Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2013

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.

---

Exit (song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA

Thanks,  Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Bono

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it's already a GA article.

Thanks,  Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Costume design

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 an academic project. It is also only a portion of the information I want to include in the article, and before I go forward I'd like to hear comments.

Thanks, emilyblume EmilyBlume (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Dana Boomer

First, which article is being reviewed? The Articles for Creation submission by Sweetmoniker or the Costume design article on which the PR tag has been posted? I'm going to assume the latter, and complete my review for that. With regard to the former, Facebook and Itunes are not reliable sources, and a declined AfC submission is not a good candidate for a Peer Review. Now, I should have comments on the Costume design article up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're planning to go with this article - General improvement? WP:Good article nominations? - but there is quite a bit of work that can be done to make it conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Specifics:

• The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and not include anything that isn't found in the body. Much of the current lead is unique to the lead - this should be moved to the body and then summarized (with the rest of the article) in the lead.
• The cleanup banner at the top of the History section is a major issue - technically, articles with cleanup banners should not be brought to PR. This section is completely unreferenced. Also, it's quite short for covering over 2000 years of history. I realize this isn't the history of costumes, but instead of costume design, but there still has to be more than two paragraphs worth?
• Design process - I can't tell if the reference at the end of this section is supposed to cover the entire section or not - if so, it should be repeated with at least each new paragraph. Also, prose is preferred over bulleted lists, and I think that much of this section could be fairly easily converted to prose, with more context given so that the layman reader understands the process.
• Production process - Again, additional references are needed. And again, prose is preferred over bullet points. As with the previous section, if the bullet points were turned into prose and given additional context, it would be much easier for the lay reader to follow.
• Overall, the references that you're using so far look good with regard to reliability.

I hope the above comments help. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

John Hemmingham

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the article on how to improve it for a GA nomination.

Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is a bit late as it's just received GA status! Nevertheless, any feedback to improve it will be gratefully received. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my comments have taken so long, but here's a start. What is there is decent, though the prose is a bit rough in spots.

• I would make sure to provide context to the reader. Almost all I know about FA football is from reading Wikipedia articles. I did not know that one of the Wednesday's nicknames is "The Owls", so I think adding brief explanations of thingsl ike that would help make the article clearer to the average reader.
• Similarly explaining briefly how the Owls Trust came to own or control a large number of shares in the team would help.
• Or how does he pay for the travel to all the countries he's played in? This article (ref 28) says in part "They don’t do it all for nothing though. “Everything other than football we charge for,” John points out.

This allows him to pay for travel and tickets etc. It also means he can support his wife of five years ..."

• I was surprised not to see the book(s) he has written used as sources - looking on Amazon, Playing for England has been published, but I could not find the other book. In any case, I would think that the book(s) would provide some of the missing information on Hemmingham the man which the article does not give in its current state:
  • Just the blurb on Amazon for the book says he was already "obsessed with football and playing the bugle" at age seven, which makes me assume it has a lot more material that could be used here
  • When / where did he go to school? Did he go to university? What was his musical training / experience before the band?
  • What did he do before he picked up a trumpet (at age 30) and play in the stands and start the band?
  • What were his job(s) before he worked for the Owls Trust (at age 38 or so)? What made him qualified to run that?
• There is a nice picture of him on Flickr - might not hurt to ask the owner of that if s/he would freely license it for use here
• Make sure the article follows the MOS on italics - see WP:ITALIC
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

List of Florida state parks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…state parks in Florida are of great interest to many people seeking affordable recreational opportunities, especially with the current difficult economic situation. The previous list provided little more than a link to each park's article, and the state has renamed a number of parks in recent years, sometimes resulting in confusion. I belong to WikiProject Florida and I intend to go through all the Florida lists that need improvement, bringing them up to featured list content.

Thanks, Mgrē@sŏn 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Thomas Ellison

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm wanting feedback to eventually bring the article up to Featured Article status. I'm particularly interested in input regarding how well written and comprehensive the article is. Thomas Ellison is a notable figure from late 19th century/early 20th century New Zealand rugby union. Any feeback would be greatly appreciated, especially from editors not familiar with rugby.

Thanks, Shudde ^talk 08:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that his birth date is not known with any accuracy, the {{death date and age}} template in the infobox is misleading. It should be replaced with {{death date}} and a range of ages, similar to the range of years for his birth.

Done. Thanks for that. - Shudde ^talk 12:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In the lead, and again under "Early life", the article says he "was selected to play provincially", where the latter word links to the Wellington RFU. This fails WP:EGG. I would suggest it says something along the lines of "was selected to play for the Wellington provincial team".

Yeah at the moment there are not separate articles for most of the NZ provincial teams and their representative team. Auckland has split the two articles, but most of the others have not been split yet. I've altered the text as you suggested though. Hopefully it's acceptable. - Shudde ^talk 08:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Under "Wing-forward", you mention the All-Black's first test match in 1903. Test match (rugby union) is linked. I don't know if it is necessary to explain to the audience in this manner what a test match is, but a link to 1903 New Zealand rugby union tour of Australia would be appropriate. Also, I'm not at all fussed myself, but should the term "All Blacks" be used for this tour, when I understand it originated in 1905?

