track sections. It also has about 15 books referenced. I don't necessarily like the way the auther splits the Notes and References section like that but you'll find there are a plethora of ways to cite references in wikipedia. The important thing is to pick a format and be consistent.
  • I think the song would make a fantastic FA, very notable and a great addition to the stable of featured articles. It is going to take some work though because the reviewers at FAC are notoriously nitpicky. I haven't commented on the content, prose, grammar etc because I unfortunately don't have time to read through the entire article. I do hope these comments are helpful though and feel free to contact me on my talk page should you have questions or comments. Cheers. H1nkles citius altius fortius 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks H1nkles for taking the time out to look over this article and I found your comments brilliantly constructive and helpful, all of which I will be using to significantly improve this article. Once again, thank you! TheStig 22:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by indopug

I think a fair deal of work needs to be done before we start thinking of FA status for this article. For a model song FA, you might want to look at "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to see the quality of writing and sourcing excepting. A few quick issues I see:

  • The Live performances and Chart performance section is largely unreferenced.
  • That personnel section seems completely unnecessary; it mentions only the four members of Queen, and that information could easily be covered by the prose itself.
  • This [1] would be a useful source to check out.
  • The Composition is way too long. I also suspect that a lot of the info in it is based on original research, as opposed to being taken from reliable sources.
  • The reference style is weird, especially for websites. For eg: I'm still not sure what "Rolling Stone 2004b" is supposed to point to. Why not just do it the normal way; ie, for online references, list out the entire reference within the <ref> and </ref> itself?—indopug (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Copenhagen Metro[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am aiming for FA with this good article, and after repeated copyedits I feel there is little more I can do myself. Any feedback for non-compliances with FA standards are appreciated, although my weakest area is the prose, so that may very well be where the most feedback is needed. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

  • Alt-text is needed.
  • Per MOS:CURRENCY the first instance of a currency should be written out (i.e. 1.5 to 18.3 billion Danish kroner).
  • If a 2-zone ticket costs DKK 23, how does the ticket price change the farther you travel (i.e. 3-zone, 4-zone, etc.). What does it cost to get a "Copehagen Card"? Any idea how the "Copehagen Card" works (swipe card, RFID card, etc.).
  • "...because the operator used the nights for maintenance." → The operator is Metro Service, right?
  • "(07–10 and 15–18)" → Should the hours of operation be written out to avoid any confusion? (07:00–10:00 and 15:00–18:00)
  • " Although the trains are not equipped with drivers, there are stewards that help passengers, perform ticket controls and assist in emergency situations." → Do the "stewards" work onboard the train or in the station?
  • The {{cite journal}} template has a parameter (|trans_title=) that allows a translated title to be added, which might be helpful.
  • For citation 23, I'd break that up with WP:CITESHORT so as to allow to you to specify the exact page that you are referencing, rather than having someone search through the entire document to find it.

Some changes in prose to make it flow better:

  • "Trains run continually, including all night, with the headway varying from two to twenty minutes."
    • To: "Trains run continually, twenty-four hours a day, with the headway varying from two to twenty minutes."
  • "This would increase construction costs with DKK 900 million, and was not economic. The high costs were in part due to an extra TBM being needed to finish the project in time."
    • To: "The proposal would have increased construction costs by DKK 900 million and was deemed not economical. The increased cost was, in part, due to an extra TBM being needed to complete the project on time."
  • "It followed for the most part the route of the former Amager Line of the Danish State Railways. With this stage complete, 34 trains had been delivered. However, the line had caused a heated debate, and several locals had organized themselves in the Amager Metro Group. They demanded that the line instead be tunneled, arguing that it caused a physical barrier in Amager and that it created noise pollution."
    • To: "It followed, for the most part, the route of the former Amager Line of the Danish State Railways. With this stage complete, the 34 trains were delivered. However, the line caused a heated debate, with several locals organized themselves into the Amager Metro Group. The group argued that the line should have been built underground, citing concerns that it would create noise pollution and a physical barrier in Amager."
  • "The tunnels have been excavated using boring with tunnel boring machines (TBM), cut-and-cover and new Austrian tunnelling method."
    • To: "The tunnels were excavated by the cut-and-cover method, the New Austrian Tunnelling method and by tunnel boring machines (TBM)."
  • "Initially, the system had night trains on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night, but from 19 March 2009, this was extended to all nights."
    • To: "Initially, the system operated trains after __:__ only on Thursdays through Saturdays, but, starting on 19 March 2009, night service was extended to the rest of the week."
  • "The ATO is the autopilot that drives the trains after a predefined schedule, insures that the train stop at stations and operates the doors. The ATS keeps track of all components of the network, including the rails and all trains on the system, and displays a live schematic at the control center. The ATC is designed so only the ATP is safety-critical, and will halt trains if the other systems have faults."
    • To: "The ATO is the autopilot that runs the trains on a predefined schedule, insures that the trains stop at the station and opens the doors. The ATS keeps track of all the components in the network, including the rails and all of the trains in the system, and displays a live schematic at the control center. The ATC is designed so that the ATP is the only safety-critical system, as it would halt the trains if the other systems fail."
  • "The center also has the system's work trains, which includes a diesel locomotive that can fetch broken trains."
    • To: "The center also has several maintenance trains, including a diesel locomotive that is able retrieve broken down or disabled trains."
  • "The City Circle Line is an under-construction expansion of the metro, scheduled to open in 2018."
    • To: "An expansion of the metro, the City Circle Line, is under-construction and scheduled to open in 2018."

Sorry if I've changed any the meanings, I don't read Danish and wasn't able to translate some of the sources, so I working off of context. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review, it is most appreciated. I've fixed up everything, except the alt-text. This has been removed as a FA criteria, because there is strong evidence we have been doing it "wrong" on Wikipedia, so I'll await the outcome of that debate until I add it later. Otherwise: Yes, Metro Service is the operator; did you feel that should be specified while talking about the schedule? The Copenhagen Card is a museum-pass; I used it the one time I took the Copenhagen Metro, and as far as I can remember, it is a barrier-free system (you only show the card during a control), but I cannot reference it, so adding "barrier-free" before proof-of-payment would be WP:OR. I'll dig around and see if I can find a source, perhaps Jensen says something. Arsenikk (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Really, the policy alt-text changed; I'm going to have to keep an eye on that. I notice that {{Cite web}} also has a |trans_title=. Yeah, I'd reiterate who the operator is. The Copenhagen Card is a literal "museum pass"? I was picturing something like SmarTrip or MetroCard; I'd mention that the card is used for other things as well. A photo of a ticket or the Copenhagen Card might also be useful. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nocturnal enuresis[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would you please help with a peer review of the nocturnal enuresis (bedwetting) page? Bedwetting is the most common medical complaint in children and is a problem for about 1% of adults. So, while this article's topic may be the subject of jokes, it is a very real problem to many parents, caregivers, and patients. I would like to move the article along the track to GA status, or even Featured Article.

The article has been very stable over the last couple of years. The content follows Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles). (Note that the article includes the appropriate sections from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Sections, but does vary in order. This is due to the established nature of the article and in order to better develop concepts and avoid repetition, as per the rules at the start of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Sections.)

Thanks in advance for your review and advice.

Wshallwshall (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Glad to see an important article being worked on. While this has a lot of good information already, it will need a fair amount of work to better follow the WP:MOS and get to GA, even more to make FA. With those goals in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The article is fairly list-y - it will flow better if most of the lists are converted to regular prose. In some cases, it might also help to convert data to a table in some places - the statistics in the "Frequency of bedwetting (epidemiology)' section, for example.
  • Another way that the flow of the article suffers is through many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections. In most cases these could be combined with other paragraphs or sections, or perhaps expanded.
  • For example, there are very short single sentences on alcohol and caffeine increasing urine production. These could be combined in a single sentence something like "Both alcohol and caffeine are known to increase urine production."
  • There are multiple places that need references - for example the claim that alcohol increases urine production is uncited, or the first three paragraphs of "Normal processes of staying dry" have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • References also need to have more complete information. For example Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure refs are to relaible sources - is not usually seen as one, for example. See WP:RS
  • Even if the title is ALL CAPS, the Manual of Style says to make it Title Case instead.
  • The section headers do not follow WP:HEAD in several cases. In general the section headers should not repeat the article title (but there is a section titled Primary nocturnal enuresis (PNE) and another on Secondary nocturnal enuresis), and subsection headers should not repeat the section header if possible (or in the Treatment and management options section all the subsections repeat either Treatment or options or sometimes both ).
  • Could an image of the urinary system be added?
  • The use of bold face does not follow WP:ITALIC
  • The article in places treats this as a problem of just children (from the lead Treatment guidelines recommend that the physician counsel the parents, warning about psychological damage caused by pressure, shaming, or punishment for a condition children cannot control.[2]), but in other places it makes it clear this is also a probelm for some adults. Needs to be better about not assuming only a childhood problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This Is It (Michael Jackson song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think that this article has potential to become a Featured Article. I would very much appreciate if other editors could add suggestions on how to help improve this article and bring it up to FA status. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This article seems to have all the basic information needed, but the language needs some work before it would be ready for FAC, as well as some other issues. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the sixth posthumous album fact in the sentence The song was recorded by the former and featured as a track on his sixth posthumous album, This Is It ... is not repeated in the article that I could see (they really put out 6 posthumous albums that quick??)

fixed and yeah =/

  • Per Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] I am not sure the current lead sentence meets this - should the fact that this was Jackson's posthumous single be in the first sentence too? Also Anka is more than just a singer and became an American citizen a few years ago (so he's not just Canadian).


  • Can a song be both a pop ballad and a power ballad?


  • The lead says Jackson's version, styled as a pop ballad, was his first song to chart on Billboards Hot Adult Contemporary Chart in over seventeen years. but the body of the article says the Jackson Five (including Michael) had not been on that chart since 1970 (much longer than 17 years) but it also says This Is It"'s charting ended a thirteen-year, seven-month and two-week absence Jackson had from the chart... so it seems not to match with the lead.


  • The most difficult FA criteria for most articles at FAC is the first one, It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; I think this needs a fair amount of work before it gets up to that level, and in some cases the language even introduces what seem to be errors that need to be fixed. Some examples follow (this is not an exhaustive or complete list)
  • Four sentences in a row in the lead (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th) start with "The song...", as do two more sentences in the lead.


  • "His" is unclear in this sentence (meant to be Anka, but could be read as Jackson): According to Anka, the song was recorded in 1983 and was intended to be a duet between him and Jackson on his Walk A Fine Line album under the title "I Never Heard", but these plans fell-through. I am also not sure that "fell through" has a hyphen.


  • I am not sure what a "style's founder" is - to me at least, this sentence makes no sense "This Is It"'s style's founder was Teddy Riley, who was a principal producer on Jackson's Dangerous album in 1991.[5]


  • Awkward, makes it sound like only the first disc was named This Is It, plus a lot of extra words (see strikes): It was confirmed during the announcement that the song was to feature backing vocals by Jackson's brothers and that the song would be included in a two-disc album,ending out the first disc,[9] Michael Jackson's This Is It[, at the end of the first disc].[8]


  • Ended credits? Isn't it just end credits? It was also confirmed that the song would be featured during the ended credits of the film.[9]


  • This is just not grammatically correct "This Is It" managed to chart within the Top 40 in Dutch, Slovakia and Czech.


  • There is also a lot of needless repetition in the article - for example in the Airplay chart performance section why not combine these sentences: The song had similar success in Canada. "This Is It" peaked on the Canadian Hot 100 chart at number fifty-six.[26] (or several other like them.


  • I also wondered why the Japanese chart (bets performance anywhere) was listed last - why not list it first in the international charts?


  • OK, so I think this is a good start but needs a copyedit. The refs look good as far as I can tell. The lead image is lacking alt text.


  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on songs that might be good models.


Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

      • I have adressed all of the above problems Crystal Clear x3 07:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because because I need to know how to make it a featured article.

Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 04:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, and it has potential. However, the lead is weak, and the early sections and reference section have problems. Many of the citation urls have gone dead. This is not a complete review, but it's a partial list of things that need fixing before the article would have any chance at FA.

  • You might check the earlier peer reviews to see if the concerns therein have been addressed. For example, one reviewer noted that some of the citations lacked the author name even though it was readily available. I see that the author, Kristin Lemmerman, is missing from citation 5. I suspect if I checked other citations, I would find more of the same. These will all have to be made complete and correct for the article to advance to FA.
  • The lead image in the infobox has a license page that includes a link to what is supposed to be the source. But the link goes to an advertisement for the Kindle and seems to have nothing to do with Harry Potter.


  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. I'd suggest expanding the lead to four paragraphs and including something about "Structure and genre", "Themes", and social and cultural impact.
  • "The main story arc concerns Harry's quandary against the evil wizard Lord Voldemort, who killed Harry's parents in his quest to conquer the wizarding world and subjugate non-magical people (Muggles)." - I don't think you can have a "quandary against" something. Maybe "quandary involving"?
  • "Since the June 30, 1997, release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was renamed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide,[1] although the series has had its fair share of critisicm, including criticism for the books' dark tones (especially the later books, such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) making the series less suitable for children." - Run-on sentence. Re-cast as two or three separate sentences. Also "criticism" is misspelled once.
  • "Thus far, the first six books have been made into a series of motion pictures by Warner Bros., which are the highest grossing film series of all time when not adjusted for inflation." - The "which" clause appears to modify Warner Bros. but doesn't, and the word "series" is repeated. Also, "thus far" is vague and needs to be replaced by a more specific date. Better might be "Through 2010, Warner Brothers has made six motion pictures based on the books; this film series has had the largest gross receipts of any in history." Or something like that.


  • "The main narrative of the novels is set in the years 1991-7... ". - Does 7 mean 97?
  • "(Harry's parents' O.W.L. year)" - Abbreviations should generally be spelled out on first use, thus: "—Harry's parents' Ordinary Wizarding Level (O.W.L.) year—. I used em dashes to avoid nested parentheses in this case.

Wizarding world

  • When I check the sources cited to support particular claims, I sometimes can't find them in the sources. For example, the entire fourth paragraph, including the word "horcrux" is sourced to "A quick Cliff's Notes review", but I can find no mention of "horcrux" in the source. Rather than trying to source each sentence or paragraph of a plot summary, I might choose to leave it unsourced. Many FA articles on novels seem to do that. See To Kill a Mockingbird or The General in His Labyrinth, for example. It's understood that the source for a plot summary is the published story in question.


  • Some of the citations are incomplete or malformed. Citations to Internet sources should have author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate if all of these are known or can be found.


  • The link-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that at least a dozen of the urls in the citations are dead. Dead links won't survive FAC. They need to be repaired or replaced. The Internet Archive might be useful in tracking some of them down.
  • The alt text tool shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I will work on the links later, as I am kind of exhausted on the article . I have done everything you have suggested, except the dead links. Can you give me more specifics on the link-checker? I am having trouble finding it. Thanks.--Guy546(Talk) 02:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It's the "External links" item in the toolbox in the upper right-hand corner of the page you are looking at now. Finetooth (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone a period of quite rapid improvement. Aim is to get this article featured.

Thanks, Tomlock01 (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment by Sandman:
  • The player records section needs proper citation going direct to the page in question.
  • Is the division between first league and premier league customary? Why not first division ~ 18? You don't divide CL and European Cup trohpies? Uninformed readers might think that first division is the second tier in English football.
  • Club officials need citation.
  • Club captain has a different source than the corresponding on list of Man utd players.
  • "In September 2006, a £56.5 million deal with current shirt sponsors AIG became the most valuable in the world" clarify please.
  • " making it the biggest sponsorship deal in football history" this is not supported by source.
  • "Ryan Giggs is the most decorated player in English football history." [citation needed]
  • "who demanded a then unprecedented level of control over team selection, player transfers and training sessions."[citation needed]
  • Avoid words like unprecedented unless it is in qoutes. You shldn't make that assertion yourself.
    • All in all, I'd go through all the facts again and find proper source.
ALL DONE! Tomlock01 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber[edit]

I generally look at comprehensiveness first

  • the Rivalries section is stubby. I'd add a sentence or two about the relationship with Man C (i.e. people like one and hate the other etc.)
  • The lead needs a bit of buffing. I might have a go at that myself

2010 Subway Fresh Fit 600[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to edit this article correctly to be able to nominate it for GA.

Thanks, Nascar1996 01:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

First off thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It's genuinely appreciated. I see that you wish to take this article to WP:GAC. This is a noble endeavor. I'll give you some feedback on how to improve the article and prepare it for a GA run.

  • Take a look at WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to be a summary of all the aspects of the article. It should not bring up information that is not in the body of the article. The discussion in the lead about Carl Edwards' suspension isn't mentioned in the body of the article and so the issue should either be addressed in the article or removed from the lead. Personally it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the race so I would remove it from the article completely, but that's just my opinion. If you do decide to leave it in the article then the description of what happened, "Keselowski was sent airborne, subsequently crashing on his side door", should be in the text of the article not in the lead.
  • The lead should also mention the pole sitter.
  • As I read through the article I got a strong sense that you built this article in the mold of 2010 Food City 500, which is also a GA. It is very wise to look at articles similar in subject to yours that have attained what you wish to attain. Keep in mind that the GA process is very individualized. Each reviewer interprets the GA Criteria a little differently. As I looked at the Food City 500 article I found issues that I would have addressed had I been the reviewer. All that to say that just because it's ok in one GA doesn't mean it'll be ok in the article your nominating. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't as consistent or fair as we'd all wish it would be.
  • I think the writing is ok, you want to look for small spelling errors and tense agreement.
  • It's also important to have a reference for the results section.

Other than what I've listed above I think you have a good, tight article. Unless there's more to this race that could be added (off track altercations, judging controversies), then I think it's in good shape. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review of this article prior to submitting it for FAC. I am particularly looking for it to be reviewed for good writing style. Comments on all aspects of the article are welcome, however, including technical content. SpinningSpark 20:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment try to make it simpler, I know more about electronics than the average user, and after reading the article, I'm not able to answer the question "What is a distributed element filter", which is the point of an encyclopædia. This might be difficult to do, but give it a shot. Sandman888 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: WHile this clearly has had an enormous amount of work done on it, I agree with the above comment - it is so technical that it is difficult to follow. I think the article needs to do a better job of providing context to the reader and there are some other issues that would be problematic at FAC as it now is. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I am fairly good with scientific and technical topics, but I have to confess that I read this and still did not have a clear idea of what was going on with the basics of the topic. Much of this can be avoided by making sure the article provides context to the reader. Here are some questions I had after reading the article that need to be answered in it.
  • I am not sure what exactly these filters are filtering out - I assume it is some sort of noise in a signal, but this is not really made clear. Are these radio transmitters (I don't think so) or receivers (where the noise is removed from the signal going out or coming in?). So a background section would help, that explains what it is that is being filtered and what kind of circuits these are used in.
  • I looked at the image file for the lead image File:LNB dissassembled.JPG in the hope that it might tell me what kind of device(s) these filters are used in, but it was also cryptic. The background might also explain what kind of devices these are used in (not just the circuits, but the big picture). Does the average person own devices with these in them?
  • I am not saying that the article has to be dumbed down, but realize that even the most interested and scientifically literate reader who has not heard of these filters needs some basics to fully understand what is going on in the article. Adding a Background section would help, and perhaps adding some sort of Overview might help too (a not overly technical summary). The lead needs to be made more accessible in any case, which lead us to ...
  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD better. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - as such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • I do not think that the note on the drawings being in stripline format really belongs in the lead - it could be in an Overview perhaps. Stripline could be in the lead as a topic.
  • Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should not sandwich text.
  • One of the FAC criteria is comprehensiveness - the History section ends in 1972. Have there been no developments in the nealry 40 years since then?
  • Would it make sense to move the history section earlier in the article? Again it seems to be easier to follow the rest if some of the history is explained first.
  • The dab finder finds two dabs that need to be fixed.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • On my monitor, the bottom of Fig. 2 and all of Fig. 4 sandiwch with all of Fig. 3 and the top of Fig. 5. Not a huge deal.
  • One example where I would move the ref to the end of a sentence or phrase is Richards' transformation[41] allows a lumped element design to be taken "as is" and transformed directly into a distributed element design using a very simple transform equation.[42]

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmm..., maybe [41] could go on an earlier sentence. The idea was to indicate that [41] was the reference to Richards' original paper whereas [42] is the ref for the whole para describing how his work is used in filter theory. SpinningSpark 08:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you add a note to the ref that it is the original paper? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really any need, the fact that Richards is the author makes that obvious. The new position at the end of a previous sentence has fixed the issue in any case. SpinningSpark 07:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • On the sandwiching issue, I have looked at this this with two different browsers and a wide variety of text sizes and windows. I cannot get a sandwiching as severe as you describe. In particular, figure 2 only sandwiches anything at all at extreme text size (small) and maximized window, and then only a couple of lines. I could not find a setting where the sandwiching caused a skinny column of text with just a few words per line which is what the anti-sandwiching rule is trying to avoid. Firefox allows the text size to be reduced without limit (or at least to something you could not possibly read), so in Firefox any article with images on both left and right will eventually sandwich if the text is made small enough. If this rule were to be applied rigidly, it would effectively be saying left-aligned images are not allowed. However, a reduced text size means more words per line, so although the image overlap is increasing the "skinny column" effect does not happen. I am open to persuasion (or someone else can try to layout the article) but I think that what is there now is preferable to putting all the images right-aligned and have them push down out of the section to which they relate. SpinningSpark 07:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The comments on the history section have now been addressed. The section has also been moved up in the article as suggested, above the technical discussion. I am hoping other editors are happy with this. Personally, I am very interested in the history of technology and tend to write a lot on it. Sometimes though, technical editors do not agree, finding the history dull and irrelevant, they just want to hear about current practice. I have been heavily criticised on other articles for overdoing history, the worst example being on analogue filter where one editor even went so far as to suggest deletion; the situation was defused by changing the article name, not ideal but it resolved the conflict. On this article I did not write a history section at all untill it was suggested by others so hopefully this will be received well. SpinningSpark 00:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the history section and its placement. I would spell out VHF at first use per the MOS, somehow define Q (wikilink at least?), and make 'Mason and Sykes work" possessive "Mason and Sykes' work". The History section makes the sandwich problem better - it is worst on my laptop with IE 7. Let me know if the History section runs into trouble at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
All done. I have spelled out VHF as suggested where it first occurs in the overview. There are other band names in the text body which you didn't comment on, but really, spelling them all out would only add unhelpful clutter. The abbreviations amount to the actual band names in normal usage, there are a lot of engineers out there who would stumble trying to tell you what they all stood for. I have wikilinked Q as suggested (it has an article) but what it already says in the article is pretty much its definition - at least in the field of filtering. I take it the peer review is now over, if you agree would you please formally close so the FAC can proceed. SpinningSpark 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've never nominated for a Featured List before and I'd like a second opinion on if this meets the criteria. I'll be citing each particular win individually before putting it up for nomination - I know I've still got a handful missing at the moment. I'm reluctant to switch this to a sortable list as I think the current format of the main table shows the run in groups and breeds better - to this extent I added two additional sections to show victories by breed and group.

In citing the individual victories I actually found further information on the owners, which was more detailed than that held by the Westminster Kennel Club, where this is available I've used the alternative information in the table as most before a certain point the Westminster held information lists women owners by their husband's name rather than there own - where known I've switched this back to their actual name.

Image-wise, I've only used the image of Stump in the infobox. Other images are avaliable but are not free use like this one and so as I didn't think it added anything to the article I did not add them.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

I have no experience writing FLs myself, but from what I know of the criteria, this is a very good overview of the subject. On a sidenote, I grew up with a Wire Fox Terrier, and I had no idea it was the winningest breed! :) A couple comments, mainly on technical issues:

  • I suggest resizing the infobox image to at least 250px, or even slightly larger; the dog is difficult to make out in plain thumb-size, and as per MOS:IMAGES resizing is appropriate if important details are difficult to see.
  • Speaking of images, the photo of Ch. Warren Remedy is wonderful, but its current placement unfortunately squishes the table on my monitor. Could it be moved down in the article, perhaps to "Most successful groups", which has some whitespace available?
  • Two of the "General" refs need further information, such as publisher info; best to treat them as sources, rather than ELs.
  • Many of the citations require a little formatting fixes:
  • Italicize printed publishers, like The New York Times, Life, and Time.
  • Include the publisher's city for books -- Google Books has the annoying habit of not listing the city, so you may have to search for the individual works at WorldCat or a similar site.
  • In clicking some of the links, I noticed some of the articles have authors listed (ref 2, for example), but such details are not included in the citation info. Although not of vital importance, more detail is good detail, so you may want to go through and see what else can be added.
  • Is there a reason why 1907 is linked in the lead? It seems out of place, and I believe that year-linking is now depreciated for various reasons.
  • ...following further changes in rules it was awarded again in 1924 annually to the current year when Scottish Terrier Ch. Roundtown Mercedes of Maryscot was judged the winner. -- This is confusing, as it doesn't clarify whether the Scotty won in 1924 or the "current year". Reword the sentence, perhaps ending with a full stop after "again in 1924"; "annually" is unnecessary as it's stated earlier that it is awarded "every year" other than that one. "The 2010 prize was awarded to..." or something similar?
  • The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show could perhaps be given a little more background info, despite it having its own separate article. Conformation show is also not really explained, nor is how the winner is chosen or what the purpose of the prize is in the first place. Just a couple sentences should be enough, I think -- although I know that lists shouldn't "largely recreate material from another article", more context could be given. We don't want readers clicking away from the article in the middle of the lead, and never coming back! :)

I hope these comments help. I enjoyed reading the list, and like I said, I learned something in the process! Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nature fakers controversy[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a quirky article on a quirky literary debate that no one remembers anymore. Despite it being rather un-flashy subject matter, its next step is hopefully FAC. Any and all comments/suggestions are welcome, especially in regard to the FA criteria. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting read on a topic I was not aware of. I think this is already at the level for FAC, here are some very nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • The dab finder finds one disambiguation link
  • Bah, that was a new addition -- thanks! :) María (habla conmigo) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I know you prefer succinct leads - it really is a good summary of the article, but if I were writing the lead I think I would make it three paragraphs.
  • Hmm, I'll revisit this, but I'm not promising anything! I hate expanding leads. María (habla conmigo) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Expanded somewhat; I think it gives a fuller intro to the birth of the "realistic" nature study genre now. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the images throughout, but am a bit puzzled by the lead image. It is nice and there is not anything wrong with it, but I just didn't get how it really related to the article except for being from a Seton book. I am not sure if you'd want to remove it from the section it is in now, but the woodcock putting a cast on its leg seems to me to be the most interesting / applicable lead image - it sums up the problem (unrealistic animal behavior) in a succinct and almost unbelievable way - this is of course your call.
  • I agree, and you've exactly summed up my previous misgivings about a lack of a proper lead image. I think I've made a better choice by using an image from Long's School of the Woods, which emphasizes animal learning vs. instinct, since that is what started Burroughs off on his tirade in the first place. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Would it help add context to add years in places - for example the year the Sierra Club was founded or Kipling's The Jungle Book was published.
  • Added the year for Jungle Book, and will do a fuller read-through later to see what else can be added. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Should this be "submitted a stern reply to"? within weeks of the publication of "Real and Sham Natural History", Long submitted a stern reply in the Boston Evening Transcript.
  • In the "Controversy dies down (1904–1905)" section, why are the names of Seton and Roberts spelled out in full again (multiple times)?
  • Mistake on my part... but what nice names they have! María (habla conmigo) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Needs a ref In his letter, of which he also sent a copy to Burroughs, Roosevelt pointed out the physical difficulty a wolf would have if attempting to kill its prey in such a manner, while also commenting upon the unlikeliness of other wolf stories written by Long.
  • Is it worth explaining the fakir / faker distinction (since one of TR's interviews uses fakir)?
  • This is not really explained in full elsewhere, but I added a short note about how TR standardized it as "faker", rather than "fakir". No idea as of yet why the author of the original piece used "fakir", but I'll keep looking. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do people ever use the term Nature fakers today about more modern literature - Watership Down or Raptor Red for example?
  • Not really, no, because these works are known to be entirely fiction. A few later works, like The Grizzly King were sort of mumbled to be the work of a "nature faker", but it wasn't enough to reawaken the debate. María (habla conmigo) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Italics of The New York Times are not consistent within the article.

Hope this helps. Thanks for peer reviewing articles 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 ><>°° 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

PS Please let me know when this is at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, Ruhrfisch! I'll work on the rest shortly. María (habla conmigo) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony Benn[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to nominate it for Good article status and would appreciate any comments on where it might be lacking.

Thanks, –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The sentence "He is one of the few UK politicians to have become more left-wing after holding ministerial office" has a citation to Benn's own book. It should be made clear that this is an opinion, not a fact: if those are his own words, it should be something like "He describes himself as one of the few...." Wereon (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. It is a paraphrase, I have amended that sentence. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Road Wizard

Here are my comments against the GA criteria:

  1. Well-written:
    • "after a career as a prominent educationalist" - what is an educationalist? Would "after a prominent career in education" suit better?
    Educationalist is a fairly common word, I have wikilinked it. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Two images are next to each other close to the end of the article. One of the images should be moved per MOS:IMAGES to prevent sandwiching of text.
    Done –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
    • A rough guide for adding citations is to have at least one per paragraph and one immediately after any quote. There are a large number of paragraphs without a single citation.
    Working on this –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Done. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • There is at least one Ibid citation used. It should be replaced by a full citation or the original edit should be found to confirm which other reference it was referring to.
    Done. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • A mixture of different citation styles are used. I would recommend converting all citations to the {{cite}} style, such as {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}.
    Done. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    • Not yet checked
  4. Neutral:
    • Not yet checked
  5. Stable:
    • Seems as stable as any political biography can be. There are occasional reverts and rephrasing in the history, but no major disputes that are obvious in the recent past.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    • There are several images in the article so it passes this test.

I have left my initial comments above. I will add to them later when I get a chance to read the article in more detail. Road Wizard (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Thanks, as noted above, I am working on providing further cites. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Project M - Think Wrong[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Project M is a growing organization that has been doing a lot of good things. It has years of great press coverage to validate its work and is a leader in the "design for good" movement. It deserves a place on Wikipedia to serve as an all encompassing resource for all interested parties.

Thanks, Brianwjones (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Comments from Maria

Peer Reviews are not for hiring editors to collaborate on worthy projects; they're to illicit comments as to the state of a particular article, to determine what needs to be done for improvement. While I admire the project's mission, the article is currently a stub, mostly composed of external links and an unsourced mission statement. It's not an article, per se, but more like an advertisement. As such, I've added the {{advert}} tag to the top of the page, although I could see how someone might nominate it for speedy deletion -- there's just nothing there, and the tone is slightly inappropriate and unencyclopedic. I don't believe the article has much to work with as far as a PR goes, and because there is currently a ginormous backlog here, I suggest this peer review be archived ASAP. María (habla conmigo) 17:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted per CSD G11will send to archive in a while. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Archived. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Whistler Sliding Centre[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article has the potential to reach both GA and FA. I would like a review of this article before I proceed with GA first, and then FA.

Thanks, Chris (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A few notes by NVO

  • The lead is overloaded with dates and numbers. Some must stay, some ("February 2009 (Bobsleigh/ skeleton: 5th-7th, luge: 20th-21st)") appear unnecessary.
    • -Lead adjusted. Chris (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead does not summarize the article. Article content should be more or less evenly outlined in the lead (which is not the case now). May I recommend rewriting the lead from memory without looking at the article at all.
    • -Lead adjusted. Chris (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "2009-10 Luge World Cup, including training" - please check the order of events and Hoeger's statements. Replace industry language ("forfeit surplus runs") with plain words.
      • - Adjusted per request. Chris (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "2010 Winter Olympics and death" - title seems awkward (I'm not a native English speaker, though). The lengthy sections on each competition appear too detailed for an article about the track. There are many irrelevant details involving living people:
    • -Section title adjusted Chris (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "Canada's Mellisa Hollingsworth, who once feared of dying at the track," - the Whistler track? Is it really necessary?
      • -Extra Hollingworth comment removed
    • "Latvia's Janis Minins withdrew to appendicitis and the emergency surgery" - is it really necessary? It may fit into Bobsleigh at the 2010 Winter Olympics, not here.
      • -Minins sentence deleted. Chris (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "the British driver and her brakeman Gillian Cooke walked away from the crash the finish line" - ??
      • -Last three words of sentence deleted. Chris (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "Russia-2 driven by Alexandr Zubkov, the defending four-man silver medalist and bronze medalist in the two-man event at these games, crashed out in the first run when one of his steering ropes broke" - the track wasn't at fault, was it?
      • -Sentences clarified. Chris (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "That same day, Australia withdrew to injuries to Harvey and Pugh of Australia" - injuries on the track, right? Blamed on the track, and not the driver? Maybe, instead of a verbal listing, the same roll of crashes and injuries will be better presented in a tabular format: date, name, team, cause of crash.
      • -Wording adjusted to clarify what was said. Chris (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • <from a different section> "Germany's Hüfner stated that the goal for this test was to ..." - IMO this personal statement is given unnecessary weight. It was a test for everyone involved, quite obviously. What makes the opinion of TH important in this context?
      • -Removed. Chris (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • At times, the text clearly deviates from the sources (I did not check all refs, just the statements that seemed curious at first sight):
    • "Because of what has happened, the organizing committee of the 2014 Winter Olympics have designed the Russian National Sliding Centre for the bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton events to be 6 to 9 km/h (3.7 to 5.6 mph) slower" - the source does not say "because of". It says "The Sochi track isn’t built yet, but organizers already said that it is designed to be 6-9 mph (10-15 kph) slower than the one in Whistler". It is dated Feb 21, the very beginning of bob sleigh races, there's no way that a preexisting track plan could be influenced by Whistler Olympic experience.
      • -Sentence reworded Chris (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "Officials had told Rohbock that they are considering sanding the runners to slow down the speeds reached by the sleds" - is this a sign of special treatment for Rohbock? Tell Rohbock alone and keep others in the dark? Of course not, the source says something different. Please follow the source.
      • -Wording adjusted to clarify what bobsleigh officials wanted to do. Chris (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "Donations were made to Sparkasse in Berchtesgaden, Germany." - I hope donations were made through this account, but the source does not say so. The starting 10K were wired "to the family" without mentioning any intermediaries. Delete it: bank name and the location of FIL HQ are irrelevant.
      • -Removed. Chris (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Post-Olympic usage will place the track as part of the Whistler Legacy Society as part of a long-term resort development plan" - ?? is it simply "razed for more condos" ? Please be specific here even if necessitates translation from official newspeak to plain English.
    • -Post Olympic usage clarified. Chris (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regards, NVO (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I was asked to review this article and so will add my comments here.


  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be between 1 and 4 paragraphs depending on the size of the article. I would say in just a drive-by glance that a three or four paragraph lead would be fine. The lead is at 6 paragraphs with two of them being one or two sentences. Please consider combining some of the paragraphs.
    • Lead lessened to four paragraphs. Chris (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The last para in the lead is a one sentence stub. It starts with something about construction on first nations spiritual grounds and then goes into construction awards, all in the same sentence. This should be a couple of separate sentences and they really don't even belong in the same paragraph given that they are totall separate subjects. Certain there should be a para on construction, on the safety concerns, the various competitions including the Olympics and on its location. I think all the subjects could fit into those four main categories.
    • Adjusted as such. Championships hosted moved as part of statistics section. Chris (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


  • See WP:LINK, I try to discourage editors from linking country names. I left the link for Georgia because people could get confused with the American state, but other than that I don't see the need unless the country link is to an article specific to the subject of this article. For example if you linked Canada to the article about their involvement in the 2010 Winter Games that would be fine, but just linking it to the general article about the country of Canada doesn't really do the article or the reader much of a service. Feel free to disagree but that's how I read the MOS.
    • Nations at 2010 Winter Olympics piped in. Only other times they were in was at start. Chris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the same vein you can usually leave words like "crash" and "weather" and other words in common English usage unlinked. I delinked "construction" but you should check throughout.
    • Dewiking of common words done per request. Chris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you need the detail about how many men/women competed in each World Cup event. At GAC this won't be an issue but if you have aspirations of moving this to FAC then you may want to look critically at this.
    • Will keep for right now. If I go FAC on this in future, I will deal with it then. Chris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a bit awkward:
"During training that week, Hoeger expressed concern about the safety of the track, even calling upon track director Ed Moffat, father of lugers Chris and Mike, to resign, to offer equal runs to all lugers in future events, to have Canada forfeit any extra training runs that were negoiated for the 2014 Winter Olympics, and for the Canadian Luge Association be reprimanded for unethical actions and not providing a safe sliding environment."
I understand the point being made but it seems to be a run-on sentence. Also I'm confused by the "extra training runs negotiated for the 2014 Winter Olympics. Is that correct? What is being referred to here? Can the sentence be trimmed a bit and perhaps broken into two sentences?
Split up into two separate sentences. Chris (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • A one-sentence sub-section isn't really useful, consider combining the information into another sub-section.
    • Moved into Luge section for 2009-10 World Cup and section reworded. Chris (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the 2010 Winter Olympics should be its own section rather than a sub-section of the History section. It's long enough to be its own section and the event is the crowning moment for which the "history" of the track is leading up to. It makes sense to have the 2010 Winter Olympics be its own section.
    • 2010 Winter Olympics and safety moved into its own separate article. Chris (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In that vein I would make Kumaritashvili's accident its own sub-section with the competition being a separate sub-section. Having the two events in one section doesn't seem to fit given the fact that the accident affected all the sliding competitions.
    • Moved into own subsection. Chris (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Two many "cousins" in these sentences, consider finding different words,
"Tobias tried to correct the oversteer only to have the cousins collide on the opposite side of the ice wall, causing both cousins to go airborne momentarily. Neither cousin suffered any injury."
    • Reworded per request. Chris (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The last sentence in the Skeleton sub-section is a stub, also there is an in-line cite in the middle of the sentence and another at the end. Usually in-line citations should go at the end of a sentence or at least after a punctuation (like a comma). Consider combining with another para or expanding and moving in-line cite to the end of the sentence.
    • Combined earlier, but forgot to mention as such. Chris (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm starting feel as though the safety concerns and the speed issues with the track are getting a bit overdone. I'm in the Bobsleigh sub-section and I feel like I'm reading the same information just reworded. I know it's different information specific to the bobsleigh event but I'm getting the "beating a dead horse" feeling about the information. Something about safety, speed, crashes, or changes due to safety concerns has been mentioned in the lead, and five sub-sections prior to the bobsleigh sub-section. Perhaps a brief statement about how many crashes and then move on with the rest of the event. Feel free to disagree and I'd welcome discussion on this point.
    • Safety is its own section later part of the article. Chris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And now I see an "overall safety concerns" sub-section. I think some of the information in this section is too specific and off topic, for example the insurance payout for Kumaritashvili's death, not topical to the Whistler Sliding centre, perhaps good for the article about his death though. Also the dignitaries who visited his grave.
    • Insurance payment and grave visitation removed per request. Chris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Track technical details

  • This sentence has a problem,
"Originally budgeted for C$ 55 million, the track also contains 12 km (7.5 mi) of steel conduit, 600 awnings, and 700 lights."
What does the original budget have to do with how many km of steel conduit and awnings there are? Be sure the subject of the sentence remains consistent throughout. Move the original budget up to be part of the information about the cost.
    • Sentence and paragraph reworded to make more sense. Chris (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


  • Your references look solid and well-formatted. You rely heavily on FIBT and FIL, they're credible so that's not necessarily a problem but it's always good to branch out and incorporate as many credible sources as possible. In this case that may be an impossibility. One thing to remember though is that if either source changes their website around then many of your links could be damaged. I ran into this with the Winter Olympic Games when the IOC revamped their website. I had to fix something like 40 links. Just keep it in mind especially as you move it towards GAC and/or FAC.
    • I went through that with FIBT when they changed in their sourcing methods in December 2007 and FIL in June 2009 already. Late last year, User:Kolindigo created links that could be used for both FIBT and FIL articles. I spent about a day overhauling this article back last December to make it compliant with those links. Moved several of the 2010 Winter Olympics results to FIBT and FIL to prevent article linkrot. Thank you for the concern. Chris (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


  • I like the article, I think your writing is good. Look for unnecessary wording that bogs down the prose in some sections. Also watch for sentence subject agreement, make sure that the subject you start the sentence with is the subject you finish the sentence with.
    • Reviewed and sentence wording fixed. Cleaned up some of the article to maintain article flow. Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you need to critically look at how much information you have on the safety concerns. I know this was the issue with this venue, and so it should be given a large amount of attention. But since it is sprinkled throughout the article it leaves me feeling like there's too much and the article seems to be repeating itself. Consider having a section about the safety issues, a section about Kumaritashvili and mention it in the run-up to the Olympics and that should be sufficient. Of course this is just my opinion so take it for what its worth. I will say that the bobsleigh sub-section seems a bit long for four events.
    • Safety concern between history and 2010 Winter Olympics. Bobsleigh had three events, not four, but I will look at it. Kumaritshavili in its own section. The safety issue continued throughout the Olympics and was mentioned in the FIL Report released on 19 April. Chris (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Reviewed and edited all sections for flow. Looked at safety issues. It is the central concern, but to remove it out of any one section, in my opinion, messes up the flow of the article and results in uneven reading. Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The images are good and topical. Before you push it to FAC (if that is your aspiration) make sure to add alt text to all the images. Also captions that are not complete sentences don't have punctuation. You've done great work here and it is commendable. Please continue your efforts and I look forward to seeing this article on the list of GAs and possible FAs at WP:OLY one day.
    • Alt text for captions added. Shown caption images are now written as complete sentence. Chris (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Zagreb Synagogue[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A group of editors (Gregor B, Kebeta, Timboctou, and myself) are collaborating on this article in order to bring it up to Good Article class. However, we would like a third-party review of the article in order to direct our efforts. Any comments on prose, content, referencing, images, or anything at all would be very helpful.

Thanks, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RL0919 comments:

With the important caveats that I did not check any of the references and am not familiar enough with the subject to evaluate breadth, this article seems close to GA-worthy as it stands. The prose is generally good (some specific comments below, however) and the layout follows guidelines. Amply cited and plenty of images, which appear to all be free use. Stable, with no sign of content disputes or obvious POV problems. Citation formats look consistent, which isn't a GA requirement but is nice to see. I made a few minor edits for things like comma placement. Specific notes:

  • The "Design and construction" section has awkward phrasing in spots: "but did not take over Förster's early oriental motifs" (what does it mean for the building to "take over" a motif?); "receding from the street regulation line" (is 'street regulation line' a planning term, or just odd wording?).
  • "Zagreb's Lower town" -- is 'Lower' supposed to be capitalized?
  • At the end of the "19th and early 20th century" section, there is a sentence about 1933, then 1931 comes up again, which seems odd.
  • Jewish Community Zagreb is referred to several times in the text, but only in the last section is the initialism 'JCZ' established for it. If you're going to bother, the initialism should be set on the first use.
  • The last sentence has an "as of 2009" comment. Can this be updated? Similarly, the present is used for some items ("are refusing further participation") that should be converted to a past form if at all possible ("have refused" would seem to be equally true, while being less sensitive to changing conditions).
  • The caption for the wash-basin picture needs expansion.
  • Alt text for the images would be nice, but isn't a GA requirement.
  • I realize it is for just one work, but you might want to put in a "Works cited" section header. When I saw the one bulleted reference below all the numbered notes, it took me a minute (and a look through the footnotes) to realize how it was being used.

Overall, looking pretty good --RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

GregorB reply:

I found the above remarks very useful. Most of them have already been addressed. Let me just comment on "as of 2009": here, 2009 refers to the last known source (dated September 23, 2009) describing the progress, i.e. lack thereof. While ostensibly nothing has changed since, and - as far as I know - "as of 2010" would be equally true, to my knowledge this fact cannot be reliably sourced. For the same reason, the remark on the use of present tense is quite correct, and this has been fixed.

Once more, I'd like to thank RL0919. All further reviews or comments are more than welcome. GregorB (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yoninah reply: I just did a thorough copy-edit of the article, adding missing links and taking out a few repetitive ones. I think the article is well-written, well-illustrated, and well-referenced, and certainly deserves GA status. Yoninah (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it currently has GA status and I'm looking to take it to FAC. Before you start, I'll note up front two issues that I'm already aware of: 1) there is a passage tagged for failed cite verification that needs to be fixed or removed, and 2) the lead is not a proper summary of the article. No need to harp on those, but any other feedback (including nitpicking) that would help smooth the way to FA is appreciated. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I read through the article and found it sharply written and well organized. You could perhaps clarify the location and prestige of the "State Technicum for Screen Arts". There were also a pair of sentences ending in a preposition, but, other than the two items you mention, I can find little to criticize. Nice job.—RJH (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I added a wikilink and location to help clarify about the Technicum, and changed one of the preposition-ending sentences. Can you help me with finding the other one? I'm not seeing it, but I've read the article so many times that I may just be reading through it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Funny, now I can't find it either. Sorry. =) —RJH (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
        • There have been some other changes, so maybe it got revised along the way. So thanks for the feedback regardless. Also, if anyone else happens to look at this PR, I would love to get feedback from additional reviewers if anyone is interested. --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sandman888 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Follow-ups interpolated below. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid there are several problems with WP:NPOV in this article, given that Rand is foremost a political figure, there's not much criticism and if there is criticism you leave Rand followers with the last word.
    • This does happen in some cases (not in all, see Doncram's comments below and my reply). There is already some talk page discussion about rewriting the 'Philosophy' section, so hopefully that will help provide balance.
  • Academia: you quote Chris Sciabarra for this: "The left was infuriated by her anti-communist, procapitalist politics, whereas the right was disgusted with her atheism and civil libertarianism."[102] as a reason why nobody studies her philosophy. There a plenty of respectable philosophers who has explained the lack of interest in Rand, e.g. Robert Nozick, from an academic perspective and not appealing to conspiracy.
    • I don't believe a conspiracy was being suggested, but I will see what I can locate in terms of other meta-perspectives about academic response. Sciabarra is a notable expert about Rand, so these would probably be additive rather than replacing mention of his viewpoint. If you have any particular sources or quotes to suggest, that would be great.
  • Contemporary reception: it's a bit too much of "then one reviewer said this, but another said that".
    • Do you any suggestions around what you think should be there instead/in addition, or an example in another article?
  • Legacy: first paragraf - citation needed!
    • If you mean the people influenced by her, I believe a lot of the entries are redundant to mentions of the same people elsewhere in the article. I'll see about citing and/or relocating the mentions.
  • Popular interest: "sell in large numbers" is a bit vague.
    • That sentence was redundant to more specific sales info earlier in the same section, so I just removed it.

Comment by doncram (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Very interesting article; i read carefully down through "Legacy" section and then skimmed. The section "Contemporary reception" consists mainly of negative reviews; I was expecting that there would be several rejoinders to the negative reviews saying such as: nonetheless, in 19xx, an additional X thousand copies were sold; then more negative reviews for the next book or whatever; then even more, an additional Y copies of book were sold. However there is no rejoinder in the contemporary section. The Legacy section, following, provides some suggestion of that, but the section title suggests her reach and impact were all after her death. So, some more facts about book sales and other impact, contemporarily, and perhaps some revising of section titles might be called for. Hope this helps! --doncram (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the additional feedback. I can't help noticing a tension between your feedback and Sandman888's. On the one hand, Sandman sees criticisms being followed by responses that "leave Rand followers with the last word" and doesn't like that. On the other hand, you see criticisms that aren't followed by responses and think they should be. I'm not sure whether there is a compatible way to address both concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • To me this issue seems somewhat of a personal preference. I didn't find anything in WP:CRITS that could serve as a guideline, other than the need to be fair and balanced.—RJH (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is currently listed as B class and I'm interested to find out what it might need to get it up to GA status, or perhaps even FAC, so I've listed it for peer review. The article is quite comprehensive and of reasonable length (currently 44kb), and well referenced with 103 sources cited at the time of writing. My only concern with it is that it can sometimes be unstable and tends to attract controversy and conflict from time to time.

Thanks, Paul Largo (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak[edit]

It's definitely on the right tracks. I think in terms of prose, the article could do with a thorough copyedit by someone not heavily involved with it. It can be hard to look at language objectively when you're doing a lot of work on it, and articles like this one, that see a lot of edits by a lot of people, can easily end up with prose problems. I'll focus more on other things here - MOS, sources etc, but I'll point out any glaring prose issues I notice. Look out for repetition of words, eg. repetition of "she also", repetition of "Cole", when a pronoun could be used. Here are some things I picked up on:

Lead section
  • The lead should summarise the article and contain nothing that's not in the article. Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to have the amount of citations that are currently in the lead because any statements there will be backed up in the article. That said, for anything controversial or contentious, that is likely to be challenged, a citation in the lead would be needed. You don't need citations in the lead for sentences like "Cole rose to fame in 2002 after becoming a member of pop group Girls Aloud through ITV's reality television programme Popstars: The Rivals." for example.
  • The first and last sentence standing alone make it look choppy; there's no need to have a line break after the first sentence.

"They have become one of the few UK reality television acts to achieve continued success, amassing a fortune of £25 million by May 2009" - this isn't mentioned later on in the article

  • "Propelling her fame to new heights" - this is not neutral, encyclopedic language, regardless of the cited quote that follows. Also, while it may be true that she has been called the nation's sweetheart, it's not clear who has called her that, or why it's significant. The lead doesn't come across as entirely neutral; for someone not familiar with Cole, it would seem that she is universally popular, which is not true.
  • "It was reported on 24 February 2010 that the couple are to separate" - this is a little vague, time-wise. It makes me wonder if they have separated, or if they are still together but planning to separate very soon.
  • In general, the lead section needs expanding as, at the moment, it doesn't adequately summarise the whole article.
Early life
  • "the elder child of Gary Tweedy" - does that mean the eldest? Is it known how many children he has?
  • "split up" is a bit informal
  • "bonniest baby" could do with quotation marks
  • is there any information on education or any jobs she had prior to Popstars?
  • You could explain a little about Popstars, the "battle of the sexes" format, make it clear that Cole auditioned alone and the group was formed later as part of the series, and that Girls Aloud won the "battle"
  • the Girls Aloud section could be a bit longer, summarising the main article a bit more. The group was a big part of Cole's early career & fame.
  • "Girls Aloud hold the record for the shortest time between formation and reaching number one." - this statement needs a citation
  • say who is - just something like "American rapper"
  • Passions of Girls Aloud is suddenly mentioned; it's not clear what this is
  • "In April 2009, it was confirmed..." - language like this sounds more like a press update than an encyclopedia article, keep it simple, like "In April 2009, Cole started working on solo material". The same applies later when you have "it was revealed"
  • "escaping the media after the breakup of her marriage" - needs a citation; not 100% neutral. Is there WP:RS evidence that the media was hounding her, or was this just her take on it?
  • "she revealed..." - again, inappropriate tone. Most of the time, there's nothing wrong with saying simply "she said", or "she stated". Try to avoid putting any kind of emotional or interpretative spin on things. This section is particularly "revealing": "it was revealed... She revealed that she hoped ... Cole also revealed plans ... She has also revealed..." - that's four consecutive sentences!
The X-Factor
  • it's perhaps worth mentioning the similarity of the show to Popstars/Pop Idol since Cole made her name in Pop Stars, the link between the different shows is relevant.
  • "Cole was given the girls category" - make it a little clearer what this means for people who don't watch the X-Factor.
  • "ending up as the victorious judge" - not very neutral. I know that's how they play it on the show, but really, it's Burke who won it. I'm not saying don't mention that Cole's group won, but make it a bit more neutral.
  • "girls" and "boys" categories could do with quotes. The contestants are over 16, and most (?) of them are adults so it would be strange to call them boys & girls; therefore make it clear that that's what the show calls the groups.
  • With regard to Simon Cowell's comments about Cole, I don't think that the "one of the best I've ever worked with." is necessary. It's a bit vague and it's hard to tell the context (especially as the link is dead). It makes me wonder, one of the best what? Judges? Singers? The most professional? The most fun? Or is it just a throwaway line as part of X-Factor publicity? The other comments are good, because they are relevant and are to do with the way she is as a judge, how she talks to people etc.
  • Make it clear what Cheryl Cole's Night In is - fly on the wall documentary? A talkshow?
  • The Girls Aloud TV bit seems a bit tacked on the end, maybe would be better in the Girls Aloud section.
  • This section reads like it's there to promote the books
  • Is there any more news about the novels she's going to write? That bit's form a year ago, it would be good if there as more recent info.
Personal life
  • You don't need to give all the various names of the nightclub that she had an altercation in.
  • "Cole claimed" - "said" or "stated" would be more neutral
  • "in a rare interview" - who says it's rare? Sounds a bit tabloid-y. Given that that sentence summarises the following quote, it's not needed anyway. Start the paragraph with "In an interview with Q magazine..." This paragraph may also go into a bit too much detail (WP:UNDUE). What we really need to know is that "an incident happened, she was accused of X and Y, she was convicted of X, acquitted of Y and was sentenced to Z. She later said... " I don't think you need the three sentences starting with "At the time of the incident Cole..."
  • "Cole began dating..." the term "dating" sounds American
  • "They signed an exclusive deal with OK!, reportedly worth £1 million" - reportedly? Either it was worth that or it wasn't. If we don't know, don't include it.
  • The rest of this personal life section has a tabloid tinge to it. For one thing, I think there's too much detail about who alleged what and claimed what. I think it's all relevant, but could be summarised better. The article's about Cole, and in a limited way, Ashley Cole, so focus on how she dealt with things that happened, not the other people involved. The language needs to be toned down (eg. "news broke"). Try to imagine this is an article about someone who lived 200 years ago. Which bits would be relevant?
  • The bit about her political views suddenly appears in the middle of her relationship problems. I realise this is because it's chronological, but it would be better to separate that out and place it after the breakup of her marriage.
  • neutral point of view is an issue here: "revered as a fashionista", "graced the cover"
  • Is modelling a significant part of her career? If so, it should be covered there rather than as "recognition".
  • Citation formats need some work, there are some bare URLs, some are missing all the relevant information, some aren't formatted correctly
  • There are some dead links
  • The article is fairly broad, but see if you can get any more information. For example, is there more information that could be added from Dreams that Glitter? Has she had any success abroad, or has she any plans to break into overseas markets?

Hope these comments help. --BelovedFreak 17:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Rights[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet. -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Rights was recently promoted as a Good Article, and I would like some feedback on how to further improve its quality. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. -- Cirt (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Notified User talk:Scartol, User talk:Sadads, and User talk:Steve Smith. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems pretty well done and is an interesting read; here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. I started this review and was nearly done when I had a computer glitch and lost it - sorry for the delay.

  • One of the FAC criteria is comprehensiveness - there is relatively little on the writing of the book (has Godwin discussed why he wrote it or how long it took?) There is also very little on the second edition / switch of publishers. What revisions / changes were made in the new edition (usually there is some information on this in the introduction to a new edition or perhaps reviews of it). Any idea what the sales figures are? I see form the infobox that he has written another book - it is a sequel or followup? Is there anything in the next book on this book? Since this was his first book, he might have written something about it in the second... I realize much of this information might not be available, but if it is, I think it should definitley be added. As it is there it not much on the book that is not content or reviews
  • I know it is no longer a FAC requirement, but there is no alt text
  • The lead seems a bit light ion terms of content of the book - Contents is the second biggest section in the article, but is only about two sentences in the lead
  • There are places where two or more sentences in a row each have the same reference at the end. Unless they have direct quotes or make extraordinary claims, is there any reason not to have one ref at the end of series of sentences that all are based on the same material?
  • I also thought it might help to have some sort of introductory sentence or two in the Reception section, to give an overview before diving into the many reviews.
  • I thought the reception section was pretty quote heavy and worry a bit that it might be running into potential WP:NFCC issues. Many of the quotes are good and well chosen, but some are pretty mundane and seem like they could be paraphrased without much trouble, for example Booklist recommended Cyber Rights be carried in libraries, concluding, "Most libraries will want copies for both circulating and professional collections."[3]
  • The prose is a bit rough in spots - some examples follow, would probably help to get a copyedit
    • Isn't the usual formulation "Written from a first-person perspective..."? Written with a first-person perspective, Cyber Rights gives the reader a background in legal issues ..."
    • Author section - any reason not to put the year he was graduated from law school in the first sentence?
    • Two short sentences that could flow better if combined Cyber Rights is Godwin's first book.[12] Godwin has described himself as a civil libertarian.[6] so perhaps something like Cyber Rights is the first book by Godwin,[12] who has described himself as a civil libertarian.[6]
    • Tighten The author provides enough background such that a layperson can understand the relevant legal history involving free speech on the Internet, including explaining what is and is not considered libel, and going over the extent to which copyrighted text may be quoted and used as fair use.[6]
    • Make sure Internet / internet is captialized (or not) consistently
    • Paragraph starting The author discusses influential legal cases including a judgment involving Compuserve, ... has some issues. Tow sentences in a row start with "He" - could one use Godwin instead? More importantly, I think the last three cases in this paragraph need to be explained better so the reader understands what is going on. Since it seems Godwin was involved in most (all?) of the cases - could that be made clearer too? This is nicely done for the Cyberporn paragraph that follows.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much to Ruhrfisch for the above comments! I will go through them and address recommended changes while improving upon the article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome - hope some of the others you've notified review this too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Akron Zips head football coaches[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see this list become a Featured List. Please list any areas that need support and I will work on the article to bring it up to the Featured List standard.

Thanks,  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 16:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

First off thanks for your work on this list, I'll try to add a few comments to help move it along.

  • I'm trying to do the math here, the team started in 1895 and they have had 109 seasons, which if played consecutively, would put us at 2004. Is this correct? I see that from 1891-1900 there was no coach, does this have something to do with it?
  • This also raises another question, in the list you start from 1891 but in the lead you say the team started in 1895, why the discrepency?
  • When I'm reviewing lists I look a lot at the lead, since the actual list is pretty straight forward. I also like to compare the list with other FL's of the same type to see if it matches up.
  • Here's one FL: List of East Carolina Pirates head football coaches. I note in the lead that the list discusses hall of fame honorees, you should probably mention this in the lead since the Zips had one. Any national or conference coach of the year honorees? What about former players that went on to coach either at Akron? The final thing to point out are the references. I'll speak about this later.
  • Here's another FL: List of Missouri Tigers head football coaches. In this one I like how the editor put the numbers in parentheses in the lead for games coached, winning percentage, years coached etc. Not a requirement but a nice add I think. Also in this list there is a short sentence or two on when the Tigers started in the Big 12. A very short blurb on the Zips participation in the MAC would be appropriate.
  • Overall I think the lead is a bit light, I know that the Zips haven't had a storied football program but I think a bit more could be added. The fact that they had Heisman as their head coach (for only two seasons though) is notable and could be discussed in a little further detail.
  • References - where are they? I see one about Heisman as a hall of famer, anything else? You'll need to reference the lead and provide references for the information in the list. Again I refer back to the above to FLs, both of them are thoroughly referenced. If your goal is to make the list featured, you'll need to do that work.
  • In the list the years 1891-1900 says "no coach" but then there are four coaches listed in this time frame, that is a bit confusing. I would suggest listing the coaches as you have and injecting the years when there was no coach, giving them each their own line.
  • What happened between 1904 and 1907? What happened between 1943 and 1945 (I assume WWII, but this should be outlined in the list).

That concludes my review. I hope you found it helpful. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to poke me on my talk page. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott Stevens[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it to FAC. It's a GA, but it passed the first PR 2 years ago, and I don't want to rely on an oudated review for the article. Anthony (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • As the article is about a Canadian athlete, it should be in Canadian English. Right now it mixes with American, i.e.: mixed use of defense and defence and centre and center.
  • International play and personal life sections require expanding
  • I'd like to see his playing stats tables in the same section and set to the same width
  • This is my personal opinion only, but I'm pushing a table format for the awards sections (see Theoren Fleury - also an example of how the stats should look, imo)
  • I'm sure his parents have names.
  • Refer to Stevens using his last name. Using his first is too informal for an encyclopedia article
  • The 1981–82 Kitchener Rangers were a team loaded with several future NHL players. - phrases like "were loaded with" is too informal.
  • "Stevens would go on to lead all rookie defencemen in scoring" Avoid mixed tense statements like this. "Stevens led all rookie defencemen in scoring." Check for other instances of this
    • Fixed the named instance, will check for more later. Anthony (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Although he only scored 25 points in his debut season, he made the All-Rookie Team." POVish and implies he did not deserve the All-Rookie nod. "He scored 25 points in his debut season and was named to the All-Rookie Team."
  • "Nowhere was this more obvious than the 1983–84 season, when Rod Langway won his second James Norris Memorial Trophy as best defenceman, Al Jensen and Pat Riggin combined to win the William Jennings Trophy for fewest goals allowed, and Doug Jarvis won the Frank J. Selke Trophy for best defensive forward. Bryan Murray won the Jack Adams Award for best coach as well.[11]" - None of this is particularly relevant to Stevens himself
  • Eight years in Washington should warrant more coverage of his play there.
  • I'm not seeing the controversy in his time in St. Louis. Certainly his being signed to an RFA offer sheet, and then being sent to New Jersey as compensation for another was unusual, but not precicely controversial. I'd probably just title this section "St. Louis Blues". You also overuse his last name a lot in this section.
  • "After the 1995 season was delayed due to an owners' lockout, the Devils were off to a slow start, winning only 9 of their first 24 games.[25] However, they managed to finish fifth in the conference to capture a playoff spot.[25] After playoff victories over the Boston Bruins, Pittsburgh Penguins, and Philadelphia Flyers, the Devils faced the Detroit Red Wings in the Stanley Cup Finals,[25] and shocked the hockey world by sweeping them for the franchise's first hockey championship.[25]" - too much focus on the team and use of words like "shocked" is POV.
  • The image needs Alt text, and if at all possible, an image of Stevens himself would be ideal. Perhaps if there is a photo of him on Flickr, you can ask the author to relicense it?

Hope this helps! Resolute 19:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry[edit]

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

I have done a lot of work on this article in conjunction with Scotty450. It has made huge strides and is definitely deserving of a greater status than start class. A 17 page article is usually more than start class.

Any criticisms or help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Salamakajakawaka (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a lot of work has gone into the article, more needs to be done before it would pass WP:GAN. Please note that this is a review, not an assessment (I would ask at the WikiProject: Chemistry for a re-assessment and note that it is a matter of article quality, not quantity of pages). Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and per WP:LEAD can be exapnded to three or perhaps four paragraphs.
  • As a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However, the current lead has this on the NAOs There are fifty four National Adhering Organizations and three Associate National Adhering Organizations.[1] which is not really repeated in the body of the article (as an example)
  • In order to be a true summary of the article, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • References generally come after punctuation, without a space, so fix things like These commities all run different projects which include standardizing nomenclature[3], finding ways to bring chemistry to the world[4] , and publishing works.[5][6][7]
  • Many of the current references are incomplete in that they do not include enough information - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE
  • Most of the sources used come from IUPAC itself and so are primary sources - where possible these should be supplemented with independent, third-party sources - see WP:RS and WP:V
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Chemistry is linked twice in just the lead, and a total of six times in the article. Or the red link to the International Union of Chemistry appears at least three times in the article.
  • I believe that Kekule's involvment and the roots of IUPAC almost certainly come from the 1860 Karlsruhe Congress, which should be linked. As it is this is just muddled The need for an international standard for chemistry was first addressed in 1860 by a committee headed by German scientist Friedrich August Kekulé von Stradonitz. This committee was the first international conference to create an international naming system for organic compounds.[8] The committee and the conference were not the same thing, for example.
  • For an article on IUPAC, there is a lot missing - what year was it founded? All it says in the article body now is This prompted the creation of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)[missing period?] Since this time, IUPAC has been the official organization held with the responsibility of updating and maintaining official organic nomenclature.[10] (it does say 1919 in the lead, but again the lead is a summary - needs to be in the main article body too)
  • Or where is IUPAC headquartered?
  • The writing needs to be cleaned up in several places - for example this is just fragments During World War II, IUPAC by the allied powers[11] IUPAC had little involvement during the war.
  • There is little on the history of IUPAC since the end of WWII
  • The images of the various books are all copyrighted and thus must be justified under WP:FAIR USE to be included here. The official policy here is WP:NFCC and I fail to see how any of the book covers shown meet the policy. The logo of IUPAC is OK, the logo for the International Year of Chemistry is probably OK, but how does seeing the book covers increase the reader's understanding of IUPAC?
  • I also wonder about the criteria for including books - surely IUPAC has pulished many more books than these over the years? See WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT
  • I think it is fine to decribe the books that IUPAC publishes and I would go into more detail on the Orange / Red / Green / Gold / Blue and other color books (many of which have their own articles already), but I am not sure about including the other books. I think it is fine to say IUPAC publishes series of books and to decribe these series, but I am not sure the current level of detail on most of the books is justified - are these books notable? See WP:NN for guidelines on notability.
  • The article uses "current" or "currently" where it should use the current year or "since year". Time flies and if the article is not updated, current becomes quickly outdated. At leadt if it says "the 2010 officers are" or something similar, the reader in 2011 or 2012 knows they are out of date (whereas "the current officers are" seems OK even when it is not).
  • The toolbox in the upper right corner has some good suggestions - for example, make sure either British or American English is used consistently throughout.
  • There are multiple links to disambiguation (dab) pages that need to be fixed.
  • The external links include at least one dead link
  • There is no alt text for those who cannot see the images in the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More comments
  • I added alt text to the image of Kekule - this is an example of how to do it.
  • I see the images of the book covers have been removed, which is good in terms of copyright worries.
  • I still do not understand the criteria for inclusion of books in the article. On what basis are the current set of books described listed? It looks to me like it is just the most recent ones, which (as noted above) runs afoul of both WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT.
  • I would also look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) - as noted above, the color books seem to meet this standard for inclusion, but the rest are doubtful.
  • If books are included, then more information about them is required. Most of the books do not include the authors or main editors, do not include year of publicatiopn, and do not include ISBN information (though this might be better in a footnote).

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Overuse of tables to hold prose in ==Publications== section; I'd use a more free-form and standard approach. Too constraining as-is; as a reader I just wanted to skim past those tables. Current projects section is pretty much a list. Post-WWII history is missing. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Protein allergy[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would very much benefit from another critical peer review from an editor familiar with biological/medical or other scientific articles. Thanks, Jhfortier (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: this had a peer review under the slightly different original article name - see Wikipedia:Peer review/Protein Allergy/archive1. This was closed on April 29, 2010. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Archiving this peer review as Protein allergy has been merged with the Allergy article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it hasn't had one in a while.

Thanks, Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has a neutrality disputed banner, which makes it ineligible for peer review per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, so I am archiving the PR. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Burnley F.C. season 1920–21[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… there currently aren't any featured articles about a football season and I think that with a bit of work this could be the first. I'd appreciate if someone could check through the prose to find any errors or omissions that were missed in the GA review. From my previous experiences at FAC, I think the main problem will be with the sources, as most of the article has been written from one book. (EDIT: just to clarify, the book is self-published and this is the issue. I have replaced some of the citations from the book with references to articles from The Times to try and rectify this in part) However, there isn't alternative literature containing a season-by-season history of Burnley F.C. so I wonder if anybody has ideas for what I can do about this. Thanks in advance for having a look at the article.

Cheers, BigDom 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

There may be problem confirming the US PD status of the images, unless further information can be gathered:-

  • Have found some more information about the photo, still doubt it will be enough though. BigDom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Bert Freeman.jpg: What steps have been taken to establish initial publication date or authorship? Simply not knowing these details is not in itself enough to assume that they are unknown for copyright purposes.
  • I didn't upload this one so it's hard for me to find anything out about it. BigDom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • File:HaworthJ.jpg: No publication details given, so PD in the US is not established
  • File:Burnley F.C. 1920-21.jpg: You are probably on safe ground in assuming that the championship team photo was taken in 1921, but it would still be wise to have the Burnley Expree publication date.
  • Date added. BigDom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Eddie Mosscrop.jpg: The problem here is that this image, crudely coloured, cannot be the original that appeared in the Burnley Express before 1923. Without information on the provenance of the picture it is hard to see how this can be licensed as PD in the US.
  • This is a digital version of the photograph that I found (though I can't remember where now). BigDom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These are issues that have to faced if the article is to come to FAC. I will try to find time during the next few days to look at the prose and say some positive things. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. It seems like I may just have to give up on getting this to FA if all the images are so problematic. BigDom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Have struck out some of my comment above. I've made an earnest effort to update some of the sourcing information and use better photos in the article. BigDom 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just one comment: the tables for results are inconsistent between the League and other matches. In the League section you have included the football symbol (Goal 6') to illustrate the goals scored, but not in the Other matches section. Personally, I'd rather they were not there at all - they are fine in a match summary, but look out of place here. Otherwise, great stuff. I'm starting to create season articles for Southampton, starting with 1894–95; if you have any comments, can you let me know. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. The reason for this is that I originally just had the league results table, and the book I used gives the goal times for the league games. When I came to do the other matches, the goal times were not included, and I just forgot to make them consistent. I'll take your advice and remove all the {{goal}} templates. Once I've done that, I'll start to have a look at your articles. Cheers, BigDom 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghost stations of the Paris Métro[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would eventually like to nominate this article as a WP:GAC as I believe it has the potential to become a WP:GA. This is the first article that I have brought up to such a quality and therefore would like feedback on its current state so I may further improve it.

Thanks, Aka042 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Good subject, should appeal to the Wiki railway buffs.

  • Is it Métro or métro? Both are used in the lead.
Done. All instances of métro changed to Métro. --Aka042 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Unopened stations: when were these stations constructed?
Done. Added construction dates for Haxo and Porte Molitor. --Aka042 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "...but a shuttle service between a station on each of these lines was eventually constructed to replace the never-used tunnel." This is hard to follow; can you rephrase so that it is possible to understand what happened and why the tunnel was replaced? And is a shuttle service "constructed"?
  • You should not say "today" which is inspecific. Say "as of 2010" or something similar.
  • "it closed all but 85 stations" doesn't mean much unless readers are told how many stations there were altogether. Thus, "it closed all but 85 of the xyz stations" would make sense. You say that most of the closed stations opened in "the following years"; that's too vague, could mean five, ten or fifty years - you need to be more precise.
  • In general the "Stations closed and later reopened" section is rather muddled up with detail, much of which seems irrelevant to the subject of "ghost stations", for example the information about stations opening for restricted hours, etc.
  • There are far too many very short sections in the article, often giving only one or two items of information. These sections need to be merged under a composite title, to give a better prose flow.
  • Can a station be "moved"? It can be demolished and then rebuilt on a new site, but "moved" suggests transportability.
  • If ref [11] is meant to cover the whole of the "Moved" section, it should be at the end of the section. You have used bullet-point prose in this section, which is not generally approved WP style. The section should be rewritten in straight prose.
  • The article would benefit from a complete prose review and copyedit from another editor. The prose is very heavy-footed at times (Example: "At the beginning of World War II, the French government put into action a plan that called for reduced service on the métro network; specifically, it closed all but 85 stations" could read "At the beginning of World War II, the French government activated a plan that reduced service on the métro network to 85 of the xyz stations".); there are also grammatical and punctuation glitches.
  • References: please see WP:CITE/ES for guidance on the correct formatting of citations
  • The items in the bibliography generally lack publisher information.

I hope that these points are useful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how my article is doing and I need it to be peer reviewed for one of my classes at school. Thanks, Elmsy2424 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Well, we have a problem. You've set it up as a plot summary, which is great, but that's not what Wikipedia normally does for book articles. I co-authored The Sword of Shannara a while back; although it's a fiction book, note how the plot summary takes up only one section, but the background as to why he wrote it etc. takes up the rest.
    • Second: there's already an article on this book at Hacking: The Art of Exploitation. I would recommend moving some of what is in the article to there, then using the rest to beef up other Wikipedia article or create stubs—assuming Auntieruth will give you credit for doing this. By "create stubs" I mean this, for example: why don't you take your "hybrid cipher" mini-section and create a stub at Hybrid cipher?
    • Continuing on: in-line citations are necessary. You can set it up like this in the edit window:

Sentence blah blah blah end of sentence.<ref>Erickson, ''Hacking'', pagenumber</ref>

    • Then, at the end of the article:

== Bibliography ==
*{{cite book |last=Erickson |first=Jon |title=Hacking: The Art of Exploitation |location=San Francisco, California |publisher=No Starch |year=2008 |edition=2nd |isbn=1593271441 |oclc=263694652}}

That wasn't the intention of the assignment, but considering elmsy didn't decide on a project until recently (or at least tell me until recently), that may be what has to be done. I'd prefer to see at least one article expanded beyond stub, based on what the assignment is. Basically, a several stubs based on the book, and a B class article on Hybrid cypher incorporating 3-4 reliable sources (including the book) is fine. OR, a substantial expansion of First Edition to explain and clarify any changes based on the second edition, plus a summary and explanation of reviews of the second edition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments they were very helpful. I was unsure of how to make it better because it is a non-fiction book and there is not a plot summary or themes that I could go into depth about. I will just expand the first edition, create the hybrid cipher article and clarify the changes on the second edition. Elmsy2424 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2009 Southern Midwest derecho[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it sounds a little but to "jargany" in quite a few places. I am starting to think about bring this up for GAN, but I would just feel a tad more comfortable if someone outside of the meteorology Wikiprojects looked at it and reviewed it.

Thanks! Southern IllinoisSKYWARNGot something to say? 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a topic I had not heard of before, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.

  • The lead seems too short for an article of this length. WP:LEAD says it can be up to 4 paragraphs long, and for this article I would expect at leats 2 and probably 3 paragraphs.
  • Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. I would also look at the table of tornados - I would at least mention every state in which this caused tornados in the lead
  • Introduce an abbreviation after its first use in the lead - so "mesoscale convective vortex (MCV)"
  • WP:LEAD also says to avoid linking words in the bold title of the article (Midwest). So the first sentence could be The May 2009 Southern Midwest derecho was an extreme progressive derecho and mesoscale convective vortex (MCV) event that struck southeastern Kansas, southern Missouri, and southwestern Illinois in the Midwestern United States on May 8, 2009.[9]
  • The capitalization of geographic regions seems unusual (though it is done consistently). Southeastern Kansas, Southern Missouri, and Southwestern Illinois - is there any reason why it is not southeastern Kansas, southern Missouri, and southwestern Illinois? Even the title of the article suffers from this - why not "southern Midwest"? These are descriptive adjectives - it is not like there is a state called "Southeastern Kansas" or an official region (that I am aware of). Adjectives are generally not capitalized.
  • Speaking of WP:Jargon I had no idea what a derecho is and imagine most readers will also not know the term - I know it is linked, but I think it would be worth giving a brief phrase expalining it in the lead and a sentence or two in the body of the article - see WP:PCR
  • In Meteorological synopsis I would give the year at least once (I know it is in the lead, but sometimes people skip around in articles)
  • The one paragraph of Meteorological synopsis is also quite long - could it be split? Perhaps start the new paragraph at The Storm Prediction Center issued two "particularly dangerous situation" severe thunderstorm watches[13][14] and a vividly worded tornado watch,...?
  • MOS Says to spell out primary units (nmi)
  • This may following the meteorology Wikiprojects style guides, so if it is, it is OK, but why is the table of tornados in the middle of the article? I think that articles almost always read better if the text comes first and the table(s) follow that at the end of the article.
  • There are several places where conversions to metric untis need to be given - one example A woman was killed in New Albany, Kansas when her mobile home was blown forty feet off of its foundation.[8] The {{convert}} template does a nice job of this. I also note that the MOS says to use numbers if greater than 10, so 40 feet (12 m). There are other places this issue needs to be fixed.
  • The proper link is to Kentucky Route 52 - Kentucky Route 1295 is still a red link, but please note the proper capitalization
  • What about a large "Effects" section with subsections on "Kansas and southwestern Missouri", "Southeastern Missouri and southwestern Illinois", and "Elsewhere"?
  • The Southeastern Missouri and southwestern Illinois effects paragraph is also quite long and could be split.
  • The flooding section is oddly organized - a one sentence paragraph on floods in St Louis MO and KY, then a paragraph on KS, then back to MO. WHy not combine the MO paragraphs?

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 ><>°° 16:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Just one quick comment regarding the NCDC refs: even though Stuart Hinson is listed as the person to contact for problems/questions, I doubt he actually authored all of the reports himself, so I'm sure about citing him as the |author=. Haven't read through the article yet. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Syracuse (397 BC)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I came across this article a while ago and I've made some minor contributions, but I decided to list it for peer review to find out what else can be done to it. Any comments would be appreciated. In time, I'd like to make it a GA.

Thanks, —ems24 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll start to work on this article but it will take some time as the article is extensive. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First off thanks for your work on this article. It's refreshing to review articles of this nature. I understand you wish to take this article to WP:GAC, which is a very worthwhile effort.


  • See WP:LEAD for thoughts on writing the lead. The lead should be a summary of every point in the article. After reading it the reader should have a skeletal idea of the topic, the article then fills in all the details. An article of this length should probably have between three and four paragraphs for the lead. GA reviewers will expect that lead to be in compliance with MOS guidelines.
  • This sentence in the lead was confusing to me:
"The Carthaginians followed which the Athenians had used in 415 BC, and were successful in isolating Syracuse."
Is there something missing? The Carthaginians followed what?
Fixed —ems24 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposing forces

  • I see a couple of words that I've never heard before: triremes and Quinqueremes. Please either link them or add an explanation of what they are. It's important to not assume too much knowledge on the part of your readers.
Fixed . Those terms were already linked in the infobox, but I added links for their first appearance in the prose also. —ems24 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "After the defeat of his navy and the desertion of his allies..."
When was his navy defeated? I don't remember reading that. Is it yet to come? If so this information should follow a chronological order so as not to confuse the reader.
  • I think you could add more wikilinks, to names like: Campanian, Sardinian and Gallic for example.
  • I think there's a missing word or two here but I can't figure out where:
"Carthage at this time did not use elephants, but Libyans provided bulk of the heavy, four horse war chariots for Carthage."
Specifically, "...but Libyans provided bulk of the heavy, four horse war chariots...."
  • "The Syracuse navy was built around the Quinquereme, an invention attributed to Dionysius, and the trireme. Dionysius also transport ships available, but the number is unknown. Citizen rowers manned the fleet."
This information should go in the section about Syracuse rather than in the section about the opposing forces. Doesn't seem to fit.
  • The main issue with this section is a lack of references. I count three in-line citations, which isn't enough considering the amount of detail here. You have a paragraph on the Punic navy with specific numbers of ships that is unreferenced.
  • This sentence: "Sicels and other native Sicilians also served in the army as hoplites and also supplied peltasts, and a number of Campanians, probably equipped like Samnite or Etruscan warriors, were present as well." Sounds speculative, "probably equipped like Samnite or Etruscan warriors...." This should have a reference or it should be removed as speculation.

The war begins

  • Not sure about this sentence: "The Greeks scattered to the fortresses in the countryside, which Himilco spent unsuccessfully tried to reduce."
What was Himilco trying to reduce? The fortresses or the Greeks. The context isn't clear. Consider rewording.

Prelude to the Siege

  • I'm noticing a few terms that you may want to reword. Phrases like "make a break for it" and "Lady Luck" are not very "encyclopedic". I changed "make a break for it" to "retreat". I'll leave Lady Luck to you, don't want to touch it for fear of reprisal from the fickle lady :). I'm off for a bit more to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Per WP:UNIT when you have a unit of measurement, in this case 110 km you want to also convert it to imperical format (miles). You can do this by adding a {{convert}} template. It will look like this: 110 kilometres (68 mi).
  • I wikilinked some terms in this section. Usually the articles I encounter have too many wikilinks. This article I feel does not have enough, especially Greek terms and names.
  • I also added a [citation needed] template at the end of the "Preparations for the siege" section. It's a paragraph with very specific information and numbers and no reference.
  • I see another couple of measurement conversions needed in the "Fortifications of Syracuse" section.
  • There is another instance of speculation with no reference in the "Carthaginian camp" section, "The main camp was probably situated on the marshy ground east of the temple of Zeus, and adjacent to the Dascon bay and the Lysimeleia marsh." It's ok to say "probably" if you have a credible source to back it up.

Carthaginian preparations

  • "...Himilco seemed to have spared no expense to look after his soldiers needs." Nice comment, no reference.
  • Why is straddle italicized twice? Seems a bit odd.
  • I've made some spelling and grammatical error fixes in this section. You may want to read through the article looking for tense agreement, singular vs. plural agreement, and spelling errors. A common error I'm seeing in this article is misspelling the word "plateau". More to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Spring 397 BC: Carthage commences operations

  • References should not go in the titles of sections, put them in the paragraph. If an in-line cite is intended to cover the entire paragraph then put it at the end of the para. You'll have to add it to each paragraph if you wish it to apply to the entire section.
  • There are a couple things I'd like to mention with this sentence:
"In the medieval and modern age, Western invaders of Russia had often been thwarted by General Winter after defeating anything Russian citizens could muster against their enemy, with only the Mongols, coming from the east had managed to conquer both General Winter and Russian kingdoms."
  1. Given the context of the paragraph it seems to have no real relevance. The sentence claims the harsh winters have been Russia's best friend in war. The very next sentence says, Sicillian winters haven't helped Syracuse though. What's the connection? I know the intent is to show that winters to Russia are the same as disease to the Syracusans but this is tenuous at best. There are a myriad of examples of fighting forces being saved from certain doom by a disease that runs rampant through the enemy camps. I suggest using one of those stories rather than a tie-in that just doesn't really seem to fit.
  2. From a writing stand point the sentence is also a run-on sentence and should be cut up so as to better define the subject of each sentence.
  • There's no reference for the "Dionysius strikes" sub-section.
  • Usually in-line citations are placed at the end of sentences or paragraphs rather than in the middle of a sentence as is done in the "Attack on the Punic forts" sub-section.

Strange political bedfellows

  • Another speculative unreferenced sentence: "The Greek navy now probably outnumbered the Carthaginian one, which was devastated by the Greek raid and unable to man available ships due to crew shortage."
  • Usually it's a good idea to avoid lists in the body of a section. I would recommend reformatting the list in this section into prose and incorporating it into the paragraph.


  • Is Messena and Messana two different cities or the same city? Just want to be sure because they appear very close to each other in this section and have very similar spellings.
  • "Although the council of 104...." What is the council of 104?


  • The key with referencing is to maintain a consistent format. See WP:CITE for the various formats available.
  • I see 8 books used in the Bibliography. Probably a good idea to put them in alphabetical order by author's last name.
  • I also see that you then put specific references to these books w/ page numbers in the "Notes" section. This is great. Watch consistency though. You use pp. for a range of pages and p. for one page. Sometimes (ref 7) you have pp. for one page and other times (ref 9) you have p. for a range of pages.
  • It appears as though other books are found in the "Notes" section. I'm referring to refs 8 and 9. Why are these not listed in the "Bibliography" section?
  • What is "Diod" in ref 11? Is this the same as "Diodorus Siculus"? If so it should be spelled out. Also is this a book? If so why is it not in the Bibliography? Same for Polyanios and Plutarch. See suggestions in the Citation guidelines referred to above for thoughts on how to cite various forms of media including primary sources.
  • I see that you have Diodorus Siculus listed in the "External links" secton, since you make specific reference to this book in the article it should go along with all the other books in the Bibliography.


  • You've done a lot of work and an amazing job on this article.
  • It is a long article, perhaps a little too long. There are some sections that stray a bit from the main topic. See WP:SUMMARY for thoughts on writing in a summary style. I think you could combine some of the smaller sections into larger ones. I think for example in the "Opposing forces" section, the "Greek forces" sub-section could be combined with the "Dionysius makes ready" sub-section in the "Background" section.
  • Try to look for information that doesn't really seem to move the subject along and trim it out. Also any unreferenced information (and there is a bit of that in the article) either needs a reference or needs to be removed.
  • I like the maps but are there paintings or images of some of the battles or major political figures? What about images of one of the ships you refer to? This would be good and informative.
  • The two maps in the body of the article have the same caption. You should change the captions to better define what the map is showing the reader.
  • I think you're off to a good start, I don't feel it is up to GA quality at this point but with some work could certainly breeze through that review. I wish you well and if you have any specific questions or concerns regarding the review please give me a poke on my talk page. I don't usually watch the review page. Thanks and best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Spice Girls discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done alot of work recently in improving sourcing, formatting, layout, content etc and would like some idea of what people think and what improvements could be made :)

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I think this "article" really is a list and if you have aspirations of bringing it to featured status you should pursue the WP:FLC route.
thats what i'm going to do, but having a peer review first. which is recommended. Mister sparky (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Your writing is good and the content is solid. I think you should try and combine some of the paragraphs in the lead. I see five separate "paragraphs" though two are a single sentence and two are two sentences. I would recommend two paragraphs, no more than three if necessary.
yea was going to make changes to the lead. Mister sparky (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The image is good.
  • I like to compare articles to FL's of the same type.
  • Pussycat Dolls discography is a comparable article at least as a girl group with some success. Did the Spice Girls release any Extended Play albums or special releases other than their greatest hits? What about DVD releases of concerts? I guess that's covered in the Video album section.
thank you, i did most of the work to the PCD discog and got it promoted to FL :) but no they didnt release any ep's or other albums. and yes the concerts are already included. Mister sparky (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think overall as I review other FLs of the same type that your article is solid, perhaps a little tweaking of the format in the lead and make sure there are no other releases by the Spice Girls and then I think it would be ready for consideration as a featured list. Well done and give me a poke at my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thank you for your comments tho :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Per your request I've reviewed the lead again. Good work, I made some copy edits to tighten up the prose and fix grammatical mistakes. I'm wondering if there is information on their chart success outside the UK? I don't know if this is standard in discography FLs. I'm thinking chart success in major markets like the US and Europe. I see you mention Ireland and Australia but very little about their success especially in the US, which is a good benchmark of a group's global impact.
  • Is there a reason the first paragraph is one sentence? Could this be combined with the second paragraph?
  • Also wanted to bounce the thought off of you for a sentence or two about their hiatus/break-up. I know the focus is their discography so it would be fine to leave it out. I just felt like there's this big gap between their last studio album and their greatest hits album. If they were on such a roll why did it all end so abruptly. Again I'll leave that to your discretion as it is certainly off topic. Otherwise I think you're good to go. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Valley Girls (Gossip Girl)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Before re-nominating this for GA, I'd like some feedback on it. Its previous nom failed primarily because of prose concerns, but I'd appreciate any comments. Thanks, liquidlucktalk 16:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Apologies for the delay in reaching this. Here are some matters for consideration:-

  • Less Than Zero is a link to a disambiguation page
  • Several external links are not working. Refs [11] and [22] appear broken; [15] goes to an unrelated site.
  • Non-free images: you may have difficulty in arguing that each of these images "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If the infobox image remains, it needs some sort of explanatory caption, otherwise readers don't know what it is signifying.
  • Prose
    • Lead
      • "1980's" should be "1980s"
      • "2.31 million Americans" You don't need to specify that they were "Americans" (some of them may not have been)
      • "greenlit" is a slangy sort of term, a made-up verb from a figurative noun. It's not encyclopedic.
    • Plot: Rather too long as a plot summary for a single episode. Also, there seems to be an assumption that readers will have prior knowledge of the series – who the characters are, how they relate etc. I have never seen the series, and found myself very confused in the first paragraph: why is Serena in jail? Who are all these people introduced only by their names? What can I make of "Lily feuds with CeCe for telling Rufus about their lovechild."? Whose lovechild? And so on: I had to give up in the end because I just couldn't follow. I think the plot section needs to be rewritten so that it stands alone as a meaningful summary, even to those who are unfamiliar with the series, with a lot less detail about what are apparently side-plots and a concentration on the main storyline.
    • Background
      • "Background" is probably not the most appropriate title for the section, which covers virtually the whole history of the episode.
      • Awkward wording: "...would chronicle the life of Lily Rhodes during her life while attending..." etc
      • "Discussion about a Gossip Girl spin-off began in 2008, but the project seemed "unlikely"" To whom did it seem unlikely, and why the quotes? Shouldn't there be a citation here?
      • Sentences should not begin with "Still,..."
      • Dates should normally be given at the starts of sentences. Thus "On January 14, 2009, ..." etc
      • "Rumors that the spin-off would not be picked up as a series began well before the pilot even premiered due to the limited number of spots available on CW's fall line-up." The sentence needs flipping, thus: "Due to the limited number of spots available on CW's fall line-up, rumors that the spin-off would not be picked up as a series began well before the pilot even premiered." Also the penultimate word "even" is unnecessary.
    • Fashion and music
      • "1980's" again. Also "80's" (should be "'80s", though usually written out as "eighties").
      • Quote needs a citation: "like something that you'd want to be a part of, rather than make fun of."
      • I don't understand this sentence: "They hoped that young women inspired by the clothing styles featured on Gossip Girl would also be able to take ideas from spin-off." Ideas about what? And "from spin-off"?
      • " order to represent" - the use of "in order" is frowned on in Wikipedia as unnecessary verbosity. Suggest omit (and other instances).
      • "Says Savage" is not a good way of introducing a quotation
      • Contractions such as "hadn't" should be avoided unless they occur in quotations
      • "No Doubt makes a guest appearance..." Despite the link, "No Doubt" requires a brief introduction, e.g. "The band No Doubt makes a guest appearance..."
    • Reception
      • "80's" again
      • What is Film School Rejects? If it's a magazine it should be italicised.
    • General point: it might be an idea to have the list of featured music at the end of the article - less disruptive to the prose.