I think the link is better than an explanation. I take the view that if you played for NZ you are an All Blacks; it used to be that only teams that toured to Europe were All Blacks (i.e. the "first All Blacks", "second All Blacks" etc), but this isn't the contemporary interpretation of the name. I think it's ok as is, but am happy to change it if you think it should be altered. - Shudde ^talk 08:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see more pictures. Any photos of him are likely to be out of copyright. Also, "The Art of Rugby Football" is out of copyright, and its cover would make a good illustration if you could find a photo. For example, there's a photo at NZ Museums. They claim its copyrighted, but I cannot see how such a claim is valid (I am however not a lawyer).-gadfium 08:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I should be able to find more of the Natives' team; however really want ones where the source identifies Ellison. Regarding "The Art of Rugby Football", I agree that an image of the cover would be good. One I have found is at [1]—do you think this would be acceptable and not have any copyright concerns? I think that certain photos of the book may be copyright (ie they may have artistic value that makes them copyrightable), however those of the cover only may not. - Shudde ^talk 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that a photo which adds more than a simple representation of its subject might have its own copyright, but you need an opinion from someone more knowledgable on such matters than myself. Is there a copy of the book in a library you have access to where they may allow you to photograph it yourself (sometimes, mentioning that it's for Wikipedia helps). Alternatively, just upload one of the pictures linked above to commons with a "PD-New Zealand" template in good faith (and a source for the photo, and the death date of Ellison), and let them sort it out.-gadfium 20:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I've thought about it some more, and I think the NZ Rugby Museum photo may be classified as a derivative work, but I'm not so sure about the Otago Daily Times photo. I'll look into where the book can be accessed and try and organise someone to get a photograph. - Shudde ^talk 05:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Per a request for my comment: I enjoyed reading the article and found it interesting and entertaining and kept reading right to the end; the English did not jar or disturb. Perhaps more could be made of his legal career - especially if he was the first Maori admitted to the Bar. I was intrigued that he was "eventually" buried - was there some delay - is there some macabre interest there? As fas as I can see, this is good enough to be a GA as it stands.  Giano  19:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I expanded on the arrangements for his burial. He probably wasn't the first admitted to the Bar, but he was one of the first. I'll see what more I can find out about his professional career. Thanks for your comments! - Shudde ^talk 06:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I wonder why there was a debate over burial(not that it matters), but I would like to know why he died in Porirua Lunatic Asylum. Normally TB patients were normally isolated not put into a mental home. Perhaps the asylum had an isolation clinic and he was not actually in the insane part - perhaps that needs to be explained?  Giano  07:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that disputes regarding burial sites are maybe more common in Maori culture than European—nothing in any of the sources I've read go into more detail. Regarding Porirua Lunatic Asylum, I'd be speculating. I'll see what else I can find out. - Shudde ^talk 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A simple google search shows TB patients in the USA being treated in mental asylums - probably the same in NZ - the rich went to Switzerland, the poor to the mad house: wicked old world.  Giano  10:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that—maybe I'll add a footnote to explain this. - Shudde ^talk 07:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Stay (Faraway, So Close!)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to FA

Thanks,  Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• An article cannot be simultaneously list at WP:FAC and peer review, so I am closing this PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Broadway theatre

This peer review discussion has been closed.
As a school project, I would like to list this article for peer review.Changdaey (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

• Why does there need to be two pictures of The Lion King marquees in the lead?
• The lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD, three to four paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this size. Remember that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article, without including unique information.
• There are quite a few paragraphs and tag ends of paragraphs with no references - these should be referenced, especially when they have statistics or potentially controversial information. There is even at least one section (Producers and theatre owners) that is completely unreferenced.
• References should be checked for reliability. For example, current ref #12 (Midkoff, Neil) appears to be a WP:Self published source, and non-reliable according to WP guidelines. The rest of the references should be checked for similar issues.
• Competing with motion pictures section - Is there really only one paragraph of information? I would think that with almost 100 years of co-existence, there would be more. Also, this section is completely unreferenced. A third concern is that the language is un-encyclopedic in several spots - opinions like "forgettable", "clearly", etc. should be attributed to the reference from which they were taken, and potentially removed altogether if this is WP:Original research on the part of the editor who added the information.
• 1950–1970 section - Again, is there really only two paragraphs of material on this subject? Especially if, as the article purports, the music of one of these decades "form[s] the core of the musical theatre repertory"?

Overall, the sourcing is what needs the greatest amount of work. As the prose and structure of an article often change when significant referencing work is done, I have not done an in-depth review of the article's prose, or the existing references. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Norman Cob

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is another French breed article that I have worked on in collaboration with the editor who brought it to featured status on the French Wikipedia. It recently passed a GA review, and I think I have integrated all of the important sources on the breed. I would like to take it to FAC in the near future, so a review with the FA criteria in mind would be helpful. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Stuart Milk

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a COI and am trying to help address promotional concerns about its contents in a fair way. Assistance on improving tone of article to better comply with bio policies would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Coal ball

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've improved it as much as I can, and believe it is FA ready, but since it's my first one, I'd like to solicit some more input before going to FAC.

Thanks, →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

John Neulinger

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi. I'm trying to get this article ready for GA, but I'm only about halfway there. I could definitely use some constructive criticism for guidance. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of suggestions, but it's not at all exhaustive:

• File:John Neulinger c. 1989.png probably doesn't have an adequate fair use rationale. That there is no free image of Neulinger is not a fair use rationale.
• "was a noted German-American psychologist" - remove noted, if he wasn't notable, then he would not have an article.
• Why was he taken to a concentration camp?
• "1964-1965" - ndash?
• "In the late 1960s, Neulinger and Miranda Breit were one of the first leisure researchers to use attitudinal data instead of participation data to define activity clusters." this should be expanded, and does contain a bit of unwiki-linked jargon. If possible to replace the jargon then do it.
• Is it normal to publish such a large list of publications? May be good to add a paragraph introducing the bibliography. Where was the list obtained from?
• Not sure what the MoS says, but with dates in the references, would it be better to state the month and day explicitly rather than say "2009-03-05" have March 05, 2009 or June 03, 2009 (depending on what style dates you use).
• Having redlinked see also material seems pointless to me.
• " Nevertheless, Neulinger's theory exerted considerable influence on the social theory of leisure, and perceived freedom is still a popular concept in leisure studies.[9]" - are there examples of how this theory exerted influence?
• Other than that, the article could do with a little expansion in most areas.

Hope these points help - Shudde ^talk 07:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Trimethylamine N-oxide

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the interpretation given in the "health issues" section is IMHO dubious (I removed a sentence which I believed was taken from a secondary improper source); the very recent paper quoted (Koeth et. al.) has had a huge impact in the mass media, and I believe many people would come to wikipedia to get more info on this substance. As this topic (nutritional factors of heart diseases) is highly controversial, I think bulletproof contents only shoulf figure in this article for the sake of public health.

Thanks, MarmotteiNoZ 12:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Ned Lamont

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have put a lot of work into this article, and would like to see it become a good article. The subject is a small time politician who lost 1 election and 1 primary, so I'm looking to see if people find it comprehensive enough.

Thanks, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article seems comprehensive, writing style and referencing are good. I made some grammar changes, and merged the ancestry and early life sections. I believe that Lamont began working for the Black River Tribune in 1977, not 1997, but correct me if I am wrong. Second, the caption for the election result does state what election it is for. Is it for the primary or general election. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The Indian Princess (play)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an academic assignment in process. This is my first time to Wikipedia so I would love feedback especially on format and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks, Eparness (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Form of article is fine. I have tweaked the punctuation to Wikify it.
• You use "claim" or variations of it nine times in the article. In general I'd advise keeping "claim" for cases where the assertion is dubious, and instead use "say", "state", "write" etc as more neutral. Your "cited" in the lead is an excellent example of neutral terminology.
• Upper and lower case: be consistent with the capital T in the definite article when referring to "The Xxxx Theatre" or "the Yyyy Theatre"
• Pocahontas: Schauspiel mit Gesang, in fünf Akten – a translation in brackets or as a footnote, would be kind.
• The play has also been cited – not clear which play, the melodrama or Barker's
• I don't know if this review of the London production, from The Times, Saturday, Dec 16, 1820, p. 3, throws any light on how much, if at all, the London show was related to the original, but you are welcome to it if it is of any use:

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—A drama, in three acts, called Pocahontas or, The Indian Princess, was performed at this theatre last night for the first time. The subject is borrowed from the early history of the English settlers in Virginia, and is not destitute in itself of the interest derived from the intercourse of civilized life with savage habits and manners. Love, the common bond and point of union to the human race, is the master key to the whole drama. Pocahontas saves the life of an English officer, who had indiscreetly ventured into the domains, and becomes amenable to the laws, of her royal father, and the reward of both is marriage. The outline of the piece is better than the execution: good situations are to be found in it; but the general conduct discovers little skill; while the want of comic character communicates a leaden dulness which must prove a formidable barrier to a long and brilliant career. The dialogue, which is in blank-verse, is not deficient in harmony; but the speeches have one great and general fault – that of being too sentimental and didactic. Some music is attached to the piece, which is not without merit; and its value was not lessened by the skill and precision imparted by Miss Povey to her share in it. Cooper and Mrs. West were the hero and heroine; and the assistance of Booth's talents is also given. His character is that of an Indian chief, with a name (Opechancanough) not very easy to pronounce, and therefore, wisely enough, not once trusted to the metre. The writer, indeed, seemed in this respect very shy of his dramatis personae, a reserve that an inspection of the play-bill will easily account for. The announcement for repetition was not received with much ardour; but the "contents" were predominant.

Hope some of this is helpful. – Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughts Tim! I've made most of the changes you suggested. Eparness (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Omak, Washington

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have intentions to take this article to featured status.

Thanks very much, TBrandley 00:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm copyediting the article now per your request, but once that's done you should take a look at the citations. There are a number of dead links and formatting inconsistencies that should be addressed before FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, I believe I have addressed the concerns. Cheers. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Gustav Holst

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Brianboulton and I have overhauled this article over the past few weeks. (I bagged the easy bits and craftily left BB with the hard work.) We think we have now got the piece to the threshold of FAC, and we should greatly welcome comments on prose, structure, comprehensiveness, images or indeed anything else. Holst was a lovely, gentle man, yet his music is sometimes fierce and at other times withdrawn and austere – we hope we have done all aspects of him justice in the updated article, and we look forward to your comments. – Tim riley (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I do not intend to review this article - but I've noticed that his date of birth is not included in the body of the article as I believe it should be. Also, perhaps it would help the reader if Gustav's age is specified at a few more points - possible places are when his mother died, when he started composing and when he left school. Aa77zz (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this. We don't normally repeat the d.o.b. in the main text, but there is definitely something to be said for the occasional genethliac milestone in the article. Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Later: I have added one such age milestone, mentioning his age when unwanted fame suddenly fell on him. Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat.

A fair amount covered on a quick read through, with a closer and complete reading to follow. I've made a few minor tweaks: please feel free to revert. A few minor comments below in what I find to be a beautifully crafted article. It's interesting, seems to cover all the main aspects and is eminently readable.

Music

• There's quite a few "suggests" in this section: Matthews suggests on four occasions; Dickinson thrice and Short twice

• That's careless drafting on my part. I've knocked out most of them, reads better now, hopefully. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian period

• Regarded by Head: who and what?

• His description got inadvertently edited out in one of my prose blitzes. Now restored. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Maturity

• West country - > West Country (caps and wl)

  Of course. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Boulton, Riley and Co (of 70 St Mary Axe, EC3) will hold a general meeting when we have all your comments. Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done the few fixes indicated. Thanks indeed for picking these up. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Further comments from Schrocat

Apologies for the delay—RL has bitten into my time a little more recently.

Lead

• "Apart from The Planets and a handful of other works, his music was generally neglected until the CD era from the 1980s onward, when much of his output became widely available on recordings." This reads awkwardly; perhaps "...his music was generally neglected until the 1980s, after which much of his output became widely available." (Partly because it's not just CDs, but digital downloads too; partly because "available on recordings" sounds a little... clunky)
  • Well, yes, but the point we seek to make is that it is recordings (on CD, MP3 or what have you) by which much of GH's work is now known. Live performances of anything but The Planets, the PF Ballet and one or two others are still awfully rare. I don't think just "widely available" quite makes this important distinction. Would "...when most of his output was recorded." do the trick?
    • Most admirably, I would think! (I'd sort of agree that performances are rare, but only for the larger pieces: some of the smaller pieces are better known, although it may not be appreciated that the piece that is being listened to and admired is actually one of Holst's!) - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Childhood and youth

• "organ voluntaries, songs, anthems and a Symphony in C minor". Is the capital needed?
  • No, I think probably not. Nor the key, now I look again. Shall prune. Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all from me, I think, although I'll take another read through in a few days' time and see if there is anything else lurking in there that I've missed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these extra points. Any more arising from your further read-through will be gladly received. Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• I think the third sentence of the first paragraph works better if moved one sentence earlier. However, the former second sentence might need some adjusting.
  • Happy with that. Shall do. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Later: User:Alfietucker makes the valid point that the third sentence (as it was after I acted on the above) stresses one influence and omits at least two other equally important ones. He has pruned accordingly, and I, think, rightly. Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Destined". Perhaps a bit too poetic. Determined?
  • Not quite that, but point well taken and I'll rephrase.
• "when in the CD era, when much of his output became widely available on recordings." Too many whens. Perhaps, "when much of his output became available on CD."
  • Yes, indeed. Shall do. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Biography