That's all. If you have any queries about my comments, or need clarification, please contact my talkpage as I am not able to watch individual peer review pages at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help! liquidlucktalk 02:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I personally believe that the Lady Gaga should be a featured article for its information, pictures, and overall appeal. What I want from a peer review is comments stating that it follows or not follow the Featured Article criteria and suggesting to help it become a featured article.

Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment – I would argue that the article be passed through GA once, before even thinking about Featured article nomination. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

While on the face of it, I do agree with Legolas that the article would have to pass GAN (Good Article Nomination) before being considered for FAC (Featured Article Candidate), and that a GAN is a first peer review for most articles, that doesn't mean that we can't review it here. FAC is all about being consistent with formats and using primary sources. Newspapers and gossip columns will not cut it as primary sources, which I believe came up in GAN. Magazines are better, but only if they are not fan magazines. This means (for starters) that references 13, 58, 85, and 92 cannot be used and the information they support needs to use a more primary reference, or the information has to go. Blogs are frowned upon for GA, and essentially outlawed for FAC (reference 78 needs to be replaced). Magazines such as Time would work out fine until book sources are available. Ultimately, book sources will be needed, but Lady Gaga's career has been way too short to expect any book references. I'd keep an eye out for peer reviewed literature concerning the rise of Lady Gaga, which could occur within psychology or psychiatry at any time.

As for consistency, the date format within the references needs to be consistent. For example, references 2, 61, 62, and 78 do not share the same date format as the rest of the article. This needs to be fixed. Reference 79 has a title in all caps. That needs to be fixed. The format of reference 75 is completely at odd with the other references. That needs to be fixed. Where is all the required info in reference 80? All the references should consistently have author information, title of work, publisher information, date of publishing, date it was found (if a web reference). Once books and peer-reviewed literature is available, cite journal and cite book formats should be adhered to, which would include page numbers, volume numbers, issue numbers, dates of publication, ISBN number, ISSN number, and DOI number, whichever is relevant. This kind of problem will keep the article from passing GAN, let along FAC.

The wording needs to be like an encyclopedia, meaning no opinions to maintain neutral point of view. Due to the shortness of her career so far, I'd avoid phrases such as "early in her career". What if her album launched this year is a total flop and she goes off in the direction of fashion instead, as a response? Does early in her career then mean 2008? If her career endures, she could still be early in her career. Verbal flourishes should be avoided, and so far appear to have been avoided. I am pleased to see no one trying to use phrases like "new queen of pop" in this article. Some of us who are older remember the media being fascinated by artists and groups such as A-ha, Terrance Trent Darby, or Milli Vanilli who were going to be enduring pop acts, and before you knew it, they were gone. I understand that could be hard to recognize if the contributors to the articles are fans, but vigilance is needed, or future GAN and future FAC attempts will be destined for failure. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed a FAC on March 30. It went through a major transformation at that time. It has also had a few updates since then, but I want to make sure it will pass the next FAC, so I'm submitting it for another peer review.

Thanks, ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

doing Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a very interesting article and it is certainly unusual to see a Neo-Romanesque cathedral in the midst of a Chinese city. I think this needs some more work before it would stand a good chance at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I read the FAC and agree with the comments there that the article seemed too short. I would have put it in terms of the FA criteria, the article does not seem to me to be comprehensive. I will try to point out places that need more details. I also think the lead needs to be expanded, there are places that need more references, and I question the reliability of some of the sources used as references now.
  • The lead seems sparse to me - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As a summary nothing should be in the lead only, but 15 Zhejiang Road seems not be repeated elsewhere in the article.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Services and Ordinaries are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I think the article could use a little more context at the beginning. Could a sentence or two be added on the foreign concessions in China in general, so the average reader understands better why the Germans were there in the first place? See WP:PCR
  • I also think the location of Qingdao could be made clearer. The article has relatively few images - could File:China Shandong Qingdao.svg be added somewhere to make clearer the position of Qingdao in China and on the coast?
  • I do not think giving the area in acres helps comprehension - square kilometers and square miles are enough With an area of 552 square kilometres (136,000 acres; 213 sq mi), it ...
  • Problem sentence: Upon gaining control of the area, the impoverished fishing village of "Tsingtao" (Qingdao) was laid out with wide streets, solid housing areas, government buildings, electrification throughout, a sewer system and a safe drinking water supply, a rarity in large parts of Asia at that time and later. They did not lay out an impoverished fishing village, try to avoid passive voice (who did the laying out?), and the sentence is long and complex and could probably be split. Perhaps something like this would work better: Upon gaining control of the area, the impoverished fishing village of "Tsingtao" (Qingdao) became the site of new planned community. The Germans laid out wide streets, solid housing areas, government buildings, electrification throughout, a sewer system and a safe drinking water supply, which was a rarity in large parts of Asia at that time and later.
  • The section "German presence in Qingdao" has no wikilinks - could some be added? The next section links to Holland, when I believe it should link to the Netherlands (the former is a province in the latter). In the the "Design and construction" section surely Neogothic is meant (not Gothic)?
  • "Design and construction" section could use some more details, if known. When did SVD arrive in Qingdao? When was the original plan for the church commissioned? Was it commissioned as a cathedral? When was the diocese established?
  • Needs a ref: Before the cathedral was started, a church was built on that same parcel of land, in 1902. It still stands today, but is now used as a school.[note 2] It would also help to give some idea of the size of the parcel of land purchased.
  • More problems The conquest of Qingdao by the Japanese in 1914 put an end to the cathedral plans. When its construction was again taken up, the original Gothic plan was abandoned because it no longer seemed appropriate for the modern townscape of Qingdao... I think the article should say when the Japanese left Qingdao. Might also help to mention that this was part of WWI. Also is it known when construction was "taken up again" (year)?
  • Needs a ref: which supports the conclusion that the design was altered after construction began. Construction was finished in 1934.
  • Needs a ref: It is possible that the first Catholic church in Qingdao, built in 1902 on the same site was called St. Emil's Church. It is also possible that "Emil" is a mistranslation of "Michael," as both names can have two out of three Chinese characters in common ("mi" and "el").
  • "1942-1976:Occupation, liberation, and defacement" section - I would explicitly say what year / motnh / day (if known) the Japanese occupied Qingdao. I would also explicitly say when the Allied forces took the city back.
  • Problem sentence: That year, the Japanese placed a large sign over the main door of the cathedral which read UNDER MANAGEMENT OF THE JAPANESE ARMY.[7] The WP:MOS Says if something is all caps to render it in title case. Also since this seems to be a direct quote, it should be in quotation marks per WP:MOSQUOTE so it should be something like ... which read "Under Management Of The Japanese Army".[7] ALso did the Japanese Army close the church or curtail worship?
  • I would give the dates for the Cultural Revolution and the date / year for the removal of the crosses. Is anything known about the congregation during this time? Did they worship in secret? Assume so...
  • I would attribute the block quotes to the original authors (say who said them in the article). It also seems odd that the cross removal quote is from three sources?? Is it a composite translation? If so, attribute each part.
  • The interior section, the second sentence of services, and the whole Ordinaries section need references to reliable sources.
  • The Service section is so short that I think it would help article flow to merge it with another section - not sure if it would fit with Ordinaries?
  • Also avoid words like today or currently as they can become out of date quickly - try "As of 2010," or "Since YEAR" instead.
  • I am concerned about the reliability of some sources - there are two links to the Norwegian Wikipedia - no Wikipedia is a reliable source.
  • Several of the refs are incomplete and need more information - for example ref 7 is just a bare link, while ref 2 seems to be a book, but needs the full author's name, publisher, year and place of publication instead of just Schultz-Naumann, Unter Kaisers Flagge, p. 183 (plus it needs to indicate that it is in German). The cite templates would probably help here, like {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}
  • Could a rough translation of the Chinese titles be given?
  • The toolbox finds words spelled in both American English and British English - pick one and stick with it.
  • The Disambiguation finder finds two dab links.

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 ><>°° 01:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, very comprehensive. I very much appreciate the feedback. Will get to work on the changes and then will let you know when they are complete in case you're interested in seeing the before and after. Thanks again! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Couple comments on the awesome review: 1) The links to Norweigian Wikipedia should be wikilinks, but I don't know how to wikilink across wikipedias. They are not references; 2) Regarding citing reliable sources for the interior and services sections, my interpretation of Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:When to cite lead me to believe citations are not necessary. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has now failed at WP:FAC twice and needs some text editing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this suppose to have an automated peer review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The automated tips in the toolbox in the right corner has that now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am getting errors trying to open the automated tips.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the script chokes on the n-dash (hyphen?) in the article title. I ran it as AZPR (first time to log in to that account in months) and pasted it on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping someone else would review this since I did last time (fresh set of eyes, plus I am not great on sports articles). If no one else signs up in the next day, I will be glad to review it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it might be better to get a fresh set of eyes, although I appreciate your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will review Harris Theater instead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: As usual with your articles, Tony, you have assembled an impressive amount of information. However, the organisation of the article is problematic, not to say somewhat headache-inducing for the general reader. Specifically:-

  • Clutter of images and tables near the beginning of the article. There are many more images than are necessary for reasonable illustration of the text; why not select two or three of the best?
  • Squeezing of text in Preview and Roster sections, arising from placement of tables and images
  • Unnecessary display of limited information in over-elaborate tables. Examples: The "incoming signees" table which looks very complicated and overdetailed; the "mid season transfer" table which looks to have only one entry; the "Rankings" table which gives limited, and totally unexplained, information. I would suggest that the info in these three tables could be briefly summarised in prose form, thus helping to some extent to solve the clutter problem and providing more scope for a rational placement of images.
  • Maybe it's just that I don't understand basketball, but I find it impossible to interpret either the headings or the figures in the table at the end of the "Statistical leadership" section. How much of this information is really necessary in a general encyclopedia article? The level of detail in the text preceding this table seems excessive, e.g two-and-a-half lines pondering on whether Harris should be placed first or second in the "free throw percentage" table, whatever that signifies. I think it's all part of the problem of including too much detail. It is possible to cover a subject comprehensively while still maintaining a summary style.

I haven't looked at the prose beyond the lead (which is generally OK), and before I do so I would welcome some response from you on the above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I wish I could get a sports reviewer. These tables are fairly standard in college sports team season articles now. The Harris quibble is essential. I had hoped to get PR feedback on this earlier. Now I am getting into crunch time for a presentation that I am going to start preparing for Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3.1‎. Let me get back to you early next week on the other issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of Timpani in the 18th and 19th centuries[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on it for a class and I would like some helpful criticism on layout and content.

Thanks, Timpguy22 (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • As well as introducing the topic, the lede section needs to be a concise version of the whole article. A one sentence defintion of what a timpani is would also help in the lede. Alt text needed. Copyedit needed to fix some odd and wordy prose (examples with rewrites to show better wording): "Music historians trace instrument's history to the ancient times when the drums were used in religious ceremonies." -> "The instrument was used in ancient times in religious ceremonies." & "The horse-mounted timpani of the Ottoman Empire was sure to be one of the sources of inspiration for the European adoption of timpani into their cavalry." -> "Horse-mounted timpani from the Ottoman Empire likely inspired European adoption of the instrument into their cavalry."(this also need a cite) Bad idea to have images right and left of each other at the same line with text squeezed between. Arrange the photographs so people are looking toward the text, not away from it. Words like "huge" and "very" are peacock terms and should be avoided. Other than that, a nice article. Good work! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of the above comments by Mav. While it is clear a lot of work has gone into the article, more work is needed before it would qualify as a WP:GA or a-class article. Here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • Make sure to provide context to the reader - not only does this include things like defining what a tympani is in the lead, but also adding a caption to the lead image so the reader knows what exactly is pictured.
  • I see no need to have the lead image repeated in the article later - once is enough.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should genrally be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The MOS also says images should not sandwich text between them, but the image of the modern horse mounted tympani does just that (getting rid of the duplicate image will help here).
  • 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
  • In addition to the need for a copyedit, the biggest problem I see with this getting to A class is a lack of references in places. For example several sentences at the end of the sections on Berlioz and Schumann have no refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Passages like This passage is another great representation of how far the timpani had come both compositionally and developmentally since the early days of timpani writing. Strauss’s writing in many ways is far more challenging than that of Haydn and Beethoven, but if it had not been for timpanists ability to come up with new ways to develop their instruments design, passages such as the one from “Der Rosenkavalier” may not even have been written. read like Original Research without a ref, so please add refs.
  • Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD - this says to avoid repeating all or part of the title of the article in section headers if at all possible, and to avoid repeating section headers in the titles of subsections. ALso avoid the use of articles (the) if possible, and the capitalization needs to be fixed as well. The idea is the reader already knows the article is about tympanis, so the headers do not need to repeat this.
  • So "Changes in Timpani Composition" could just be "Changes in composition" or perhaps even "Compositions" and the sections on the composers could just use the composer's name, i.e. "Haydn" not "Haydn's Timpani Writing"

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 ><>°° 13:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need help with typographical errors and if also need a copy edit. a general revision and if the article could need copy edit. Thanks, TbhotchTalk C. 17:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC) TbhotchTalk C. 01:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak[edit]

Having read the article, I would recommend a copyedit. That is not my forte, so I'll only mention problems with prose that really stand out as I go through.

Lead section[edit]
  • ""Forgive Me" is a song by British recording singer..." - call her a recording artist or a singer, not a recording singer

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 02:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "It was released in the United Kingdom..." - specify that it was released as a single

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 02:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • It says it was featured on the American version and then says it was released on the deluxe version; this is slightly confusing. Are the American and deluxe versions the same thing? If not, say that it was featured on both these versions in the main sentence. It says when the deluxe version was released, but the American version is not mentioned after the first sentence. Was it released as a single in the US? It needs a bit of clarification here.
Moved I removed "deluxe edition" from lead, and moved to background section. TbhotchTalk C. 05:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The release date doesn't need a citation in the lead. The lead section is to summarise the rest of the article, so what is in the lead is expanded on and backed up with references later on. You should include citations in the lead if it's something potentially contentious, but the release date isn't.
Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 04:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ""Forgive Me" debuted at number five in the United Kingdom, where became Lewis's fourth single in reach the top five, and Ireland." - this sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm actually not 100% sure what it means. Something like "Forgive Me" debuted at number five on the British and Irish charts; it was Lewis' fourth single to reach the top five in the UK? You should wikilink the charts you're talking about here.
  • Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 02:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "It peaked in Slovakia and attained the top ten in Italy and Sweden." - likewise, this is not very clear. What does "it peaked in Slovakia" mean? "Attained" should probably be replaced by "reached" or something similar (trying to avoid repetition from the previous sentence).

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The lead should summarise the rest of the article. It shold include all the major points from the rest of the article, and nothing should be in the lead that isn't expanded on later. The lead mentions who wrote the song, this needs expanding on in a later section.
Music and lyrics[edit]
  • Is there any background on the writing of the song? It's not even clear who wrote it. This was mentioned in the lead, and should be expanded upon here. Any detail on when & where it was written, what collaboration was involved would be good if available.
below TbhotchTalk C. 05:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a better reference for the genre of the song? I'm not sure how reliable iTunes is for that. I'm also not sure why it's in Spanish, given that it's an English-language song by a British artist, and iTunes is not only available in Spanish. It's also not very accessible. When I clicked on it, it launched the iTunes application on my computer and then gave me an error message.

Fixed removed

  • What exactly is a "shuffle dance groove"? That could do with explaining, particularly as the reference is to an offline source that I can't go and look at myself.

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "asks her ex for forgiveness" - "ex" is too informal. Put "ex-boyfriend" if appropriate, or something else like "former partner".

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 02:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Release and promotion[edit]
  • "Leona Lewis released "Forgive Me" in the UK on 3 November 2005 as the fourth single of her debut album." - Maybe it's me, but this seems to contradict what is said in the lead. I thought it wasn't on her album, only the US and deluxe versions?
  • "The single was pressed with one B-side's" - if there's only one, it's not plural, and certainly doesn't have an apostrophe.

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "Lewis explained why she decided to change musical genre from her previous releases" - explain how she's changed - what genre had she been working in before?
Added change musical genre, ballad, from her previous singles. TbhotchTalk C. 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Lewis performed the song on the "National Lottery" on 29 October 2008" - National Lottery shouldn't be in quotes; if you're referring to the television show, it should be in italics. It's not clear from the National Lottery article what the exact title is nowadays, but it should be National Lottery or The National Lottery or The National Lottery Live, or whichever is accurate. Likewise, GMTV, and the Italian and Swedish shows mentioned, should be in italics, not quotes.


  • This section features three very short paragraphs. If they can't be expanded on, combine them so it doesn't look as choppy.
Merged into Background, release and promotion TbhotchTalk C. 05:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Critical reception[edit]
  • ""Forgive Me" received mixed to positive reviews from music critics." - this doesn't sound quite right. "Mixed" means they weren't all good or all bad. "Mixed" isn't on a scale half way between good and bad. Just say "mixed", or if they were mostly positive, say "generally positive" or something.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 05:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "The BBC review of the single stated "Forgive Me" as a "dancable funky pop song"" - ungrammatical. Try The BBC review of the single called "Forgive Me" a "dancable funky pop song"

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 05:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "However, he also claimed" → However, he also said - "said" is more neutral than "claimed"

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 05:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "Robert Christgau commented: "'Forgive Me' would be a tolerable follow-up. Somehow I doubt Cowell cares"." - this seems out of context. A tolerable follow-up to what? Who's Simon Cowell and why do we care what he thinks? The article hasn't mentioned Lewis' X-Factor beginnings, so readers may be confused by the sudden mention of Cowell.
Removed TbhotchTalk C. 05:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Sal Cinquemani of Slant wrote about "Forgive Me" "is a 'bouncy and youthful' addition to the album"." - wrote about "Forgive Me" is a... That doesn't sound right does it? Don't worry about trying to find other ways to say "said" - very often "said" is just fine.
Shortened -> wrote: "is a... TbhotchTalk C. 05:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Moreover The New York Times criticized Lewis for being "a second-tier Mariah" on the song" - the "moreover" is unnecessary. Is this the comparison to Mariah Carey alluded to in the lead? The lead makes it seem that she has been favourably compared to Carey; this quote is clearly not favourable.
Added (to the lead) some of them criticized Lewis's voice for be very similar to Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey voice. TbhotchTalk C. 05:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Chart performance[edit]
  • ""Forgive Me" debuted and peaked at number five in the United Kingdom on 15 November 2008,[20] becoming Lewis' third single in debut within the top ten, and fourth in reach the top five." - another sentence that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Changed -> "Forgive Me" debuted and peaked at number five in the United Kingdom on 15 November 2008,[21] becoming Lewis' third single in debut within the top ten, after "A Moment Like This" and "Bleeding Love"[22]
  • "In Slovakia... in its tenth week the song peaked the chart." - Do you mean it was number one? "Peaking" usually means the highest position the song reached, not necessarily the highest position of the chart.
Fixed " the song peaked at number one in the chart" TbhotchTalk C. 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Also, in Europe the song reached the number eleven" - please specify what chart this is. In fact, please specify all the charts you are talking about.

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 05:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Numbers above nine, by the way, should be written in digits, not words. (see WP:ORDINAL)

Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 05:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Music video[edit]
  • "it was premiered..." - should be the start of a new sentence and doesn't need the "was".
  • "Lewis receiving a text" → Lewis receiving a text message
Both  Done TbhotchTalk C. 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The references look pretty good. I haven't gone over them thoroughly because I think there is a lot to work on here already. One thing I noticed though is that sources should only be in italics if they are titles. For example, BBC, Allmusic and shouldn't be in italics.
I don't know about this, once a reviewer said me "publisher is for who publish the e.g. magazine -> Gannett Company and work -> USA Today". have italics because Amazon Inc. publish (the same for BBC and Allmusic) TbhotchTalk C. 05:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments help. There's no reason why this couldn't be a good article sometime soon. I would definitely recommend requesting a copyedit though.--BelovedFreak 21:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask a copy edit and thank you so much for your comments. TbhotchTalk C. 05:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And maybe the article need another review (due the new changes). TbhotchTalk C. 05:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll have another look over the next couple of days to see if I have any further comments.--BelovedFreak 08:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bank Hall[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have worked on the page since the day it was created (by myself) which i have researched for the past 10 years at least, on the house which i have a specialist knowledge of. I would like to submit for a peer review to get the article up to the best status of a Featured article but first i would like to know what details need ammending in the article and of any ways i could improve the page to get the page to good article and featured article status. I would be very grateful for your time to look over the article as there is so much history to Bank Hall, its estate and its family connections and residents that go back well over 400 years. I just hope that the work to get it to a featured article is at least near enough.

Many thanks, Bankhallbretherton (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

  • Alt-text will be needed if you go to FAC.  Done
  • "Bank Hall mansion house is a fine example of Jacobean architecture located south of the village of Bretherton, Lancashire."

"...a fine example" isn't in a neutral point-of-view. The statement: "Bank Hall is a Jacobean mansion house located south of the village Bretherton, Lancashire." is NPOV. Done

  • The table of contents is really long and some of the section have one or two sentences. Is there anyway they could be combined into larger sections? Done
  • The sections on the various plant life around the building are somewhat listy and should be converted to prose. Done
  • The citations you used should be formatted and not just a URL. Done
  • Image galleries are somewhat discouraged as that is what Commons is for. Replacing the gallery with a {{Commons category}} is a good idea, as it will link to the relevant category on Commons. Done
  • When using image thumbnails, the size shouldn't be included as the default size is specified by a user's preferences. Done

The article seems comprehensive enough and has plenty of references, but needs plenty of polishing before it goes to FAC. These are general ideas that would make the article better, but I can provide specific examples of what needs to be fixed, if need be. Also, consider reviewing an article on the backlog as that is how I came across yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done the suggested edits and I would like to resubmit for a peer review to see what else needs doing, I have tried to break down the contents list as much as I can, but that is the only issue I felt was hard to do. Many thanks Bankhallbretherton (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to contact an editor on the volunteer list and ask them look at the article (no need to resubmit when this the review is still open). One other thing I thought of: it might be useful to replace the current infobox with {{Infobox Historic Site}} as it will allow you to add the Listed building status of Bank Hall, but that the decision in entirely up to you. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I was going to do that seen as you said but I have looked into it and it is under the Historic Buildings info box so I think I will leave it as that. How do you think it looks on a whole? I would like to get it to featured status but obviously need good article first! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox Historic building}} redirects {{Infobox building}}, but, I like said, its matter of personal preference. It shouldn't be too hard to get a good article. However, Belton House would be a model of a featured article on a similar topic. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward R. Hills House[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia. Over the last three weeks I largely rewrote the entire article to improve the flow, improve the accuracy of certain facts, and expand the history and descriptions. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some second opinions on my changes and to see how well I am adhering to the guidelines and quality standards of Wikipedia. I hope to get the article to meet good article standards should I decide to renominate it for GA status.

Since I have reworked the order of information in the article many times over, I would especially appreciate comments of this nature.

Thanks in advance, A.Fox 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I note that you are new to Wikipedia and making an effort to get this article to WP:GAC. In order to have it pass as a GA you will need to meet the GA criteria. I'll review the article and provide suggestions on how to bring the article up to this level. I'll also comment on Manual of Style issues and try to help guide you along the article writing process.


  • Make sure in your lead that you cover all the aspects of the article in summary fashion. The reader should be able to read the lead and get a skeletal idea of what the subject of the article is about. The body of the article then fills in the details. See WP:LEAD for more on this.
  • One-sentence paragraphs are not really considered good form in WP. Consider moving the final sentence in the lead into the preceding paragraph.

Early history

  • Watch overlinking. See WP:LINK. Basically if the word is used in common English then it probably doesn't need to be linked. Words like "adjacent" and "remodel" are probably not good candidates for wikilinking. But if Nathan Grier Moore had his own article he'd be a great name to link. Also the first mention of Frank Lloyd Wright in the article should be wikilinked.
✓Removed wikilinks for "remodel" (both occurences) and "adjacent" as well as words like "architect," "attorney," and "autobiography," which seem self explanatory. A couple new links have been added where appropriate including one for Dr. Gray, Charles C. Miller, and Nathan Moore in case they should ever have their own article. A.Fox
  • The diagram of the house move is excellent since any description of it is a bit confusing.

Wright's design

  • When writing for WP always think that less is more. The less words you can use to convey the same message the better. Here's an example:
"Inside, the existing stair hall was retained and extended to serve as the central circulation spine for the first and second levels."
There is no need for the word, "Inside", since the rest of the sentence makes it obvious that we are talking about the inside of the house. I removed the word but you may want to think about looking at redundant or unncessary wording throughout the prose. This isn't so much of a big deal at WP:GAC but if you wish to push this article up to WP:FAC then it becomes a really big deal.
✓Done. This is a case where I agree with you (I also removed two other occurneces of "inside" and "outside." Sometimes words like that are appropriate for focussing a readers attention in the topic sentence of a paragraph. A.Fox
  • This sentence is a fragment:
"A finished third story, accessed by the tight service stair, contained two servant bedrooms and a second."
And a second what? I'm confused by the ending of the sentence.
✓Done. One word was missing: "bathroom" A.Fox
  • You give the square footage of the first and second floors, what about the third? Is this info available?
  • Usually it's unseemly to drop in-line citations into the middle of sentences. Normally they go at the end of the sentences or at least after a comma. See ref 26 for what I'm talking about.

Hills ownership

  • With information in parentheses the ref should go outside the parentheses, see refs 34 and 35.
✓Done. Whether or not that is in a MOS somewhere (probably falls under placing notes after puctuation), I agree it looks better. A.Fox
  • The last paragraph in this section discusses the property lines in more detail. Honestly I don't think this is necessary detail given the article's subject is the house. Unless the property line changes in some way affect the house I would remove this information as too detailed. See WP:SS for information on writing in a summary style.

Recent years

  • Has the Pergola been finished? If not is there an estimated time of completion? If so is there an image that could go in this section rather than the one showing the foundation?
according to one of the article sources I used, it was supposed to be done be completed late last year. The answer is probably yes, but I don't have any reliable source to tell me that. As far as a picture, hopefully someone will take one during the Wright Plus home tour coming up next month (I won't be able to attend). Just getting a picture of the rear of the house was hard enough to come by. A.Fox


  • Usually the External Links come after the Notes and References.
✓Done A.Fox
  • Why do some of the notes have page numbers and others do not?
Because those sources were in web format and did not have pages. I realize there is a redundancy issue with having several different endnotes for the same source, but I haven't found a better system yet. I don't like the style where some references are placed under "notes" and the rest under "references." As soon as I find a cleaner way to do it, I will change it. A.Fox
  • I'm not a big fan of wikilinking the notes as you have done here, it's not a big deal I just don't really know what it accomplishes.
As part of the Harvard reference style, the notes and referenced are wikilinked automatically. But then, depending on the source, sometimes it doesn't work so maybe it is unnecessary.A.Fox


  • I think you have a formatting issue with the Trainor book reference.
✓Sure was. I don't know how I missed that extra "url =" A.Fox


  • Overall I think you have a great article here. I like the diagrams and images. I think your writing is good, and your formatting is fine.
  • For GA standards your adherence to the Manual of Style is totally fine. You should expand the lead to encompass every part of the article's subjects.
  • As far as organization of the sections I think it's very good, chronological order seems the most intuitive. I would consider removing the "Before Frank Lloyd Wright" part of the "Before Frank Lloyd Wright: Frank S. Gray House (1883–1900)" sub-section title. It seems a bit long and cumbersome. The reader will quickly pick up that this was before FLW got involved, especially if they read the lead.
✓subsection title has been changed A.Fox

This concludes my review, I hope you found it helpful. If you have any specific questions or concerns you can poke me on my talk page and I'll be happy to address them. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Its nice to get an opinion from someone who has been writing and reviewing articles here for some time. I honestly didn't know that Wikipedia had such a developed set of standards until I started writing this article. I've looked through all of your comments and I don't think I have any questions yet, but I will be sure to leave you a message if I do.
A.Fox 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Franz Ignaz Beck[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am (fairly) new at WP and I would appreciate someone knowledeable in music history (or musicology) to look it over.

Thanks, Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting and generally well-written, but needs some more work to more closely follow the Manual of Style here. Some suggestions for improvement follow.

  • The current lead is only paragraph and does not fully summarize the article. Please see WP:LEAD - the lead can be up to four paragraphs long and for this article should probably be two or three paragraphs.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - as a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only, 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 which gives some ideas for expansion
  • The biggest issue I see reading this is a lack of references in many places. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but whole paragraphs and sections such as "1734-1754 Youth in Mannheim" and "[edit] 1791-1809 Last years in Bordeaux" have no refs and need them - see WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure full information is given in references. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • The article would flow better if there were fewer short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • In an article in the English Wikipedia it is a good idea to translate things in other languages - so the title of the Opus 3 or the sentence about him being principle violin. I would give the translation in the article and the original in a footnote.
  • Seems like there is some room for exapnsion. What did he die of? When? What was his legacy? What have critics / reviewers said about him?
  • The disambiguation links too in the tool box (right corner) finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Bedřich Smetana and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov are two recent Featured Articles on composers and may be good models here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bubbles (chimpanzee)[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA. The article has already had two archived FACs, so I was hoping for some input on how to improve it for a third run.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Common terms like "cameo appearance", "fedora", "diaper", "suicide" and "cardiac arrest" should be unlinked. Also, why is Bubbles' categorized as "living people"? Crystal Clear x3 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I always link if I think a reader would benefit from reading the linked article in relation to the one they are reading. All of the above links I feel benefit a reader when looking at this article. Diaper for example has a section on animal use of diapers. The suicide article may be interesting for those who want to find out if animals can attempt suicide. And if I wasn't a Michael Jackson fan, I probably wouldn't know what a fedora or cardiac arrest was. I agree with removing the living persons category, and have done that. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, reference 49 is a dead link. Crystal Clear x3 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Pyrrhus16 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is out of control and could stand extensive revision by expert editors. Most of this article is based on rumor, allegation, and gossip, and this is not the "stuff" of a Wikipedia article. Bubbles is only notable because he's been mentioned in the tabloid press in connection with Jackson - and then only to emphasize Jackson's eccentricity (the chimp used Jackson's toilet, for example). Bubbles is not notable in himself - he didn't have a film career, for example, nor was he used to test an important drug or scientific theory, nor was he the poster chimp for a worldwide Save the Primates campaign. Every tidbit about a celebrity does not deserve a stand alone article. Bubbles is a tidbit and doesn't deserve a stand alone article. That said, much of the tabloid-type rumor, allegation, innuendo, gossip, and fancruft supporting Jackson's publicity-gathering eccentricities surrounding this exploited animal should be removed and the focus directed upon Bubbles. Publicity stunts such as the tea party with the Japanese mayor should be included. Such things can be verified and emphasize Jackson's willingness to exploit a defenseless animal and to affront distinguished others for his selfish publicity purposes and/or his warped, drug-fueled sense of what is appropriate in certain situations. Wikpedia is not the tabloid press and all the gossip and rumor should be suppressed. Jackson should not be the focus of the article. Bubbles should be the focus - and there is so little to say about the chimp that the article can be effectively reduced to a paragraph or two. I tried to revise the article and was protocol-corrected by the main contributor (?) who apparently wants every edit to be pre-approved - though a banner on the talk page invites editing without pre-approval. The main contributor insists every single word in the article is relevant. Of course it is - to the main contributor - but others see things differently and every itsy, bitsy tidbit about Jackson doesn't need to be preserved at Wikipedia and that's why this article is out of control. I hope other editors will step in here and try to wrangle this article into something appropriate for an encyclopedia. The main contributor should stand aside for a week or two and let other editos whip this article into shape. PS - What is a "private toilet"? Did Jackson have a "public toilet"? Or what? I don't understand... SoniaSyle (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think the subject of the article is notable, then take it to AFD, instead of ranting here with your anti-Jackson agenda. The article reports the rumours and speculation because it is a substantial part of the chimpanzee's notability. And, no, I do not have ownership issues. I just don't appreciate you hacking this GA to pieces to suit your own biased views. Pyrrhus16 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If Bubbles is notable, it certainly isn't evident in this article. Notability is not inherited. Just because your Dad was notable and has an article at Wikipedia does not make you notable and deserving of an article - even though you were mentioned briefly in every tabloid article about your Dad. If you think this article is FA, then send it to FA. You've brought the article here for advice, improvement, suggestions, etc. but when you get what you're looking for, you shoot it down. What's the point? This article is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and is not FA material. Its focus is diffuse. It records rumor, allegation, innuendo, and gossip. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It attributes human qualities to Bubbles (he tried to kill himself, for example). The focus should be upon Bubbles - not Jackson. You won't let others help you improve this article. Every itsy-bitsy, teenty-weeny tidbit about Bubbles recorded in tabloid journalism does not need to be reiterated and preserved in a Wikipedia article. You need to stand aside for a week or two and let other editors take a look at this piece. You're too close to it. You don't need to "hover" over the article watching and weighing every edit. SoniaSyle (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Bubbles is not mentioned briefly in articles only about Jackson; he himself is the subject of thorough independent articles. Again, if you disagree, take it to AFD, instead of going on about lack of notabilty here. Pyrrhus16 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are just a few examples of turning the focus from Bubbles to Jackson:

  • "...Bubbles moved to Neverland Ranch in 1988, after Jackson purchased it for $17 million." How much Jackson paid for the ranch has nothing to do with Bubbles and should not be recorded. If this juicy detail MUST be recorded here then "Bubbles was moved to Jackson's $17 million Neverland Ranch" is better though how much Jackson paid for the ranch is still gossip, even if true. "...Bubbles moved to Neverland..." is bad because it attributes some sort of human ability to Bubbles - making a choice. Bubbles had no choice in the move. "Bubbles was moved" is correct, not "Bubbles moved". There are other instances of this in the article.
  • This section could be said more effectively in less words: "The chimpanzee slept in a crib at the corner of the singer's bedroom. Bubbles would frequently sit and eat candy with Jackson in the property's cinema. He also ate at the dining table. When it came time for the animal to relieve himself, Jackson would allow Bubbles to use his private toilet, although the chimpanzee sometimes wore a diaper." How about: "The chimp slept in a crib in Jackson's bedroom, ate candy in the Neverland movie theater, was fed at the dining table, wore a diaper, and used Jackson's toilet." This stuff does not need to be recorded here anyway because 99% of chimps kept as pets do the same sort of things. It's not material for an encyclopedia.
  • This section can be completely deleted because it has NOTHING to do with Bubbles: "Jackson's maids later stated that they were not impressed with the behaviour of the various chimps that the singer had kept over the years. One housekeeper told of how she had to clean up the droppings of one of the chimpanzees, after it had hurled its feces at the bedroom wall. Another maid described a chimpanzee called Max tearing off his diaper before crawling into Jackson's bed." Nothing to do with Bubbles - delete it. Use it in a larger article called "Michael Jackson's pets". SoniaSyle (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Love in Motion (Anika Moa album)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have searched through the net for more sources of information but all reliable sources seem to have been included. A quick PR is all that is necessary, I'm really just looking for tips on where to go from here.

Thanks, Adabow (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar comments
  1. The Lead section should summarise the entire article, currently its far too brief.
  2. WP:MoS issues: album name should be given as Love in Motion not Love In Motion. Likewise In Swings the Tide.
  3. Second sentence is missing a word or two?
Infobox summarises information from the rest of the article and so the references can be moved to the main text where this information should appear. If it doesn't appear then it should be added to the appropriate places.
Background and recording
  1. Where's the background? Section starts with Moa extolling the album. A description of the album's position within her career would help.
  2. "Scott Kara said, after interviewing Moa, said that Love In Motion "is about love on all levels," and Moa described love as having "so many aspects to it."" After interviewing Moa, The New Zealand Herald's Scott Kara said that her album "is about love on all levels", Moa described love as having "so many aspects to it". Tidying up expression and style.
  3. While there add |publisher = [[APN News & Media]] into the ref.
  4. Further copy editing of expression is needed in this section.
  5. Her interviews make it plain that her wife, Azaria Universe, is a major inspiration for some tracks on this album but you omit this important detail from the background.
  6. Single(s) released from the album should be mentioned: briefly (if they already have their own article).
  1. "The week of the release of the album Moa toured" During the week of the album's release, Moa toured
Critical reception
  1. Newspaper names should be italicised, e.g. The Dominion Post
  2. Kara should be identified as a reporter from The New Zealand Herald at first mention (see above) and so this detail is not needed here.
Chart performance
  1. Peak position is notable enough to be included in the Lead.
Track listing
  1. Moa claims to have written all the tracks but the songs' writer(s) need a reliable & independent source. Try <ref name="APRATwoHearts">{{cite web | publisher = [[Australasian Performing Right Association]] (APRA) | title = "Two Hearts" at APRA search engine | url = | accessdate = 26 April 2010 }}</ref> for "Two Hearts". Adapt for the other tracks.
  2. Use a spaced endash (e.g. "Two Hearts" – 4:03) as separator not a hyphen. (see WP:DASHES)
  3. Check song titles' MoS, e.g. "Running Through the Fire (Storm)" and "Blame It on the Rain"
  1. List them alphabetically and you should include:

(note spaced endashes used here)

  1. Where's the production details? Producer(s), engineer(s), album art designers/graphic artists? If known, put them in this section.

Enjoy.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I wish to withdraw the nomination for now, until such time when I am more readily available to respond to comments.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because after two years of work, I am hoping to gain constructive feedback in a way that will allow me to further improve this article before I send this to FAC.

Thanks, The Taerkasten (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • There appear to be more references available to be used in the article; they are listed here. Are they too difficult to find? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've forgotten about those, although I'm not sure what this article needs is more references. I'm not the best person to utilise those refs, as my time will be restricted. In all honesty, I don't know where this article is going to go, I'm the only one constantly editing it, and with soon-to-be limited time I'm not going to be able to watch over the article for at least 4 days. Whether this article ever reaches FA is doubtful.--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
One of the Featured Article criteria is that the article should be comprehensive about the topic. This article is in solid shape already to inform the readership. From what I can tell, though, there is still more critical analysis available. It's not surprising since this is a very iconic film, and there is a lot that can be read into it. For comparison, see American Beauty (film), which is a 1999 film which has not been around that long and is probably not "iconic", and it has a lengthy interpretations section. This film would exceed that, probably to the point of having a sub-article—something like Interpretations of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when I first saw this film, I had no idea how influential it really was, and how much analysis was made of it. I first want to get the main article to FA though, and I might need help getting started with the sub-article of interpretation, there's a link to my userspace version in my main user page (a stub), but I don't really have the time to work on it now.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment: I am reading the article and will post some general review comments shortly. One quick point from the lead: why is "ed gein" in lower case - is this simply a typo? Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No it was vandalism, since been removed.--The Taerkasten (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I know peer review is backlogged and quite busy at the moment, and I myself will have limited time, if any, to make improvements on this article, until the beginning of June, where my exams will have finished, so if anybody wants to help out with the article, I'd be grateful.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton: In view of the above, I will post the few comments that I have made on the early parts of the article, and won't continue for the time being. I suggest you close the review and resubmit it in June when you're ready. My comments can then be recovered from the archive.

  • Lead
    • "as well as perceived lies of the American government." Would read better as "the perceived lies". It may be worth clarifying that the American government in question was the Nixon administration.
    • Some explanation required of the meanings of "R-rating" and "PG-rating"
    • Third paragraph: "theatrically" looks the wrong word choice here, since its general meaning is something quite different. Why not say "to cinemas"?
    • "...foreign jurisdictions"; why not "foreign countries"?
    • "It drew mixed critical reception initially, receiving both praise and criticism regarding the atmosphere, story, characters, and graphic content..." There is repetition here—a mixed critical reception means receiving both praise and criticism—so the sentence could read: "Initially it drew a mixed critical reception regarding the atmosphere, story, characters, and graphic content..."
    • The repetition in the next sentence "Despite the mixed critical reception..." could be avoided by "Despite the critical uncertainty..."
    • Why the use of the obscure Greek term? There must be more idiomatic ways of making the point.
  • Plot
    • "Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) and her brother Franklin (Paul A. Partain) travel with three friends..." The friends should be identified.
    • "At sunset, Sally's boyfriend Jerry (Allen Danziger) heads out..." Heads out from where? Was he one of the "three friends"?

Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I found some time to edit, most of the suggestions have been taken care of, although I believe the ratings are explained in the release section of the article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentence spacing[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it received some comments at WP:FAC [2] that need addressing. Key themes:

1. U.S. Centric. Probably needs to identify some of the books referenced that are published and/or written outside of the U.S.—as well as works that cover more than just English. Also needs to determine what style guides and works cover English-speakers outside of the U.S. (most probably use U.K. guides). Could also add verbiage about French style guides and "French speaking Africa" among others, for example.
2. Prose. There were some comments regarding the tightening of prose. E.g. "Prose needs a lot of attention to get rid of the verbosity."
3. Summary. I'm not interested in deleting/summarizing this on a massive scale. What might be appropriate is to split the style guide list out to a separate article. That would:
a. Allow more information to be given in that article (it's summarized a lot now)
b. Shorten the Sentence spacing article quite a bit—addressing at least one editor's concern.
My concern is that I'm not sure the list of style guides on this particular topic is notable IAW WP:N to allow a split. Thoughts? Also, if so, what should it be called? "Style guides: guidance on sentence spacing?"
4. Any prose that might imply NPOV. Have to be careful on this one. In some cases I chose to dilute strong positions in the literature because it might seem POV in the article. E.g. - most typographers state that double sentence spacing is never correct now. Since some other sources allow that it might be OK if you're using a typewriter or a monospaced font, I chose to say "...say that double sentence spacing is obsolete for most uses" (or something to that effect). "Obsolete" might seem POV, but it's weaker language than "absolutely incorrect" as one typographer stated. Regardless, the article will probably have to withstand NPOV challenges, so this would be a key area to look at critically.

The prose defintely needs tightening. There are lots of possible ways to do that, I'm sure. I'm hesitant to draw down the number of citations on this subject, however. This is a topic of heated debate on the Internet. Many people just dismiss reliable information on this topic. Without sufficient depth on this topic, it will be attacked violently by some people out there (some of this can be seen by older threads on the talk page).

Finally, I'm not asking for others to rewrite according to the above (although certainly no issues with that). I'd like to hear if my thoughts adequately address the issues, if other editors can identify where prose can be tightened, thoughts on NPOV, splitting out the "style guide section," etc.