• Is quite so much family background material needed? Especially as none of them are notable (or at least, no one has created articles).
  • I actually omitted his only WP'd ancestor, Theodor von Holst as irrelevant. As to the other ancestors it seems to me that there's an important fact in each sentence – GH's national roots, family move to UK, cheeky "von" and so on. But having written this stuff I am naturally attached to it. Brian, any thoughts? Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The section amounts to about 3.5 percent of the article. It gives useful information about the family's musical heritage, and is of sufficient interest, I believe, to justify its retention. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• "which made playing the piano a problem." perhaps "problematical" or "difficult" instead of "a problem"?
  • Thank you. "Difficult" is definitely better, I think. Shall do. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Is it worth stating who wrote the words for Lansdowne Castle"?
  • A local worthy. I thought about naming him, but it seemed like clutter, and I adhere to that view having looked again. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1903 Adolph Holst died". You should probably include the appropriate (or appropriated) "von".
  • Good grief, yes! Mea culpa. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• "lament for Morris, who had died three years before Holst began work on the piece." You should probably state either the year of Morris's death or of the beginning of composition.
  • Excellent advice. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• "He turned down honours offered to him" When I saw this, I thought of official honours, but judging by the note, no, or at least not exclusively. I venture "honours and awards offered to him"?
  • Good, yes. The benefit of a fresh eye! Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think you should mention the date of death, or at least month and year, in the paragraph in which you relate his death.
  • We haven't, as far as I can remember, done so for earlier FA'd composers. I have no rooted antipathy, however. Sir B, how say you? Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • In fact, we seem always to have included this information. See Frederick Delius, Neville Cardus, Edward Elgar, Walton, too. This seems right to me, otherwise readers have to refer back to the lead to get the date. Let's put it in.Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Right ho. Tim riley (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Music

• " Kālidāsa" when you mention this before, it is without the lines over the "a"s

• Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent as to what tense you refer to Imogen

• I've made a few changes. In general the literary present enables the use of the present tense in, for example, "Imogen acknowledges", "Imogen refers to..." etc, since even though she is no more, her work lives on. I am less happy with "Imogen believes...", as that carries the definite idea that she is still living. I have left that as "Imogen believed..." Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Egdon Heath (1927) is …"The Brook Green Suite (1932), written for the orchestra of St Paul's School, was …" I see an inconsistency here too.

Legacy

• "Short cites other English composers whose work is in debt to Holst". I think that either the composers should owe a debt to Holst, or their work should owe a debt to Holst's work, but not mix them.
• There seems to be a rogue close quote after Appalachian Spring". Forgive me for not removing it myself, but I'm doing this offline.

• These three fixes all made. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellently done, as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments. I have fixed or responded to those in the parts of the text that I mainly wrote, and will leave Tim to cope with the others. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This and that from Cassianto

FA winning content as usual, take these on board if you wish...

Lead

• "Despite his father's doubts he pursued a career as a composer," -- Did his father doubt his abilities or did he not want him to take up composition? Reading slightly further down, we say "Adolph tried to steer his son away from composition, hoping that he would have a career as a pianist." I think saying "doubt" is a bit ambiguous.

• I think Holst senior's doubts were about the financial viability of a career as a composer (and how right he proved to be), rather than about his son's abilities. I will leave to Tim any required tweaking. Brianboulton (talk)

• That's my impression, too. But the sources are not explicit. It may just be that Adolph wanted Gustav to follow in his footsteps. I don't think we can in conscience nuance the text one way or another. Changing "doubts" to "reservations" is fair enough, though, and I will. Tim riley (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Family background

• Do we need to link Hollywood?
  • I'm in two minds. Everybody knows what Hollywood means, and I don't think inviting readers to click away from this page is all that helpful here. But happy to go with a consensus now or at FAC.

Composer and teacher

• "Towards the end of the nineteenth century British musical circles..." -- Is this missing a comma after century?
  • I think perhaps it is. American usage always has a comma in such a construction; British usage has one only when it is necessary to avoid confusion, and I rather believe this is a case in point. Thank you for that. Tim riley (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Holst was a keen rambler. He walked extensively in England, Italy, and France and Algeria." -- and, and?
  • Why does one never spot one's own drafting errors? Thank you – shall amend. Tim riley (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

World War I

• "At the outbreak of World War I, Holst tried to enlist but was rejected as unfit for military service" -- "...but was rejected for being unfit for military service"
  • I think I prefer the existing phrasing. Tim riley (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto^Talk 08:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• • No problem. I can see it now, (and I think I too prefer the former!). Useless bit of information for you: I used to live in Thaxted and have had a tour of his house. It was beautiful inside and with very little modernisation. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Edward Soriano

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am seeking additional eyes on the article before nominating this article for good article review. Any copy editing during such a review would also be appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Suggest including a few more chronological markers in his bio - when did he graduate high school? University? When did he marry (not in the article at all)? "Before commanding I Corps, Soriano served as director of homeland security" - as written this could be anytime between the mid-1970s and 2002
• In general, the biographical section seems quite short for a GA
• Tagged dead links should be dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done some copy editing, and added the graduation date for SJSU, but I cannot find any reliable sources that give his high school graduation date.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Phi Beta Sigma

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because previous issues regarding the content have been resolved and the article has received extensive expansion

Thanks,  Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 19:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Doing...--GrapedApe (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done-_GrapedApe (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall comments

• This is a very well written essay on the Phi Beta Sigma. The writing was good, the history was well-chronicled, and there was sufficient historical context provided so that the reader could understand how the history of the fraternity meshed with broader historical events.
• However, large portions of it don't really match with how wikipedia articles are generally written. That doesn't mean that it's bad--it's just not like other wikipedia articles.
  • It needs way more in-line references. Nothing should appear in an article unless it is specifically sourced somewhere. Right now, it is clear that much of the article is not sourced that way. See Wikipedia:Verifiability

 Doing...-- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• • In many areas, it gives too much detail. For example, the section Genesis and founding shouldn't be 6 paragraphs long. Realistically, that can be summarized and cut by half. Again, this level of detail is OK for a fraternity audience, but not for the general audience of WIkipedia readers.
  • Be very careful to maintain a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Some sections stray close to a hagiography (like "Purpose of the fraternity." Try not to use adjectives like "countless" and "impressive." Those aren't neutral words.
• The lead should be a concise summary of the article as a whole. There should be nothing in there that isn't in (and cited in) the main body. See WP:LEAD.
• The Kappa Kappa Psi article is the most recent fraternity featured article. It would give you the best idea of how the article should read and be structured.
• Good luck!

General content and style

• I made some general cleanup[2]
• I would strongly discourage the use of File:African American Soldiers.jpg in Phi Beta Sigma#World War I & the Sigma call to arms (1917–1919), unless it can be shown that these men were members of Phi Beta Sigma. It's too general to be illustrative here.

•  Doing...-- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Done Replaced Image with File:Eugene_T._Alexander_in_Military_Uniform.jpg -- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 20:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Same goes for File:Bloody Sunday-Alabama police attack.jpeg

 Done-- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Phi_Beta_Sigma#International Presidents section probably should be either removed. Only 1 member has his own article.
• I removed the templates with the chapter winners. That kind of material is usually frowned upon.
• The Regions section is probably unnecessary.

 Doing... I will Look into possibly rewriting this section as FA Level articles Kappa Kappa Psi and Alpha Kappa Alpha Make mention of their regional divisions

• • Same with Phi Beta Sigma National Programs table. Pick a few charities and put them into prose.
• I removed the mission statement. WP:MISSION
• I removed some unnecessary external links. WP:EL
• I removed flag icons from infobox. WP:INFOBOXFLAG
• I removed the picture of the Temptations, as it violated the fair use rules. WP:NFCC
• I removed ‎the list of Distinguished Service Chapter members. WP:NOTDIR
• The content of Leonard F. Morse appears to the a copyright violation. Also, he doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG, so the article would be in danger of being deleted anyway.
• Reduce the amount of large quoted blocks of text (like The creation of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority)

Article content/prose

The Creation of Zeta Phi Beta * Done-- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bigger and Better Business * Doing...-- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Was A. Philip Randolph a member? His article doesn't say so.

style="background:#9EFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes A. Phillip Randolph is a member

• The pull quotes from Brother I.L. Scruggs and Arthur W. Mitchell are confusing. The only makes sense upon reading the section, which goes against the point of a pull quote. Consider a different quote, or clarify this one using [brackets]. The quote from "Founder Leonard F. Morse – 1949" is good.
  

 Doing...-- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is a lot of intra-fraternity jargon--meaning that fraternity titles and honorifics are used. (i.e. "Founder Taylor" and "brothers James Weldon Johnson and A. Phillip Randolph ") However, this article is for general audiences. Consider modifying these to be more general.
  • Try using "Sigma Brother", like in the caption for the picture of John Lewis. That works.

 Doing...-- Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations

• I wasn't sure what was going on with the references/citations sections at the bottom. I combined them into a more standard format.
• The references should be standardized. It's safest to use the templates from Wikipedia:Citation templates.
• Do not use "Ibed" as a reference. That refers to the previous reference, and that reference is broken if someone changes the order of the text or adds a new reference. Just copy the same reference.
  

---

Washington (state)

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

Howdy- I would really like to get this article up to good article status. I didn't want to formally nominate it, as I know it is currently far below the level of a GA. The criteria for a GA can be found here. If y'all could go through the list and give me some particular ideas as to getting it to meet the criteria. Any extra tips are always appreciated!

Thanks, PrairieKid (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Illusive Man

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a fairly recent article to the mainspace, but it is one I've been working on for a while now in my userspace. Currently, it is at B status, which is nice enough, but I would really like for it to one day be a Good Article; here's hoping that this peer review will put it a step closer to that goal.

Thanks, – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Czar

Terrific work! I did a copy edit as I went, and I didn't verify or format/touch the refs. For next time, I recommend sending the article to copy edit before PR. For clarity's sake, please respond beneath my review instead of after each bullet, which gets messy.

Lede

• Lede could use a bit more on what Cerberus does, and what the Illusive Man's role is
• Who gave him eye implants? The character designers or the in-series story?
• Who designed his character? She should have a shout-out in the lead.
• Every mention of "indoctrination" is going to need solid refs
• Is any more of his origin story missing from the body? Can you squeeze any more out of Evolution?
• Side note: the ME books most likely need to be combined into their own article, if not the main ME series article

Concept

• What does a "pro-human" group mean? This part should be set up for a total outsider. What is the Council?
• Could use more on his development—what did they originally want in him and how did it change over time?
• Voice acting, and how that development and recording process went (and how it changed the character) would be useful (Sheen's picture should go in that segment)
• Worth mentioning similar roles Sheen played previously, how that affected the Illusive Man ("IM" or "the Man" here on out)
• Move all Sheen stuff to a voice acting section. This first paragraph should be about introducing the Man and his dev process, not the outcomes, then go into the development process, how he changed over time from original conception, how he came out, then go into either voice acting or the Man's remaining characteristics
• Clarify tag #1: this sentence needs rewording, but I can't access the source. The player doesn't recognize the Illusive Man by the end? Why didn't it fit the Illusive Man? Those are the questions to answer here.
• What catalog model?
• In fifties → what was going on during his birth years in-universe? What did he grow up in in-universe?
• What was IM's former career like?
• Voice is bouncing between developers and in-universe. Stay in one or the other
• "interaction with" → touching? What kind of interaction? Clarify
• Why was he not huskified?
• "his indoctrinated appearance": clarify, what does this even mean?
• What is the function of the Saren reference? Did those renderings make it into the game?
• Images related to this Saren statement would make cool additions, if you can find them. Do you have (or have in mind) any other concept art or files that could possibly be relevant for the article?
• Suit quotes are good—I'd like more of that
• "was created empty": need more refs on this—why is it empty? they created it like that? Why?
• Audience doesn't know that it's empty—set the scene here, possibly provide a fair use screenshot of his environment as it's relevant
• "holograms": What holograms? This needs to be introduced before it can be referenced. Clarify
• "only a small amount of concept art": why is this significant? Did they get it right the first time, or did they not care about it?
• John Jackson's pull quote should give him an intro (e.g., JJM, series author)
• "penned the script": script or story?
• "made sure to wonder": the company wondered? Are you saying that they thought out his backstory and just don't reveal it?
• This section's order is awry. Design should focus just on the design process—how they developed him, what the devs and designers thought. This should be followed by a voice acting section on how Sheen changed the character (move the parts from above)
• Need more on how he appears, his face, his suit, more pop culture comparisons for beef

Appearances

• Need refs for these plot points
• Consider adding how the game starts and ends knowing very little (non-narratively) about the Man even though he's a main character
• Pick a gender instead of going third-person plural—maleshep is canonical for the series, I believe
• Reaper introduction is good. All ME jargon need similar intros
• This section is basically a summary of ME2 instead of a telling of IM's role in ME2. It should go through all of the main interactions with IM in the game. That's what makes him important in the series. Why are any of the colonies worth mentioning?
• Introduce the Collectors briefly as well as the other jargon mentions (if they're worth mentioning at all)
• Why is it necessary to mention Feron
• This whole part should serve as proof of IM's character development—needs to be reworked
• All of IM's Evolution backstory needs to be really hashed out in the dev section. This section should be reserved for plot and obscure side-references only.
• So much of this jargon can be expanded interestingly. You're going to get a lot of bulk here. Don't add unnecessary stuff, but this basic plot summary could use more context in the terms it has.
• Why is he targeted in Deception?
• The Kai Leng mention—mentioning all this stuff is fine as long as the reader understands who Kai Leng is (and his role), which isn't apparent unless it's spelled out every few paragraphs or kept as a working term
• Consider grouping the comics series together and the novel series together. They seem haphazardly connected as is. It would be nicer to wrap them as prose when two or more or connected.