Thanks, Airborne84 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I will be honest, while I think this is an interesting topic, I had real trouble reading the article. I though the article was repetitious and the organization also did not help. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • First off the toolbox has some useful tools - the disambiguation link finder finds two links that need work, and there are several dead links according to the external link checker.
Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I also wonder about the reliability of some of the sources used in the article - see WP:RS For example, what makes a reliable source? Or Or Do these websites have editorial oversight? I could be wrong, but they look like blogs or personal websites and not necessarily reliable.
This received some attention on the talk page. Rotovision is a book publisher and the images are from a published book by David Jury, a typographer. The other sources mentioned have been clarified in the endnotes for some. All are from reliable sources however, (e.g., Ilene Strizver's credentials (typedesk) make her an expert on the subject. I cerfully vetted all of the credentials of anyone that posted anything that looked like a "blog" or seemed close to it. Anything that was not a WP:RS, I didn't include (and there was a lot out there that was close). --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think references are clearer and easier to follow when one source is used per footnote - as it is some refs are this way (and use the authors' last names and year of publication system with the full details in the References section) while others use a completely different system of multiple sources in a single footnote, some as complete refs, others as just names and date. I do not think the MOS likes mixing ref styles in a single footnote.
I checked the WP:MoS and the webpages on inline citations. There isn't any statement prohibiting this technique that I could find. Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations seems to allow this. I chose to keep it this way because, again, this is a topic of heated debate on the Internet. One reference will be happily and vigorously attacked by many people if it is written that way. Some of the endnotes have been expanded to retain material that was taken out of the text itself. To reduce the readable prose, I moved some sentences to the endnotes. I think it's ok to leave them because people make minor corrections to the endnotes all the time - so I know people are looking at them! I wouldn't want to delete material people want to read. Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There are also some refs that need to spell out abbreviations - what is ALWD for example? Or I think the author should be "United States Navy" in United States. "U.S. Navy Style Guide "Punctuation"". Retrieved 17 January 2010. and similar works.
Done--Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I also doubt that some of the current External links meet WP:EL -
Done. Scrubbed external links. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that if you could find or simulate a typewritten manuscript and show the differences between single and double spaces in the same text, that would be a useful lead image.
Done. Also added another image. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Part of getting through FAC is finding all the little details and making things consistent - so why is English spacing not in quotes, but French spacing is in quotes once and not in quotes the other time it is used in the article?
Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Or it is "p." for a single page and "pp." for two or more pages (not "pps.")
Fixed. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Page ranges should all use an en-dash, not a hyphen (as a matter of typography ;-) )
Had to laugh at this one! I searched through and found only a single page range that was a hyphen and not an en-dash. That must have been the one that Ruhrfisch saw. Anyway, I fixed it! --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would reorganize the article for better flow. I would start with History and explain why spacing developed and how single spacing came to the fore. If anything, I would expand the current history section somewhat. Any time a style guide or author is quoted, I would give the date to make clear when they were speaking about the topic (since attitudes ahve changed with time). I am not sure if I would include the computer age history and then go into modern criticism / debate - I probably would, but am not sure. It might also work to talk historically about the development of double spacing and then have the quotes in favor of it.
Moved history after the TOC. Expanded, clarified, and added an image. Added dates to all style guides and related works that get updated. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • See User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing for help with sentences like this: Geoffrey Dowding's book, Finer Points in the Spacing & Arrangement of Type, first published in Canada as far back as [in] 1966, illustrates that single-spacing at the end of sentences is not necessarily a recent trend.
Done, but mostly by me. I removed a lot of material, but there may still be areas to reduce. I'm not sure it's necessary, since the readable prose is well below Wikipedia standards for splitting, but since I wrote it, I could well have missed areas to simplify, reduce, or synthesize. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would also focus relentlessly on the topic at hand and cut out the tangential and irrelevant. There are two paragraphs on Dowding's book, including a long quote, but I could not see how he talked about this topic in the quote. If he did, make it clearer by explaining what he meant. If he did not, find a better quote or cut out the two paragraphs.
Addressed. Moved one quote to another setion that was more relevant and improved transition to it to clarify relevance. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not just say
    • The the official guide for French is the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française; while this does not address sentence spacing, it is single sentence spaced, consistent with historical French spacing.
  • instead of this
    • For example, the Académie française publishes the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française for the French language[46] which is spoken in 57 countries and territories throughout the world, including Europe, North America, and Francophone Africa.[47] Although this work does not provide guidance on sentence spacing, its text is single sentence spaced throughout—which is consistent with historical French spacing.
Done. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I really think that less is more here - I had real trouble finishing this article and think if it were pared down and more tightly focused that would help a lot. As I said at the beginning, the topic is interesting, but it gets kind of lost in the verbiage and things that seem less than germane to the topic at hand.

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 ><>°° 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • A bit more - since the development of double spacing is attributed to typewriters, it seems funny that it never developed in some other countries that also used typewriters. I agree that as written now the article is fairly US-centric. While there are mentions of French and German, and pasing mentions of Canadian and Australian and British styles, it still seems that most examples are Aemrican.
This is a problem. I've researched this. Other countries (Italy, Germany, etc.) never used double sentence spacing—even on typewriters. So, they never published anything on this topic since it's a non-issue in those countries. Tough to put that in there though, since it's WP:OR on my part. I did the best I could in the language guide section by showing that their langauge guides are single sentence spaced. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Refs come after punctuation, but there are several places that need to be fixed like It would appear that by 21th century most editors really don't care, as long as the font is readable[84].
Fixed. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC) `

She: A History of Adventure[edit]

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

  • I hope to take this article soon to FA nominations
  • Most of the work on the article was done by a single editor (myself) and therefore I would appreciate the viewpoints of disinterested editors regarding readibility, clarity of prose and subject matter, and referencing.

Thanks, ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 10:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'll take a little while to go through the article and the review will be done in waves so to speak. Thank you for your work on this article, the book is probably one of the best selling books I've never heard of so it is an interesting subject and I'm enjoying the article a lot. Here are some suggestions for improvement:


  • The lead seems a bit short for the length of the article. I haven't finished it so I can't tell for sure if anything specific is missing, but you may want to evaluate if the lead meets WP:LEAD requirements, especially about summarizing all parts of the article.
  • I've finished the article and the lead is actually pretty comprehensive. I would perhaps add a note about the book's legacy and film adaptations. One could make an argument for inclusion of more about the modern feminist interpretation of the book but I think you cover this at least in part.
  • Consider this sentence:
"She was extraordinarily popular upon its release and has never been out of print since it was first published."
I think you can remove, "...since it was first published." You say it has never been out of print so there is no need to specify that it hasn't been out of print since it was first published, the "never" clarifies this.


  • This sentence needs to be in the active voice:
"Ayesha was born over two thousand years ago amongst the Arabs, mastering the lore of the ancients and becoming a great sorceress."
I would recommend rewriting thus: "Ayesha was born over two thousand years ago amongst the Arabs. During her time with them She mastered the lore of the ancients and became a great sorceress."
  • Watch for consistency in capitalizing "She". You'll need to decide if She is always going to be capitalized when referring to Ayesha.
  • I'm not sure about this phrase:
"...remain in the thrall of She."
Isn't it "remain enthralled with She"? I could be wrong here but I thought I'd bring it up.


  • "In his memoirs Haggard wrote of the aspirations he held at this time of becoming a colonial governor himself..."
Consider removing "at this time" as redundant wording. The context implies what time his aspirations were at.  Done
  • "...Haggard remained committed to this belief, believing that the British...."
belief/believing - consider rewording one of those two, perhaps instead of belief use ideology?  Done
  • I changed Time Murray to Tim Murray.
  • In the Return to Britain section you have the start of a quote from Haggard in the body of a paragraph then immediately followed by a block quote, it seems a bit odd, I'm not sure the formatting is entirely consistent with WP:QUOTE though I couldn't site a specific guideline. I'll leave that to you.  Done Removed lead-in section of quote to just leave block quote. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence has two time identifiers:
"Late-Victorian debates regarding "The Woman Question", as well as anxieties over the increasing position and independence of the "New Woman", dominated Britain during the fin de siècle"
There is Late-Victorian and during the fin de siècle. Probably want to remove one of the identifiers as duplicative.  Done removed Late-Victorian qualifier. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "...and gained more political and legal independence - free from men."
This is more a matter of taste but I don't think "free from men" is necessary, I think that the context implies who women were gaining freedom from.  Done Agree - removed. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Watch consistency in italicizing She-who-must-be-obeyed. Sometimes it's italicized and other times it isn't.  Done Italicised = character as it is italicised in the actual text; non-italics = phrase. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall this section goes into a fair bit of detail on late Victorian concepts of race, feminism, imperialism, and British sentimentality regarding Africa. I assume that this will tie in later to the themes expressed in the book. I do feel as though there is a lot of detail here though and one criticism at WP:FAC will be a lack of summary style writing here. Consider trimming this section a bit. For example, you talk about racial purity in both the last paragraph in the South Africa sub-section and after the block quote in the Return to Great Britain sub-section. Could one of these references be trimmed out as duplicative?
 Done I have removed 2 superflous quotes and some material. I have also tried to relate points more specifically to the concerns of the novel. But there may still be some more room for trimming. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Conception and creation

  • The format of this sentence is a bit odd and inconsistent:
"The period was an intensely creative process, with Haggard maintaining that the text "was never rewritten, and the manuscript carries but few corrections", going on to declare: "The fact is that it was written at white heat, almost without rest, and that is the best way to compose."
First off, "with Haggard maintaining" is in the passive voice, consider rewriting as, "in which Haggard claimed..." Also you use a colon after "declare" but not after "text". I'm not an expert but usually a comma is used prior to quotes (could be wrong here though). I would end the sentence after "corrections". Start the new sentence with, "Haggard went on to declare..."  Done ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Similarly, the name of the underground civilisation itself in She, known as Kôr...."
I'd remove "itself" here, no need for it that I can see.
  • There are a couple of two-sentence paragraphs in this section. Consider combining or expanding.
  • I'm not sure about the tense in this sentence:
"In the original serialisation of She, the cannibal Amahagger place a large heated pot over the head of Mahomed, enacting out the hotpotting ritual in preparation for eating him."
Amahagger "place", I think "placed" is better but I want to be sure. Also I think "enacting" should be replaced with "acting".
  • In the same paragraph you refer to it as hotpot and hot-pot.


  • "Indeed, Haggard's story is one of the first in modern literature to feature "a slight intrusion of something unreal" into a very real world - a hallmark of the fantasy genre."
"Indeed" here isn't necessary.
  • "Indeed, Rider Haggard is credited with inventing the romance of archaeological exploration which began in King Solomon's Mines and crystallised in She."
Watch weasel wording here, there is no in-line citation for this sentence, is it covered with either cite 44 or 45? Also "Indeed" isn't needed here as well.
  • "and recently Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2000)."
"Recently" isn't really necessary here.
  • "Many late-Victorian authors during the fin de siècle..."
Another example of duplicating time references.
  • Perhaps also in the adventure subgenre are the English stories of adventures in Africa. I can't think of specific fictional books right off the top of my head though. Sorry, if I come up with examples I'll throw them in here.
  • I don't think you need a non-free use image rationale on the images from the book since the copyright expired, I'm no image expert but I think the images are now free-use and in the public domain.


  • Again there may be issues with quotes and especially the use of block quotes:
"The passage concludes with a wry remark from Holly, "I at last managed to get to sleep, a fact for which anybody who reads this narrative, if anybody ever does, may very probably be thankful".
Why is the last portion of the quote from the book not in the preceding block quote? It seems odd to have it pushed into a paragraph a part from the rest of the quote.


  • "Indeed, She is preoccupied with stressing quintessential British qualities through the "adventure" of empire, usually in contrast to foreign barbarism."
Another "indeed" that can be removed. I found a couple more following this one that I won't bring up but can be removed.
  • Why use the word "however" in the following sentence:
"However, the notion of imperialism is further compounded by the figure of She, who is herself a foreign colonising force."
It seems that this sentence builds on the previous one, so "however" seems out of place. Am I missing something?
  • Here is a quote with no attribution to whomever is saying it,
"Racial hybridisation of any kind "entailed degeneration" to Victorians, a "decline from the pure blood" of the initial races, and thus "an aspect of their degeneration is the idea that the Amahagger have lost whatever elements of civilization their Kôr ancestors may have imparted to them."


  • Can the block quote be better clarified? What newspaper or journal was it written in? I see from the citation that it was in a letter written to Haggard, perhaps this could be specified in the quote.
  • So I'm thinking that this section should be moved up to connect with the Style section. There are critiques there to his writing style which seem to bridge to a discussion about the reception of the book. The themes section could then follow. I think the Themes section also is more closely related to the Modern interpretations section and those two would fit well together. Those are just suggestions to help with the cohesion of the article.

Modern interpretations

  • "Ayesha declares this to be the "first most holy hour of completed womanhood".
This quote appears to be attributed to Ayesha, I think there is an errant quotation mark after "lord" that makes the quote appear to be done. Also I think "...first most holy hour of completed womanhood" should have single quotation marks (' ') around it since Ayesha is speaking it within a quote. Does this make sense?
  • Have you come across other modern interpretations other than the feminist one? If not I wonder if it is even necessary to create a Feminist sub-section since this is the only subject of the section?


  • I see several books in the Footnotes section and other books located in the References section. Why this inconsistency?
  • Be prepared for a WP:PSTS-based objection since you rely somewhat on Haggard's autobiography. I think you are ok given the items from this source in the article, but those who look blindly at guidelines, thinking they should apply unilaterally to all situations, may find cause to raise the issue here.


  • Overall I think the article is very developed, well written and comprehensive. I've made some suggestions above and greatly enjoyed reading about this novel. I look forward to seeing it at FAC soon. This concludes my review, if you have specific questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I don't routinely watch my reviews. If you found the review helpful consider reviewing another article here or at WP:GAC so as to help with the backlog. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bad Seed[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to see what improvements the article needs. The article is still a work in prgress. i would also like to know what the article can be rated as.

Thanks, DaisyPearlTT (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Comments from Maria

I'm glad this article is a work in progress. :) Although I understand it's part of a school assignment, and some pressure may be on you to improve the article quickly, much more work is needed before it can be re-assessed to a higher class rating. Some examples of what needs to be done:

  • The plot summary needs expansion, but not too much! A few paragraphs would do. Please see WP:WAF: "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections."
  • Is it possible to get an image depicting the first edition cover of the novel? First ed. covers are not required, but they are preferred over later editions for their encyclopedic value.
  • Rather than "Primary Theme", expand this section to encompass all "Themes" -- including the primary one. With such a complex novel, more than one thematic element can be explored here.
  • Do not list the novel's reviews, such as what is currently done under "Reviews of the Novel" -- bullet points are depreciated in such sections, where prose would suit much better. "James Kelly from The New York Times wrote that..." etc. Also consider changing this section to "Critical reception" or something similar.
  • Books, newspapers, and films should all be italicized.
  • More third party, academic sources are needed, although I believe this has already been pointed out on the talk page.

Hope this helps, and good luck, María (habla conmigo) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Peacemakers[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i'm a newbie and curious about the quality of my article.

Thanks, Scewing (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Comments from Maria

This is a good start, and as such I've added the Visual Arts WikiProject to the article's talk page and assessed it as start-class. :) If you aren't familiar with WikiProjects, they're a great way to find similar articles and see what "standards" may be in place to help develop information. Take a look at higher assessed articles based on paintings, like The Third of May 1808, Gettysburg Cyclorama, and The Swimming Hole for inspiration. Here are some suggestions for expansion:

  • More historical information is needed. More, more, more. I'm guessing that there's so much more to be said about this painting. The war was almost over at this point, so what was the mood during the meeting? Why is it called "The Peacemakers"? (This may seem obvious, but definitely not to non-American readers, or even some Americans!)
  • What does the painting depict? A description of the scene is needed, as is the composition. I know nothing about art, so I can't help with the technicalities, I'm afraid.
  • What does the painting display as far as the different men's countenances? Body language seems to be important here... do art historians have anything to say about that?
  • Is it known what the artist wished to impart to the viewer, or why he chose to paint this scene in the first place? Healy's article says that he painted Lincoln on more than one occasion, so how do these depictions compare and contrast?
  • The "Legacy" section needs far more context. What have others said about it? Why is it so important?

Hope these comments help, and good luck, María (habla conmigo) 18:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know if anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the article before I take it to FAC. I feel it's pretty complete and well written, but others might be able to spot errors or think of something that's missing. It is already a GA.

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by--shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: unless otherwise indicated, maintain current formatting and wikilinks.
  1. Canadian Gold? See here.<ref name=cc>{{cite web|url=|title=CRIA - Kelly Clarkson releases|publisher=[[Canadian Recording Industry Association]]|date=2010-01-05|accessdate=2010-04-26}}</ref>
  2. Check "Long Shot" as next single (recent change). Not mentioned elsewhere in article.
  1. "The song was released as the album's third in August 2009." The song was released as the album's third single in August.
  2. "It was one of six songs Clarkson and Tedder wrote together in early 2008 during one of Tedder's first song writing collaborations with another artist." It was one of six songs Clarkson and Tedder wrote together in early 2008, during one of Tedder's first song writing collaborations with another artist.
  3. "Clarkson claimed that Tedder had already used the musical arrangement on "Halo", a song featured on Beyoncé Knowles's album I Am... Sasha Fierce, which was released in November 2008." Clarkson claimed that Tedder had used the same musical arrangement on "Halo", a song featured on Beyoncé Knowles's album I Am... Sasha Fierce, which was released in November.
  4. "She publicly criticized Tedder for providing the arrangement to Knowles without informing her, stating that the public would assume that she had stolen it;" Some personal pronoun confusion over she/her: Clarkson or Knowles? Try She publicly criticized Tedder for providing his arrangement—without informing her—to Knowles so that the public would assume she [Clarkson] had stolen it.
  5. "and the album had begun to be pressed." and it was being pressed.
  6. ""Cry" to be released as the third single instead" "Cry" to be released in its place
  7. "It was used as the "exit song" on the fifth season of So You Think You Can Dance.[1]" Not mentioned in main text, move ref there when it is included or delete from Lead if not used.
  8. "In September 2009 she performed the song" In September she performed the song
  9. "on the The View the following month," Too many 'the'? on The View in October,
  10. "On the Billboard Hot 100, the song peaked at number 13, being her 11th top twenty hit at the time on the U.S..[2]" On the Billboard Hot 100, the song peaked at number 13, becoming her 11th top twenty hit. End phrase is redundant: its still her 11th hit regardless if others have followed since. Also put a nbsp; between number and numeral. Move ref to appropriate place in main text if needed—I think its the same ref as [49]?
Background and release
  1. ""Already Gone" is one of five songs co-written by Kelly Clarkson and Ryan Tedder, lead singer of OneRepublic, to appear on Clarkson's fourth studio album All I Ever Wanted.[3][4]" Currently reads as if five Clarkson-Tedder songs are on the album. Checking the standard release of the album I only detect three: "Already Gone", "If I Can't Have You" and "Impossible". What are the other two?
  2. "for which Tedder received co-writer and producer credits,[6]" which Tedder co-wrote and co-produced,[6] Note: this ref does not cover co-producer nor producer credit.
  3. "with anyone else ... We wrote about" with anyone else [...] We wrote about Brackets indicate that its your ellision and not in original. Check other quotes for similar.
  4. Link MTV first time in text. De-link second time (in next paragraph/section) and any subsequent in main text.
  5. "it was unfortunate that the two songs sound exactly the same, but that her's and Knowles' melodies on the two songs are different.[10] that although the two songs unfortunately sounded the same, they had different melodies.[10] Paraphrase her discussion.
  6. What does Knowles say?
  1. Check sound sample description, "A 39-second sample of the" If true this breaches the 30s or 10% guideline. Album version is 4:41 so 10% is 28.1 s. Sample appears to be 26 s, so adjust description.
Music video
  1. "Clarkson's official website announced July 22, 2009 that the video was almost completed and would premiere the following week.[20]" Trivial statement: cut to the chase. Combine with next sentence to produce... The video was uploaded to Clarkson's official website on July 27.[21]
  2. Who did Kahn battle with? Currently this could by interpreted that he battled with Clarkson! The Lead claims he had problems with RCA but this section gives no such mention. Fix one or the other.
Live performances
  1. What is meant by a "diva-esque" version? Her performance is later described as "the simpler acoustic setup". Some further paraphrasing of her meaning is needed.
  2. Some re-ordering and re-wording is needed in this section. Where possible information should be chronological and only notable 'first performances' should be described. Paragraph two is particularly overloaded with: she sang it here and it was broadcast and she sang it there and it was broadcast...
Critical reception
  1. Wikilink first not second, give Bill Lamb second time as Lamb.
Chart performance
  1. Check recent changes here. Change peaked at #3 to peaked at number three. Note:contains a nbsp; in between number and three. Trim redundant statements & repetitions.
  2. Update Australian year end pos: see here. Information incorrectly added to the Austrian chart and gives incorrect position.
  3. Only gold in Canada not platinum? See here
  4. Standardise chart entry alignments: all centred or all left?
Release history
  1. Citation still needed.
All bare urls need full wikifying. Note: numbers below refer to the current ref numbers and may be changed subsequently.
  1. Insert | work = Reality Rocks
  2. Same as [49]?
  3. ASCAP in full & linked with (ASCAP), not linked, after it.
  4. Fix publisher = [[Digital Spy|Digital Spy Ltd]]
  5. Add | publisher = Paul Carlucci ([[News Corporation]])
  6. De-link second (& subsequent) appearance of any previously linked articles.
  7. Replace current publisher with publisher = [[Canadian Broadcasting Centre]] (CBC) | work = [[CBC News]]
  8. Check accessdate: same as date of the article. Since this article was created on 31 October 2009, by you, this seems to be an error. Check other accessdate values.
  9. Not sure about this ref: could be a blog site? Use another ref to verify that "Cry" was preferred as album's third single.
  10. Needs publisher.
  11. De-link MTV here.
  12. Who published the Sheet Music? The copyright owners are to be acknowledged.
  13. According to OttoBib, here, wikipedia should use {{cite book | last = Clarkson | first = Kelly | title = Kelly Clarkson - All I Ever Wanted | publisher = Twayne Publishers | location = Boston | year = 2009 | isbn = 1423481321 }} Wikilink as needed.
  14. publisher is The New York Times Company?
  15. publisher is William Casey?
  16. Don't like the scrolling display. In any case one of her works, "Walk Away", is not cited by Kahn at this site. Need a better ref.
  17. Not needed: see above.
  18. Fix { into |
  19. De-link The Hartford Courant and Tribune Company. Previously linked in refs.
  20. De-link Rolling Stone.
  21. Use pipe to Us Weekly.
  22. Expand ABC add (ABC) afterwards.
  23. ABC again? To Good Morning America again. I can't see why one of these is not enough.
  24. Insert | publisher = Eddy Hartenstein ([[Tribune Company]])
  25. See [5] above but de=link any previously linked.
  26. accessdate for transcript?
  27. Title duplicated? Publisher needed.
  28. Italics for album titles. Publisher.
  29. A note near the bottom of site states (Editing by Sheri Linden at Reuters). It does not indicate that Linden is the author of the review nor whether she's at Billboard. Is she editing her own article previously published by Billboard?
  30. Currently (week ending May 1, 2010) charting at Number Three on Adult Contemporary but its not easy to see any other charting here. The use of the visualizer is problematic. Accessdate may need to be updated for the recent charting. Aside: perhaps the Allmusic display of Billboard's charts could be used? Try here. See also refs [2], [52], [53], [54].
  31. Does not give charting nor release date of this single. What is it referencing?
  32. Different title. Different date.
  33. Also [53]&[54]: see [49] above.
  34. "|format=PDF |pages=2, 4" |format = [[Personal Document Format]] (PDF) |pages=2, 4, 11
  35. del extraneous "and was". Add in | work = Australian charts portal. Differentiates from other similar chart portals published by Hung Medien.
  36. Add (ARIA) in appropriate place.
  37. Add New Zealand charts portal (see [56] for rationale).
  38. Add Austrian charts portal (as before).
  39. Fix bare url.
  40. Actually goes to Dutch charts portal see [64] and not to Belgian charts portal (Ultrapop 50), try here.
  41. Fix bare url.
  42. Doesn't go where I expected: just general charts list. No direct information on Clarkson. See also [49]
  43. Fix bare url.
  44. Does not deliver.
  45. Fix bare url.
  46. Wikify. Add | language = German. Only one of this or [74] is needed.

Done.--shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bronx High School of Science[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to submit it for a GA soon, and would like to clean it up before then. Any detailed comments to make this article as clean and top quality as possible would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Iankap99 User:Iankap99 00:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a long-time fan of Wolverines, so I will give you a few minutes. This article is a long way from being ready for WP:GAC.

  • The most glaring issue to me is WP:V. I would need to see at least one inline citation per paragraph before I would take this article seriously.
  • Also the sourcing for many of the lists is unclear.
  • Convert any ALL CAPS titles to normal font.
  • Eliminate deadlinks
  • I must say that I am surprised not to see a Latin motto.
  • I believe the name of the yearbook is suppose to be italicized.
  • File:Bxscience old.jpg claims a {{PD-old}}, but the building is noted to be a 1918 structure. Licensing must be invalid.
  • The images are low quality, but this will not hold up GA. Just check around for better images and swap them in as you are able.
  • WP:CAPTIONs should end in periods if they are complete sentences and should not if they are not.
  • If you could merge some of the choppy paragraphs, the writing would seem more professional.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Combined small cell lung carcinoma[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been through virtually every reference of substance I can find on the topic, and have attempted to condense it and present the accumulated knowledge as best I can.

No doubt there are still some problems with it, but in truth, I believe it is just about finished up to the very limit of my own capabilities, and it needs attention from someone who is truly an expert on the subject (lung cancer pathology).

I am, or course, still willing to work hard on it, but would be greatly appreciative of detailed comments on what I can do to improve it. A fresh pair (or several pairs) of eyes, I guess.

With my thanks in advance, and my very best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference quality is great but I'd like to see some secondary sources. Prose quality is good. Lede section needs to be longer as it does not adequately summarize the entire article. Reference formatting in not consistent; I suggest that all cites use a citation template. Naked urls esp need to be formatted. Cite 9 is broken. ==mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of mav's comments above. This is good overall and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The only image seems to have copyright issues - File:Combined SCLC-SqCC.jpg is on Commons under a free license, but the image clearly is labeled copyright 2006 Elsevier Inc. in the lower left corner. Since Elsevier holds the copyright, it cannot be used here. If it is your image, but the copyright has been assigned to ELsevier, then you need to get permission to use it here. See WP:IMAGE#Finding_images_on_the_Internet. Anything produced by an agency of the federal government (NIH, etc.) would be free, or it might be if you contacted someone who has published nice images that they would release them under a free license.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded as mav noted. 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
  • I would also say that the lead can be written at a more general level as an overview for the non-specialist.
  • Look for places to add wikilinks - for example the eight major taxa of lung carcinomas - the first one at least Squamous cell carcinoma has an article and I am guessing all of them do.
  • Per the Manual of style (MOS) numbers under ten are generally spelled out (so "eight major taxa", not "8 major taxa").
  • Also per the MOS articles usually use "percent" instead of %
  • The article has several places with short (one or two sentence) paragraphs. These usually interrupt the flow of the prose and if possible they should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I have also looked at the article Large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype and notice some ofthe same issues there - I will be reviewing it next and for completeness will re-use some of this review there. Thanks for your work on this important topic.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

February 2009 tornado outbreak[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it was twice offered up for FA-class by other editors, and having never accomplished a featured article and only participated in one FAR, I am looking for feedback as to how to fix this article into FA quality before I proceed in trying to improve it to that level.

Thanks, Ks0stm (TCG) 19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is really close to FA-quality. Seems to have improved significantly since the last FAC. My only suggestion would to make absolutely certain that all the valid concerns mentioned during both FACs have been addressed. Also, I noticed that many inline cites are duplicated; you should use ref=name to group those. Pressure gradient is a disambig that needs to be fixed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the disambiguation link. About the concerns over prose in the second FAC, does this article still need a copyedit? I've never been a great prose writer myself, so this is an area beyond my expertise. Ks0stm (TCG) 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

  • First some general comments - there are several places where units need to be converted to metric - for example in the lead there is ... causing wind and water damage, and dumping six inches of snow in central and eastern Massachusetts. or in the Long Grove tornado section there is Two of the victims, the parents of a 13-year old girl, were killed when the tornado picked the three of them out of their home and threw them 400 feet.[57] as well as One mobile home was thrown 100 yards from its foundation.[51] (This is not a complete list)
  • Another thing that FAC requires is that all the little details are taken care of and things to be done consistently. So for example in the Spanish Fort area tornado in the table, miles per hour is spelled out Winds within the tornado were estimated at 95 to 100 miles per hour (153 to 160 km/h). but the rest of the article uses mph (for example the very mext tornado in the table The maximum width of the tornado was estimated to be 100 yd (91 m) with winds up to 90 mph (140 km/h).
  • This might be a WikiProject guideline, but the WP:MOS#Units_of_measurement says In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in round brackets....However, where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence.
  • Is it "mid-west" as in This squall line continued to renew its energy as it passed through the mid-west, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England,... or "Midwest" as in The warning included parts of the Deep South, Ohio Valley, Midwest, and Appalachians.
  • The article covers a lot of geography and there are places where it would help to be clearer which state is being discussed. For example in the Storm development section, the paragraph on the Lone Grove tornado never says it was in Oklahoma. I know it says the state in the lead, but here the previous paragraph ends with tornados in three states In addition to the five Oklahoma tornadoes, three tornadoes struck northern sections of Texas and one tornado hit Springfield, Missouri.[6][7] then follows this with the somewhat vague paragraph starting The most significant tornado, eventually called the Lone Grove Tornado, first touched down in southeast Jefferson County at 6:48 pm CST (00:48 UTC) near the Red River.[5]
  • The external link checker shows several dead links.
  • The language is not bad, but it tends to be a little choppy and it doesn't flow as well as it could in many places. I will pick one paragraph as an example.
The tornado left devastation across a swath over a half-mile wide. Buildings were reportedly thrown off their slabs and the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. A furniture store and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.[45] One of the mobile home parks contained 40 homes, leaving close to 100 people homeless.[49][50] One mobile home was thrown 100 yards from its foundation.[51] The glass lobby of the UPS building was shattered.[45][49] A total of 114 residences were destroyed by the tornado in Lone Grove.[52]
    • First sentence - needs conversion factor for half-mile. Also the length of the tornado's path (35 miles (56 km)) is given two paragraphs previously. These two pieces of information seem to me like they belong together. For the rest of the paragraph - it is often useful to go from the general to the specific. If that were the case, I think I would start with the 114 residences destroyed in Lone Grove, then give specifics. The next item could probably be the two mobile home parks destroyed, one of which contained 40 homes and left 100 homeless. Then the mobile home being thrown 100 yards (spell out and conversion needed) could be next (most specific). A nice transition to the next part might be the sentence Buildings were reportedly thrown off their slabs and the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. I might say something like "Throughout Lone Grove buildings were thrown off their slabs; the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. instead. Then the commercial damage could follow - I think I would take the furniture store out of the mobile home parks sentence and put it with other commerical items.
  • Another place where this approcach would help is in the Aftermath section - part of this is also providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR. So for example in this part of the section A concert featuring Chris Cagle and other local musicians at Heritage Hall in Ardmore raised over $18,000 to benefit Carter County tornado victims.[133][134] Another concert set up by the Salvation Army raised $2,300 more for victims.[134] The Department of Homeland Security offered to assist with the reconstruction of homes and businesses and to support those who were left homeless. President Barack Obama passed along his condolences and best wishes to the victims of the tornado.[127] the first sentence's sources date it to March 13-16, well after the tornado. The second sentence is March 16. The next two sentences are February 11. I can see grouping the federal repsonses together in a paragraph, or doing it chronologically, but this way makes little sense to me.
  • When I looked at current ref 127 to see the date, I read it. The article says tornado warnings were issued 35 minutes ahead of the tornado in Lone Grove and that people did not seek shleter, perhaps why at least some of the fatalities occurred. I did not see this in the article, but it seems worthy of inclusion.
  • I would get a copyedit - there are volunteers at WP:PR/V that will help with this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am copying your comments to the article's talk page so I can use it as a to-do list, of sorts. Thanks for the check. Ks0stm (TCG) 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for an WP:FAC nomination next month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems to have all or nearly all of the information needed, but I have issues with the organization of the article and the language is rough in places and could use a copyedit. I am working on an article with Dincher, but could copyedit this after that is ready for PR. Here are some suggestions for improvement (by the way, a lot of this seems oddly familiar ;-) )

  • General comment - at this point, there seems to be a standard model to follow for Millennium Park articles, and most of my concerns with organization arise from this not following that model (although each feature of the park is unique and each article will be too). My feeling is that the Jay Pritzker Pavilion article is the closest to a model article for this theater that can be found. Both are performing arts venues in the same park, they even share backstage facilities and were both affected by the Montgomery Ward height restrictions.
  • The lead sentence needs some work - the uninterrupted string of bold names at the beginning is a bit overwhelming and linking USA seems a bit much - how about something like
    • The Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance (also known as the Harris Theater for Music and Dance, the Harris & Harris Theater or, most commonly, the Harris Theater) is a 1525-seat theater for the performing arts located along the northern edge of Millennium Park on Randolph Street in the Loop community area of Chicago in Cook County, Illinois, USA.
      • O.K. I think you only wanted me to remove the USA link and leave most of the rest. Correct me if I am wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Since we are told the Harrises names in the first sentence, refering to them elsewhere as Mr and Mrs Harris is a bit odd. It also does not follow the Pritzker model (which uses Jay and Cindy Pritzker, not Mr and Mrs Pritzker) and I think the MOS says to use full names if at all possible.
  • This is just one example of why this needs a copyedit Among the regularly featured local small small- and medium-sized groups are ... - also needs to be consistent, some places talk about small- and medium-sized groups, others just medium-sized groups.
  • My biggest problem reading this is that the story is jumbled - again if this were to follow the Pritzker Pavilion model the article would start with the need for the theater, the architect and funding, and the construction details and cost. This information is mostly there, but in a variety of places and not in chronological order.
  • Obviously no model is perfect - the height restrictions can be covered in the section on background, design and construction (no need for a separate Controversies section). There does not seem to be enough here to have a separate Construction section, but those details in Specifications might fit better earlier in the article (like they are in the Construction section for the Pavilion article).
  • Seems underlinked in places - flyspace and fado could be linked, for example
  • The images are interesting but some of the captions do very little to help the reader understand what is being shown - for example in the Critical review section there are three images which need better captions - for example File:Harris_Theater_inside.jpg seems to be of the upper lobby and should be identified more clearly.
  • More examples of things I would move - take the prize the Theater won in 2005 and move it to Critical review with the prize Joan Irving won (perhaps call this section Reception instead)
  • Move the sentences on how the Music of the Baroque group was involved in planning section up to the design / construction part (whatever it winds up being called) (these need a copyedit too).
  • Make sure spelling is consistent - usually "theater" but sometimes "theatre"
  • I am not sure a Twitter page meets the WP:EL criteria - assume it is linked from the main Theater website anyway
    • I am not sure how to interpret policy related to this either. I think someone at FAC will have a stronger understanding and give us better advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure if there is more information on this, but I was unclear on what body governs the running of the theater - can a bit more on the board or group be added? I was focusing on other things, so I may have missed it

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replied above - while it looks better on a quick read, I still think it would benefit from a copyedit and could do one in the next 2 weeks or so, if you want. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been through virtually every reference of substance I can find on the topic, and have attempted to condense it and present the accumulated knowledge as best I can.

No doubt there are still some problems with it, but in truth, I believe it is just about finished up to the very limit of my own capabilities, and it needs attention from someone who is truly an expert on the subject (lung cancer pathology).

I am, or course, still willing to work hard on it, but would be greatly appreciative of detailed comments on what I can do to improve it. A fresh pair (or several pairs) of eyes, I guess.

With my thanks in advance, and my very best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well done article on an important topic. I have also looked at the article Combined small cell lung carcinoma and notice some of the same issues here - I hope that it is OK that I have re-used some of that review here. You write well - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • It is important to provide context to the reader and also to avoid or explain jargon wherever possible. This is done nicely in the article in several places, for example Approximately 98% of lung cancers are carcinoma, which are tumors composed of cells with epithelial characteristics.[7] but other places like ...wherein at least 10% of the cells contain distinctive eosinophilic whorled perinuclear inclusions composed of intermediate filaments,[1][2] ... are a bit difficult for the lay reader to follow
  • Wikilinks help here too - eosinophilic and even though perinuclear inclusion is a red link, perinuclear could be linked to Perinuclear space like this [[Perinuclear space|perinuclear]], so the reader would just see perinuclear (apologies if you already knew the WP:pipe trick)
  • Any chance for a free image? See WP:IMAGE#Finding_images_on_the_Internet. Anything produced by an agency of the federal government (NIH, etc.) would be free, or it might be if you contacted someone who has published nice images that they would release them under a free license.
  • The current lead is too short and needs to be expanded so it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
  • I would also say that the lead can be written at a more general level as an overview for the non-specialist.
  • Look for places to add wikilinks - for example the eight major taxa of lung carcinomas - the first one at least Squamous cell carcinoma has an article and I am guessing all of them do.
  • Per the Manual of style (MOS) numbers under ten are generally spelled out (so "eight major taxa", not "8 major taxa" and third, not 3rd).
  • Also per the MOS articles usually use "percent" instead of %
  • The article is a bit listy in places. Lists usually interrupt the flow of the prose and if possible they should be converted to regular prose (the microscopic characteristics list especially).
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase - so fix things like Microscopic characteristics of rhabdoid cells include[2][12][13]:
  • The refs are done fairly inconsistently. Titles of journals are italicized in some cases, and not in others, or the initials of authors seem to need periods following them (Doe, J.; Smith, R.) {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful here.
  • I also wonder that none of the references are available online - if they are (PubMed?) then please provide links.

Hope this helps and thanks for your work on this important topic too. 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 ><>°° 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Phil Collins discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have worked alot on it recently improving content, sourcing etc. at the flc review late last year the problems were the music videos were missing alot of directors and were unsourced. this has now been resolved. What do people think needs improving or adding etc?

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • shd be in the lists subsection. Sandman888 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have done some copyedits on the prose. Other points:-

  • The general reference "Phil Collins: Discography" (Rolling Stone) and specific reference [5] appear to go to the same online source.
  • The opening paragraph needs to be reorganised into sentences of reasonable length. I suggest: "The discography of solo releases by Phil Collins contains seven studio albums, one live album, two soundtrack albums, four compilation albums, forty-eight singles and a number of other appearances. Collins is an English singer-songwriter, drummer, keyboardist and actor who is best known as a drummer and vocalist for English progressive rock group Genesis. A Grammy and Academy Award–winning solo artist, Collins has sold more than 100 million records worldwide."
  • There seems to be some over-linking in this paragraph. Familiar terms, or where the meaning is obvious, should not be linked, e.g. singer-songwriter, drummer, keyboardist, studio albums, singles. Overlinking draws attention away from those terms where the link is genuinely useful.
  • Second, third and fourth paragraphs all begin "Collins..." try and find some variety of expression here. For example the third paragraph could read: "In early 1985 Collins released..." (The start of the second paragraph should be "Collins's")
  • You need to say briefly what "5x Platinum", "3x Platinum" etc mean. These terms are unfamiliar outside the music industry.
  • "In 1984 he also participated in Bob Geldof's Band Aid charity project, as well as playing drums on the Band Aid single Do They Know It's Christmas?." Is this information relevant to Collins's discography?
  • ""...Two Hearts" and a cover of "A Groovy Kind of Love", which became a UK and US number one." Which of these became a UK and US number one?
  • Instead of "The following year", why not say "In 1989..."? Then you won't need "at the end of 1989" at the sentence end.
  • After 1998 we lose track of time somewhat. For example, "Collins' next single, "You'll Be in My Heart" is undated. Was this his last disc (apart from tributes and compilations)?
  • There are uncited statements at the ends of paragraphs two, three and four'.
  • The charts look good. I can't really comment on these, through lack of knowledge.

I hope these comments are useful. Please consider helping the peer review process by reviewing one of the other articles listed in the backlog (See WP:PR page) Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you so much! sooooo helpful and makes alot of sense :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Traditional African Medicine[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am new to Wikipedia, writing this article as a project for my Shaping of the Modern World class, and know that there is a lot that can be changed and made better in my article. Any and all comments are welcomed and greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Mitchel2 (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

First off, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your work! I will be glad to go through the article and give some feedback. I see that you are new to editing so I'll sprinkle in guidelines and protocols as we go. If my review is too rudimentary please forgive me and let me know. It'll take me a little time to go through the article due to its length and my own time constraints but I'll give it a thorough once-over. I'm also available for discussion if you wish.


  • Please see WP:LEAD, this is a good explanation of what the lead should be. In short the lead should summarize the entire article, discussing every point brought up in the article. A good lead will give a reader a skeletal view of the subject. The rest of the article fills in the details. The lead should not bring up information that is not found in the article. Since I haven't read through the article I'm not sure if your lead is comprehensive. Usually an article of this length would have around two solid paragraphs for a lead. That's a general rule not a strict guideline though.
  • This sentence is a run-on sentence and is it a quote?
"According to the World Health Organization (WHO) the definition of traditional medicine may be summarized as the sum total of all the knowledge and practical, whether explicable or not, used in the diagnosis, prevention and elimination of physical, mental, or social imbalance and relying exclusively on practical experience and observation handed down from generation to generation, whether verbally or in writing."
If it is a quote of WHO then there should be quotations marks. If it is a paraphrase then consider breaking the sentence into two sentences. It's just a bit wordy.
  • I don't want to talk a lot about writing since you may be a better writer than I am and because you are asking for more content review, but a good rule with writing is that less is more. If you can say it 10 words rather than 15 then use 10 words. Try to convey your message using a few words as possible and make each word count.
  • I don't think you need an exhaustive list of every ailment the healer can cure. Instead pick 5 or 6 that convey the wide variety of illnesses that healers address and leave the rest of the list for the body of the article. Remember it's a summary in the lead.
  • It seems to me that you will likely need to rewrite the lead. I would concentrate on the definition, then discuss history and its connection to religion. In the second paragraph I would go into treatments and diagnoses and end with thoughts on traditional practitioners and their relationship with western partitioners. The info currently in the lead is good but it doesn't really fit the lead criteria set up in the Manual of Style, which is Wikipedia's (WP) guiding principles of article writing and formatting.


  • Watch combining tenses in your paragraphs. In the colonial section I moved the present tense information to the end of the paragraph and kept the past tense information together.
  • I was confused by this statement:
"Due to this, recent interest has been expressed in integrating traditional African medicine into the continent's national health care systems."
How can you have a continent with national health care systems? The wording seems a bit odd. Is there an African Continental agency that is mandating this be included in each nation's health care system? This should be clarified.
  • This is a very important sentence,
"However, the highly sophisticated technology involved in modern medicine, which is beginning to integrate into Africa's health care system, could possibly destroy Africa's deep-seated cultural values in its traditional medical practice."
I, as a reader unfamiliar with this subject, want to know more about this statement. How will advanced technology harm or even destroy Africa's traditional medicine practice? Will this be discussed later? The section is left hanging with a statement that is begging for clarification. That's all I can do now, more to come later. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


  • You have a rather long quote in this section. See WP:QUOTE for guidelines on how to use quotes. Long quotes like this are somewhat discouraged but it is a case by case issue. Just be sure you can justify the necessity of having the entire quote vs paraphrasing part or all of what was said.
  • I'm not sure about the image of an antiquated X-Ray machine. The topic of the section is on the use of mysticism and divination to achieve a diagnosis rather than medical science. Even though the picture is of a very rudimentary and outdated machine it seems to me to be an example of what tradition African medical diagnosis is not.


  • I was confused by this sentence,
"For example, raw beef is soaked in the drink of an alcoholic to induce vomiting and nausea and cure alcoholism."
Do you mean that the beef is soaked in the drink of an alcoholic person? Or is it dipped in an alcoholic drink? Or is it dipped in alcohol (isopropyl for example)?
  • Here is a vague statement,
"The weather and events are also said to be manipulated by diviners by the use of plants."
What events are you referring to?
  • I note that you have several bold words in this section. SeeMOS:BOLD for thoughts on using bold and italics. If you feel it is justified to use bold text (or any text modifications) then please do let me discourage you, just make sure it is consistent with these guidelines.
  • Great image of the tree with the stripped bark. Very topical!
  • Regarding linking, see WP:LINK, you want to link terms not commonly used in English, for the most part you do a good job of linking. One of the guidelines of linking is that you only need to link the term once, perhaps twice if the article is particularly long. The Ibos people is linked twice, I delinked the second mention of them.
  • You also have a small quote in the Magic section, who says this quote? You should ascribe it to someone if you're going to directly quote it.
  • I would watch out for terms like "peculiar" in this sentence:
"Richard Onwuanibe gives one peculiar form of magic the name 'Extra-Sensory-Trojection.'"
Using "peculiar" can put a negative spin or bias on the sentence. WP:NPOV is a very important part of WP. I feel that your article is very balanced so I only bring this up for future reference.


  • Watch for consistency in capitalizing "God". Normally it is capitalized but not always.
  • I'm wondering if this information could get folded into previous sections. You discuss the role religion plays in a few previous sections. Something to think about anyway.
  • Another long quote, see above.

Traditional medicinal practitioners

  • I'm not sure this sentence is correct,
" In traditional African societies, the payment for a treatment contributes to how effective it will be."
The way it reads seems to indicate that the more someone pays the more effective the treatment will be. I don't think that's right but I could be wrong so I don't want to change it.
  • What other forms of payments were or are being used other than monetary?
  • In the "Learning the trade" sub-section you use the term "you" to refer to people desiring to become healers. Consider a different term that is more impersonal or third person.
  • This sentence might be overstating things a little,
"Without these traditional practitioners, many people would go untreated and the results would undoubtedly be fatal."
You've listed several ailments treated by traditional medical partitioners that are not fatal.
  • Is TMP in the table referring to "Traditional Medical Practitioners"? If so you should spell this out or clarify in a note under the table. It is confusing otherwise.
  • "...Northern pharmaceutical companies..." - Do you mean "western"? Also why is Northern capitalized?