Reception

• Add the person who speaks for each reviewing org. Refer to IGN's so-and-so the first time and then IGN thereafter. (Actually you handled this well in later paragraphs.)
• Solid section. Stuff like the Smoking Man reference is golden. Can you find more?
• How did Sheen respond to this criticism? How did BioWare and the devs respond to the other criticism?

Misc.

• I changed a handful of words to the American spelling because this is an American game. If you would prefer to keep the British spelling since you wrote the bulk of it, feel free to change it back.
• Lots of citations needed. There should be one at least every two sentences the way this is written.
• Again, I didn't verify the refs even a little. They look okay for the most part. The later refs need their "works" wikified. Some of the entries need to be expanded. Consider doing WebCite archiving so you don't lose any sources. (If you do, remember to set "|deadurl=no".)

Response

Good work! Please leave any response below instead of inline above. czar · · 07:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Will get right on it. On the American spellings: it's fine. I was overall trying to go with the American spellings, but I am, of course, British, so obviously my natural writing is British. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Correction: BioWare is actually Canadian, though from what I've seen in the subtitles they generally use the more USA spellings. They are also now owned by the American Electronic Arts, of course. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

On the species: I don't think capitalising "Drell" or "Turian", for instance, is the right way to go. As a species -- much like "human" -- they tend to be referred to with a lowercase first letter. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

All offshoots of the list of fictional extraterrestrials refer to alien species as proper nouns, which they are for all intents of an encyclopedia. I know the ME Wikia doesn't do this, and I'll grant you that it does look nicer, but they're also an in-universe wiki with less rigid standards. czar · · 17:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pick a gender instead of going third-person plural—maleshep is canonical for the series, I believe" <- Disagree here. There is no "canon" for the series, though MaleShep is more present in marketting (though ME3 tried to equal it more). "They" is preferable to "he/she", though if it causes confusion it may be worth replacing certain uses with "the Commander", "Shepard", "Commander Shepard", etc. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I said that since the game defaults to male and the reviews use the male pronoun (also "he/she" grammatical uncertainty defaults to male, historically, perhaps unjustly). I'm only looking for consistency. The spelling-out solution may be your best bet if you don't want to pick a single gender. czar · · 17:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Add the person who speaks for each reviewing org." <- The ones that are just "Site said..." are ones that were written by general staff, with no particular author listed. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that. I was going to strike the whole bullet, but I added a parenthetical instead (in case the thought could be useful). czar · · 23:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently a bit busy in real life. While I can continue working on the article, I should warn you that I may be a bit slower than usual for the next, say, two weeks or so. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No sweat, and no need to respond at all (though you can if you want). It's here for posterity. If the review closes, give me a ping if you want specific feedback or a GAN review. czar · · 21:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Adventure Time

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through into GA and hopefully to add into FA standard.

Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 10:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Parable of the Sunfish

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've had several good reviewers who helped me bring "Parable" through DYK and GA, and at this point I'd like to have another round of polishing before sending it off to FA (or, of course, feedback as to why it shouldn't go there). I'm particularly interested in specific suggestions as to how to reduce the amount of quoted material and my general wordiness. The article rests at an intersection of literary theory and the history and philosophy of science; subject matter experts in those areas are also welcome.

Many thanks,

Garamond Lethet
c 17:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial review comments

Interesting article. First obvious thing, the lead is too short. It needs to summarize the contents of the article, so it should mention Shaler, Scudder, and Cooper, etc.

Dogfish vs Sunfish (Opah, isn't it? Or do you have reason to know it's one of the sharks?). There's no comparison... I've put a beautiful image of an Opah inter alia at Alister Hardy, as it happens. My suspicion (WP:OR!) would be that Pound chose the sunfish as an incredibly bright, odd, and beautiful example that only a Scientist-Artist (like Hardy) could possibly describe; so a dogfish would not at all work in this regard. Would love to learn if this hunch is right. Maybe need to write an additional NFUR for the painting. Ah, I see you have a footnote; yes, Molidae also quite possible, but again, that kind of sunfish is a most striking and unusual animal. I can't at all see what the dinosaur has to do with it.

Definition of "red". Hadn't this better at least refer to Qualia and the Philosophy of science, as it has been massively discussed, as plainly Pound knew? Or are we saying he didn't?

I'm personally a great fan of 'passport photos' to support discussion of different people relevant to an article, in which case it'd be nice to have Lane Cooper in there. Right now he's not even bluelinked, doesn't he even get a stub article? However I have no idea whether FA reviewers would like such images.

"Pound contrasts this empiricism..." ... do you really mean Empiricism? (Though Pragmatism is certainly a kind of Empiricism.) Perhaps what is intended is more Holism, a sort of Zen-flavoured grasp of the entirety of the fish? The rest of the paragraph reinforces this feeling. Maybe say that Pound is anti-Reductionism, which is surely a better term than Pound's "abstraction" for this: had Pound not heard of reductionism? Abstraction has many meanings.

The existing 'clarification needed' tag needs to be addressed.

I feel that both Shaler and Scudder need some words of introduction: readers probably won't have come across them before. Perhaps something like "Nathaniel Shaler, who went on to become a paleontologist and geologist,... " I know it's really basic, but it feels helpful somehow.

I was wondering if I should mention William James, but the article does it already. So why does it not mention James's tough-minded / tender-minded distinction? I think it highly relevant: James, like Agassiz (it seems) insisted on pragmatic (there's another useful word in this context: dare I mention W. V. O. Quine - perhaps worth a mention as it shows where this is going; maybe a footnote and a citation) observation, of things actually seen as opposed to vaguely ("tenderly") generalized about. The web is rightly full of it, even if the Wiki article on James isn't!

Peter Nicholas Baker --- again, who is this guy? A bluelink or bit of introduction is needed.

That's all for now, feel free to get back to me (on my talk page if need be). -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Chiswick, great stuff there—thanks so much for taking the time to review. In particular you have me intrigued as to whether Pound was alluding to qualia when discussing his definition of "red". I'll be on the UC Berkeley campus tomorrow where it will be easier to track that down. I'll be relying inline to this and the rest of the issues you raised as I fix them. Best, Garamond Lethet
c 16:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh good. Well, I suspect I've strayed rather too far into WP:OR, but perhaps some of it will be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that Real Life has been monopolizing my attention and I expect to get back to this during the coming weekend. Garamond Lethet
c 07:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Postclassical Era

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've been working on this article for awhile now, and while I've done a lot, I think it needs more. To make sure I am doing everything correctly and to garner some help, I would like to hear some feedback. I would like to have this article's quality and importance assessed, see if it qualifies to have its "needs additional citations" alert removed, and to establish it as a useful "umbrella" to cover the Medieval age throughout the entire world's history.