Relationship with western medicine

  • "Many Western societies do not agree with the traditional practices of medicine in Africa and believe that the continent would be better served by integrating Western practices into African's health care system more wholly."
There is a concept in WP called weasel wording. The idea is that editors (yours truly included) have a tendency to state information using terms like, "many people believe...", or "experts claim...", or "many western societies do not agree...". There is no credible support for the information just a vague attribution to something. This sentence is an example of weasel wording. Consider rewording so as to avoid this mistake.
  • See WP:LIST for thoughts on lists within articles. Usually lists are to be avoided when a textual alternative is available. I think the list in this section could be converted into prose and I would suggest doing that.
  • Also to keep the article balanced and avoid bias I would recommend discussing areas in which western medicine has helped Africa. Perhaps even how western medicine has helped traditional medicinal practitioners. It seems as though the opposite is certainly true, I wonder if traditional medical practitioners have been aided by western medical advances?


  • References are always difficult primarily because there are so many different ways to do them. The most important thing is to pick a format and stick with it consistently. See WP:CITE for good formats and thoughts on references. Also see WP:VERIFY for information on the credibility of sources.
  • Your format looks just fine except that you should put in page numbers in you in-line citations, which show up in the "Notes" section. Referring to the book is good but specifying which page(s) the information is found on is a huge help to readers and necessary when citing books. Sorry about that, I know that will take a lot of work.
  • In the References section I would recommend using a template like {{cite book}}. This will make the presentation of the information much more professional and you wont have those URLs. See the Winter Olympic Games referencing as an example of this. You can hit "edit" in the section listing all the books and see how the references are formatted.


  • This is a great start, you have really done a lot of good work and made a great contribution to WP. You do have some work to do to make it consistent with the Manual of Style but that is more cosmetic than anything else. The content is solid, the references are credible, and the information is very encyclopedic (as opposed to so many articles about South Park and Wrestlemania). Please keep up the good work, if you can clean up the issues listed above I would strongly recommend you nominate the article at WP:GAC in the hopes that it could become a Good Article. If you're interested in this make sure it meets the Good Article criteria first. Well done and keep up the good work. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns regarding this review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Second comments by H1nkles

I was asked by the nominating editor to review the article again now that work has been done to improve it.

  • I would remove the list of specific diseases and injuries that can be cured with traditional medicine from the Lead. The Lead is to be a summary of the article so keep it more summary in nature.
  • I would also add a bit about the history of traditional medicine, a summary of the various treatments used, and it's relationship (or lack thereof) with western medicine. This will help to make the Lead more complete and a better summary of the article. A two to three paragraph lead would be sufficient.
  • The references look a lot better! Good job there.
  • Reviewer Jezhotwells indicated that you need to trim out redundancies and tighten up the prose. I agree with this. One area of clean up would be towards the end of the article. After the table in the "Traditional medical practitioners" section you discuss the cost and availability of Western medication, you go on to relate Dr. Lambo's assertions about the medicinal possibilities that are being explored by Traditional practitioners and how these medications could even be effective against AIDS. The next section is about the problems of using Western medicine in rural Africa and then there's another paragraph about possible cooperation between Western pharmaceutical companys and traditional African medicine. I feel like this last paragraph could be combined with the one in the previous section, similar points are being made and you could condense the information to help stream line the article a bit.
  • I see that you have been working to condense the Spirituality and Religion sections, that was another place where I would have said there was overlap. I think you've made good strides there.
  • I've been doing a bit of copy editing, just to tighten up the prose and remove unnecessary words.
  • I would recommend taking a look at what else Jezhotwells suggested, along with my previous review. If you can knock off those things then I think you should be in good shape. The article is already looking much better, more compact and organized. Keep up the good work and let me know on my talk page if you have any specific questions or concerns. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Birgitte SB's neutrality concern

  • I have a major concern over the neutrality of this article. From what little I have read about the situation in South Africa, the current political push to see sangomas given recognition similar to medical doctors is extremely controversial. I was surprised to no mention of the most notable controversy in South Africa traditional medicine. Where the Health Minister announced that antiretroviral pills are toxic and encouraged all HIV positive people to stop taking them and instead treat themselves with the traditional remedies of garlic and beetroot. The article as it stands is too biased to meet Wikipedia standards.--BirgitteSB 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rogue River (Oregon)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC in the near future. I think it's ready, but past experience has taught me that I don't see everything and that the advice of others is invariably helpful.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments This looks very good to me - here are some nitpicks through Geology, more in the next 24 hours.

  • The external link checker finds one dead link...
  • Would it make sense to add "west" to the first sentence, so The Rogue River in the southwestern part of the U.S. state of Oregon flows about 215 miles (346 km) from the Cascade Range [west] to the Pacific Ocean. If this makes the sentence too complex, could the general direction of the flow be made clearer in the first paragraph of the lead?
  • The "also volcanic" at the end of the third sentence seems a little awkward, but I am unable to come up with a better formulation
  • I have read elsewhere that 8 rivers were originally named in the text of the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, but not all 8 became Wild and Scenic Rivers (Pine Creek did not) and some rivers that were not explicitly named in the act still officially became wild and scenic rivers in the first group officially named. All this is to say that ... it was one of the original eight rivers included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. might be better as was one of the original eight rivers named in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. This is verb used in the article body (named)
  • Some people at FAC dislike verb plus ing constructions (I am OK with them) - would After the war, settlers, expanding into remote areas of the watershed, established small farms along the river between Grave Creek and the mouth of the Illinois River. be better as After the war, settlers expanded into remote areas of the watershed and established small farms...?
  • In Course I would wikilink Crater Lake National Park
  • Add "the mouth at"? ...which included 84 miles (135 km) of the Rogue, from 7 miles (11.3 km) west of Grants Pass to 11 miles (18 km) east of [the mouth at] Gold Beach.[8]
  • Watershed section - this seems a little clunky after the National Forests secntence These and other forests cover about 83 percent of the basin;... Perhaps something like About 83 percent of the basin is covered by forests;.. or perhaps These are included in the 83 percent of the basin covered by forests;... I don't know...
  • I thought precipitation was in inches and mm (not cm)?
  • Geology - since chromium does not usually occur as the native metal, I think I would use "chromium ore" instead of "chrome" in The Josephine peridotite was a source of valuable chrome, mined in the region between 1917 and 1960.[24]

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. I'm knocking off for the night, and tomorrow will be mostly filled with real-life adventures, so no hurry on further comments (though they will be most welcome at any time). Finetooth (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
More comments
  • You are very welcome - here are more comments. I think Archeologists believe the first humans to inhabit the Rogue River region were nomadic hunters and gatherers.[26] reads smoother
  • It seems like there could be a better word chocie than "although" in Intermarriage was common, and although many dialects belonging to three different language groups were spoken in the region, many people knew more than one language.[27] Although seems to me to imply something unexpected, but knowing more than one language in an area with many dialects and three languages seems, um, expected.
I agree with you on all points and have made adjustments accordingly. This is very helpful, and any other suggestions will be appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet more comments
  • Sorry to be slow on my comments, but glad they are useful.
  • I had to reread this sentence about three times to really get it: In 1827 an HBC expedition led by Peter Skene Ogden made the first direct contact between whites and the inland Rogue River natives when, from the Klamath River basin to the south, he crossed the Siskiyou Mountains to look for beaver along Bear Creek and other streams in the Rogue Valley.[32] Perhaps split it into two? Or move the phrase "from the Klamath River basin to the south" elsewhere in the sentence?
  • Since there is already a note at the end of the sentence explaining this, would it help to add to the note that Coquin is French for "rogue"? Or am I underestimating the general reader here (Is it obvious)?
  • Could this be tightened a bit? The number of whites entering the Rogue River watershed greatly increased after 1846, when a party of 15 men led by Jesse Applegate developed a southern trail, an alternative to the Columbia River segment of the Oregon Trail, that could be used by emigrants headed for the Willamette Valley.[34] perhaps the last phrase could be something like the Oregon Trail; the new trail was used by emigrants headed for the Willamette Valley.[34]
  • Does this need a ref? As the white population increased and Indian losses of land, food sources, and personal safety mounted, bouts of violence upstream and down continued through 1854–55, culminating in the Rogue River War of 1855–56.
  • River mile and kilometer have already been defined earlier in the article so not needed here: Marial, at river mile (RM) 48 or river kilometer (RK) 77, is about 13 miles (21 km) upriver from Illahe and 21 miles (34 km) from Agness.[55]
  • I think this paragraph would be much clearer if it explicitly said that the hatcheries released fish In 1877, in connection with his commercial fishery, Hume built a hatchery at Ellensburg (Gold Beach)...he had salmon eggs shipped to it from the Elk Creek station.[67][n 3] One way to do this would be if amounts for any year or time period is known, then a sentence like "In 19xx, the hatchery released Y million salmon ..." could be added.
  • Lead says William L. Jess Dam is 158 miles upriver, but the article says 157 miles. Which is it?
  • Is notching going to be understood by most readers? In 2008, USACE notched the Elk Creek Dam and restored Elk Creek to its original channel.[91]
  • I think it would help to add the year (again) to The damaged dam was completely removed before construction of the Savage Rapids Dam [in 1921].[92]
  • EPA is used in Pollution, but not defined until the next section
  • Would it be possible to give an idea of what the temperature TMDLs are in Pollution?
  • Tighten? Salmonids found in the Rogue River downstream of Lost Creek Lake include Coho salmon, spring Chinook salmon, [and] fall Chinook salmon, [and] summer steelhead, and winter steelhead.
  • Make clearer that this is on the main stem of the Rogue itself? The longest run, northwest of Grants Pass, is "one of the best-known whitewater runs in the United States".[77]
  • Does Elk Creek enters the Rogue River 5 miles (8.0 km) downstream from Lost Creek Lake. need a ref?

Hope this helps, please let me know when this is at FAC, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

These too were all good suggestions, and I've made changes accordingly. The toughest was the TMDL question, for which there is no simple answer; I added an explanatory note that includes one kind of temperature limit in the TMDL and cites a specific source page that gives a more full explanation. Thank you very much for the review; it was quite helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

United States congressional delegations from Utah[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it lacks something. I'll eventually nominate this as a FLC. I've used United States congressional delegations from Indiana as a guide as it is the only congressional delegation list that is a FL. Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks comprehensive, well-organized, and generally well-illustrated. I have several suggestions, mostly about prose and style issues.

  • Senator should be capitalized when used immediately before someone's name; e.g., Senator John Doe, and Senate and House of Representatives should be capitalized. However, "senator" and other legislative titles are normally lowercased in other uses. For example, "Senators" in "Each state elects by popular vote two Senators statewide to serve for six years" should be changed to "senators". So should "Senator" in "The longest-serving Senator is Orrin Hatch... ". I see a lot more instances of incorrect capitalization in the lead and the captions. The Indiana article you mention has errors of this sort despite being FA.
  • "Before the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators were elected by the Utah State Legislature to two-year terms." - Would it be helpful to add the date, 1913, that the change occurred? I know you already included it in the main text, but maybe here too?
  • "but the territorial delegate was restricted from voting on legislation" - Tighten to "but the territorial delegate could not vote on legislation"?
  • I would shorten the subheads under "House of Representatives" to "Territory" and "State".
  • "Senator Hatch was re-elected in 2006 with 61.2% of the vote.[1] Senator Hatch was re-elected in 2004 with 68.7% of the vote." - Generally "percent" is preferred to % in simple cases like this. The symbol is sometimes preferred in scientific articles or in tables or lists with many repetitive instances.
  • "Every ten years, the... ". - Generally numbers from 10 up are written as digits unless they begin a sentence. In most cases, you seem to have used digits for big numbers, but this should be made consistent throughout the article. Here I think this should be 10, and I see other big numbers in the next paragraph of the "Representatives from the State of Utah" section like "thirty-two" that should be changed to digits for consistency.
  • Several paragraphs in the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source per paragraph (except for the lead) in order to meet WP:V.
  • Note 2: "Senator Smoot was seated in 1904, but on trail... " - "Trial" rather than "trail"? If you mean "trial", this is problematic because it might mean he was on trial in a court of law. Or was he on trial in a court of law? Would it be helpful to add to the note some brief explanation of why being a Mormon was considered a problem?
  • Note 3: "Wallace Bennett was not a candidate for re-election in 1974, and resigned early presumably to allow his successor to gain seniority over others elected in 1974." - Does this need further elaboration for foreigners? How does this seniority business work?
  • Note 4: "Cannon successfully contested the election" - Did he contest the election, or did he contest the governor's appointment? Also, wikilink polygamist?
  • Note 5: "Elected to fill the vacancy caused by the seat held by George Q Cannon being vacated by the House." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Elected to fill the opening created when the House vacated the seat held by George Q Cannon"
  • Note 6: "House of Representative voted not to seat Brigham Roberts for being a polygamist." - Suggestion: "On grounds that he was a polygamist, the House of Representatives voted not to seat Brigham Roberts."
  • The images look good. I would advise fleshing out the details on the licensing pages as much as possible. For example, the book from which the Frank Cannon image comes has two authors, a publisher, a title, and a specific publication date. It's good to include all of that so that future fact-checkers will have no trouble verifying the source even if the url goes dead.
  • Would it be possible to add one of the three women representatives to the column of mug shots?

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) 18:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Birmingham Americans[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like this to be certified as a Good Article and, with your help and guidance, as a Featured Article in the near future.

Thanks, Dravecky (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

  • The non-free use rationale for the ticket image appears to relate to the logo rather than the image.
 Not done: I'd appreciate any guidance to more proper wording for the fair-use rationale for this image, included both for its historical interest and to illustrate the organizational errors made by the new team, as noted in the cited text of the caption. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • Words such as "upstart" and "ill-fated" are a little provocative. Do you have a sources for these terms? If they are your own, I would recommend not using them (WP:POV).
      • upstart: The ESPN article "The apex of the World Football League", cited several times in the article, begins, "If you're interested in upstart football leagues, you've likely been enjoying this fall."[1] The phrasing is used in dozens of news reports about the WFL and other challengers to the NFL over the last four decades. (For example a 2009 article in The Star-Ledger about the new UFL noted, "Upstart football leagues, both renegade and developmental, have been crashing and burning for years. The World Football League failed in the 70s, the United States Football League failed in the 80s and Vince McMahon's XFL failed in 2001 after its inaugural season."[2] The exact phrase is used in dozens of reliable news sources including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Toronto Star, Boston Herald, Chicago Tribune, and many more.
      • ill-fated: The NFL's summary of the documentary Lost Treasures: The World Football League says "The World Football League - NFL Films takes a long look back at the World Football League (1974-75), the ambitious, but ill-fated endeavor that lasted only a season and a half before disappearing forever."[3] and contemporary reports from reliable sources including United Press International,[4] the Associated Press,[5], and the Toledo Blade.[6] A 1978 Chicago Tribune article behind a pay-wall uses the exact phrase "that ill-fated '75 season".
      •  Done: I've added citations to the article to reflect this usage in reliable sources. Also, I've removed "ill-fated" from the lede and added it, with citation, to the "Loss of franchise" section. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "Most of the team's assets were seized to pay back taxes and failed lawsuits to recover the signing bonus money kept the team in the headlines long after the WFL was itself defunct." The "and" conjunction is inappropriate, since the two halves of the sentence are unconnected. Suggest replace "and" with a semicolon.
  • Franchise history
    • Is it "Alabama Football, Inc." as per the lead, or "the Alabama Football, Inc. as here?
      •  Done. The extra 'the' was a typo, a remnant from an earlier draft that said simply "the team" instead of "Alabama Football, Inc.". - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Final sentence of first paragraph looks as though it should begin: "However, ..."
    • "Forty-two-year-old retired professional basketball player and former Atlanta Hawks head coach Richie Guerin was selected by Birmingham in the last round of that draft." Does this mean that the team hired a 42-year-old ex-basketball player as a footballer?
      •  Done. I've rewritten this sentence for clarity. Guerin was drafted, presumably as a joke, but apparently never signed with nor played for the Birmingham Americans. When American pro sports drafts were larger than they are now, it was not uncommon for pro sports team owners to use a late-round pick on a friend, relative, pet, or other novelty for ego, publicity, or to make some point. The cited AP story notes "there were laughs" when Guerin was drafted in the final round and it was almost certainly some combination of humor, attention-seeking, and fandom that drove the selection. And while Guerin was head coach of the Atlanta Falcons for nine years and Bill Putnam, majority owner of the team, was an Atlanta resident, I don't have reliable sourcing for Putnam's specific motivations. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Last sentence of second para: is this information relevant to this article?
      •  Done I do believe that this is relevant to the history of the Americans, especially given their labor, legal, and financial troubles but the sentence would be a far better fit in the "1974 season" section than the "Franchise history" section. Moved. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • First half perfection
    • Not sure that this heading is suitable - it has a "sports journal" rather than an encyclopedic feel.
    • Can a team "come back" from a scoreless situation?
      •  Done. I've rewritten the sentence to better describe the game situation. While the Southern California Sun did hold the Americans scoreless through three quarters, the Ams' defense was not as resolute and had allowed the Sun to score a touchdown in the second quarter. It was from this 7-point deficit that they came back to win 11-7. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Some of the prose in this section is rather informal. Problem phrases include "On the road", "road win", "in the win column", "braved rain and foul weather", "pulled out a [...] victory", "The Ams", etc There is nothing wrong with these phrases as such, but the overall tone is more that of a sports magazine than an encyclopedia and the overall neutrality of the article is affected.
      • A result, no doubt, of my being immersed in mid-1970s sports reporting for two weeks as I prepared this article. I've tightened up the prose a bit and would welcome a second look. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Second-half split: again, my chief concern in this generally well-written section is the journalistic tone, but I have a few specific queries:
    • What is a shutout?
      •  Done. The WP article to which I have now linked the term says, "In team sports, a shutout (a clean sheet in association football) refers to a game in which one team prevents the opposing team from scoring." - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Why are the Florida Blazers described as "destitute"?
      •  Done. The team was in abysmal financial shape, even compared to other WFL teams, owing money to a variety of private and governmental entities and did not even pay its players after mid-September. Unlike Birmingham which was drawing large, if declining, crowds, the Blazers home gate draw was woeful so the league forced a sale and forced the team to give up its remaining regular season home games. I've expanded on this a bit, with new references, and chosen a phrase quoted from one article rather than my synthesis word. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The program cover image is decorative, but you'll have a hard job making the case that it significantly increases readers' understanding of the article.
      •  Done I've added the reason (that it incorrectly shows that match as a Birmingham home game after the late schedule change) to the caption. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "With this victory, the team clinched a playoff spot and its increasing financial woes put the playing of the final regular season game in doubt." The "and" connector is wrong here, and "it" is not properly defined. Also, "playoff" for what?
    • "With whether this game would be played in doubt until the day of the contest..." Awkward phrasing. Try "With doubts as to whether this game would be played persisting until the day of the contest, ..." Then replace the "and" after "poor" with a semicolon.
      •  Done and done. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Playoffs
    • I think "receiving a bye" would be better than "waiting out"
    • Shouldn't the section actually mention that Birmingham won the World Bowl, e.g: "...Birmingham beat the Florida Blazers 22–21 and thus won the World Bowl"?
    • Overuse of emphasiser "just", as in "just 32,376 fans", "just five months", "just 12 games". Same problem to an extent earlier in the article. None of these "justs" are really necessary.
      •  Done.
  • Schedule and results
    • a key should explain the use of colors
    • Week numbers and attendance figures would look neater if aligned to the center of their columns
      •  Done, although I'm sure there is a more elegant way to accomplish this. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Financial fallout
    • Last sentence of first paragraph needs a citation
    • Can you explain "The suit detailed the $30,000 in state income withholding taxes..." Doesn't seem to make grammatical sense.
    • Two "pluses" in this sentence make for untidy prose
  • Loss of property: 60:40 split is between whom?
    •  Done. Rewritten for clarity. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Loss of players: information confused by reference to the Vulcans - why is this relevant here?
    •  Done by clarifying that this "including any of the Americans' player contracts". - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Loss of franchise
    • "The Vulcans would official secure the Birmingham franchise in April 1975" Should be "The Vulcans officially secured the Birmingham franchise in April 1975."
    • "just 12 games" again
  • Legacy: can you explain, perhaps earlier in the article, what a "World Bowl championship ring" is. Is this a gold ring worn on the finger, or what?
      •  Done by adding a wikilink to the championship ring article. It is, as you surmised, a gold ring to be worn on the finger. These are quite common in American professional sports and it hadn't occurred to me that the term might be unfamiliar to an international audience . - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all my specific points. I have done a little copyediting while reading through, but I still think the prose could do with some overall polish, preferably from someone who knows more about American football than I do. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestions and guidance are deeply appreciated. I would be grateful if you could review the comments I've posted above as I am still uncertain how to proceed on these points. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Zoni, John (December 3, 2009). "The apex of the World Football League". ESPN. Retrieved April 28, 2010. 
  2. ^ Wentworth, Bridget (June 8, 2009). "New area United Football League franchise to play in New York, knows it can't compete with NFL". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved April 28, 2010. 
  3. ^ "NFL Network Schedule - Friday, April 30, 2010". NFL Network. Retrieved April 28, 2010. 
  4. ^ Lodi News-Sentinel. United Press International. October 23, 1975. p. 13,4979725. Retrieved April 28, 2010. The ill-fated World Football League, a record-setting money-loser since the day it was formed two years ago, finally ended its financial miseries Wednesday when it announced termination of all operations effective immediately.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ {"New Football League Proposed". Lakeland Ledger. February 19, 1978. p. 1C. Retrieved April 28, 2010. Harry Lander of Sam Antonio, Tex., a former official in the ill-fated World Football League, said promoters came from eight Southern cities in which the association wants to start professional franchises. 
  6. ^ Rothman, Seymour (July 3, 1982). "Fourth of July Football? Well, Maybe Next Year". The Blade. p. P4. Retrieved April 28, 2010. Of course if you cannot shake the memory of the ill-fated World Football League founded by Gary Davidson[...] 
  • Note: Per the instructions on the PR page (under "How to respond to a request"), please remove the image-responses from this review: "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-t}}/{{not done-t}}, instead." Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 13:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. Fixed. - Dravecky (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

  • Images (fair use rationales)
    • Ticket: I have replaced the fair-use rationale for the ticket image with something more appropriate. But...I don't think there's much chance that this will be accepted. The chief purpose of the image is said to be to illustrate the organizational and administrative muddle that affected the team from the beginning; the image caption refers to "one of many organizational problems with the new team", but these problems are not highlighted in the text, so it will be hard to maintain that this issue is central to the article. Even more problematic is that we have to claim that the image is not replaceable. It will, however, be argued that plenty of these tickets are still in existence as souvenirs and that it is therefore technically possible for you to find one and photograph it.
    • Program cover: the minor error on the cover isn't a sufficient reason, on its own, to justify use. I can't see any chance that this image will be accepted as fair use, and recoommend that you withdraw it.
  • Prose: It is always difficult with sports-related articles (where much of the information comes from sports journals and match reports) to find a tone in the prose which isn't magaziney yet at the same time is not completely lifeless. You have attended to my main concerns, so I'd be prepared to take a chance on it.

Good luck with the article, Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fremont Emancipation[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thinking about submitting this for GA. Would appreciate any comments, critiques, etc. This article was created as part of the American Civil War Task Force "to do" list. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Very interesting stuff. As I am not a historian of the American Civil War period my comments will be confined mainly to general issues such as prose, citations, image licencing etc. Someone better qualified than me might need to check for comprehensiveness.

  • Citations: Some quite significant statements seem to require citations, for example:-
    • "This threatened to tip the delicate political balance in border states. Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland all might have been pushed towards secession if such a precedent had been backed by Washington at the beginning of the war." (The reference to "Washington" is a bit confusing, too; perhaps "the government" or "Lincoln"?)
    • "Amidst the resulting public outrage against Frémont, Lincoln sent an order removing him from command of the Department of the West on October 22, 1861."
    • "The outrage was only a short-term effect, however, and soon subsided."
  • Lead
    • I think that the military rank "Major-General" should be fully spelt out in the first line.
    • To comply with WP:LEAD, the most significant fact about the proclamation, indicating its notability, should be in the first paragraph, immediately after the introductory sentence. More generally, this brief lead needs eXpanding; at present it does not meet the requirement of WP:LEAD to provide a full summary of the whole article. For example, the third paragraphs states Lincoln's dilemma, but does not say how he coped with it.
    • The words "in fact" are unnecessary in the second paragraph and the adverbial qualification "particularly", in the third paragraph, is vaguely non-neutral. I have lightly copyedited the third para, but as per above, you need to extend it.
  • Fremont
    • "1850s" not 1850's with apostrophe
    • You say he was "given a commision". I don't know how things worked in the US in those days, but I imagine he had to be appointed in some formal way, by some formal person or authority
    • Mexican-American War requires a date.
    • It's not worth shortening "Major" to "Maj." (saves one character), and "then Maj." looks and reads strangely. Why not delete the "then" and simply call him "Major"?
    • Another opinionated adverb, "Unfortunately", should be removed.
    • "ran cross-purposes" → "ran at cross-purposes"
    • 1856 election: as you have given these percentage votes, to avoid readers wondering about the other 22%, you could mention that these went to a previous president, Fillmore, standing as a candidate for the "Know-nothing" party.
    • "would be establishing" → "was to establish"
  • Missouri
    • The rank "Brigadier-General" should be spelt out at first mention (same applies to first mention of other military ranks, and I would extend it to the use of titles such as "Gov.").
    • "Unions forces"? (third para first line)
    • Is the Missouri State Guard the same as the Missouri State Militia previously mentioned? If so, consistent terminology should be used.
    • "now Governor-in-Exile Jackson." Very confusing phrasing, particularly the use of "now". When was Jackson "exiled", anyway - no previous mention of this?
    • The image of the Wilson's Creek battle has a PD-US licence, but I think this should be PD-Art
    • The declaration of martiial law should be given a date.
  • Proclamation and reaction
    • Is the proclamation that Fremont finished penning on 30 August the declaration of martial law previously referred to? This should be made clear.
    • In whose judgement is this "the most controversial passage" of the proclamation?
    • Paragraphs in a factual encyclopedia article should not begin "In fact...". The paragraph could begin: "Very few slaves were freed as a result of the proclamation."
    • "as well" is another non-encyclopedic expression that can be discarded.
  • Lincoln's reaction
    • "Lincoln would not allow..." Probably better as "Lincoln could not allow..."
    • "... Lincoln sent an order removing him from command of the Department of the West on October 22, 1861." As, I believe, the date refers to Lincoln's order, the sentence should be rearranged: "Lincoln sent an order on October 22, 1861, removing him from command of the Department of the West."
  • Aftermath: another sentence that looks in need of citation is: "His removal from command of the Western Department did irreparable damage to his reputation."

I have carried out a number of punctuation and minor prose amendments. On sourcing, you may be asked to justify why you are using a 1918 history of Missouri. Surely more up-to-date works exist?

As I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, please contact my talkpage on any matters concerning this review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and helpful comments. I've been rather tied up this week, but I hope to get around to making these changes in the next couple of days. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(Note: the link from the article's talkpage to this review is not working. I've tried purging but to no effect)

I fixed the link - the article now has an accent on the e in Fremont's name, so it was looking for a PR with that exact title. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response. Sorry this has taken me a while to get to. Your review is very much appreciated, but real-life matters have prevented me from doing much editing recently. At any rate, finally got around to it and here's what I've done:

  • Citations: I added citations in all the places you suggested.
  • Lead: I made your suggested changes and significantly expanded the lead. I think it now adequately sums up all the major points of the article.
  • Fremont: Addressed all these suggestions. The abbreviations on rank come mainly from a manual of style adopted by the American Civil War task force that rates abbreviations as preferable to spelling out rank. But, I think you're right, the first time it appears, it should be spelled out. I took care of the confusing voting percentages by removing Buchanan's and just indicating Fremont's percent of the vote.
  • Missouri: I think I've covered all these suggestions. I did a little re-writing to explain that Gov. Jackson fled St. Louis and where the the Missouri State Guard came from.
  • Proclamation and reaction: Got these. Yes, the August 30 proclamation was the same as the aforementioned proclamation of martial law. I've clarified this.
  • Lincoln's reaction: Made your suggested changes.
  • Aftermath: Added a citation for this sentence.

Thanks again. If you have any other comments, just let me know. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to the 1918 history, it just happens to be an informative source that I found useful. The bulk of references are new works, so I think they balance out the older one. Historical Perspective (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently at GA and I would like to take it to FAC eventually. I'm particularly interested in its readability and how easy it is to understand for the non-cricketer.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I enjoyed reading this even though I have never played cricket, have never seen a cricket match, and do not know the rules. The article seems comprehensive, and I find Jardine's story fascinating. I can't pretend to understand all of the nuances of the plays, techniques, and scoring of the games described, but I was able to follow the action and the logic without getting lost. Most of the jargon is linked, and by clicking through and reading a few sidebar articles, I learned much more about cricket than I ever knew before. I think I would like going to a game with someone who understands it and could explain what is going on as we watch. I believe I understand the Bodyline technique; in baseball, what you might call "hostile" pitchers (bowlers) throw "inside" or "brush-back" pitches to intimidate batters. Sometimes they hit the batters, either accidentally or intentionally, which is quite painful and sometimes seriously damaging. Some of this behavior is more-or-less legal but certainly not nice. Anyway, I think highly of this article. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.


  • "in which his team employed Bodyline tactics against the opposing Australian batsmen, with Don Bradman being the particular target" - "With" plus "being" is awkward. Suggestion: "in which his team employed Bodyline tactics against the opposing Australian batsmen, Don Bradman in particular".
  • "He is widely regarded by commentators and writers as being the person responsible for the English strategy on that tour." - Tighten by deleting "being"?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Early life

  • "When he was nine, Douglas was sent to stay with his mother's sister in St Andrews." - You might mention the country here as well since foreigners may think you are still talking about India.
  • "Jardine quoted a book of Fry's to support his viewpoint" - "of Fry's" is suspect because "Fry's" is already possessive without "of". I might say, "Jardine quoted Fry" or "Jardine quoted a book by Fry" to avoid this awkwardness.
  • "representing the school at football as a goalkeeper and rackets, and playing Winchester College football." - This at first appears to be repetitive (football, football) but perhaps isn't. Would it be helpful to outsiders to add a note explaining that football and Winchester College football are two different things and perhaps, briefly, how they differ?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oxford University

  • "making such progress that he went on to represent the University with great success" - Lowercase "university"?
Not in this sense where it is a team, I don't think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "the situation was confused by the batsmen's scores not being displayed on the ground" - Up to here, I though I was doing pretty well in understanding even though I know almost nothing about cricket. This particular phrase stopped me because I don't know if "ground" means literally the earth or if it means the stadium or something else. Where on the ground would the scores normally be displayed?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

County cricketer

  • "His assurance and judgement against all bowling... ". - Spelling. "Judgment"?
Isn't judgement also an acceptable spelling? If not, I will change. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. Finetooth (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "in a very wet summer which would have led to difficult wickets to bat on" - Straight past tense; i.e., "which led to" rather than "which would have led to"?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Appointment as captain

  • "Alan Gibson claimed that Jardine was chosen because none of the other possible candidates were suitable" - "None" is singular; thus, "none of the other possible candidates was suitable" is correct.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning for the 1932–33 tour

  • "and it was commented on in Australia, by Bradman amongst others but also in the press" - "Among" is preferred to "amongst".
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


  • "R. C. Robertson-Glasgow believed that Jardine had modelled himself of C.B. Fry." - "on C.B. Fry" rather than "of C.B. Fry"?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


  • "This continued support for Jardine in the face of growing unhappiness with Bodyline bowling also had a qualification, with the President and Secretary of the M.C.C. meeting Jardine prior to his appointment." - "With" plus "meeting" is awkward. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by "qualification" in this context. Could this be made more clear?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Career after cricket

  • "The family also tried unsuccessfully engaged in market gardening." - "tried unsuccessfully to engage in market gardening"?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Final years

  • "He died there on 18 June 1958 and his ashes were scattered over the top of Craigs Cross mountain in Perthshire." - Here, too, it might be helpful to specify the country since "there" refers to Switzerland.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


  • "Following on from the Bodyline tour... ". - Tighten to "After the Bodyline tour... "?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "In 2002, Nasser Hussain was compared to Jardine in a way which was intended to be positive." - The sense of this is unclear to someone who knows nothing about Hussain. Could you add something to make clear how they were being compared? Is Hussain more ferocious? Less kind to Australians? A wearer of more outrageous hats?
Done. I wish it were the hats! --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


  • "while two years (e.g. 1933-34) dashed represents any other country's cricket season" - Rather than saying "dashed", I would just change the hyphen to a dash in the date range.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Your note makes a distinction between England and "any other" country. But when I click through to cricket season, the article there says, "When designating cricket seasons, the convention is to use a single year for a northern hemisphere summer season, and a dashed pair of years to indicate a southern hemisphere summer." Those two distinctions are not the same. Neither distinction is sourced. Your note should be precise and needs a reliable source.
Tightened, but struggling to find a reference for it, as it's something so widely known in cricket circles! I'll keep looking. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


  • For entries without ISBNs, you might add the OCLC numbers, which can be found via WorldCat. For example, the 1949 edition of Express Deliveries is OCLC 15178870.
I didn't know about this! I haven't done it yet, but it will come in useful for quite a few things that I've done, so I want to look up quite a few things at the same time. I will address it shortly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


  • The dab tool at the top of this review page finds three links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
Two done, the third one is already done, so I don't know why it's showing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 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) 17:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Adventures[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to need attention, and few have added useful content to it. Recently, I have done major edits to it, including copy-editing, merging, and adding more sourced info. Would it be better if the episode list or section was separated?

Thanks, serioushat 09:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Thanks for your work on this article. From what I see above you have done quite a bit of copy editing, merging and adding more information. I will make comments on the formatting, writing and content (where I can). I will also look specifically at the episode list/section as you requested.


  • You'll want to make sure that every subject in the body of the article is also summarized in the lead. See WP:LEAD for more on this. I don't think the lead is as complete as it should be.
  • This sentence is a bit confusing:
"the show originally airs every Friday at 9:00 PM"
The word "originally" gives the reader the impression that things have changed since then. Yet the word "airs" is in the present tense, which gives the reader a different impression. If things have changed then airs should be aired. If it is in the same time spot then remove originally.
  • You normally want the in-line citation on the outside of the parentheses. I made the change in the lead, check throughout the article.


  • This section is sporadically sourced, and not very well.
  • In the phenomena list only apparitions is referenced, why is that? Usually lists embedded in article text are discouraged. See WP:LIST for thoughts on that. Consider changing the list here into prose.
  • The image at the end of this section is poorly placed as it spills into the next section. I moved it into the next section, and it seems more applicable there anyway.

Cast and crew

  • Usually it isn't good form to place in-line cites in the middle of a sentence. It's fine to put it at the end of a sentence. Putting it in the middle, as you did in the first sentence in this section, starts to break up the sentence to much.
  • I don't see what the last paragraph about Zak's greatest fears has to do with the subject. Seems tangental and should probably be removed.
  • I would say the same about the most memorable experiences section. Isn't really adding to the content.
  • Duplicative information on Groff's possession and again not much added by the information about what startled him, I'm sure a lot has startled him but why is this in the article?
  • Same can be said about the scratches on Goodwin's leg, not necessary IMO.


  • In the Ghost Adventures live section it says that the third season started with some live 7-hour event. I'm confused because I only see one season preceding this. Am I missing something here? And then below it the heading is "Season 1", so that also is confusing to me.
  • Also having this prose after the table is a bit confusing given the fact that you explain the documentary film in the table. There is also no explanation of the "Cutdown" and the "Poveglia Island special".
  • I would remove the fact that Season 1 is available on DVD on That starts to feel like advertising to me.
  • I don't mind the episode listing as you have done. I think it is inconsistent though to have one episode with explanatory text and the rest with just the name of the episode. See episodes 1.04, and 3.06 as examples. Either summarize them all or none of them. The only wording that should be here is if there was something special about the episode (i.e. a two-part episode, or one that was particularly controversial).
  • Mark Steel's in Town, which is a TV show GA is set up similar to what you've got here. I would look at that article for ways to improve yours, especially in the Episode section. Not sure if the color of your tables is appropriate. Not a big deal especially if you don't have plans for getting this article to FA. If you do then I'd cut out the color.


  • Season 1 released to DVD and on shows up here as well. Definitely remove as duplicative and see above for other reason.


  • Make sure your reference format is consistent. I recommend using the {{cite web}} format. For websites you need to have the url, title, publisher and accessdate as minimum requirements. Several of your references are just the url.
  • Two of your refs have been marked as dead links, these will need to be fixed.


  • I think you're off to a good start with this article. There are some areas for improvement but I think the writing is good and the coverage is pretty comprehensive. If there is rating information that would be great but if not that's fine to. It's hard to find that sort of info on cable shows.
  • Make sure you check the lead and summarize all the info from the article in the lead.
  • That concludes my review, if you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I don't normally watch my reviews. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Go card[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I like to see this article as a GA or FA and I like to see what other editors think on how this article can be improved.

Thanks, Gerry (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I don't want to discourage you, as I think you are a fairly new editor, but the prose here needs an awful lot of attention. I have read through the lead and history section; unfortunately there are errors or confusion in almost every sentence. I think the article needs a lot more work before it is ready for a proper peer review. It certainly does not justify a B or even a C rating as it stands. I have put through a few alterations, but I don't have time to rewrite the article. Here are some points needing attention; the remainder of the article will need to be gone through with care, to avoid the errors made in the earlier part.

  • Lead:
  • "In July 2003, Queensland Government was awarded the $134 million contract to design, build, operate and maintain the go card to Cubic Corporation." This wording makes no sense. Surely you mean "In July 2003, the Queensland Government awarded the $134 million contract to design, build, operate and maintain the go card system to Cubic Corporation."?
    • "The go card was rolled out throughout Brisbane in February 2008, the go card was available at almost 100 go card retailers..." etc. Multiple repetition of "go card" (twice using italics, the other time not). What does "rolled out" mean?
    • "Key criticisms upon the go card launch in early 2008 include the increased cost of travel for regular commuters..." Tense confusion (should be "included"). Should be criticisms after, not upon the go card launch.
  • History: very ragged prose in this section
    • First sentence is a repeat of the wording queried in the lead, above
    • If the contract was awarded in 2003, why are you saying "Queensland Transport will turn over all ticketing system operations..." etc? Presumably this is something that has happened by now.
    • "underwent" is one word.
    • "Central or Roma Street stations." What is "or" doing here?
    • "The go card was rolled out throughout Brisbane in February 2008, the go card was available at almost 100 go card retailers, selected QR Citytrain stations, over the phone or online." This is not a sentemce, it's a jumble of information that needs proper organisation. Perhaps something like: "The go card was rolled out throughout Brisbane in February 2008, and made available at almost 100 go card retailers and selected QR Citytrain stations. It could also be accessed by phone or online."
    • "As of the of June 1 2008" ???
    • "To encourage the use of the go card, from 4 August 2008 all go card trips received a minimum 20% discount off paper tickets and regular users who travel more than 10 trips will received additional discount of 50% off the price of further travel within a one week (resets every Monday) period" Another convoluted sentence with basic grammar errors. What I suppose it to mean is something like this: "To encourage the use of the go card, from 4 August 2008 all go card trips received a minimum 20% discount off paper ticket prices. Regular users who made more than 10 journeys within a week received an additional discount of 50% off the price of these extra journeys."
  • Following sentence should read: "To encourage the use of the go cards during 2010, TransLink are giving away 400,000 free go cards loaded with $10 credit."

Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All  Done, thanks for the review. Gerry (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Superfund sites in the United States[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a featured list. Please provide any constructive criticism. Specifically, I am not sure if the article format should remain with the current format or not. If the states/territories are put into a table, then more info could be added (i.e. # of listed sites, deleted sites, proposed sites). However, this list would constantly be changing. Also, the simple format allows users to click on the state/territory of interest without scrolling. These state/territory specific lists would then have the pertinent info. Thanks in advance, Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

While I am not too familiar with the process of developing/promoting Featured Lists, this particular list is... stingy. I definitely suggest expanding, and here's why:

  • As it is now, I don't believe it would fulfill criteria 3a at WP:WIAFL: "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items."
  • Some of the info you mention above (number of sites, past/proposed sites, etc.) would really help the understanding of the topic, the process of choosing Superfund sites, and other details that can be explored in more detail at the separate lists. Yes, it will have to be updated more frequently if time-sensitive material is added, but that's where an online encyclopedia shines, right?  :)
  • Without further detail, this article seems to be only a holding pen for links to the real lists...
  • ... and in that case, why not just move the branched off articles into this one? If length is the issue here, consider that how long an article is (or how short) is not included at WP:WIAFL; a featured list need only be easily navigated.
  • Users don't mind scrolling. Honestly. Although obviously clean and succinct, this article is almost unnecessary in that it does little more than offer up a description that is already present at Superfund and related articles.

I'm not sure what more to suggest, really. It's an interesting subject, of which I was not previously aware, and additional work could only make it better. In its current, abbreviated state, however, I'm afraid it wouldn't stand much a chance as an FL. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I need to know how to proceed with some of the sections as others and I work to make the article Good Article material. Currently it is a B-Class and has had ALOT of work done, but still isn't quite GA-Class. The "History" section needs slimmed down, summarized, and evaluated. Some other sections need to be just checked over to see if they meet the status for GA. Thanks, NeutralHomerTalk • 03:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised.

Comments by Doncram I just revised citation of NRHP nomination doc to include author, date, more. Could map showing location within Virginia be included near top, so reader gets big picture before or with getting location within county? Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested that from a couple editors (a combo County/State map, like the ones the big cities have...see LA) but there is an ongoing discussion about maps and such, so that is being held up. If you know of anyone who is willing to make a couple maps (like the ones on the LA page) please let me know. - NeutralHomerTalk • 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Finetooth comments: This is a good start, nicely illustrated, but not ready for GAN. A lot of work has gone into it, but it has, I think, a major copy-paste problem that will probably require a complete re-write of the "History" section. (Please see my note about this further down in the review.) Here are some other suggestions for improvement and possible expansion.


  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article rather than a set of introductory paragraphs. A good rule of thumb is to mention each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text. The existing lead says nothing about climate, culture, government, education, and so on. If you imagine a reader who can only read the lead and nothing else, you will see how to write it. WP:LEAD has details.
  • Is "bicenquinquagenary" a real word? Or is it a made-up construction with an unclear meaning?  Done
  • "Stephens City is the second oldest town in the Shenandoah Valley after nearby Winchester, about five miles north". - All of the quantities given in imperial units need to also be given in metric units. I like using the {{convert}} template for these; e.g., 5 miles (8.0 km) or 65 acres (26 ha), but some editors prefer to do them by hand. I see that at least some of the quantities later in the article have been converted.  Done


  • "the Stephens' men worked with the Baron to reach a beneficial conclusion... ". - Lowercase "baron"?
  • "Likely with a log stockade... ". - Would this be better as "likely surrounded by a log stockade"?
  • "the complex was called 'Stephens Fort' and provided settlers' refuge during attacks" - Maybe "provided settlers with refuge"? I'm not sure the possessive works well in this case.
  • The "constant traffic" quote falls below the four-line threshold for a block quote and would be better as an ordinary quote embedded in the main text. WP:MOSQUOTE has a full explanation. Ditto for other quotes of fewer than four lines.
  • "Young men from Stephensburg served during the American Revolution, with two going to New York for battle." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "Stephensburg men, including two youths who went to New York for battle, served during the American Revolution".
  • "Following the war, some slaveholders were moved by its principles to free their slaves." - This is unclear. What principles does a war have?
  • "freed his slaves Lucy and her child James" - "slave" rather than "slaves"?
  • "to improve the Great Wagon Road (today's US 11)" - Spell out and link U.S. Route 11 on first use?  Done
  • "enjoyed more pleasure with one Canada than in all my life in the land of bondage." - Here and elsewhere the ellipsis generally takes a space before and after. Exceptions are explained at MOS:ELLIPSIS.

Reconstruction, the railroad and a name change, 1866–1899

  • At this point I noticed that at least some large sections of the article come verbatim from the source. The whole first paragraph of this section looks like a straight copy-paste from the source, "Town History" by Byron C. Smith. The citation says the material has been published as GFDL, but the source document says, "Copyright © 2007 Stone House Foundation, All Rights Reserved." What makes this material OK to copy? My own preference is to avoid copying unless I am quoting small amounts of text placed inside quotation marks and attributed. Otherwise I paraphrase and try to find multiple sources; this avoids copyright violation and plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism. The GFDL license, if any, would have to be assigned by the source author or publisher; it can't be assigned by Wikipedia editors to someone else's intellectual property. This looks like a really big problem with the current article since the Smith document is all that supports much of the "History" section.