Thanks, Cito (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Dana Boomer

First, you have done an impressive job in expanding what was a small, stub-class article! I have assessed the article for the History WikiProject at Top importance (this doesn't change, regardless of the quality of the article) and C-class quality (this does change, based on the quality of the article). You can read more about the quality assessments by clicking on the links in the WikiProject banner on the talk page. Now, some specific comments on the article:

• In general, you do not need quotes for every reference. In fact, unnecessary quotes can make you run into problems with copyright compliance. Unless it is a very controversial fact, a potentially controversial translation, etc., you don't need quotes in the references.
• Using the named refs feature to combine identical refs would cut down on the sheer amount of text in the references section, and make it easier to see at a glance how much information is being sourced to each ref. If you would like, and haven't used this feature before, I can do one as an example, or you can find examples in almost any good or featured article.
• There is still quite a bit of referencing that needs to be done, to the point that I can't see removing the cleanup (references needed) banner at this point on time. For example, the Main trends, Silk Road, Japan/Korea/Vietnam, and The Americans sections/subsections are all completely unreferenced. Other sections have some references, but there are still full paragraphs without - the first two paragraphs of the Eastern Europe section and the first and third paragraphs of the Africa section, for example.
• The fact that all of the references currently in the article are to one source is also slightly worrying. Depending solely on one source can create POV problems if the source is biased (even unintentionally) one way or another, or spends more time discussing one area of a topic than another. A quick look on WorldCat and Google Scholar shows some good book and journal sources out there, as well as plenty of stuff that's on web-based reliable sources.
• The Main trends section should be turned into prose - bullet pointed lists are discouraged when the information can easily be presented as prose, which it can in this case. A minor amount of expansion on each topic would probably be good. It also is one of the most pressing areas to reference, given that you're presenting themes here that tie the rest of the article together.
• The Americas section also needs expansion and a switch to prose instead of bullet points.

Overall, as I said above, this article is much improved for your efforts. I hope the above comments give you some ideas for continued improvement. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Decian persecution

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded this article from a stub, more or less writing the whole article and since I have not written very many WP articles by myself I would like comments from the community about the article's quality and / or how it could be improved. I am particularly interested to know if editors feel that it is too short to be a possible nomination for a "Good Article".

Thanks, Smeat75 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Soul-Crusher

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is long overdue for one. I spent a good amount of time tracking down sources and integrating information into the article. At this point I would like to hear feedback concerning its quality and overall readability so that the article can be improved.

Thanks, Soul Crusher (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Luo Yigu

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has received GA status, and believing it to be as comprehensive as possible, I am hoping to take it on to FA review. However, I am cautious that there may be some prose issues that are not up to FA standard, so am hoping that a peer review could help in this respect.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Sega v. Accolade

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent a lot of time working on it and, having not been active on Wikipedia in quite some time, I'd like to see if there's anything major I need to improve on before starting a GAN for it. Basically, I rewrote the whole thing from scratch today in about six hours, and before it was rewritten, three different WikiProjects had it classified as Start-class. I'm pretty sure it's a lot better than that now, but I'm not sure if I'm missing anything stylistically or in material, and I could use an extra set of eyes to help me see what I'm not seeing before trying to push it higher.

Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Jack Hobbs

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working at it for what seems like a very long time, and would like to take it to FAC. As usual, looking to see if there is anything prosey or jargony that needs sorting, and how accessible it is to non-cricketers. It's a bit of a monster in terms of length, but he was one of the major figures in cricket, and one of the most influential/revered ever. So I think the length is justified, but if there is any obvious padding, please let me know.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• You've said that he retired from international cricket in 1930 three times in the lede.

• The lead was a bit messy, so I've reworked it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hobbs was born in Cambridge on 16 December 1882, the eldest of 12 children born to John Cooper Hobbs, a slater, and his wife Flora Matilda Berry. - Born-born

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• an apprentice gas fitter, - relation to cricket?

• Not too sure of the point here; it was his first job and would have been his career but for cricket, so I think it is worth including. If you mean the dodgy "but" in the sentence, I've replaced it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Asking as you noted that he mostly worked for the school's cricket team. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• assistant professional?

• Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tom Hayward - Link at first use outside the lede

• Unless I'm going mad, the first instance is already linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of sentences starting "he" in #First-class cricketer

• Not quite sure I'm seeing this. Could you be more specific? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Batting order (cricket)#Opening batsmen - You've linked this several times in the body

• I make it that I link twice, but think it is justified. One refers to an opening batsman, the other an opening partnership. Although both link to the same article, they are different ideas so I think a link is needed. (I also realised that there were a few other duplicate links. These are fixed apart from "cover" which again I think needs linking twice.) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• the pair were dissimilar in style - How?

• Hmmm. That would get quite technical, and is to do with footwork and approach. I feel it may bog down the section, and only make the point to show that Hobbs did not just copy Hayward blindly. I'd prefer to leave this, but will add something if you think it really needs it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• A footnote, perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, tried that, although it's a little more technical than I would like. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• After his marriage - to whom?

• Took this out of that section. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments so far, and the prompt response! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• After England lost the game, he was chosen for the second Test; Jones missed the match. - He was chosen but didn't show?

• Clumsy phrasing. He was injured, so reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• and missed his wife, - If you've removed "after his marriage above" this is coming as a bit of a surprise

• Aarrrgh, his damned wife again!!! Had a bit of a think and took it out; the same point is made in the personal life section, where it is a better fit rather than an afterthought. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• unsuccessful here means low scoring?

• Yes, but I'd prefer not to explicitly say so if it can be avoided. I think it is fairly clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a link to Leveson-Gower (H. D. G. Leveson Gower, right?) anywhere in the text

• My mistake, probably lost in a copy-edit. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• selected Wilfred Rhodes to open the batting with him. - I was reading this as "selected Wilfred Rhodes to open the batting with Leveson-Gower." for most of the paragraph; may need clarification

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Years before the war - Years before the First World War?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• the MCC sent a strong team to South Africa. Against a South African team - repetition

• Fixed; is it clear now that the opposition was South Africa? I prefer to check! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(Style and technique)

• it seemed that he could predict what the bowler would do. - according to?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• and 98 of his centuries and 26,411 of his runs (at an average of 58.62) in first-class cricket after reaching the age of 40. - Missing a verb

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• the all-time World XI - ????