  • A good rule of thumb is to give at least one source for every paragraph as well as sources for statistics, direct quotes, and claims that have been questioned or are apt to be questioned. The first paragraph of this section is unsourced as are claims about thunderstorms and hurricanes that are not common knowledge. It's fine to use maps as sources, by the way.


  • Extremely short paragraphs are usually frowned upon. I think some of these could be merged.  Done


  • I'd merge some of these shorties too. Also, I'd suggest dropping the subhead, "Plans to Move Virginia Route 277" and just merge this material with the rest under the "Transportation" head. A lot of short paragraphs and sections create a choppy article rather than a smoothly flowing one.  Done
  • "one half mile south of its current location" - All the references to miles should also have metric equivalents.  Done


  • "In the 2000 Congregations and Membership in the United States study by the Glenmary Research Center... " - Too many adjectives modify "study". Suggestion: In 2000, "Congregations and Membership in the United States", a study by the Glenmary Research Center... ".  Done
  • "a breakdown of population of Stephens City was given as to what denomination of Christianity the residents were adherent to" - This half of the sentence is awkward too. How about "assessed the religious preferences of the residents of Stephens City"?  Done
  • "33.2% where adherent to the" - Sentences in Wikipedia articles should not start with digits. Also, "were" not "where"?  Done
  • The first sentence of this section is misleading since it implies that all of the residents were Christians. The subsequent statistics don't seem to support that generalization; about 90 percent seem to be Christian, though it's not clear what "another denomination" might mean. Also, "attended" might be more accurate than "adhered to".  Done


  • Images should appear inside the sections they illustrate, should avoid creating text sandwiches, and should not overlap sections or displace heads, subheads, or "edit" buttons. On my computer screen, the history marker image displaces a head; the image of Samuel Hull's Store overlaps two sections, and the two images in the "Culture" section create a text sandwich between them. I think these problems can all be solved simply by shifting the positions of the images slightly.  Done

Possibilities for expansion

  • Utilities such as water, sewer, electricity, gas, telephone, TV, Internet.
  • Geology of the region. Where did those mountains come from? What kinds of rock underlie the town? Limestone? Anything else? Any caves nearby?
  • Pre-history and archeology. What is known about the area before 1730?
  • Culture. Does the town have a library? A museum? A public swimming pool? What is the Virginia Tech Memorial Garden for? Done What are Hokie Stones? Done Why 32 Hokie Stones? Done
  • Media. Any daily or weekly newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, college newspapers?
  • When you re-do the "History" section, you might consider shifting some of the material to an "Economy" section that would explain how residents of the town make a living in 2010 and how that differs from the past.


  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find two dead links in the citations, four links to disambiguation pages, and no alt text for the images. The dead links and dabs will certainly need to be fixed, and it would be good to add alt text as well. WP:ALT explains alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.

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) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Review Comments[edit]
Haven't read over everything (still at the top) but yes, "bicenquinquagenary" is a word. I actually had it sourced until a time ago when we decided that a source was unneeded. If the source is needed to confirm the word is an actual word, I can readd it. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Still reading...on the history...which we are actively trying to break down and use other sources...the Newtown History Center and Bryon C. Smith graciously gave use full access to their history section by OTRS ticket (number on the back of the Stephens City talk page). It was decided by discussion that the history was just far too long and wordy, so with the help of User:Parkwells and User:JonRidinger, we worked on getting the history section down to a better, more readable length. People went on spring vacations, so things got a little backed up, but we plan on moving along soon (very soon). I am working with the Newtown History Center on getting better sources (so we don't have to cite just Newtown History Center each time) on the quotes, information and such. Bryon C. Smith at Newtown History Center is essentially doing the bookwork for us, which is great. While we are keeping the information, we are changing how it is used, so we lessen the use of the Newtown History Center ticket information and more on an originally written section. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have checked some of the pieces as  Done, but please feel free to double (or triple) check my work and change anything you see needed. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Layout Comments - If someone can work around the Culture section pictures and get them to not create a "text sandwich", I would appreciate it. I took care of the rest, but I think in that section it is possible that it can't be avoidable. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket is good news; I didn't look at the talk page and didn't see it. I think "bicenquinquagenary" is apt to be challenged. My dictionary doesn't list it, and a couple of unreliable sources I checked expressed doubts about it. I don't usually check corrections after PR reviews; time is scarce. If you have specific questions, please ping me on my talk page. One other thing: I see that you've added "done" templates above; they tend to gum up the works at PR. Please use the non-image templates,  Done/ Not done, instead." Best of luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually there is a source to the word "bicenquinquagenary" on the page (waaaay at the top) and I can add it to the bottom. I think it got removed from the bottom section and not the top section. The source I have isn't the best one (like the NY Times), but it was the only one I could find. I can eliminate the word altogether if the source isn't the best for all (and to be honest, I don't think it is). - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I found a better term, semiquincentennial, which is sourced to the Worcester Public Library in Worcester, MA. A MUCH better source than the one I had and according to Wikipedia (not actually sourcing them) the word isn't confused with a 10,000th anniversary. So much better. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The problem with the OTRS ticket is that to me using it like this violates WP:NOTMIRROR (what's the point of copying a history readily available on a website to this article?) and the copied text was written as a town history, not an encylcopedic article. As a result, many of the POV and other wording problems that editors have commented on aren't from editors writing in such a way but simply copying what was there. Further, details appropriate for a town history aren't always appropriate for an encyclopedic article; in fact, most aren't, particularly many of the blockquotes used. As for the word for 250th anniversary, the best place to source it would be at Anniversary where the word is listed. A source for a word like that in this article seems out of place. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Parkwells has taken a good chuck out of the history, made it waaay more encyclopedic (I agree it wasn't the best before) and kinda written it in his words, that isn't to say more work needs to be does. It still follows the same line as the Newtown History Center one, but it now it kinda has a life of its own. Since Parkwells was on vacation work has halted a little, so at it's present, it is incomplete. I do believe that with more editing, we may be able to "break free" of the OTRS ticket history version (though I would like to keep the OTRS ticket around, if anything, just to show the unity of the town and Wikipedia) and the history to be it's own, encyclopedic, and GA material. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, a note on sources. Once Parkwells gets done editing, then I will go back to the Newtown History Center (they are doing the bookwork for me :)) and get sources for what Parkwells has come up with. Hopefully it won't take long on that front. Just don't want to get sources for something that might be removed. :) I did that, kinda funny story. :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

<----In writing a history it's better to have sources before it is written, that's why it's somewhat more difficult for Parkwells or myself to write the history section for this article. Remember, the history section is summarizing a much larger and more detailed history. The only reason I write a history section before adding sources is because I am familiar enough with the larger history to know that I do have the sources to plug them in. And I add them in before publishing it in the article. It's different here because I certainly don't know the history and I would imagine Parkwells is not familiar with the history that much either. An appropriate summative history can actually be written using just the Newtown History article because it is a sourced, reliable publication. Parkwells got the process going, but it is still a long ways from being an appropriate length for the size of the article and relative to the notability of the town. Speaking from experience, writing a section like that takes a lot of time and patience because you have to go back and look things over and make sure it all fits together.

Not sure what you mean by "keeping the OTRS ticket around to show unity". If it isn't needed (it really isn't), drop it because it will only lead to confusion from other editors, especially once the history section is rewritten and can stand on its own. It won't be interpreted as any type of "unity" between the town and Wikipedia, nor is such a unity appropriate (see WP:COI). The OTRS system is to make sure Wikipedia doesn't get sued for copyright infringement. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know we aren't anywhere near done with the history section. Parkwells was kinda editing as he seen things that needed taken out. If everything was sourced (and it can be) my fear is it would remain as is and not into the "tasty little morsel bite-sized pieces" that we need to be encyclopedic. So I was kinda letting him work and do whatever he wanted with the section and would come in behind and edit the sources in. I think he is still working on the language (POV words and such), weasel words, moving things around, outright deletions of sections not needed (and some really weren't) and stuff like that. He has done great work so far, but I know (with talking to you) that we aren't quite there yet.
My idea with "keeping the OTRS ticket around to show unity" was to show that (even if we don't source it ever, that at one time the Newtown History Center and Wikipedia were working together. I believe we will source the Newtown History Center in some form (so we can just source the page), but my thinking was that if we had the OTRS ticket there, it would show that connection. I think big and "in left field" sometimes. :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In having sources, I don't necessarily mean "sourced" (i.e. referenced) in the article, but having the sources to read and write from, like physically in front of you. The references in the current history section definitely need moved around, but it's difficult to write a history section without having sources to go from. And while removing sections and POV/weasel words is great and needed, a lot of the work still needing to be done is taking the large amount of info and summarizing it, which involves actual writing as opposed to just removal. That's what takes time.
The Newtown History page will be referenced in the History section and likely other places within the article. Maybe not to the degree it is now (it has like 30 references right now), but still significant. It is already listed in the External links section as well. You really want to avoid even the appearance of an organization working "with" or "connected to" Wikipedia, even on something as innocent as a small town's article. Wikipedia works with individual editors who act on their own, not as part of a larger organization. But even then, I would say most editors don't even know what OTRS is (I wasn't all that familiar with it before editing this article), so there wouldn't be much of a "connection" anyway in the way you're thinking. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a lot of work into it over the last two month, bringing it from a mere stub of an article all the way up to GA status a couple weeks ago. I've since done a bit more cleaning up, and I've added even more details. I think I'm getting it somewhat close to being a potential FA candidate, but I'm not sure if there may be more types of content, or aspects of the album, that I need to develop to get it there. So, I'm hoping to get reviews from people who are familiar with developing album articles, but any general tips would also be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Doing H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)...

Thank you for your efforts on this article. I will review it with the fact that you wish to bridge the gap between GA and FA in mind.


  • This sentence is a run-on:
"It was recorded in Chicago, Illinois, shortly after the death of Wax Trax! co-founder and band friend Jim Nash, from the end of 1995 through early 1996, and featured a variety of guest artists from other industrial bands, but had limited participation from core member En Esch."
Consider breaking into at least two or even three different sentences.
  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article. See WP:LEAD for info on this. Make sure it brings up every subject found in the article.


  • It's recommended to put in-line citations at the end of sentences rather than in the middle of sentences. This helps with readability.
  • It would be good to explain how Nash's death impacted the creation of the album. The connection isn't really clear and leaves me wondering why it's in the article at all.
  • The writing in this section is pretty good and the information is comprehensive. Sorry more to come later. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pat Condell[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I believe I have addressed all the issues brought up in the previous reviews. Further feedback required before I list as a GA candidate again.

Thanks, A pinhead (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I see that this article has gone a few rounds already, but it still needs work. I think the article has potential, but it has quite a few problems. Here are suggestions for further improvement.


  • The cited sources include blogs and dot-coms that probably do not meet the WP:RS guidelines. What makes Helen's Haven reliable? What makes doollee reliable? What makes Five Feet of Fury reliable? And so on. It would strengthen the article to eliminate non-reliable sources and to stick with what is supported by newspapers, magazines, books, and other publications with editorial oversight and a reputation for neutrality.


  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention in the lead the main ideas in all of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about Condell's early life, his satiric intentions, the controversy generated by The trouble with Islam, or censorship. If you can imagine a reader who can read only the lead and nothing else, you will see how to write it. If something important isn't mentioned in the lead, that reader will learn nothing about it.


  • "It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians, jihadist Muslims and settlement-building Jews... ". - Since this direct quotation is four or more lines long (at least on my computer screen), it would be better to set it off as a block quote. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.
  • "He performed the show at London’s Etcetera Theatre". - No need to link London. The link to Etcetera Theatre is enough. Done
  • "Chortle gave Condell's performance a positive... " - Why is "Chortle" linked to "laughter"? Done
  • "It repeats ad nauseam the same gag, in which Barry's narrative recounts his calm, reasonable thoughts followed with a "so I..." by his crassly Neanderthal actions." - This quote makes no sense. What does "followed with a 'so I' by his crassly Neanderthal actions" mean? Are some important words missing from the quote perhaps?


  • You Tube is linked four times in the "Online videos" section. Richard Dawkins is linked twice. Generally one link per item per article is enough for most terms. United Kingdom is linked more than once. Ditto for Saudi Arabia.


  • The link-checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three citation urls that are dead or non-functional. They should be repaired or replaced. The Wayback Machine might be of use in tracking down archived versions of articles that have been moved or removed.
  • The alt text tool shows that the images lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details. Done
  • The article could use more proofing. For example, the newspaper and magazine titles in the citations should appear in italics.
  • Since all three images show essentially the same thing, Condell's face, it's hard to see how the two fair-use rationales are sufficient to meet the guidelines. I would just go with the free image and drop the other two.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in preparation of anticipated good article status in the near future. Editors can be particularly touchy regarding this article; followers of Smith often see the article as too critical and negative, while critics complain of the opposite. I'm hoping for some valuable outside opinion on the neutrality of the article and the weight given to each subtopic in the prose.

Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Finetooth comment: It'll take stamina to review this one since it's 162kb long and has more than 400 citations. To begin, I'd like to mention that the tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find problems in three areas: (1) four dead links in the citations; (2) seven links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets, and (3) many images lacking alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details about alt text. Finetooth (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This was a highly enjoyable read for me despite my earlier concern about the length. It's professionally written and appears to be comprehensive, neutral, stable, verifiable, and well-illustrated. Its unusual length turns out to be related to its unusual number of notes, some of which are fairly extensive. I think this article is not far from being ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions:

  • The notes are interesting, but they are apt to be ignored by readers who won't see any difference in the main text between an ordinary ref number and one that leads to an interesting note. Making the distinction is especially important, it seems to me, in an article with so many interesting notes. You might try using the notes system found in Voyage of the Karluk. This system creates a clear visual distinction in the main text itself between a note and a reference without a note. If you adopt this system, you can rename your current "Reference" section something else, such as "Sources", "Bibliography", or "Works cited".

Early years (1805–1827)

  • "By July 1820, the family obtained a mortgage for a 100-acre farm in the nearby town of Manchester... " - Sizes given in imperial units should also be converted to metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for these; e.g., 100-acre (40 ha). The "adj = on" adds the hyphen.
  • "in 1826, he was tried in Chenango County, New York for the crime of pretending to find lost treasure" - Comma after "New York". Ditto for other similar constructions.
  • "Although by then, Smith had left his treasure hunting company... ". - Remove comma after "then" and had a hyphen to "treasure-hunting"?

Founding a church (1827–30)

  • "The translation, known as the Book of Mormon, was published in Palmyra on March 26, 1830 by printer E. B. Grandin" - Comma needed after 1830. Ditto for similar constructions.

Life in Missouri

  • "Rigdon's July 4 oration produced a flood of anti-Mormon rhetoric in Missouri newspapers and stump speeches during the political campaign leading up to the 6 August 1838 Missouri elections." - Should be August 6, 1838, for consistency.
  • "which quickly escalated as non-Mormon vigilantes raided and burned Mormon farms[181].: - Punctuation should come before the reference, not after.
  • "Smith and his companions tried to escape at least twice during their four-month imprisonment,[204] but on April 6, 1839, on their way to a different jail after their grand jury hearing, they succeeded by bribing the sheriff.[205]" - I would merge this orphan paragraph with the one above it.

Cosmology and theology

Race, government, and public policy

  • The paragraph beginning "Smith strongly favored U.S. constitutional rights" needs a source.

Religious denominations

  • "who led his faction to the Utah Territory and incorporated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, now with over 13 million members" - "Now" is ambiguous. It's generally better to use a specific phrase such as "as of 2010" or "with more than 13 million members at the start of the 21st century".
  • "and formed what is now known as the Community of Christ, which now has about 250,000 members. As of 2010[update], adherents of the denominations originating from Joseph Smith's teachings number approximately 14 million" - Sources for these stats?

Family and descendants

  • "When the twins died, the Smiths adopted another set of twins[398] whose mother had just died in childbirth (Joseph, who died of measles in 1832, and Julia)." - Slightly misplaced modifier. Suggestion: "When the twins died, the Smiths adopted another set of twins (Joseph, who died of measles in 1832, and Julia) whose mother had just died in childbirth".


  • Newspaper names like Deseret News should appear in italics.


  • Overlinking: The article has a great many links, some of which seem unnecessary. For example, I would only link New York once in the article; I would not link Oliver Cowdery, Book of Mormon, or Kirtland, Ohio, multiple times. I think you can find quite a few to cull.
  • Image licenses: Some of the license pages are incomplete; for example File:Ccalibertyjailmo.jpg has been flagged because it lacks source information. For FAC, you'll need to make sure that the licenses are as complete and accurate as possible.

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) 02:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ladyhawke discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it is well on the way to meeting the FL criteria, and would like some direction and tips on what can/needs to be improved.

Thanks, Adabow (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This list seems to conform to the patterns I see by looking at a few random samples of lists at WP:FL#Artist discographies. The prose is fine. The lead image is good. I have a small number of suggestions about things that might cause objections or raised eyebrows at FLC. Here they are.


  • Rather than linking "self titled" to Ladyhawke (album), I'd suggest linking "debut album" to Ladyhawke (album). Otherwise readers may assume that the link is meant to explain the phrase "self-titled". Also, self-titled needs a hyphen.

Studio albums

  • Would it be helpful to add a note explaining what "US Heat." means? Why not just "US"?
  • I see that at least some FL discography articles include sales in dollars. See Pearl Jam, for example. Would it be possible to add sales figures like this to the table in this section?

Other appearances

  • "These songs have not appeared on a studio album released by Ladyhawke." - Would it be better to re-phrase this to make clear that the listed songs are ones that she has sung but which have not appeared on a studio album. Otherwise a reader may smile at the thought of a complete list of songs that have not appeared on her albums. Such a list would include all the songs by Johnny Cash, for example.


  • Citation 19 is incomplete.
  • In citation 20, the "Etcetera" is puzzling to me. Is that the name of the publisher? Also, what is PNAU? Would spelling it out make the meaning more clear?
  • Citation 12 links to a web site rather than directly to the PDF file that is being cited. I'd be inclined to link directly.
  • Citation 11 links to "Radioscope" rather than a page with the title you use.
  • I didn't check every link, but in general the citation data should match exactly what the source supports; that is, the title should be the actual title and the publisher the actual publisher.


  • The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

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) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One comment from Belovedfreak

  • I was just wondering why the lead sentence introduces Ladyhawke as "an electropop singer originally from New Zealand" - this is a bit wordy and vague and implies something complicated regarding her nationality. Why not simply "a New Zealand electropop singer"?--BelovedFreak 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist?[edit]

  • This may seem a strange response to a peer review request, but I see it as rather ridiculous that this discography is a separate article. Ladyhawke is still a relatively short article - it's hardly like The Beatles or Genesis (band) where a separate discography article is necessary to keep sizes manageable. Forcing users to load another page to see fundamental information about an artist is really unhelpful. Furthermore, I think a merged article would have a good shot a GA status. Separately, no chance. dramatic (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially improved, particularly with regard to the references. It would be useful to establish can be done to try and elevate it to FA status.

Thanks, Mcwesty (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

  • Before I review an article that was previously reviewed, I want to know that all the old concerns have been addressed. That is not obvious from the old PR and FAC pages for this article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 19:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes no problem. I dont want you to feel like your wasting your time through re-inventing the wheel and that the comments from previous reviews have been in any way ignored. I am confident that the comments expressed previously have been addressed. The majority of concern related to the referencing, which has almost been completely redone. Mcwesty (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find problems with dead citation urls, links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets, and missing alt text. WP:ALT has details about alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The dead urls and dabs will certainly have to be fixed, and it would be good to add the alt text. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Done

Comments from Niagara

  • Is there a better photo that is representative of Glenrothes? The panorama is hard see at its current width in the infobox. I'd move that further down the page and into a {{Panorama}} template. Done
  • "It is located approximately equidistant between the cities of Edinburgh (32 miles (51 km)) and Dundee (27 miles (43 km))." → This sentence is used twice, in the lead and the "Geography" section. I've tweaked both of them...
    • "It is located approximately 30 miles (48 km) from both Edinburgh and Dundee." → For the lead  Done
    • "Edinburgh and Dundee are located almost equidistantly from Glenrothes at 32 miles (51 km) and 27 miles (43 km) away, respectively." → For the Geography section  Done
  • "According to the recent population estimate (2006)," → Might as well be direct, instead of being vague... "According to a 2006 population estimate,"  Done
  • Why is Glenrothes a former new town?- Removed reference of it being a former new town. Its pretty obvious from the first sentence in the History Section.
  • Measurements conversions needed in the "Governance" section. Done
  • "Glenrothes (UK Parliament constituency)" needs to be piped. Done
  • "Average annual temperatures in Glenrothes range from a max of 18°C to a min of 9°C." → "max" and "min" should be written out; also temperature conversions needed. Done
  • Add a {{Commons category}} for Glenrothes. Done
  • Some of the external links don't look they'd satisfy WP:EL (e.g. Salvation Army, a Baptist church, etc). Done

I don't know if mav is still planning a more thorough review, but here are some quick comments. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks for your help guys. I'll wait to see if Mav has any final suggestions. Is there an indication on what level the article could currently be graded at?Mcwesty (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more to add that hasn't been mentioned above. Article is in great shape and should be submitted to FAC once above suggestions have been addressed. I made a few minor copyedits; feel free to do with them what you want. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. seasons[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another list based on the football club seasons format. I have studied those that are featured and applied the layout to this one with a few touches of my own - the "Level" column was a no-brainer to me because of all the different names there are these days, so it'll benefit people who aren't really familiar with the English football league system.

I would like to make sure everything checks out before nominating it for featured status.

Thanks, Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Comments The main problem is, standards have risen. Even the better existing FLCs wouldn't pass today without at least some work.

  • I don't review prose if I can avoid it, but one thing: FLs these days don't say "This is a list of...". Suggest moving those sentences dealing with the scope of the table out of the opening para and down with the number of seasons spent in each division, as per here, which has changed a bit since the version that passed FLC a couple of years ago
  • Done.
  • A warning: some FL reviewers are very keen on having the key before the table rather than after
  • I don't really understand why but I'll leave it the way it is for now.
  • Headings: capital letters only at first word of each heading, unless it's the name of something, so "League record" (small "r") but "League Cup" (big "C"); write attendance in full, or someone'll want you to supply a note to explain the abbreviation :-)
  • Done, schoolboy error that one!.
  • Level: you'll need to explain why it only applies from 1920/21
  • I spent a fair bit of time thinking about how to word it without going into far too much detail, so I decided stick with the tried and tested format on this one.
  • Division/Pos: linking both to the same article is overlinking, probably preferable to link the position rather than the division
  • Done.
  • The Western League ought to appear in the League section, as at List of FC Barcelona seasons, where the regional Campionat de Catalunya runs alongside La Liga in the 1930s. You've said in the prose that it was a less prestigious comp, but it was still a first-team league, and at least in 1903/4, which is the only season I looked at, Argyle fielded the same players in each.
  • Presumably you've checked if any of the 3 unlinked early goalscorers are notable for playing for other teams in the FL, if they were they should be redlinked rather than unlinked.
    I planned on creating pages for them when I have what I need, a book, since I've found barely anything online which even tells me their first names. I believe Swann's first name could be Hubert but I don't have concrete information at this moment in time.
  • 1914: Not strictly true that no competitive football was played during the war, it was just different competitive football :-) Maybe "The Southern League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War", and "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War"?
    Its funny, when I was improving this article I followed the lead set by those for Gillingham and Birmingham in particular, I guess I should've followed the latter more. Done.
  • 1939: Suggest including the aborted 1939/40 season, in italics or whatever
  • 1945/46: is when the FA Cup resumed
    True, I've included that along with results in the Football League South - I remember we used atleast 70 players that season, no wonder we finished last!.
  • Other comps: maybe write out in full, to save the reader having to keep scrolling up and down between string of random letters and key
  • Green/pink: you may need some additional indication for people who can't do colours. The level column could well be enough, but you might need a symbol as a direct accessible alternative to the colouring. In the past, people have bolded changes of division, which may not be MoS-compliant these days, depending on who you're asking.
    I've bolded changes in division for now. If I need to add a symbol in future then so be it.
  • Key to rounds: don't think Round should be capitalised
  • Footnotes: those that aren't just explanatory or verified by the list itself, need sources. And please consider a more normal-sized font. 90% is very small for those of us whose eyes aren't what they were
    This is the very time consuming part but I'm happy to do it because it certainly adds alot to the Birmingham article. I'm laying out the footnotes now in the same manner, but if the font needs changing then I guess they all will?
  • Your wording of footnote H could imply that before the change to 3 pts for a win, no points were awarded for a draw. I know that's not what you mean, but suggest you re-word it. Also, there's an article called three points for a win
    I could see people assuming that. I'll do that note when I get that far.
  • FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, [the list] has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". Is there anything interesting, quirky, needing explanation, that might be worth footnoting as "useful and appropriate information"?
    Plenty, but I'll try not to go overboard.
  • Sources in general (this is the one that most existing season lists wouldn't satisfy): the reader shouldn't have to guess where the information came from. It would be best if you put at the top of each column/group of columns in the table, a reference to the source used for that column/group. I'd assume FCHD does all the league and real cups stuff, and presumably Danes' book will do whatever cups are missing. If it also does the top scorer and the average attendance, you're laughing, up to the end of 2008/9, anyway... If there's just the occasional exception, it can be referenced individually at its table cell rather than at the top of the column
  • A reviewer might ask what makes Football Facts and Figures and Greens on Screen reliable sources. Do you use either to source anything that can't be verified elsewhere (FCHD, book)? if not, suggest moving them to External links
    I've just discovered and plan on including plenty of citations to it, so I hope it is reliable? It certainly looks like it anyway, with the amount of effort that has been put into it. Greens on Screen has been running for twelve years and has received plenty of praise on When Saturday Comes, for instance, but I don't believe I'll need to cite anything directly to it, so I'll do what you suggested.

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, its appreciated. You won't see any considerable change on the article right now because I'm doing it all in one of my sandboxes, here. I'd rather do it all in one go instead of making hundreds of edits to the page itself'. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst its still open, is there anywhere that its lacking now? Its been significantly improved thanks to Struway2's advice and I've added the 2009–10 season now that the league campaign has finished. I would've inquired about this yesterday but I wasn't really in the mood for talking! Thank you for your time. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Superfund sites in Alaska[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it a featured list. Before adding it to the FL candidate page, I wanted to check and see if anyone had a comment here. Any constructive criticism is welcomed. Thanks, Cmcnicoll (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs more work to meet the FL criteria. I have suggestions about the lead, the map, the illustrations in general, the table layout, and a few Manual of Style issues. To meet the "comprehensiveness" criterion, I'd recommend adding a Notes section that could include information that won't fit neatly into the table.

  • The map is a good start but needs more detail. The small dots are hard to see. I'd consider adding labels identifying each site by name. I think it would also be helpful to at least add Anchorage and Juneau to the map to give readers a sense of where the sites are in relation to well-known population centers. Also, the source of the base map should be identified on the image description page; the base map itself needs to be free; that is, not protected by copyright that prohibits copying.
    • I agree the dots are small, but they kind of need to be. Some other states (like CA, MI, or PI) have a ton of sites, and larger dots would obscure the map. Plus, a smaller dot helps to localize the site better. Clicking on the map brings up a higher resolution image with larger dots too. Finally, I don't know how to create or edit the map. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Generally, the mechanical "This is a list... " first sentence has been frowned on lately in some of the FLCs I've observed. Better would be a summary of the essence of the list. Perhaps something like: Superfund sites in Alaska include or have included contamination at military bases, a salvage yard, a mine, a battery yard, and a business using industrial solvents." Or something like that. Than I might add a sentence saying where in Alaska these sites are. The general material about Superfund sites could follow, perhaps in a second paragraph.
  • I would consider adding a Notes section where I could add interesting details, if any, about the sites or the specific dangers of certain contaminants or the local reactions to the sites and their clean-ups. Local newspapers are possible sources for some of this kind of information.
  • I'd try to figure out a way to make the "Reason" column wider for ease of reading. For example, expressing all of the dates in m-d-y format and abbreviating the month's name would use less space for the dates, which could then wrap into two short lines instead of one long one.
    • Not sure if changing the slashes to dashes saves any space. The column titles limit the width. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the image. WP:ALT has details.
  • The dab-finder tool at the top of this review page finds a link (dioxin) that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
  • The date formatting in the Reference section needs to be consistent. Most of the dates are in m-d-y format, but a few are yyyy-mm-dd.
  • It would be nice to include an image or images of one or more of these sites. I realize that they may be far away from where the editors live and that even if the editors lived near them, they might not be allowed to get close enough for a photo. In addition, it might be hard to find anything representative to focus on. However, it still might be possible to find suitable illustrations. Here, for example, is a photo of the Salt Chuck Mine. It is not a free image that you can legally copy, but you might be able to convince its author, Nathan, to re-license it as CC-BY-SA 2.0 or higher. Or you might find something else that is free already.

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) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Frost Bank Tower[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to push this article to FA or A-class status, but I'm not sure how to improve it. Any suggestions, comments, and constructive contributions are welcome, and please do not spam, get on a high tamper tantrum, or vandalize any pages.

Thanks, TheAustinMan (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


I like the balance between human history (who raised the money, how they progressed through the project) and description of dead stones. It needs better references and less marketing buzz. Many phrases read like ads, and many read like riddles (perhaps reflecting the limited pool of sources; I'd be glad to fix it myself if I had first-hand technical knowledge of the building itself). I've noticed the article has been through as many as two GA nominations, but it's still a far shot from acceptable.

  • The article relies heavily on Emporis. It may be the sole available source for hard data, but it is also used for superlative statements - these, ideally, need confirmation through a better source. Or at least a second source. Statement "the first to be built after 911" is particularly suspicious (you provided dates of commencement and completion, but how can we be 100% positive that no one else had squeezed into this time frame?). Have you checked professional press? Texas Construction Mag has something.
  • Direct quotation in the lead should be referenced there.
  • The article does not elaborate on the tower's structural system. Emporis says concrete (the standard choice for the size) but nothing on actual implementation. [3] tells more.
  • "In 1998, T.Stacy & Associates owned and assembled tracts of land" - I'd replace "owned and assembled" with "consolidated" (not perfect but less awkward).
  • "Cousins Properties paid for the building during construction" - ?? Is there a reason for keeping this statement? It looks unnecessary: it was their project and their liability to pay. Note that property developers normally don't pay their own money (financing comes from different sources), and they don't pay all money for quite a while (retainage for warranty period).
  • The infobox "Owner" field is confusing. Drop it. There's a reason why this field is rarely used (when it is, it usually lists current owner). East of Borschov (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "The silvery blue color glass facade was first used on the Reuters Building in New York City" - what's it for? Uh-huh, "only two places in the world with blue low-e glass skin, the other being the Reuters Building in New York City". Perhaps the building is, indeed, different from scores of silvery-blue glass blocks I see every day. Just how different? How silvery? The article makes a claim it's something rare, but if it is, it needs a better description. Don't they all use blue low-e glass today?
  • "The tower used massive amounts of glass in its construction." - not the tower, the builders :)) but then they always do. Glass is glass, weight is just a function of surface area (weight per square unit is more or less the same across each climate zone).
  • "More than 200,000 ft (60,960 m) feet of glass" - ?? - I'm confused. The ratio of 200/61 suggests it's indeed linear, not square meters, but how wide is a linear meter of glass? Can you provide area figure?
  • "Lighting covers the crown, where 150 feet of lighting is turned on at night" - ?? I'm sure there's a better way to say it, but one needs to be confident in their understanding of this building. Again, what is "150 feet of lighting"? 150 feet of neon tube or something more ... substantial?
  • "the building was built in the direction of the Bohemian Club" - ?? [I rephrased it] One link backing up this awkward statement is dead, another is a youtube flick with two taking heads. Is it a reliable source? Note that Alex Jones is a disambig. He looks like a nice fella, I like the "profane can't see it because we're unconscious" bit of wit, but why should we take his rant for a fact (that, indeed, designers used the owl motif? maybe they thought of a corn-on-the-cob? I wouldn't elaborate further :) ). <added later> I just realized that the guy is obsessed with New World Order, or so his article says, - a "perfect" advisor on masonic emblemata. There are other sources to back up the owl legend.
  • "Amenities" - don't they (the skyscrapers) all have "building concierge" or even a whole caretaking company? Don't they all have "tenant controlled HVAC" (at least the recent ones) ? etc. Note that a single paragraph, even in its current bloated shape, does not need a level-2 heading.
  • You haven't mentioned that 1/3 of the floors are taken up by a parking lot.
  • The statement "third tallest building" appears exactly three times! Do you see a pattern emerging here?
  • Section "Critic's Response" is really about popular response; none of presented opinions comes from either architectural or urban planning reviewers. I suggest merging "Awards" into this section.
  • The ultra-short section on "Position in Austin's skyline" doesn't say much about position. I can guess it's not far left, neither far right (a picture says more than a whole level-2 heading). But the phrase "its location <sic> in the skyline ... excited Austinites", backed by as many as five references, is utterly unencyclopedic. Even if five different columnists sing it in unison.

P.S. What's the deal with "spam, tantrums and vandals"? Don't take it soooo seriously. It's just a pile of concrete and glass ... not even rotating knives.

Regards, East of Borschov (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigi Schmid[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it meet FA requirements. Any thoughts on what improvements are needed would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks very good. It's well-written, seems comprehensive, verifiable by WP:RS sources, well-organized, interesting, and generally follows the Manual of Style guidelines. I'd be inclined to revise the singular-plural pairs that mate a single entity such as UCLA or Los Angeles Galaxy with a plural pronoun, "they". Some of the links in the citations are dead and will need to be updated or replaced. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.


  • I'd be inclined to hyphenate German-American in the first sentence since you are using it as an adjective modifying "coach".

UCLA and U.S. soccer

  • "From 1978 to 1984, while he was coaching, Schmid worked eight months out of the year as a CPA." - Tighten by one word by deleting "of"; i.e., "eight months of the year"?
  • "In 1985, UCLA won the NCAA Division I championship at the Kingdome in Seattle when they defeated American University... ". - Should it be "UCLA ... it" rather than "UCLA ... they"?
  • "The U.S. won their group in the opening stage of the tournament without conceding a goal... ". - I won't keep harping on this, but I think "U.S." is singular and "their" is plural even though "U.S." refers to a team. "Team" is also singular. To use the plural, you would need to say something like "team members", which may be too wordy. Maybe just, "The U.S. won its group... "? Ditto for other similar constructions throughout the article.

Los Angeles Galaxy

  • "Schmid was forced to play an atypical squad since the final was held during the MLS offseason." - Would it be helpful to elaborate a bit? What's the connection between the off-season and an atypical squad? Also, off-season needs a hyphen.
  • "Success followed in 2002 with the Galaxy winning the Supporters' Shield for having the best regular season record in the MLS." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "Success followed in 2002 when the Galaxy won the Supporters' Shield for having the best regular season record in the MLS."
  • "The shift allowed Alexi Lalas to play as a sweeper without marking responsibilities in the backfield." - The jargon here is a bit dense. What does it mean to "mark responsibilities"? Do sweepers normally have backfield responsibilities, or did Schmid especially tell Lalas not to worry about the backfield in this particular game?
  • "Midway through the 2004 season Schmid was fired, despite the team being in first place in the league, and Schmid coaching the Western Conference in the All-Star game." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Midway through the 2004 season Schmid was fired even though his team was in first place in the league and even though he had been picked to coach the Western Conference in the All-Star game."

Seattle Sounders F.C.

  • "Schmid was named the first coach of the expansion franchise, Seattle Sounders FC, and is the team's current coach." - "Current" is non-specific; it's better to use something specific like "and has continued with the team through 2010." That number will have to be updated periodically, but at least editors can tell at a glance whether it needs updating or not.


  • Magazine titles such as Sports Illustrated should appear in italics.


  • The link checker tool at the top of this review page finds four dead urls in the citations.

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) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks Finetooth!Cptnono (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Skotywa comments

  • As of 2009, he is the head coach of Seattle Sounders FC. - Should be updated to 2010?
  • He moved with his family moved to the United States in 1956 when he was four years old - needs to be reworded
  • Don't know if this has been previously considered, but it might be worth mentioning that his brother lives in the Seattle area and was part of what enticed him to Seattle. Also that his mother died when he was young.ref
  • There is a lot of overlinking as well as repeated links. For example, Los Angeles Galaxy should be linked the first time it shows up in prose and then not again. (I usually exclude the lead section from this rule). U.S. Open Cup links are another example.
    • Galaxy has infobox, lead, prose, lists. That seems like many but is within that gray area since all of those typically get it. We could remove the one in the main body? The Cups all go to the specific years. Does that seem eastereggy? I don't mind removing those or better specifying the year if needed. Do you notice any other links?Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • and earn a spot in the FIFA Club World Cup - I don't think this actually happened (at least the Wikipedia articles don't mention it).
    • Sure did. Actually something to look forward to if it happens next April.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was talking about where that exact text appears in the article in reference to the LA Galaxy in 2000. I don't think they actually went on to play in the Club World Cup. If they did, then a sentence should be added to explain how LA performed there. --SkotyWATC 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has failed you! This is the current source used. They faced Real Madrid and I think I recall seeing a source saying they lost. I'll track a reference down right now. And maybe adjust the other Wikipedia article if I can find another detailing the qualification process.Cptnono (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: I have failed! The Club World Cup was postponed that year.[4] I need to find more sources. I should have known Wikipedia would have the answer: canceled. They lost to Real Madrid in a friendly years later. Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Even with his team was in first place in the league and after being picked to coach the Western Conference in the All-Star game, Shmid was fired midway through the 2004 season His termination came after the Galaxy scored only three goals in a winless five-game stretch. - there are a number of things wrong with this sentence (capitalization, grammar, and spelling)
  • We need to get a more recent picture in this article of Schmid wearing Sounders FC stuff. I'll see if I can dig up one (or take a picture myself).
    • YES! I check Flickr after every game but there has been nothing. Please feel free to replace it if you can track one down.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think all the references to "the Sounders" should be replaced with "Sounders FC" or "Seattle".
  • References
    • Are 35, 53, and 59 reliable sources?
      • Not sure. I'll do a google news archive search to replace them.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The publisher needs to be in itallics for references.
      • Disagree on this one unless it is a source that is published on paper. Maybe we'll finally get an answer if I don't right?Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • External links look to be in good shape and alt text is present for all images (though the one for the MLS Cup picture could be expanded).

This article has improved a lot since the last time I read it. It's getting close to FA quality I think. --SkotyWATC 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Loggerhead sea turtle[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been listed for peer review because I along with other students involved in WikiProject AP Biology 2009 have adopted it and are working to improve it. Any guidance would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall: I have a few comments, which I hope you will view as constructive.

  • Basically I would like to see more content in this article. At present many sections seem a little on the sparse side.
  • In terms of organization, I think this article has a few too many short sections. The sections either need to be expanded or merged. Please see Wikipedia:Layout#Headings and sections.
  • There are also some single sentence paragraphs, which are generally frowned upon. Please expand those or combine with related material.
  • The lead section is on the brief side and doesn't fully summarize the article. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • I recommend taking a look at similar articles that have attained a featured article status, such as Hawksbill turtle and others at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Biology, then determine how you can adopt those formats and include equivalent information.
  • Statements like "Very few loggerheads" may run into the issue of WP:Vagueness. An actual population estimate would be better, if you can find suitable sources.
  •  Done Please be careful not to assume knowledge the reader might not yet possess. As an example, in the Early life section, it specifies a range of temperatures. However, it is unclear what this data is meant to communicate. The text then has the infant turtles mysteriously incubating and emerging at night from somewhere. The location of this somewhere remains a mystery until the Breeding section.

I hope my brief comments were of some use. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll try to implement some of your suggestions soon. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just Some Things[edit]

Hey fellas, this article is looking pretty good, here are a few things that I have noticed...

  •  Done "Therefore, helping them to reach the ocean lowers their chances of survival.[5]"--Depending on what the source said, I feel like this sentence can be taken a step further. Why exactly does moving them hurt their chances of survival. The sentence before this sort of clarifies the point made by this sentence, but I think more needs to be said (i.e. is it a development problem, an experience problem...what?).
  •  Done "The Fripp Island, South Carolina Turtle Patrol each year arranges driftwood to guide the hatchlings towards the closest shoreline."--Can this be cited?
  •  Done Some emphasis on sexual dimorphism should be placed in the current "Anatomy and Morphology" section.
  •  Done "The post-hatchlings then return [..]"--Can't you say "young" or something?
  •  Done The information in the "Habitat" section would be better put into a movement section. In other words, this section should be dealing with the characteristics of where these animals are found, not how or at what stage in their lives the get there.
  •  Done The end of the first sentence and the second sentence of the "Feeding" section repeat each other.
  •  Done Something up with ref. # 6?
Hope this helps somewhat.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just Some More Things[edit]

  •  Done The subheading "breeding" implies that someone is actually raising these turtles, mating them to produce specific traits, and releasing them. Is this the case?
  •  Done Internal unit conversions, I'm pretty sure, should be consistent. I would convert from metric units to imperial units every instance you need a conversions. Do not put "7–15 centimetres (70–150 mm)," that is standard to standard.
  •  Done "170 pounds (77 kg) to 350 pounds (159 kg)"--This may already be correct, but can't the unit converter be adapted to read "77-150 Kg (170-350 lbs)?"
  •  Done I think the word "gear" is used a little much in the first paragraph of the threats section.
Again, good luck gentlemen.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You said metric to imperial conversions would be better? The entire article is imperial to metric, should I change it? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I would advise in favor of the change, only because I received some heat on the bog article about it being a global encyclopedia and the USA being really the only place that uses those units.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'll change it. Done Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Touches on all areas that an animal article should cover, but 3200 words is not much considering this is the world's most-studied and well-known sea-turtle. Lede needs to be a concise version of the entire article, which is hard to do in a single paragraph. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the lead really should be entirely rewritten. I guess we're putting that off until finishing the other sections as the lead should summarize the whole article. Is there something that should be done in the meantime? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A general expansion (esp of the Ecology, Behavior, & Importance to humans sections) is all I see as being needed. If the quality of the expanded text is as good as what is here now, then I think this will be ready for FAC. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


  •  Done"Linnaeus first named the loggerhead [...]"--I would say "Carl Linnaeus," but that's more of an aesthetic choice.
  •  Done"crushing the exoskeletons of its prey such as conches."--which includes
  •  Done"The loggerhead is widely distributed around the world, "--I've seen other articles say such and such has a "cosmopolitan distribution," maybe that would be best here (along with a link to the page).
  •  Done"over 67,000 nests per year."--nests built per year may be a little more clear.
  •  Done"Juveniles and non-nesting adults of the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean differ in their habitat preferences"--perhaps (depending on what the source says) you could say age is a factor in habitat preferences.
More coming later (must study nervous system...)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll try to address this ASAP. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help Dom. Good luck on the Bog Turtle.--TimHAllstr (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome (thanks for the luck!)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done"Pacific Loggerheads live in temperate to tropical regions"--I would link temperate and tropical.
  • "These distinct populations of loggerheads have unique characteristics and genetic differences."--This does seem like it should fit in this section, but it may be best served in an Evolutionary history section (along with some of the other historical information).
  • "weight range of 77 to 160 kilograms (170 to 350 lb) and length range of 79 to 120 centimetres (31 to 47 in)."--Some large ranges gentlemen, can no other source be found that gives more specific lengths and weights? The sentence after this serves as a good qualifier, yet it remains unclear why the ranges are so different (is it the difference between populations or something?).
I read somewhere that the Mediterranean loggerheads are smaller. Tim, if you have the Spotila book you might want to include this. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed"The carapace, (upper side of the shell) which averages approximately 91 centimetres (36 in)"--What's the relation between this and the sentence before saying they averaged "92 centimetres (36 in)?"
I just removed this statement since it seemed redundant. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  DoneThis may be a dumb question, but why is there a "Habitat" heading under the "Ecology" section when there already is a "Range and Habitat" section. I think the best solution would be to rename "Range and Habitat" to "Distribution" and leave the "Habitat" heading.
  • Fixed"Raccoons are the loggerheads' primary predator and can be extremely destructive."--It is pretty hard to fathom that the Loggerhead suffers from raccoon attacks. I think you're trying to say the raccoon harm the nests, but surely not the full grown turtle. In this section, I would include more info on the predators of the full grown animal as well.
  • Fixed"hatchlings dig their way to the surface and make their way to the sea."--repetitive "their way"
  •  Done"hatchling averages about 4.6 centimetres (1.8 in) in length and weighs around 20 grams (0.71 oz)"--This is already said verbatim in the "Anatomy and Morphology" section, I would leave it out of that one.
  • Fixed (lol) "water loss on the journey to the difficult journey from nest to ocean."--Do what?!?
  •  Done"When the water cools loggerheads must"--comma needed.
  •  Done"When both are available, some combination of both is likely used.[29] If one technique is not available the other suffices.[29]"--These two sentences need copy-editing (also, just one in-line citation at the end will do).
  • "The loggerhead mating period lasts up to six weeks."--Six weeks when? Is it a certain time of the year, or is it multiple times throughout one year.
This needs more information before it is corrected. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done"Recent evidence indicates that ovulation in loggerheads is mating-induced.[34] This is unique, as mating-induced ovulation is rare outside of mammals. Loggerheads are the first turtles known to undergo mating-induced ovulation.[34]"--A little repetitive, I would try to make this one sentence.
  •  Done"A single clutch may have as many as five sires, each fathering a portion of the clutch"--My good lord, I request an alteration is diction in this instance (a.k.a. change the word "sire").
  •  Done"due to perceived higher fecundity."--Link Fecundity.
  •  Done"size and shape of a ping-pong ball."--Don't think I need to learn about table tennis while researching the Loggerhead Sea Turtle.
  •  Done" [...] permanent blindness.[45]Trematodes of the [...]'--spacing between the ref and beginning of next sentence.
  •  DoneA new nematode, designated Angiostoma carettae, now infests loggerheads.[48]"--I would word this a bit differently, since the species itself isn't new (newly discovered perhaps).
  •  Done"are listed asEndangered under both "--spacing between "as" and "Endangered" (which I don't think needs to be capitalized or italicized).
  •  Done"Several days after eggs hatch, the workers tally hatched eggs, undeveloped eggs, and dead hatchlings."--We need to know who "the worker's" are (an organization, group of volunteers...what?).
  • "Hatchlings use the journey from nest to ocean to build strength for the coming swim."--Now we're talking about a swim again...why? You may want to say something like "Since the young use the (whatever journey/swim) to build strength," followed by the next sentence you already have.
I reordered this section, maybe it's better now. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall, some nice work guys. A few things in general: again, I stress a sexual dimorphism section, it seems to be very important in species articles, and try to make the text one coherent piece, rather than a compilation of facts (for example, I have no idea how many journeys this turtle makes over the course of it's life). Hope this helps.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I read somewhere that "sexual dimorphism isn't apparent in sea turtles." so I'm not so sure there is much to include on sexual dimorphism (externally at least). I'll keep looking... Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I would look everywhere possible to see if there's a trace of difference between males and females (a lot of possible references on this turtle).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting ready for possible GAN[edit]

  • The section headings need to be carefully organized and carefully worded. For instance, under Conservation you have "Diseases," something totally different from conservation efforts. You may want to create (as I was told to do with the bog article) one section called Conservation and in it discuss strictly human interactions with the turtle. Than, in a separate section (perhaps entitled Ecology and behavior), talk about everything ecology. This includes "natural" threats, life cycle, movement, things like that.
I moved the disease section, but I agree that more organization needs to take place.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I know your work is not complete, therefore the lead cannot really be a summation of the article (since facts are coming and going), but I think an effort to summarize the articles main points in the lead is within reason.
  • The small Habitat subsection should really be its own section, with things like distribution and populations under it in sub-sections. Specifics about the habitat are needed (what other animals are expected to be found in its habitat, temperature preferences, (if you can locate it) salinity preferences...).
I have made habitat the main heading and will work on finding the suggested info--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph under Distribution can be made into an Evolutionary history sub-section.

 Done --TimHAllstr (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Now that that has been said, more grammar things I picked up on...
  • "calling it Testudo caretta.[5]"--I was previously told that taxonomic synonyms should be placed in the taxonomy box (you can check the bog to see how I had to do it).

 Done--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "C. caretta gets its common name, loggerhead, from the large head.[4]"--its?

Fixed--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "more frequently found in shallow estuarine habitats with"--link estuarine

 DoneTimHAllstr (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)-t}}

  • "migrate from the east Pacific to the Mexican coastline and return later as sub-adults."--sub-adults? Never heard it called that before, keep it if you want, doesn't really matter, just kind of awkward.
subadults are defined as past the juvenile period but don't have adult characteristics yet. I got rid of the dash and linked the word--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Hatchlings range in coloration from light brown to almost black and lack the adult's distinct yellows and reds.[14] They measure approximately 4.6 centimetres (1.8 in) at birth, and weigh about 20 grams (0.71 oz).[4]"--wouldn't this be best served under Early life?

Fixed--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "The turtle's shell is divided into two sections: carapace and plastron."--These do not need to be linked a second time.

Fixed--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "More than 100 species of animals from 13 phyla as well as 37 kinds of algae live on loggerheads' backs.[19] These parasitic organisms, which increase drag, offer no known benefit to the turtle, although it has been suggested that the dulling effect of organisms on shell color improves camouflaging ability.[19]"--Again, I think this should be removed from this section (perhaps if you choose to make an Ecology section, it can go in there).
We currently have an Ecology section. Is there a specific subheading that you would recommend this go under?--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Assuming these are parasites (which they seem to be since they are hinder the turtle), I would change Disease to maybe Disease and parasites, making this sentence a separate paragraph (and if more content is found on the subject it can be added to that section).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "On two barrier islands in South Carolina, raccoons destroyed more than 80 percent of loggerhead nests.[22] In Cape Sable, Florida, raccoons destroyed 75-85 percent of the nests.[22]"--When did these things happen?
Honestly, the source does not clearly state this information. Should I remove this?
  • No, since a reference found it important enough to include. The solution may be to make the statement more generalized. Perhaps you could say something like: "In several instances, raccoons have been recorded destroying large portions of loggerhead nests."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "loggerheads have their spread to about mid-stroke swimming position"--Have their what spread?

Fixed--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "when the conflict is over access to good foraging grounds."--Can't really picture a loggerhead foraging for food, I can picture a cow doing so...
A sea turtle's foraging ground is the area in which it will mate. This is stated in our article under the Maturation section--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Under the Early life section, can it be mentioned how far away from the ocean their mothers typically bury them?
I have put in the most specific information I could find about what you requested in our current resources. I will attempt to find more specific measurements.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "During their migration, juvenile loggerheads have the ability to..."--this paragraph kind of just jumps into the meat of the issue, can you discuss maybe the age at which the migration occurs, something like that (or does this happen every year? if so, say that)?
  • " Loggerheads that reach adulthood typically live more than 30 years, and often live past 50 years."--I think the words "typically" and "often" make this sentence a bit confusing, is it more common for the loggerhead to live 30 years or 50 years?
  • I'm having a hard time finding the exact source for this info but I will work on fixing this.
  • "prepares for reproduction in its foraging area"--again, I just can't picture it (it may be perfectly fine wording...I don't know, leave it as is if you want to).
  • "During the mating period, females produces an average of 3.9 egg clutches"--it's weird how this paragraph is worded when compared to the things before it (are you talking about during the act of mating, or during the mating season?).
  • "The nesting season peaks in June and July, but varies by nesting beach.[36]"--"nest" could have been linked well before (unless it already has, in which case, remove this wikilink).
  • Fixed I kept the nesting season link because it is directed to a different article.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "males favor large females due to perceived higher fecundity."--thanks for linking this word already, but I would also include a little bit of an explanation as to what it means.
  • Fixed I added a very general definition in parentheses--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The Importance to humans heading can be merged into the Conservation section as perhaps a beginning paragraph.
  • "Loggerhead Sea Turtles were once intensively hunted for meat and eggs."--couple things, what is the correct capitalization of this common name? I have seen several...also, I think the word "their" can be placed before "meat and eggs." Also, when did this happen (is it still happening?)?
  • Fixed It is Loggerhead sea turtle. I put more of an explanation for clarity.--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "can't return to the surface to breathe."--sp. (breath).
  • It states that they breathe, as in they take in air. Not that they take a breath.--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Artificial lighting threatens loggerhead hatchlings, contributing to thousands of deaths per year. Hatchlings crawl to the water as soon as they emerge from their underground nest. They are guided toward the ocean by the reflection of the moon and stars off the water's surface.[25] Artificial lighting may cause the turtles to navigate inland, away from the protective waters, exposing them to dehydration and predation as the sun rises.[25][47]"--We've already been told this, perhaps the other instance where this is stated can be removed (since this section deals exclusively with "human activity").
  • Fixed Changed so that the concept of glare directing turtles is stated in early life and artificial lighting detail is described in human activity.--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Trematode infection can be highly debilitating, for example, inflammatory trematode lesions "--can't "for example" be the start of a new sentence?
  • "Plastic fencing can exclude predators such as raccoons or even dogs."--I would continue this sentence with something like: "from the nesting site."
  • Alright men, what do you say we fix these small things, do a little more research, and promote another good article for the good guys?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and thank you very much for your help. I will work on completely fixing the suggestions that I haven't been able to complete over the next few days.--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, note the alt text link in the box in the top right corner, it is a handy tool. You need to add alt text to the first two images, even though one is a map.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

His Band and the Street Choir[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently brought this article to GA status and was wondering what needs to be improved, to go for maybe FA. I have some more sources on recording, and can possibly add a "background" section if the article warrants it, but I'm not sure how to fit them in.

Thanks, Kitchen roll (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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


  • "have led Morrison to think little of the album in later years, despite it charting well and receiving good reviews at the time of its release." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "have led Morrison to think little of the album in later years even though it charted well and received good reviews at the time of its release."


  • "Also returning from Moondance is the... " - Instead of shifting to present tense here, wouldn't it be better to stick with past tense, "was"? And then "sang" instead of "sing" later in this sentence?


  • "The songs on the album have a free, relaxed sound to them, whilst the simple lyrics lack the level of poetry expected in Morrison's songs." - This sentence caught my eye because it's an exact duplicate of a sentence in the lead. "While" is preferred to the archaic "whilst". I'd rewrite the sentence in the lead rather than simply cloning this one.
  • "Its next recording featured in the first His Band and the Street Choir session... " - Maybe "occurred during" rather than "featured in"?
  • "In the version of the song released on His Band and the Street Choir Morrison and John Platania duet on acoustic guitars, whilst the drummer, Dahaud Shaar, doubles up on bass clarinet." - Doesn't make sense as written. Do you mean "play a duet"? Also, "whilst" should be "while".
  • "The lyrics of both "Crazy Face" and "Going Around with Jesse James" mention American outlaw Jesse James, which suggests a similar theme." - I can't be sure what "which" refers to in this sentence.


  • "The gatefold photos of Morrison surrounded by the group of musicians with their wives and children were taken by David Gahr at a party for Planet's son from a previous relationship, Peter." - I think I'd rewrite this in active voice and move "Peter" next to "son" rather than "relationship". Suggestion: "David Gahr took the gatefold photos of Morrison surrounded by the group of musicians with their wives and children at a party for Planet's son, Peter, from a previous relationship." Also, should "gatefold" be linked or explained?
  • "These photos were dismissed by the singer as 'rubbish'... " - Active voice? "The singer dismissed these photos as 'rubbish'... "?
  • Blockquotes are generally four lines long or longer. This one is only three lines long on my computer screen.
  • I would unlink "musician". It's too common to need a link.

Chart performance

  • "However this was mainly because of the sampler single "Domino",[30] which reached #9 on The Billboard Hot 100,[31] and is Morrison's highest charting single as a solo artist (as of 2010), topping his 1967 hit "Brown Eyed Girl", from the album Blowin' Your Mind!." - Too many clauses for one sentence, perhaps. I'd suggest re-writing as two sentences.

Critical response

  • Jon Laundau is linked here but appears above this in the "Chart performance" section.
  • "A few more numbers with a gravity of 'Street Choir'... " - Did he write "a gravity"? I was expecting "the gravity".
  • "Robert Christgau took a more critical approach to the album by calling it "a less compelling album than Moondance" and as containing a "few humdrum cuts and an occasional minor lapse of taste", but nonetheless gave the album an "A-minus", which he later upgraded to an "A"." - This sentence seems a little too complex as it stands. Two sentences perhaps?


  • I would try to add the place of publication to the books in the list that have the publisher but not the place. WorldCat is a good resource for this kind of hunt.


  • You won't have trouble convincing reviewers that one fair-use album cover is OK, but you will probably have trouble justifying two. The one of the band is more interesting and informative, I think, than the one of Morrison alone.


  • The alt-text tool at the top of this review pages shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

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) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Right I think I've corrected everything per your suggestions. I'm not sure how to do the alt text thing, as the images seem to be quite complicated; the first is two images blurred together and the second has a lot going on in it, with a lot of people. Also do you think the size of the article is sufficient for Featured article status? Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Length as such isn't one of the FA criteria. What you have to decide is whether the article is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and whether it is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." As for the alt text, I think the best approach is to imagine a blind person whose only notion of the images will come from a machine that reads your alt text out loud. I would keep the alt text fairly simple; don't attempt to describe every detail or to add any information (such as people's names) not included in the image itself. Something like "Seven long-haired young men in casual clothes sit close together, look forward, and smile." Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I'll have a go at the alt text thing and see what they say at FAN; I suppose the worst they can do is ask me to change it. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Right I'm nominating it for FA. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Corey Taylor[edit]

Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to fix any flaws before I nominate it for GA status. CrowzRSA 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha
OK, I'll review using the GA criteria - I'll have a quick read through first. --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


  •  Done No obviously missing aspects, nothing superfluous - seems to comply with that part of the GA criteria. --Philcha (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is there a gap between "Early life: 1973–1991" and "Later life: 2002–present"? --Philcha (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


(not a GA criterion, but a poor structure makes an article hard to understand, and may it unstable because changes have side-effects elsewhere - which would fail in a GA review)

  • I'm not sure the section heading "Biography" is a good title, as the whole article is a biography. How about e.g. "Personal life"? --Philcha (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Biographical articles always have some connection between the personal life and the career. In some cases it's very simple, e.g. the events that led to the start of the career. In other cases there's a series of connections, possibly both ways: a life event such as a death or break-up may inspire a new type of work, or a success / failure in the career may have consequences in the life. We may have to keep looking at the structure. --Philcha (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons[edit]

To be a GA, any article has to comply with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. This article must also comply with Biographies of living persons, to minise the risk that WP may be sued. As the article has not been deleted, it may be "clean". But we'll to check. --Philcha (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Several of the most sensitive items - e.g. addiction, legal custody by grandmother, children and their mothers - appear to be based only on Arnopp. He could get something wrong, or he or his publisher may have a point of view. It would be safer to use more sources. --Philcha (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "He and his father currently have a strong relationship" cited Voliminal: Inside The Nine. Roadrunner Records, but the citation is incomplete - there's no way for anyone else to find and check it, see WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Where can another editor check the album notes for Come What(ever) May? Is there a museum that keeps a copy? --Philcha (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Towers Record' "Stone Sour (CD)" does not support "Drummer Joel Ekman came back on board as well. This "reformation" later resulted in Stone Sour recording at Catamount Studios in Cedar Falls, Iowa" --Philcha (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • allmusic ((( Stone Sour > Charts & Awards > Billboard Albums ))) does not support "It was released August 1, 2006, and charted on twelve different charts". --Philcha (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • allmusic ((( Roadrunner United: The All Star Sessions > Overview ))) does not support "During the recording of the album, drummer Joel Ekman left the band for personal reasons. As a result, drummer Roy Mayorga was recruited, taking his place". --Philcha (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So there are 3 refs with problems in the 2 paras about Stone Sour. If I were acting as a GA reviewer (and I've done a few), if I found another 3-4 I'd stop looking, put the review on "Hold", and fail the review if there was even one defective ref after the end of the "Hold" period. It's the responsibility of the nominator to make the article as near 100% as possible - GA review is a type of quality control, not a service to editors. --Philcha (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In the ref for "Corey Taylor and his father first met on March 28, 2005, when he was 31 years old", the citation (description of the source) is "Corey Taylor NNDB. Retrieved 2010-04-01". This has some problems:
    • Required information is missing, e.g. author, title, date, ... --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    • There's standard formatting for this information - there are many examples in the articles. --Philcha (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


This varies between OK and really poor. As with the refs, after 6-8 examples, a GA reviewer might "Hold" and fail the review if there are still problems at the end of the "Hold" period. Some examples of poor writing:

  • "Prior to them viewing the series, there was a trailer for the 1978 horror film Halloween." Better "Before the series, ..." --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Taylor considers this to have "developed some sense of Slipknot in [himself]." (next sentence!) Better ""Taylor said this "developed some sense of Slipknot in [himself]." --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "With Halloween introducing Taylor to masks and horror themes, Taylor's grandmother introduced him to rock music, showing him a collection ..." (next sentence!) has more than 1 problem:
    • It's ungrammatical as well as clumsy. Better "While Halloween introduced Taylor to masks and horror themes. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Worse, it's hard to see why "... masks and horror themes" is connected with "Taylor's grandmother introduced him to rock music ...", as Taylor wears a mask when performing with Slipknot. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Taylor has had a prolific recording career to date and has appeared as a guest musician on albums by a number of high profile bands such as Soulfly, Apocalyptica and Damageplan" is verbose and WP:PEACOCK. Better "Taylor has had a prolific recording career to date and has appeared as a guest musician on albums by a number of high profile bands such as Soulfly, Apocalyptica and Damageplan and other bands." --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Active voice is usually better than passive voice. Instead of "Corey was confirmed to appear on rapper Tech N9ne's album K.O.D., but did not submit his vocals in time, and was removed" I suggest "rapper Tech N9ne confirmed that Taylor was to their album K.O.D., but was removed because Taylor did not submit his vocals in time". --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Corey Taylor is the writer of an exceeding amount of songs for both of his projects" is verbose and WP:PEACOCK, and does not gives the reader any information - delete the sentence. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Unlike the previous vocalist for Slipknot, Ander Colsefini, Taylor had a vocal style that was characterized by drummer Joey Jordison as having "really good melodic singing and he had a great personality"" is a train wreck - how much damage can you see. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Images and other media[edit]

  •  Done Lead image has OTRS ticket, I assume that's OK. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Non-free media use rationale for the house needs work, esp the Purpose. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please check that the clips for "Three Nil" (34 sec)and "Bother" (27 sec) are not too long - there's policy some where. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Check URLs and DAB links[edit]

A good reviewer will do these checks - but will expect you will have done them your well, as the article should be as good as it can be before the review. Check that:

  • The URL checker has found no web that are using the article but are deads otherwise defective. If there are problems, you can often fix them. For example see User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died. If that does not work, you will need to look for new sources and, if that does not work, you may need to delete unsupported content per WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Check that wikilinks in the article do not to DAB pages, and fix any wikilinks. --Philcha (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you make a sub-page of your User page where you can note these and other tools and techniques, so you're not dependent on other users' pages. Of course it would be better if WP had a central, update and well-advertised page for this - I wish! --Philcha (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


As a editor and as a reviewer I deal with the lead last, to ensure that it contains items that are only in the main text (see WP:LEAD) and that it prioritise the items - the lead can't cover everything. It will be particularly difficult here because of WP:BLP, as the phrasing and emphasise could make or break the article. I can't look at the lead now, because the rest of the article needs work first. --Philcha (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - -

That's the end of my comments, I hope they've been helpful. If you find of them unclear or even wrong (it happeneds :-D), please comment - possibly next to the items I raised. --Philcha (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to reviewer Philcha: Your review work is much appreciated, but please remember not to divide your review by level-3 subheadings, which messes up the PR page. I have converted them to level-4 which is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! --Philcha (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

H.R. Gray[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made some neccessary changes to the article and haven't received any feedback as of yet. I would appreciate the help on this - thank you in advance!!

Thanks, Wendyfables (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I apologise for the delay in posting these notes. I believe this is your first wikipedia article? Getting started can be tough and we all make lots of mistakes at this stage, so don't be depressed if this review sounds pretty negative. I am trying to help, even if I sound critical.

  • One problem with the article, and the reason that it reads like promotional literature, is that a main source is the company's own website. Half of your citations are to this site. Your text needs to be based on more neutral sources – magazine articles about the company, news reports, etc. You have used these, but not sufficiently to overcome the decidedly non-neutral feel. The emphasis needs to move away from what the company says about itself, and towards what others say about it.
  • The structure of the article is not adequate at present. Sections could be added as follows:-
    • Lead, summarising the general content of the article
    • History, dealing with the foundation of the company and its development
    • Profile of the company as it is today; summary of current activities
    • Future prospects

You don't have structure the article this way exactly, but it may help you to develop the article in an orderly way.

  • Prose issues
    • Bullet points should be avoided except in the case of simple lists.
    • The general style should be summary. Some of the information, particularly in the "Significant projects" section, is overdetailed for a general encyclopedia article. Example: "This project also included the installation of five (5) access shafts/manholes structures and the installation of tangential inlet drop structure and associated Deaeration chamber and Appurtenances."
    • The prose needs to flow more easily. At present there are too many short sentences and paragraphs
  • References
    • Online sources should be properly formatted, minimally with title, publisher and most recent access date.
    • Citations should not be placed against section headings
    • If the H.R. Gray website is a source it should not be listed with External links
  • Minor points
    • Wikipedia style limits the use of capitals in section headings to the first letter (except for proper names). Thus "Industries served", "Significant projects" etc
    • The purpose of the "Associations" section is unclear. If these are associations to which the company belongs, this should be stated.

I hope these comments will help you to rethink the article and to pull it into better shape. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have completed a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would sincerely appreciate input from some uninvolved editors who would be willing to review the article for its overall structure and format. Does the article progression make sense? How about the section heads? Are the in-text attributions handled properly? Are there any major issues that jump out at you?

Here is the latest draft that I am requesting comments on: [[5]]. Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: From what I understand of the Peer Review procedure, this article is not eligible for PR because it's, er, not the official article. Can't you move the sandbox version to article-space and then initiate a PR? María (habla conmigo) 02:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. It's a contentious article and the regular editors (myself included) are frequently at odds. This is why I am seeking outside comment. I have posted at various Notice Boards, but they deal with specifics. I was hoping to get comments on the overall format and structure and this seemed the only place that offered that. Do you have any other suggestions on where I can go for this kind of assistance? Or might someone from this board agree to review the article outside of the official Peer process? Smatprt (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Peer review is chronically short on reviewers, so we try to only review actual articles - the idea is that the time and effort for a thorough review should be reserved for things in article space (this is why an article nominated for deletion will not get a PR until the AfD has closed as a keep either). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not have any expertise on the topic, but here are some suggestions for improvement of the article as an article.

  • The article needs to be scrupulosly referenced, but there are whole paragraphs without refs and sections that are quite sparse - for example the whole section "Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England" has only four refs and has two plusp aragraphs with no refs at all.
  • Several of the sources used do not appear to be reliable sources - for example, what makes a RS? Or
  • I found at least one dead external link - - if this were in article space, the link checker for PR would work.
  • External links in the article need to be converted to inline refs
  • The refs also need more information in many cases - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books need publisher, location, year, ISBN, etc. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The article seemed repetitious in places
  • The headers do not all follow WP:HEAD
  • I would try for consistency in how each topic is addressed. For example, give the minority viewpoint, then give the objections to it / majority viewpoint.

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 ><>°° 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Washington & Jefferson Presidents football[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks pretty good to me, and I would like to know how it could be made into a GA, or even possibly an FA.

Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is readable and informative, but if it is to reach GA standard, a lot more work is needed. I have itemised specific points below. On a more general point, I have not copyedited the prose; it is generally grammatical, but at times reads more like a football magazine article than an encyclopedia entry. I have highlighted a particular instance of this, below, but the whole text needs to be looked at again with a view to improving its encyclopedic tone. Specific points:-

  • There is a link to a disambiguation page - Bethany College - done
  • The article needs a proper lead section, which summarises in broad terms the general content of the article. A simple definition is not adequate. Please see WP:LEAD for further information.
  • The History section needs further development - it should not begin with the first match. For example, how and why was the team formed? Who were the guiding spirits behind its beginnings? Where was the team based, etc?
    • I think I expanded it a good amount.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The Folwell years:
    • "years" in heading should be lower case, and "The" should be omitted (WP:MOS)
    • What was Bob Folwell recruited to do? Player? Coach?--clarified
    • Who is Robert "Mother" Murphy?--clarified
    • 100–0 score? Is this right? It seems an extraordinary score to pass over without comment.
      • Yes, that's correct. I've seen scores of 200+ from the early years of college football.--GrapedApe
    • "Three players were named to the All-American." For the benefit of us who have no knowledge of American Football, what does this mean?
    • W&J would have won the same..." Presumably "game"?--'done
    • The coded term "mythical national championship" should not be used without explanation. It forces your readers to use a link and read another article to find out what the expression means.
    • "7th" should be "seventh", per WP:MOS--done
  • The Neale, Heisman, and Kerr Years
    • "The" should be deleted from section title
    • Neale should be introduced more formally, to maintain encyclopedic tone.
    • "a day of canceled classes and bonfire with inspirational speeches" - "bonfire" should be plural or "a bonfire" --done
    • It is not necessary to spell out Robert "Mother" Murphy in full at each mention.
    • Jargon expressions in second paragraph, e.g. "potent offense", "first downs", "rushing". This sort of thing is always likely to occur in a specialist sports article. Bear in mind that this is not a football magazine article; it is a general encyclopedia with a less informed readership, and the prose needs to be tailored accordingly.
  • Depression and decline
    • "decline" in heading should be lower case (WP:MOS)
    • " a result of decreased enrollment and funding from the Depression" - "during the Depression" would read better.--done
    • What was Simon Strousse Baker president of?--clarified
    • "Things began to look up when Donora-native "Deacon" Dan Towler chose W&J over offers from larger football programs." It would help to have a date for this information.
      • I couldn't find a date of matriculation, so I added the general time frame.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • What is a PAC championship?--clarified
  • Resurgence
    • What is "NCAA"?
    • "the DIII playoffs": "DIII" looks awkward, would be better written as "the Division III playoffs"--clarified
    • "both securing at least a share" - why "at least"?--clarified
  • Alumni: the section should be rewritten in more flowing prose. It presently has seven paragraphs, five of which are single-sentence one-liners.--should be better
  • Tradition and lore: The first sentence is pure trivia and should be deleted. Other information could be briefly included in the body of the text, but it is not worth having a section dedicated to this.
  • Season-by-season records (tables)
    • Coach information is very repetitive. The table should be simplified to avoid at least three recordings of each coach's name.
      • As far as I can tell, that's
    • The heading "Overall" is uninformative. You need someting like "Win/loss ratio"
    • The figures in this column would look a lot neater if they were centered. Same applies to the "Standings" column.
  • Some on-line references (1, 12, 25) lack access dates.

As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews at present, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any questions arising from this review. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Invisible Circles[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it received a major expansion and needs a new evaluation

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fair start but needs lots of work to make it flowing and accessible to most readers. I would suggest adding a "Background" section that includes details about the band's past, its personnel changes, and its earlier albums. After adding such a section, you could re-write the lead to make it a true summary of the whole article. An eagle-eyed copyeditor would also find fix many small errors here that need fixing; I list a few of these below.


  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph or two. WP:LEAD has details.
  • "and it is the first full-length album since the departure of guitarist and composer Mark Jansen" - Maybe "since guitarist and composer Mark Jansen quit the band"? Otherwise, "departure" is ambiguous and might even be taken to mean that he died.
  • "His departure marked the end of putting songs in related parts... ". - It's not clear to me what this means. Related parts of what?
  • "[e.g. The Embrace That Smothers and My Pledge of Allegiance]" - Individual song titles should appear in quotation marks; e.g., "My Pledge of Allegiance". Also, parentheses would be standard here rather than brackets.
  • "In this work instead a new sound has been adopted by the band, mostly revolving around elements of progressive metal [1] ." - Here and elsewhere in the article, the citation number should appear after the punctuation, not before.
  • "The theme was inspired by Gommans' work as an Art teacher" - Gommans' first name should also appear here the first time he is mentioned. Also, "art" does not take a capital "a".


  • I'd suggest adding a "Background" section that would include material about the band's history. See Californication (album) or Doolittle (album), for example; both are featured articles about albums.
  • The article needs a top-to-bottom copyedit to catch errors like those I list above in the Lead section.
  • The long paragraphs in the "Production" and "Critical reception" sections should be broken up in a logical way.
  • All of the claims in the "Production" section after the words, "When the instrumental tracks were ready," are unsourced. Where does all this information come from? It's certainly not common knowledge.

This is not a complete line-by-line review, but I hope my few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Belovedfreak comments

I thought I'd add a few comments too. I'll try not to duplicate what Finetooth has said. I recommend a thorough copyedit. I'll point out some problems I noticed.


  • "Invisible Circles is the third studio album released by Dutch symphonic metal band After Forever in 2004" - was it the third album they released that year? if not, that needs to be made clearer. I presume you mean the third released overall, but it's a bit confusing. Perhaps, Invisible Circles is the third studio album by Dutch symphonic metal band After Forever. Released in 2004, it is their first full-length album since...
  • "In fact, in this work After Forever adopted ..." - Here, "In fact" is not necessary
  • "Invisible Circles is a concept album, dealing with family dynamics and child abuse." - a small point and you may disagree, but to me, "dealing with" suggests something being resolved. Invisible Circles is a concept album about family dynamics and child abuse would be simpler and clearer. Also, family dynamics in themselves are not necessarily bad things to be "dealt with"!
  • "...inspired by Sander Gommans' work as an art teacher..." - At this point, I haven't a clue who Sander Gommans is or why he's relevant. Please link his name, and specify who he is in relation to this album.
  • "It could also be considered a metal opera..." - "It could also be considered" are weasel words (vague and unsupported); considered by whom? There is no citation backing this sentence up and it is not mentioned again in the article (part of the problem mentioned by Finetooth of the lead not summarising the article). This should either be taken out, or expanded on later, with references (and losing the "it could be considered").
  • Make sure that there are no spaces between punctuation and citations (this applies to the whole article).


  • "The story begins with two lovers, whose relationship is running dry and decide to have a child..." - this is not grammatically correct. I'm not sure the best way of wording this, but something's missing. "and decide" seems to relate to the relationship rather than the lovers. Something like The story begins with two lovers, whose relationship is running dry and who decide to have a child... makes sense, although that's not great either.
  • "The birth of a baby girl destroys in the mother her hopes of career and passion, causing instead in the father a stiffening..." -this isn't quite right. "Instead" isn't needed here since you're talking about two differnt people. What about The birth of a baby girl destroys in the mother her passion and hopes of a career and causes in the father a stiffening...?
  • Is "spoilt brat" a quote from the lyrics, or from a reference? If neither, it's too informal.
  • "as an unwanted burden" - a little redundant. Burdens generally are unwanted I think.
  • "She searches quietness and strength..." → She searches for quietness and strength
  • "becoming always more detached" → becoming ever more detached
  • "the grown-up girl, now a mother..." → the grown-up daughter, now a mother


  • "In the recording process for the previous albums this task was shared" - "In the recording process" is unnecessary.
  • "pushing the music of the band towards a sound more close to progressive metal..." - "more close" → closer
  • "limiting the gothic atmospheres" → reducing the gothic atmosphere
  • "first hand knowledge of the lives of problematic children, thanks to his job as a teacher" - could you expand a bit on this job & the influence it had on the album? It actually says more in the lead at the moment. Also, what do you mean by "problematic children" exactly?
  • "The band reunited at Excess Studios" - reunited from what? Were they on hiatus?
  • Amanda Sommerville is a redirect - incorrect spelling?
  • "..connect the songs one to the other and explain ..." → connect the songs to each other and explain
  • "famed producers" - "famed" is unnecessary and not neutral
  • "20th to 24th of October 2003" - per MOS dates shouldn't have "th"

Critical reception

  • "After the almost unanimous praise..." - citation needed for "unanimous praise" and also for the great expectations of fans and press.
  • "...but, as Eduardo Rivadavia remarks in his Allmusic review..." - this gives the impression that you (or Wikipedia) have a particular opinion that Rivadavia is merely agreeing with. Try to reword it so that you are only reporting what reviewers have said, not making statements of fact and then citing them to a review. This happens again with "The lead vocals of Floor Jansen reach new heights of excellence ..." - if one reviewer has said this, it doesn't make it an irrefutable fact.
  • "Maximum Metal review states that ..." - A Maximum Metal review? A Maximum Metal reviewer?
  • "Only a few reviewers remained nostalgic..." - this is a broad statement, implying a few (but more than one) out of at least several reviewers, but you have only cited one review.

Commercial response

  • Since these are two very small tables, this would perhaps work better as prose, and more connected to the critical response section rather than separated from it by the tracklisting and personnel. Also, please use country names, not just flags. Not all readers will be familiar with those flags, and they could also create accessibility issues for visually impaired readers. (See MOS:FLAG for more detail.)

External links

  • Is that You Tube link an official one? Does it link to a copyright violation?

In addition to a background section mentioned by Finetooth, is there any more information about the release of the album? For example, you don't even mention the date of release outside the infobox. Also, what about the single release? This isn't mentioned either. Hope these comments help, I did enjoy reading the article.--BelovedFreak 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More comments from Belovedfreak

It's looking much better. I've given it a slight copyedit, and I'll see what else I can pick up on. Lead

  • "musical tastes had strongly influenced the sound of their first work [...] After Forever adopted a new sound" - try to avoid this close repetition of the word "sound" as it sounds (!) a little awkward
  • "in three recording studios in the Netherlands and in Germany." - is this three studios in eaach country or three overall? If the latter, I suggest changing it to in three recording studios in the Netherlands and Germany.


Good to see this section!

  • "After Forever appeared to observers of the European heavy metal scene ..." - this is vague. Who are the observers? Fans? Critics? Please try to be more specific here & give examples of who thought what.
  • "The Gathering, Gorefest and others." - "and others" is unnecessary and a little vague, so I would avoid that. If you feel that there could be several otehrs you could add to that list, perhaps word it as the renaissance of Dutch metal bands, which included Ayreon, Within Temptation, The Gathering, Gorefest.
  • "...their musicianship was excellent and their live show was tight and effective." - here it's as if you personally are stating that their musicianship was excellent etc. Even though you have several citations there, it still needs to be worded to make it clear who thought these things. eg. "Critics thought that ... ; Joe Blogs said that "blah blah", while Fred Smith said that "blah blah."
  • "Unfortunately, the relationships within..." - "unfortunately" is unnecessary, and projecting your opinion on the situation. Let the reader decide if it was fortunate or unfortunate.
  • "The founding member and guitarist Mark Jansen had made his influence felt on the first two albums of After Forever, somehow imposing his personality over the other members of the band." - this is slightly awkward wording, but I didn't want to change it in case I inadvertently changed the meaning. I would suggest something like: Founding member and guitarist Mark Jansen had had a strong influence on the musical style of the band's first two albums. To be honest though, looking at the source cited, I can't see where this is mentioned, and certainly not anything about imposing his personality. If I've missed something, please point it out to me, but I'm concerned that this is WP:OR otherwise.
  • "In fact, his love for movie soundtracks is the base for the gothic and symphonic arrangements of Prison of Desire and Decipher." - "In fact" is unnecessary. The source cited here doesn't really back up this sentence, only that he likes movie soundtracks. It doesn't say that his love of them influenced the other albums.
  • "Moreover, his interest for religious and sociological ..." - this sentence needs a citation
  • "Soon after the release of Decipher, Jansen found himself in contrast with the direction the band, and co-founder Sander Gommans in particular, wanted to take." - I'm not sure what you mean at the end of this sentence, are some words missing?
  • "The summer of 2002 was dedicated to a European tour..." - please be more specific about the time of the tour, perhaps mentioning the months they toured. This is to avoid using the word "summer" since summer means a different time in the Southern hemisphere, and is absent altogether form some regions of the world.
  • "which exposed even more the band qualities to press and fans alike" - this could do with rewording slightly, but also, is not really neurtral since it sounds like you're writing from the point of view that the band are good, rather than that they got good press.
  • "...full-fledged and successful European tour in 2002." - this needs a citation (something saying that it was successful)
  • I've removed a few of the "Floor"s in "Floor Jansen" at this point because Mark Jansen is kind of out of the picture at this point, right? So, I don't think the reader will be confused.
  • "...increased the curiosity of the fans for a new release." - needs a reference
  • I hate to say this, as we asked you for this section, and you've obviously put a lot of work into it, but I wonder if it might need to be cut down a little as much of it isn't too relevant to the album. I think it's good to mention that they were getting more popular after their 2nd album, and the departure of Jansen, and the anticipation of the new album / EP release, but maybe we could lose a little detail. Perhaps leave it for now, and see what you think after you've done some more work on the article.


  • "Sander Gommans started the composition of the basic melodies for Invisible Circles at the beginning of 2003..." - needs a reference
  • There are a few sentences here that have references in the middle, try and move them to the end, it makes reading a little easier

--BelovedFreak 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Concept and storyline

  • I've copyedited a little here, and cut down some of the bit about Gormanns' job, to try to make if fit better with the source. Please check that I haven't changed the meaning from what you wanted.
  • I wonder if this section should be further up in the article, before the release of the album? I don't know, it's up to you, but in film articles, for example, the plot usually appears before the film release details.

Critical/commercial reception

  • "As could be expected with such a complex album..." - this is original research
  • "...but, as Eduardo Rivadavia says in his Allmusic review, this could be..." - this wording makes it sound as if you agree with Rivadavia, try and make it sound something like but, Eduardo Rivadavia said in his Allmusic review, that this could be
  • "Maximum Metal reviewer states..." - this is missing an article
  • "...lead vocals reach new heights of excellence..." - is this a quote? If so, needs quotation marks an attribution; if not, it's a bit flowery
  • "In particular, the spoken dialogue ..." this sentence needs a reference
  • "The album had good sales in the Benelux,..." - needs a reference
  • Should "Top 100 Dutch chart" be "Mega Album Top 100"? (see MegaCharts)
  • Are there names for the official Belgian charts?


  • Go through and check that you have authors & dates for all that are available, and that titles in citations match the titles in the sources. Please add publishers where possible

External links

  • I'm stll concerned that the YouTube link is to a copyright violation. Is there any reason not to think this? Is "Hawtpantz" someone official?


  • Small thing, but try to make sure that citations come immediately after punctuation, with no space in between

It's looking good, you've obviously put a lot of work into it. If you can address these concerns, I think it would be worth trying for GA.--BelovedFreak 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

National Anthem of Russia[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
When it was at FAC last time, people just refused to look at it past the grammar issues. I had several copyedits during the FAC, but I am not sure if people saw it or not. I also made some improvements to the references, checked all dead links and just want to see what other things could be done before going back to FAC. Thanks, User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

Note: the I've removed formatting (such as links and refs) from the prose out of convenience.

  • "The lyrics were revised for the anthem of the Russian Federation by Sergey Mikhalkov, who also wrote lyrics for versions of the Soviet anthem in 1943 and 1977."
    • The lyrics from the Soviet anthem were revised Sergey Mikhalkov, who had orginally wrote the Soviet lyrics in 1943 and 1977."
  • "In 1990, Russia needed a new anthem to distance itself from the Soviet past. Although "God Save The Tsar!" was used before the overthrow of the Tsar in 1917, President of the Russian SFSR, Boris Yeltsin, decided to select the song "Patrioticheskaya pesnya" by Mikhail Glinka. Composed without words and discovered after Glinka's death, the anthem, without lyrics, was decreed official in 1993. Due to the lack of lyrics, the anthem was not popular."
    • "Russia adopted the new anthem in 1990 to distance itself from its Soviet past. Although "God Save the Tsar!" was used before the Tsar was overthrown in 1917, President of the Russian SFSR Boris Yeltsin selected the song "Patrioticheskaya pesnya" by Mikhail Glinka. Composed without words and discovered after Glinka's death, the anthem was decreed official in 1993. The anthem was unpopular, due to its lack of lyrics."
  • "Because of this, President Vladimir Putin decided that Alexandrov's music was to be restored, and that new lyrics should be written for it."
    • "Consequently, President Vladimir Puting decided to restore Alexandrov's music and that new lyrics should written for it."

Historic anthems

  • Translations would be useful for "Grom pobedy, razdavaysya!" and "Kol slaven"
  • "The tune is in several English-language hymnals with words beginning "God the Omnipotent! King who ordainest/Thunder thy clarion, lightning thy throne!" (or variants)."
    • Why is this relevant to the revolution and the overthrow of the Tsar?
  • "The Internationale was used as the anthem of Soviet Russia from 1918, and adopted by the newly-created Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922, to be used until 1944."
    • "The Internationale was used as the anthem of Soviet Russia starting in 1918, adopted by the newly-created Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922 and was used until 1944."
  • In response, Alexandrov blamed Viktor Knushevitsky for the problems with the orchestration; Knushevitsky was responsible for orchestrating the entries for the final contest rounds in 1943."
    • "In response, Alexandrov blamed the problems on the person who was responsible for orchestrating the entries for the final contest rounds, Viktor Knushevitsky."
    • Also, why is this important / relevant?

Patrioticheskaya pesnya

  • "With the fall of the Soviet Union approaching, a new national anthem was needed..."
    • "With the impending collapse of the Soviet Union, a new national anthem was needed..."
  • "Constitutionally, the state symbols of Russia are an anthem, flag and coat of arms. According to Article 70 of the Constitution, each of the symbols required further definition by future legislation."
    • "According to the Constitution, the state symbols of Russia—an anthem, a flag, and a coat of arms—would require further definition by future legislation."

Call for lyrics

  • "The song was also used during the Soviet era; it was called "Zdravstvuj, slavnaya stolitsa" (Hail, the Glorious Capital"), which was created in 1947 to honor the 800th anniversary of the founding of Moscow."
    • Out of chronological order and, somewhat, irrelevant.
  • "However, it was the lack of lyrics that caused doom for "Patrioticheskaya Pesnya"."
    • "However, the lack of lyrics doomed "Patrioticheskaya Pesnya"."
  • "One of the reasons that was partly to blame for the lack of lyrics, was that Glinka's composition was mostly used for praise to the Tsar and to the Russian Orthodox Church."
    • Would work better in the preceeding section about the song.
  • "It was one of the few national anthems during this period that lacked official lyrics. Between 1990 and 2000, the only other wordless..."
    • "It was one of the few national anthems between 1990 and 2000 that lacked official lyrics, with the only other wordless..."

Modern adoption

  • "...for Russia as a new flag and coat of arms and that the selection..."
    • "...for Russia—as was a new flag and coat of arms—and that the selection..."
  • "The Duma voted 381-51-1 on 8 December 2000 to adopt Alexandrov's music as the national anthem. Following the vote, the committee formed to explore lyrics for the national anthem was tasked..."
    • "The Duma voted 381–51–1 in favor of adopting Alexandrov's music as the national anthem on 8 December 2000. Following the vote, a committee was formed and was tasked..."


  • "...has a tempo of ♩= 76." → Is their a better way writing this, without using symbols?

Very interesting and comprehensive. I love the use of a video in the infobox, very unique. I looked, heavily, at the prose as that seems to have been primary reason of not being promoted. In some places, I found that the prose was rough and have attempted to polish it up. Hopefully there won't be as much trouble the next time it goes to FAC. Also, consider reviewing an article from the backlog as that is how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiny Toon Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has undergone an extensive change from when it was rated as a start-class article. I need to know if there are any issues in readability, grammar, punctuation (i.e. where a comma goes following a quote), or anything else.

Thanks, Gak Blimby (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but I have quite a few suggestions for improvement.


  • The source link on the licensing page for File:Tiny Toon LD.jpg is dead or incorrect. For reviewers to verify the source, this will need to be fixed.
  • The alt text says, "Three of the main characters of the "Tiny Toon Adventures" series—Plucky Duck, Babs Bunny and Buster Bunny—burst out of a multi-colored variant of the bulls-eye opening used in Warner Bros.' Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts. Plucky is carrying his suitcase, and Buster a water gun." WP:ALT suggests generally sticking to what can be seen and not adding information to the alt text that comes from somewhere other than the image itself. In this case, the names of the characters are not part of the image; neither is the anything about Warner Bros. or Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies. On the other hand, the writing on the bulls-eye can be included in the alt text. Basically, the alt text should stick to a brief description of the three animals, the bulls-eye, and the visible text.
That was me working on the alt text...sorry about that. I've since re-worded that. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article rather than a set of introductory paragraphs. The existing lead says nothing about the critical reception of the film, for example. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections.
  • "is an American direct-to-video animated movie" - Wikilink direct-to-video?
  • "Featuring the regular characters from the animated program Tiny Toon Adventures, the film follows the adventures of the characters over their summer vacation from school." - This seems internally repetitive. Suggestion: "Featuring the regular characters from the animated program Tiny Toon Adventures, the film follows them during their summer vacation from school".
  • "Tokyo Movie Shinsha, a Japanese animation studio, animated the film." - Similar internal repetition. Why not "Tokyo Movie Shinsha, a Japanese studio, animated the film"?
  • "The film was executive produced by Steven Spielberg and written by Paul Dini, Nicholas Hollander, Tom Ruegger and Sherri Stoner." - To avoid the awkward "executive produced", perhaps "Steven Spielberg was the executive producer of the film, written by Paul Dini, Nicholas Hollander, Tom Ruegger and Sherri Stoner".
  • "How I Spent My Vacation runs about 73 minutes in length, and was released on VHS and Laserdisc formats" - Tighten by deleting "in length"?


  • The Manual of Style suggests rendering lists as straight prose when feasible. I think you could easily eliminate the bullet points and turn this into three paragraphs of prose that would make sense. The last three items in the list could be combined with the last sentence to make the third paragraph. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.
  • "causing Johnny to end up with Elmyra and being treated as her pet" - Elmyra Duff should be linked here rather than on second reference.


  • "Warner Bros. discussed with Executive producer Steven Spielberg if the film should be released in theaters" - Lowercase "e" on "executive". Also, "whether the film" rather than "if the film"?
  • "a factor he found major to the genre's appeal for those watching animated films at home" - "important" rather than "major"? Also "to those" rather than "for those"?
  • "In an interview for the LA Times" - Newspaper names should appear in italics and "LA" should be spelled out formally.
  • "The film is about 73 minutes in length" - Tighten to "The film is about 73 minutes long"?


  • "How I Spent My Vacation was released direct to video on March 11,[10] 1992.[8][11][9]" - Does this claim really need four supporting citations? Also, here and elsewhere, the citations should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [8][9][11].
  • The first paragraph of this section has quite a bit of unnecessary repetition; e.g. "released", "released", "released" and "retailers", "retailers".


  • "The review rated the film with three out of four bones." - Should "bones" be explained?
  • "TV Guide advised to "[w]atch this with the short set just for the heck of it"." - Word missing?
  • Dennis Hunt of the LA Times said... ". - Another LA Times, same as above.
  • "The magazine also questioned the point of using characters heavily based on Warner Bros. characters instead of using the classic characters themselves." - Does this need explaining? Not all readers will know what is meant by "the classic characters themselves".
  • "video ranked 12th in sales in April of 1992" - No need for "of" in this construction or others like it in the article.


  • The Miami Herald refers to the film... ". - Newspaper name needs italics.


  • The "cite" family of templates should not be mixed in the same article with the "citation" family. They produce slightly different results and therefore a kind of internal inconsistency.
  • The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. Most are already m-d-y, which is fine, but citation 10 is yyyy-mm-dd.

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) 02:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful! Thanks alot! Gak Blimby (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha Sorry for butting in, as Finetooth is doing a great job. After reading the article I think it looks a good prospect for GA class. To pass a GA review I think Gak Blimby should: --Philcha (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Check that all the refs are in good shape.
    • Every part of the main text needs refs, except for a convention that the plot summary does not need refs. For example IMO "Voice cast" needs at least 1 ref.
    • The sources must support the article's text exactly.
    • Each citation must have all the required items to tell a reader/reviewer where to find the source.
    • Check if any URLs have gone dead. If so, Internet Archive's Way Back Machine often contains archived copies of Web pages that have gone offline. You need to supply the original URL. When citing archived copies: parameter accessdate= is still required; add parameter archiveurl=... for the link provided by Internet Archive - as well as url=...; add parameter archivedate=... giving the date when the archived copy was made (supplied in the search results from the Way Back Machine; you have to click this to see the archived content).
  • Make the writing clearer and more concise, for example:
    • "Tiny Toons executive in charge of production Jean MacCurdy said that the film was released ..." should not repeat MacCurdy's position, which is already in "Production". I suggest "MacCurdy said that the film was released ..."
    • Section "Release" repeats How I Spent My Vacation far too much.
    • In "Reception" the sentence "Critical reaction to How I Spent My Vacation was generally positive" is both WP:PEACOCK and a violation of WP:V - unless you can cite aggregators such as Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes.
    • ""The "VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever" highlighted the parodies of the film, and noted that "Parents will be [as] equally entertained [as children] by the level of humor and fast-paced action". The review rated the film with three out of four bones" can be condensed into e.g. "Giving three out of four bones, "The "VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever" highlighted the parodies of the film ..."
    • In "Film critic Leonard Maltin gave a positive, but less enthusiastic review. Maltin said the film was "[e]pisodic," but praised the film's voice cast, songs and "funny business". He gave the film two and a half stars out of four", the phrase "gave a positive, but less enthusiastic review" is redundant as "two and a half stars out of four" makes the point, and the remaining 2 sentences can be combined like the previous review.
    • IMO the rest of the 1st and 2nd paras of section "Reception" can be improved in the same way.
    • I also found a few in section " Themes".
I'll fix these issues as soon as I can. Thanks for the help, much appreciated! Gak Blimby (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has now reached a stage in which we can promote to become a FA in the future. The Copa Libertadores is the most important club tournament in the western hemisphere. Let's start talking about what we need to fix in order to achieve this goal. It would look great on the WIKIFootball project if we had a feautured page.

Thanks, Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The most glaringly obvious thing that would need to be looked at is the severe lack of references. Only four sentences in the entire history section are referenced. At FAC, the reviewers would expect every sentence to be referenced. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't that be countered by providing direct links to more detailed pages of the sentences, which in turn, provides references? (which is the case here) Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. I see you have added quite a few more references to the article, but as I mentioned above, an FA is expected to have a reference against everything...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
NVM what I said earlier. For now, I have nominated the page as a good article as a 2nd step. What else could the page possibly need to become a FA?? Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand what you mean by "providing direct links to more detailed pages of the sentences, which in turn, provides references". You mean it is wikilinked to other article, and the relevant sentence is referenced there, right? If I haven't get you wrong, it is not a acceptable way to cite references. Reference should be cited on that page. So, if you really want to make it through FAC, then it means you better add the references back to Copa Libertadores from the page it links to. Salt (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you understand it correctly! And I took your advice (as well as those above) and created references for nearly everything on the page and I have even added a bibliography section. Please check it out now...I would really like to see what else it could possibly need to make it quality material to present it as a GA. If it gets approved, I will move it up to FA. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
One thing to keep an eye on - according to the manual of Style, references should go after punctuation marks. All of yours seem to be before the punctuation marks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I fixed it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am seriously thinking of retiring the good article nomination to go ahead and nominate it as a FA. I have added 20+ more references, revamped a bit of the page and it looks great. What else could it possibly need? Any thoughts? Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I completely rewrote an existing article. Is my coverage of this considered complete? I used examples from a variety of sources around the world…

Thanks for your efforts on this PR., Bettymnz4 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and clear that a lot of work has gone into it, but it needs some work to more closely follow the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The current lead is not a good summary of the article and should be expanded. 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, which has more on this
I expanded the Lead. When I went back to look at it, I was surprised I left it so short. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Do you feel it is okay now, or does the Lead need further tweaking?
  • It seems clear from the article that there are many kinds of laterite soil and the article itself uses "laterites" - since this is the case, should the lead really be singular "Laterite is a soil type..."?
  • The disambiguation finder in the toolbox finds one dab link that needs to be fixed.
Was it 'percolating'? I'm sure it worked when I first used it. I removed the hyperlink. How is the dablink tool used? I did find it, but only saw a loooooong list.
There are several manganese oxides and more than one of them are involved; that is why I hyperlinked to that page. Sorry to be dense - but i don't see a tool box at the upper right of any pages. On my screen there is a toolbox to the left of the article, Special Pages leads to which leads to Disambiguous listings. Whoops, I saved this page so I could double check the wording that I left a blank for and saw the box. Thanks
  • The captions tend to be long and overly detailed - please see WP:CAPTION
  • A few places need refs, for example Most of the visible areas at Angkor Wat are of sandstone blocks, with laterite used for the outer wall and for hidden structural parts that have survived for over 1000 years.
This sentence was a hold over from the original article. I had spent some time looking for a source for that information, but wasn't successful at the time. Today I spent more time looking and found that information, plus some other interesting information to strengthen that section. Thank you for asking me to research further.
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between two images, but there are two places where this is a problem on my monitor
fixed. I was trying to avoid having all images on one side or the other. Having the images of like objects (landscapes of ores) on one side does look better.
  • WHen I think of "free alumin[i]um", I think of the metal, but that is almost certainly not the case in Laterite contains aluminium largely in a free state, which resembles the composition of bauxite.[1]:65
VSmith fixed the spelling of aluminum to aluminium (apparently the consensus from a while back was to use that spelling in scientific articles). I couldn't find this sentence in the article; I looked at every instance for [1]. Someone else (?) must have fixed it.
  • I think it would be very helpful to give some chemcial formulas for things like bauxite, etc mentioned in the article.
I again had to research further, and discovered that there is not one chemical formula for bauxite. I did find additional information to add to and in one case to replace information I had; that section is also strengthened!!
  • Three areas, but four places listed in The three main areas in the world with the largest nickel laterite resources are New Caledonia, with 21%; Australia, with 20%; the Phillipines, with 17%; and Indonesia, with 12%.[5]:4
Hmmmm, I had seen that as I was polishing the article and thought I had changed that. Thanks for pointing it out. It IS changed now.
  • The header "Non-metallic" confuses me. There are still metals present in the laterites, so why is this phrase used?
As I was beginning my research for this article it seemed that ores were the only use for laterites; I had to search for other uses. So I divided the section into Non-metallic and Ores. I deleted the Non-metallic and moved those four uses up one section. I like this better than what I had.
  • The MOS says even if the title is all capital letters like GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF SRI LANKA, for WIkipedia it should be rewitten in title case
I vaguely remember reading that. I had copy-and-pasted the title into the reference template and was too lazy to retype it. It is fixed now.
  • Briefly identify people quoted in the article (like Tardy)
I don't see any articles that are about a soil or rock type. The vast majority of these articles are about storms.
  • There are some on Geology and volcanoes - not an exact match, but closer than storms. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the PR for this article which I rewrote.
Your help was of tremendous help. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your comments. I have looked at articles in PR and GA; so far I have only done proofing-type editing. I did weigh in for FA on the Galveston article. Did you see he achieved that goal? I have authored a few articles on the geology of the North Shore of Lake Superior (some are still on my user page), and I go into the WikiProject pages to revamp stub or start articles.

Again, thank you soooooo much for your help. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you'd check the Laterite article out again – new-and-improved (!!) with its changes. Bettymnz4 (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome - I took the liberty of copying this from my talk page so my comments and your replies would all be in the same place and linked from the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
More comments
  • Angkorian construction in the lead is a bit obscure (though wikilinked) and does not specifically mention laterites - try to make sure to provide context to the reader - WP:PCR. Perhaps something like "After 1000 CE construction at Angkor Wat and other Cambodian sites changed to rectangular temple enclosures made of laterite, brick and stone." would be clearer
I "stole" your wording; thank you.
  • Avoid vague time phrases like "In the past few years" as these can become out of date quickly - Since 2008 (or whatever) works better
I added a more specific time period.
  • Definition and Physical description are two short sections - could they be combined?
  • Did laterization / weathering stop 1.5 m,illion years ago, or does it still continue? A period of active laterization extended from about the mid-Tertiary to the mid-Quaternary periods (35 to 1.5 million years ago).[5]:3 Weathering in tropical climates continues to this day.[5]:3
I found a reference which talks about global cooling and that's why the rate of laterization slowed down
  • Iron is usually an ion or part of a compound (oxides, for example), but not in and of itself a molecule - see Upon exposure to air it gradually hardens as the moisture between the flat clay particles evaporates and the larger iron molecules lock into a rigid lattice structure[10] and become resistant to atmospheric conditions.[3]:1
I added salts
  • Make sure things make sense and agree with each other - in Road building, these two sentences do not agree In the past 20 years Kenya and Malawi have constructed trial sections of bituminous-surfaced low-volume roads using laterite in place of stone as a base course.[17] ... In 1984 US$40,000 per 1 km (0.62 mi) was saved in Malawi by using laterite in this way.[17] (1984 was 26 years ago)
I went back to the source and added year ranges.
  • I like the images, but the article feels crowded to me
I deleted the photo of the man standing in front of laterite. Do you feel I should remove any more images?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vsmith has quietly been correcting my typos, misspellings, lack of linking, etc. Between the two of you, I'll have a GA yet!!! (That's my next step.) Again, I appreciate the tremendous amount of time you've devoted to this article. I began contributing to WP in early February 2010 and have sure learned alot!!! That's a credit to all of you helpful folks.Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Earl Cain chapters[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured list status sometime soon and would like to know how it can be improved on. The plot summaries will probably need the most help since it is one of the author's longer and more confusing series. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: You seem to have the basic stuff here, although I'm completely unfamiliar with Earl Cain. I do indeed have trouble following the plot, but I get the general idea. I see no problems with dabs, links, date formatting, or alt text, and the general format seems to conform to what I see in similar lists that are featured; e.g., List of Black Lagoon episodes. Here are a few other suggestions or comments:

  • Rather than "The Cain Saga", I would consider shortening this subhead to "Saga" to avoid repeating the main words of the title.

Forgotten Juliet

  • "Cain later accuses the older brother of his deceased friend of murder... ". - Should this be "a" deceased friend? The friend does not seem to be someone mentioned before this sentence.

The Sound of a Boy Hatching

  • "where they abused and drugged children for amusement" - Could "they" be made more specific?
  • "Cain then takes revenge on his relative and a maid who killed an orphan boy they thought was him to cover up their thefts." - Which relative? Any of the relatives mentioned thus far, or is this a different relative? Also, "him" is a bit ambiguous; should "him" be replaced by "Cain"?
  • "Cain dreams of his birth and how his mother — his father's elder sister — never wanted him." - Em dashes should be unspaced.
  • "Waking up, he discovers that he was mysteriously poisoned and decides to go to the countryside with Riff, Mary, and Ancel Allen the family doctor, go to the countryside." - Doesn't make sense as written.
  • "After confronting Justine, Cain discovers that she has a split personality and believes she is the vampire." - Does this mean that she believes she is the vampire, or that Cain believes she is the vampire?
  • "A vampire hunting mob... " - Needs a hyphen, "vampire-hunting mob" since it's being used as an adjective.
  • "In exchange for the Hargreaves officially adopting Mary, Cain becomes engaged to Emeline Lauderdale, a haughty aristocrat whose brother, Gilford, who went insane after witnessing a "red ram"." - Doesn't make sense as written.

I hope these few comments are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for another wonderfully helpful review. I have fixed it according to your suggestions. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On a Clear Night[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it for GA soon and would like to know if there's anything more I need to do. Comments/suggestions on prose quality are especially welcome.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I think the article is ready for WP:GAC. I'll make a couple of suggestions but for the most part I think it's pretty solid.

  • I'm not sure why you included the "Ten Days" song information from the previous album. It doesn't seem to fit or lead to any further information about this album.
  • Watching using a gender neutral term like "they" when referring to the reviewer at Billboard. It comes across as awkward. Can you determine the gender of the reviewer?
  • There should be a reference for the Personnel section. Track listing I assume comes from the album cover.
  • Did she tour on her own for this album? She toured as an opening act in the US for 10 months but what about solo?
  • I note you use the non-breaking space between No. and a number for example "No. 10", when describing chart success. I'm not sure this is necessary. Usually non-breaking spaces are for a unit of measurement like hours, liters, inches, years etc. See WP:NBSP for more on this. It shouldn't impact you at the GA review but if you wish to push up to WP:FAC it will impact the review.

I think that's it for me, the article looks pretty good. Congratulations. If you found the review helpful please consider reviewing another article from the Peer Review page or at WP:GAC, this will help reduce the backlog. If you have specific questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I don't usually watch pages that I review. Good luck. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for a helpful review.--BelovedFreak 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just given this article a major rewrite. I cleared up a bunch of issues it had, and addressed a few concerns on the talk page (most of which is quite old, though). I'd like a PR to find and clear up anything I missed.

Thanks, SSBDelphiki (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I went through it and clarified a few things, and added some new examples. Some of the prose could be more direct. That's a subjective quality, to be sure, but if you look at what I changed maybe you can get a feel for it. I also removed two [citation needed]s for what I thought were uncontroversial statements. I also feel like there isn't a lot of criticism of puns as "groaner' jokes. This might be something to work in somewhere. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: This isn't yet a suitable candidate for PR because of the major clean-up banner. The topic sounds like fun, and the puns are funny. However, you need to address the question of sourcing before anything else. Much of the article is unsourced and in violation of WP:V. My rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph, every set of statistics, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every direct quote. Please consider re-submitting after the article is properly sourced and the tags removed. Finetooth (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Social liberalism[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is rated "High-importance" and "B-class" in both WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Politics. I and several other editors have worked to improve the article but I believe that wider input is required to improve the article further.

Thanks, TFD (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Social liberalism may refer to the theories developed by the New Liberal English philosophers, T.H. Green, L.T. Hobhouse, and John A. Hobson in the late 19th century, the Liberal welfare reforms of the UK government (1906-1914), the economic and welfare policies developed by John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge and implimented by the Labour Party after the Second World War, similar policies implimented by other governments, or to Liberal Parties that have adopted these policies. The term is also used in an unrelated way to mean being socially liberal, i.e., open-minded. There are also numerous terms sometimes used as synonyms, but are actually overlapping, such as left-liberalism, modern liberalism. This has provided some difficulty in writing the article. TFD (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The prose here is excellent; the article is highly readable and well-organized. The article seems neutral and stable and probably illustrated well enough for GA. To reach GA, though, I think you will need to broaden the coverage here and there, re-work the lead, and make a few more adjustments to conform to the guidelines in the Manual of Style. Here are my suggestions:


  • The ideal lead should be a summary or abstract of the rest of the article. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you will see how to write it. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead seems to be a set of introductory paragraphs rather than a summary of the rest of the article. It fails to mention the 19th century, for example, and it defines liberalism even though no definition appears in the main text. Part of the solution here might be to create a "Definition" section that appears immediately below the lead and to move most of the definition material from the lead into that new section, which could be expanded slightly to include examples. The other thing I would recommend is to put off the final re-write of the lead until after the main-text expansions and revisions are complete or nearly so. It's usually not possible to write a good abstract of an incomplete article, although it's possible to write a series of ever-changing temporary ones.
  • I think the article should be expanded to include at least something in the main text about countries outside of the U.K., the U.S., and northern Europe. It might also be helpful to add something about where social liberalism has not fared well and why.
  • It might be helpful to add a bit more detail about terms like "classical liberalism". Although they are linked, it's much easier on a general reader to see something like "classical liberalism, committed to the ideals of X, Y, and Z", then to click through to another article to get the basic idea.
  • I'd suggest adding a few more dates to help readers keep the chronologies straight; e.g., dates for the German Republic, the Weimar Republic, and "modern Germany". Would it also be useful to mention what happened to social liberalism in Nazi Germany? Another example: not all readers will know when France was in its Third Republic phase.
  • In the Implementation section, the United Kingdom subsection and the first paragraph of the Europe subsection are completely unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph except the lead paragraphs, as well as sources for statistics, direct quotes, and any claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged.
Done. The source for the UK subsection had been deleted, while the first paragraph for the Europe subsection has the same source as the first part of the second paragraph. TFD (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style suggests converting lists to straight prose when it is feasible. The existing article ends with two long lists, and I would think about ways to change them into prose or to reduce their importance. With the first list, it might be possible to write a paragraph about each of the items in the list. No easy task, I'm sure, but probably possible, possibly illuminating. I don't see an easy way to alter the list of people unless it can be shortened to the most essential 10 or so, each of whom gets a paragraph. Just a suggestion.
  • Numbers from 10 up are usually written as digits unless they start a sentence. I see "20th century" in the lead, which follows the guideline, but in the main text "nineteenth century" and so on appear here and there.
  • Page ranges and date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. I ran a script to fix three dozen or so of these in the existing article.
  • The Dawn of Hope image overlaps two sections, which is a layout no-no, and Alexander Ruestow bumps a subhead, which is another no-no. The two images form a text sandwich between them, a third no-no. The Dawn of Hope image is so big and its caption so long that I don't see a quick fix. Perhaps the text in this section will eventually expand enough that the image will fit entirely inside the section. The Ruestow image can simply be moved down a bit to eliminate the head bump and the sandwich. Should Rüstow be spelled with the umlaut, by the way? One more thought about the Rüstow image; if you can make the layout work, it's better to place directional images so that they look into the page rather than out. Rüstow would be better on the right, and perhaps Naumann would be a little better on the left.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example citation 7 doesn't mention the authors or editors; citation 22 doesn't list a publisher or place of publication. Citation 77 lacks a page number or numbers. Other citations are malformed. Citation 22 puts the author last instead of first.


  • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds six dead citation urls.
  • The alt-text tool shows that most of the images lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
  • The dab tool finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.

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) 04:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

List of M*A*S*H episodes[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because M*A*S*H is one of the most popular and most acclaimed series in the history of American television, hence it warrants an excellent episode list page. It is my hope to bring this list up to featured list status. What existed before was not a list at all but a season guide. I think I have vastly improved it. Still, there is probably room for improvement. I've used as a source rather extensively. Since this site was used equally extensively for the List of Moonlighting episodes (which was recently promoted to FL) I thought it would be okay to use it here. Likewise, the Moonlighting list used and to list, respectively, the regions 1 and 2 DVD releases for the series, so I used this as sources as well. (Now watch some clown come along and say that none of them are reliable sources and never mind what has been promoted in the past).

So, anyway, here is the list. Give a look and offer up some useful comments about how i can spiff it up for an FL consideration.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Legolas

The references: Allmovie should not be italicized as it is an online source. Try putting work=''All Movie''. This removes the italicization of the work parameter.
In the section List of episodes, the heading Season : is misleading. I believe it should have been Episode :.
The internal links (aka A, B, C....) donot have a gobakc associated with them. Can you correct it? Coz, suppose I click on the link A and it takes me to "A One-hour season premiere; later divided.." but to go back up to where I was reading, I have to scroll up and manually find it.
Move the portal to the external links.
"Originally the regular cast consisted.." It does not say anything about the principal cast changing later. Hence it should be changed to "The regular cast consisted..."
Many times in the lead, full-names are repeated even though they have been introduced before. Revert to their surnames for the second instances.
became at the time of its broadcast the most-watched television in American television history with a 106 million viewers – looks clunky, maybe split up?
I dropped "at the time of its broadcast"

These are the things I could find ata basic glance. Wonderful work Jimknut. This is almost FL ready with some minor nitpicks being removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Legolas. Jimknut (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Canada Hky

Cool list, I love M*A*S*H, so its a great read.
Couple comments, the wikilinking of directors is very repetitive, I checked out the Moonlighting list you referred to, and it only had the directors, etc WL'd on the first mention. They won't look out of place, as not all the directors are WL'd.
A fair enough suggestion, but I'll leave the linking the way it is, as these are sortable lists. (See the section on repeated links)
In some of the bullet points, references to characters are inconsistent - you use both 'Major Houlihan' and 'Margaret Houlihan' Also a bit inconsistent with multiple WL's - Hunnicut is linked twice, other characters are only linked on first appearance.
I changed these so they should be consistant.
Probably just personal preference here, but any thought to making the references in multiple columns to shorten the list up a bit (in terms of scrolling required)?
I changed this as well. The refs should show up in two columns (unless, like me, you're using Internet Explorer).
As I said - great list and fun to read. Canada Hky (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Here Come the Littles[edit]

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

This is as close as I've gotten in a long while towards working on a legitimate GA, albeit a short one at that. The refs I've gathered for this yet only show how obscure this animated children's film has been over the years.

And to think I began that page out of a redirect over three and a half years ago...and left it behind as usual until now.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The article is short, but the information given seems well cited. Here's a few minor issues:
Good overall; tells the story briefly and provides the important info. I would do a little rewording, though (If I get any plot details wrong, just correct it; I'm not very familiar with the film):
Here Come the Littles is a 1985 children's animated film, produced in Luxembourg[1] by DIC Entertainment and distributed by Atlantic Releasing. It was directed by Bernard Deyriès and adapted by Heywood Kling from John Peterson's series of books, The Littles. The film serves as a prequel to the ABC television show of the same name. Here Come the Littles follows a boy named Henry Bigg as he meets a family of miniature people that lives in his home. While Henry's uncle Augustus plans to build a shopping center at the site of his home, Henry teams up with the Littles to prevent this scheme.
The film was screened at weekend matinees during its original U.S. release,[3] and made over US$6.5 million.[2] It was not a critical success; reviewers found fault with the story and animation style. The film was released on VHS in late 1985, and on DVD in early 2004.[4] Another Littles movie, Liberty and the Littles, premiered on television in late 1986.[5]
Seems good to me, but some editors may take issue with its length. You may want to condense by saying something like, "After several attempts to escape...." as opposed to describing each attempt.
Also, when you introduce each "Little", you might want to explain that they're one of the tiny people living in the house.
Voice cast
Good. No problems.
Reception and release; Merchandise and home video
I would reorganize these two sections into 'Release' and 'Reception'. Under 'Release', leave the first paragraph of 'Reception and release' and all of 'Merchandise and home video'. Under 'Reception', put the reaction from critics and the film's 6.5 mil$ figure.
The line "A re-issue by NCircle Entertainment in 2007 altered a few scenes from the original version, and replaced the end credits outright" needs to be cited.
Good. Although I think you could add an very brief plot summary and how it relates to this movie (if possible).
Finally, the article says that "The film also serves as a prequel to the ABC television show of the same name". This is fine, but it's only mentioned in the intro and not the article itself. This seems important, so in the future, if you can find some other information on the film's production, try to mention that in a new 'production' section (ex: the film was intended to be the prequel to the series....[cite]...).
The rest is fine, and the references all seem reliable. I think you've done a good job given your limited resources. The only problem the article may have in the future from other editors is the amount of information. I don't know enough about procedure to say if the article has enough to go GA, but if it's any help, I like to use A Rugrats Chanukah (featured) as a guide for writing short cartoon articles. If I was unclear about anything, feel free to ask what I meant.
I hope I was able to help! Gak Blimby (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Green tickY Done: All taken care of! Plus I've added alt text to the poster. Anything else before GAC? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is information on production. It may be important to include that if it can be found. Good luck!Gak Blimby (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Kelly (musician)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the article is ready for an WP:FAC nomination. In order to ensure that it is suitable FA material I'm submitting it for a peer review, just in case either Shaidar cuebiyar or I have missed anything. It is already a GA. Thanks, Dan arndt (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

Technical comments from Maria

This is obviously a well researched article; I'm very impressed with the variety of sources used, as well as with the long-standing collaboration. Well done. :) If your goal is FA, you'll be needing some nitpicky fixes before you enter the fray:

  • Paul Maurice Kelly (born 13 January 1955 in Adelaide, South Australia) -- per MOS:BIO, the place of birth should not be included here. Also, remove the bolding from his band names per WP:BOLD.
  • The lead seems somewhat long overall; consider trimming some of the unnecessary as described at WP:LEAD.
  • Found this to be the most difficult task. I've tried trimming it down to about 600 words and hope that this is sufficient.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Blockquotes ({{quote}} as used in the article) are only for quotations that are longer than three lines; many of the quotes throughout the article should therefore not be in blockquote style. Integrate them into the text, and remove the attribution to Kelly in the places where it is clear that the quote is from him. Here's one example from the "1974–1984: Early career and with the Dots" section: "...although in an interview with Drum Media he recalled writing his first unpublished song: 'It was an open-tuning and had four lines about catching trains. I have got a recording of it somewhere. It was called "Catching a Train". I wrote a lot of songs about trains early on, trains and fires, and then I moved onto water'." Because the quote is introduced as coming from him, there's no reason to attribute it twice.
  • For Doyle's ref ("Chapter Ten: Deeper Water"), consider listing the specific page numbers used. Yes, the full ref states that the pages utilized come from pp. 113–127 of the book, but it would be far more helpful for readers to know the specific pages where they can find the cited information. Listing page numbers is suggested at WP:CITE.
  • The images may unfortunately give you issues at FAC; I'm not an expert by any means, but there are several users who do nothing but comment upon free vs. fair use images, rationales listed, copyright issues, blah, blah, blah. Some specifics:
  • File:PaulKellyLongBay.jpg: can more information be given about how it was released into the public domain? The description/copyright info is skimpy. It's of poor quality anyway, so consider if it's truly necessary in the first place.
  • I've contacted the original uploader and provided more information on the image page. It provides a photo of Kelly with his best known line-up of the Coloured Girls in a unique location.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • File:OneNightTheMoon still1.jpg: fair use images, such as this one, need to prove that they are integral to understanding of the article's subject matter. Can the fair use description be strengthened to explain its importance to Kelly's article? (Especially since there is already a free image of him available.)
  • I've added information to the description regarding its use in the Paul Kelly article. It shows Kelly with his wife and daughter in an acting role which is discussed in the main text.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope these nitpicky suggestions help; the FAC lot is a nitpicky bunch, after all. :) I haven't read the article in its entirety, but it does appear quite good. Perhaps consider filing for a copy-edit or two before attempting FAC; Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be useful, especially since they are beginning backlog elimination project soon. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Few comments from Belovedfreak

Good job so far guys. I couldn't see much wrong with it but agree that it might be worth getting a copyedit before taking it to FAC as it can always help to get other eyes on it. As that's not my strong point, I'll just mention a couple of things I noticed.

  • Dan has already popped it on the Copy Editors page.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there is some overlinking going on. There is a lot of blue in some parts. This is inevitable I think in a pop-culture article, with so many titles and people's names to link, and many of the links are necessary. Because of that, I think it's especially important to make sure that every link is necessary and adds something to the understanding of the topic. The first sentence is quite link-dense for example. "Rock music" is linked, and then "rock" is linked again very shortly after. I see that the second one in fact links to rock and roll, which is slightly misleading. Some other examples of words that may not need to be linked:
    • tribute
    • South Australia (arguably, since it directly follows Adelaide which will itself discuss South Australia)
    • lawyer
    • Argentine
    • Italian
    • guitar (couple of times)
    • vocals
    • cover (version)
    • public relations
    • soundtrack

Some of these you may not agree with, but something to think about.

  • Agree with all your points. Links not needed. Done by--shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for the external link in the 2000–current section? Also, it sounds a little strange describing what he/they do in the clip available rather than describing what he/they do in the film.
  • mea culpa—I was trying acknowledge the screenshot in the article: but this should be done on the image's page. I've re-jigged the sentence: hopefully its more about the artist(s). Done by--shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better.--BelovedFreak 17:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps, good luck with getting it to FAC.--BelovedFreak 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Park Grill[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article needs to achieve WP:GA by mid June in order to keep the WP:FT Millenium Park from being demoted, but it has already failed WP:GAC. I am posting this at PR on behalf of the active editors of the page.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

Several issues stand out:-

  • The article is unreasonably over-referenced, with multiple citations at the end of many of the sentences. For example, "During that time, Laura Foxgrover, a top official in the Park District department directly overseeing the deal, gave birth to O'Malley 's child.[17][20][24][25][26][28][29][30][27][31][32][33][34] Thirteen citations for one simple fact is ridiculous. There are plenty of other similar instances, and the overall effect is to make the prose unreadable.
    • Thanks for your careful read and thoughtful comments. I would like to put in some more time on this article as time permits. In preparation I would like to first ask your guidance on some issues (not to debate). The plethora of citations is an artifact of a notability debate. For example, some editors thought the sentence you cite was not notable, even though the sentence or a minor variation was included in almost every reliable source that mentioned the restaurant. How do I nuke the refs w/o inviting deletion of the sentence? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • removed excessive references, moved additional references to an end note Hugh (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Secondly, the article is entitled "Park Grill", but the restaurant itself is not the main focus of the article, which seems to be on the various contract scandals surrounding it. If this is what the article is substantially about, this should be reflected in the title.
    • The article is about the Park Grill restaurant, of which the the most notable aspect of several notable aspects is the circumstances of the contract. The prominence of the contract award in the article reflects the weight in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of the statements, made about living persons, carry implications of misdeeds. Thus, "Barbara has ties to the Hired Truck Program scandal and the blue bag recycling controversy" and "...former congressman Morgan F. Murphy, who has had business dealings with convicted labor boss John Serpico." Are you sure of your ground in making these assertive, derogatory statements? Would it not be safer to use a less direct format, for example "Such-and-such has reported Barbara's ties..." etc?
    • The 2 phrases you cite were lifted pretty much as is from RS. Yes, I am sure of the grounds for these assertions based on the cited RS and also other uncited RS. Would adding additional RS to those 2 assertions increase safety? or contribute to over-referencing? The 2 sentences link to related WP articles, so the assertions add to linking. The backgrounds of the members of the investors are an aspect of the notability of the restaurant. The 2 sentences are representative of similar backgrounds of other investors not included in the interest of brevity. Thanks again for your help! Hugh (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • changed boss -> official, added additional reliable references Hugh (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Numerous issues of detail, for example:-
    • MOS violation on numeric representations of small numbers ("5 Top Newcomers", "7th largest")
      • done Hugh (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • several single-sentence paragraphs
      • reviewed, fixed (mostly) Hugh (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • some non-encyclopedic phrasing ("clout-heavy", )
      • removed Hugh (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • bare link within the text (Chicago Board of Ethics)
      • moved to external links Hugh (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • inappropriate use of double hyphen rather than mdash
      • fixed Hugh (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • inappropriate date formatting ("Feb. 11 2003")
      • fixed Hugh (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel, however, that the major issues surrounding the article need to be sorted out first - especially that of over-referencing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to this but I have had many problems on and off-wiki.
    • Over-referencing: a fact's notability needs to be evidenced by at least one reliable source. For emphasis, you might use two, or even three. But more than that merely looks defensive, and 13 is way, way over the top. My advice in such cases is to choose a couple of the most reliable sources and chuck the rest. Views may differ about whether a fact is notable, but its notability doesn't increase simply by adding more sources.
    • On the living persons issue, I'd say that rather than add more citations (and thus aggravate the previous problem) you should include attribution in your text, i.e. give the source within the text. That gets rid of any POV nuances; you are merely reporting what others have said, which is fine.
    • I notice that you haven't addressed any of the issues of detail which I have enumerated above. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Hugh (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Final comments: At the request of Tony the Tiger I have looked at the article again.

  • I see that you have reduced the overlong reference strings. But what on earth is the purpose of the string of citations listed as additional references under "Notes"? What information are they supporting?
  • Bare links are still present (Location and views, Background of managing partners)
  • Background of investors has successive sentences beginning: "Other investors include..."
  • My advice about direct attribution of comments about living persons has not been taken.

I'm afraid I cannot afford to spend any more time on the article. I advise you make these further fixes, and hope that you can get it through GA in time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with this review?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review is an atypical list. Instead of just listing buildings, I have written short or medium length notes about each building. There really aren't any featured lists of college buildings,so I kind of built it as I went. This article has been expanded significantly in the last few months, and I believe that it might be close to qualifying as a Featured List.

Cheers! GrapedApe (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, excellent list! It's funny, I was recently thinking about doing this same thing for my own school. It's looking very nice already, with a little bit of work I'm sure it would pass FLC. My comments:

  • Remove bold formatting of building names in the prose - this is only done with the first mention of the article title. See WP:MOSBOLD.--done
  • Is there a difference between Washington College and Washington Academy? If so, what is Washington Academy?
    • Yep, that wasn't covered in the lead. I tried to clarify it, so let me know if that worked. Giving a summary of the origins of the college is difficult, so I'd appreciate any suggestions on the lead. The full story is covered in Washington & Jefferson College#History.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it is clear now, thanks. Jujutacular T · C 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Through its history, McMillan Hall..." 'Throughout' would probably work better here.--done
  • I notice many uses of "College" (uppercase) when the proper name isn't being used. Shouldn't this be lowercase?
    • Yeah. I think I got them all.
  • "In 2002, the Old Gym was renovated to make room for the Swanson Wellness Center" - Make it clear that the Swanson Wellness Center is a part of Old Gym (I had to look at Old Gym to understand this sentence).
    • Look better now?
      • Much better, thanks. Jujutacular T · C 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Just learned a new word - "abut". Thank you. :)
  • "Electrical Engineering Building" again, unless proper - should be lowercase.
    • Yeah, that's a proper name.
  • "50,000 foot2" The superscript here seems very awkward to me. WP:UNIT says to always use superscripts, but personally I've only seen "square foot" before. What's your opinion?
    • I used the {{Ft2 to m2}} template to change them out, and I think it looks better.
  • "...houses classrooms and the Departments of Art, Theatre, and Communication, and Music" too many and's there.
    • I think I clarified that. The Department of "Departments of Art, Theatre, and Communication" is all one department, so it can get complicated. --done
      • Oooh, I see now, thanks. Jujutacular T · C 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "as well as the Yost Auditorium, asn 84-seat lecture hall" typo?--done
  • "A statute of a coal miner" I'm thinking it should be statue.--embarrassing typo. done
  • "It was designed to satisfy the LEED Silver qualifications for green buildings" Does it satisfy those qualifications? If the info is available, add it.
    • Yeah, I wrote it that way, because I don't think the building has been certified yet.
  • "were occupied by Greek organizations" lowercase.

Jujutacular T · C 06:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


  • I'd love to see a lead image, just to grab attention.
  • I agree, but I'm not sure that we have one that works. I'm going to see what I can find.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What's a "frontier clerygm[a]n"?
    • I clarified it. Look better?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "located Canonsburg" located in? -done
  • Not convinced I need to know which streets border the campus.
  • Yeah, I was trying to find some evidence to show that the college extends into the East Washington Historic District, which I couldn't find. I'll probably cut that during the FLC if other people don't see it as important. I'm non-committal on that sentence.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Present-day McMillan Hall,..." is that sentence not a fragment? Couldn't see a verb... (so no period required). Check other captions. -done
  • I would link mace appropriately.-done
  • 2 story->two-story -done
  • "26 note " -> 26-note -done
  • "an 1881 alumni" alumnus (singular)-done
  • "in Summer 2008" any reason to capitalise summer?-No good reason, so fixed
  • "group of alumni on" you link alumni after the first use of alumn[i].-done
  • [86][47] please put these in numerical order.-done
  • You have mixed date formats in the references (e.g. ref 32 has June 18, 2006 for its date while most other dates in the refs are ISO).-done
  • En-dashes for year ranges. Ref 44 for instance needs an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • I always mess these up. Isn't there a script or bot somewhere that can change these?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Refs 110, 111 have an issue with publisher... -done

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Not a lot I can find that hasn't been brought up. I ran a script to fix the dashes mentioned above and fixed the order of a few references for you. -Thanks!
  • "ADMINISTRATION BUILDING" doesn't need to be in all caps. --done
  • "pp. 31." it's one page so it should be p. --done
  • Two references (114, 115) link Washington and Jefferson College the rest do not. Consistency? --de-linked all around
  • You use W&J within the article without introducing it prior. Please clarify what it stands for.--done

--ImGz (t/c) 03:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

American Idiot (musical)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for specific suggestions for cleaning up this article and making it closer to the "Featured" ideal

Thanks, Fryede (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is a good start, but the article does not seem to be complete and will require considerable further work.

  • There are two disambiguation links: Berkeley and Michael Mayer
  • What is the current position on the copyright status of the playbill?
  • General point: there seems to be something missing from the article, in that there is no "Background" section which gives the story of how a concept album became a musical. After the lead we jump straight to the Berkeley tryout. A lot must have happened between, and a section needs to be written to cover this.
  • Lead: the purpose of the lead is to summarise the whole article. The present lead does not do this, since it makes no reference to the musical's Reception section; it will need to be extended further when the Background section is in place.
  • Lists: the article is rather listy at the moment - Broadway cast, list of musical numbers, awards and nominations. A listing of the musical numbers is unavoidable, but the other information would be better given in prose form.
  • Prose: because of the additional work that needs to be done on the article I haven't gone through all the prose in detail, but here are some points from the lead:-
    • First sentence, too much information, too many clauses. Needs splitting, for clarity.
    • The phrase "the group's next album" is problematic. It won't be their "next" album for long.
    • "After a run at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre beginning in September 2009, the show moved to Broadway, beginning previews at the St. James Theatre on March 24, 2010 and officially opening on April 20, 2010." Sentence needs redrafting to avoid the "beginning" repetition. Suggest "After a run at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre beginning in September 2009, the show moved to Broadway, with previews at the St. James Theatre from March 24 2010 before the official opening on April 20, 2010."
    • This sentence seems vague and weak: "Also, most of the cast members at one point or another play the guitar."
  • After the first 2, references are not properly formatted. Help on this is available at WP:REF or WP:REFB. Or you can look at the first two and see how they were done.

As I am not able to watch peer reviews at the moment, please contact my talkpage if you wish to raise queries from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful. I've implemented most of your suggestions and I look forward to more feedback from other reviewers. Fryede (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Grant Park Music Festival[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this has distant WP:FA potential and immediate WP:GA potential. I would like feedback to improve the article.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this.

I'll do a detailed review of the article later today. See below.

In the meanwhile, here are some suggestions based on an automated analysis of the article's wikitext: --Darkwind (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - I see that you've already gone ahead and nominated the article for consideration at WP:GAC. Since they will do a formal review anyway, I won't be doing a more detailed peer review. However, I'll leave the request open in case someone else would like to do one. --Darkwind (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The GAC is done except for one outstanding image issue. It could still use some PR advice for an FAC run.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I see that this has sat at peer review for quite some time. I will endeavor to provide a review for its run at FAC.


  • This sentence is a bit awkward:
"The 2004 season in which the festival moved to the Pritzker Pavilion was the 70th season for the festival."
Consider rewriting thus, "In 2004 the festival celebrated its 70th season by moving to Pritzker Pavilion." The problem with the original version is that there are two subjects, the 2004 season and the move to Pritzker. The wording is also a bit awkward.
Although there was only one subject previously because you had misread it as typed above, I have changed it to the following with a subordinated parenthetical phrase to make clear the subject as follows: "The 2004 season, during which the festival moved to the Pritzker Pavilion, was the 70th season for the festival."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "The festival is currently housed...." No need for "currently", given the context of the sentence the reader knows it is present tense.
  • "...the Loop community area of Chicago in Cook County, Illinois, United States." I'd remove cook county, illinois and US. The reader is already told that the festival is located in Illinois and the US in the previous paragraph. I don't think the county Chicago resides in is necessary information.
  • Petrillo Music Shell is spelled out three times in two sentences. Can at least one of these instances be removed?
  • This sentence is a bit wordy:
"Recently, the festival has reached an agreement that has availed some of the productions to the public via mass-produced and publicly-marketed compact disk recordings."
Perhaps this might help trim it down: The festival organizers have agreed to release some of the concerts to the public via compact disk recordings.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


  • There are a few linked words I would de-link. Words like advertising, marketing, and auditions. They're terms in common English usage.
  • Is the term "festival" a proper noun in this context? There are times in the article when it is capitalized and times when ti isn't. There should be consistency here.
  • Who is Kalmar mentioned in this section? I see no earlier mention of this name.


  • I like this section, it moves quickly and doesn't bog down to much.
  • I'm not sure what the information about the Boston music festival really has to do with this article though. Is it affiliated with the Chicago festival in some way? If not I'd remove the information.
    • This festival claims in some literature to be the only remaining free classical music series. But in recent years Boston has begun producing one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • To me it just felt as though it was droped in there with no real connection to the subject matter in the paragraph. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "At the end of the Grant Park Music Festival season in August, the Festival's Grant Park Orchestra and Carlos Kalmar presented Pulitzer Prize-winning composer John Adams' On the Transmigration of Souls, which was written at the request of the New York Philharmonic to honor the victims of the September 11 attacks." This sentence does not specify the year in which it ocurred. I read from the caption of the photo of John Adams that it happened in 2005, but this should be specified in the article.
  • I count Carlos Kalmar being linked three times, twice in this section and once in the performances section. One time is enough. I cound four links of John Adams (including the photo caption). Lily Pons is linked three times (including the photo caption).
  • Is there any information as to why the festival had to move when it did?


  • To me some of the information in this history section is duplicated here. Can some of the performers in the history section be removed and covered in this section. This is entirely my opinion though so forget it if you disagree.
    • I have tried to strike a good balance. I think it would take someone more expert than me to rearrange it any better. I am apt to leave it as it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence is awkward:
"Beginning in the 1950s Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley almost annually greeted the opening night crowds during his 21-year tenure."
It sounds like Daly "almost" greeted people on opening night. I know the intent was that he greeted people on opening night of "almost" every year in his 21-year tenure. Consider this rewrite: "...Daley greeted the opening night crowds nearly every year during his 21-year tenure."
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


  • I don't know if Frommers is considered a credible source at FAC. Just a thought.


  • You list the author's name for some books but for the Frommer's refrences you list the book's title. Is there a reason for this?
  • Why is the Cheap Bastard's guide to Chicago in the notes and not in the References? Same with Frommer's Chicago with Kids.
  • Ref 51 has a page range but only one "p."