• Better now?

• Yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Legacy feels like a hagiography. Any serious criticism, at all?

• To be honest, no! I've been as negative as I can. Literally no-one has a bad word to say, and McKinstry spends 400+pages trying to dig up scandal. Unsuccessfully. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• The wife is back (permission to take his wife along) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I need to keep her here as it is specifically about this tour. I've named her as Ada; is this enough? I'd really like to keep her in the personal life section. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Images:

• File:Hobbs batting in 1922.tiff - Fine
• File:Hobbs in Australia 1928 Version 1.tiff
• File:Hobbs signing autographs.tiff fine
• File:StateLibQld 1 233104 Autographed photograph of the English batsmen, Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe, 1928 Cropped.jpg - needs a US copyright tag

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• File:Jack Hobbs in 1906.tiff - Fine
• File:Hobbs and Hayward.tiff - Fine
• File:Parker's Piece, Cambridge - geograph.org.uk - 876342.jpg
• File:Hobbs in Australia in 1928 Version 2.jpg - Fine
  • For consideration: Tiffs generally don't render very well on Wiki. Any chance of getting these as jpegs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It mainly comes about from how I get the images. I'm not sure if there is much I can do, at least not easily. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I think resaving in Photoshop or similar would work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, I'll have a go before FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• When you first start including wages and whatnot, would it be possible to give a rough modern-day value?

• I'm not a huge fan of doing this, to be honest. But if others request it as well, I will add something. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• they practically became an "English institution". - Why "practically"?

• My interpretation (meaning "almost", but I'm gathering it doesn't translate in that way in US Eng!) of a bit of hyperbole from McKinstry. But I just checked, and he doesn't qualify this description, so cut the word. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, I got that, but it seems odd wording for an encyclopedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The ill-will towards Hobbs as a professional seems to be coming out of nowhere for someone without a background in cricket and England's class system. Any chance of a footnote? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, added note. Does that cover it? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• That helps, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Link Kent

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rest of England - Any links?

• Not that would apply here. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• As everything depended on the final game - Is this game notable?

• Yes; it was for many years one of the most famous ever played. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• In that case a redlink would be appropriate (especially if you can dig up the sources!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• But Hobbs and Sutcliffe survived - sentence beginning with "but"

• As I think I say below, I have no real problem with this, and I think it's perfectly acceptable. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise that looks to be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the help! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I'll need several goes at this. First go:

• Lead
  • "Hobbs wished to pursue a career in cricket from an early age" – perhaps "Hobbs wished from an early age to pursue a career in cricket", which is not quite the same thing.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Following the death of his father, he successfully applied to join Surrey" – this reads as though there is a connection between the two events
    • The connection exists, but is too convoluted for the lead, and so cut the start of the sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "remains in 2012" – presumably still remains in 2013: might as well add the year on
    • Oops, missed that one. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Childhood and early cricket
  • "in order to supplement" – just "to supplement"?
  • "Upon leaving school" – "On leaving school"?
    • Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hobbs later scored his maiden first-class century against them" – a pleasing revenge, but I question its relevance at this point in the narrative
    • I placed it there to avoid having to reiterate the point when he scored the hundred, when it would rather bog down the narrative. But I'm happy to move it if you think that would be better. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps leave it as is and see what people think at FAC? Tim riley (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Surrey cricketer
  • "but according to Hobbs' biographer" – perhaps "his biographer" would flow better
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• First-class cricketer
  • "over-awed by Hayward" – The OED does not admit the hyphen; only "overawed" is listed.
    • Stupid hyphens; never quite get the right! Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "After his marriage" – like Crisco, above, I wondered "to whom?" at this point.
    • Cut this now as it doesn't have much relevance. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• First appearances
  • First para – I think you need to make it clear for non-experts that it was the pre-test state matches he was not selected for.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Dominance in South Africa
  • "batted down the batting order but steadily improved his batting until he became an opening batsman" – a lot of batting in this sentence. Perhaps "batted down the order but steadily improved, becoming an opening batsman".
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

More anon. Tim riley (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Much obliged so far, thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A great pleasure; I'm particularly enjoying the article. I shall be busy most of tomorrow, and will look forward to resuming my innings on Thursday. Meanwhile, may I suggest that you go through the article and replace "Hobbs" with "he", "him" or "his" wherever you think the sense of the prose is not compromised by replacing the name with a pronoun? Having too many recurrent mentions of a subject's name breaks the flow of the prose; we are all prone to it, but it's harder to spot it in one's own prose than in others'. Tim riley (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Resuming

• Success against Australia
  • "the unsuccessful "Triangular Tournament" – I think you should either explain why "unsuccessful" or remove the word. (Probably the latter, I feel – brevity and all that – but you must be the judge, natch.)
    • Cut it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Years before the war
  • "placing him second in the national averages" – do we need to know who was first?
    • The only problem: would we then have to say who was ahead of him on other occasions? I'm inclined to leave it out. (For the record, it was Phil Mead, one of the more boring, uninspiring and slightly unlikable professional superstars from this period.) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "were declared County Champions" – sounds as though this was a decision of a panel of judges rather than a statistical fact
    • Funnily enough, it was a panel decision. I've added something to clarify. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• First World War
  • Touch of tabloid phrasing with "between Yorkshire president Lord Hawke, who": perhaps "between the Yorkshire president, Lord Hawke, who"
    • Agreed, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Resumption of cricket
  • "Hobbs was awarded a five-year contract" – by Surrey? Worth specifying, I think.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A small matter, but I think the old adage "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies to "£400 per year", when "£400 a year" would do the job. There's another one later, too.
    • A couple of earlier ones too, fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "However, Sandham" – does the "however" add anything here?
    • Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Second para is an example of the excessive number of mentions of Hobbs's name I mentioned above: I think it would flow much more smoothly with a few pronouns instead of his name.
    • Better? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "reach the landmark after Grace and Hayward" – I think this is the first mention of Grace, in which case a "W G" and a blue link would be in order.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Partnership with Sutcliffe
  • "with Yorkshire's Herbert Sutcliffe" – you have blue linked Yorkshire here, but I'd move the link to the first mention of the club, next to Lord Hawke. (Actually, as a Lancastrian, I wouldn't link to Yorkshire at all, but I digress.)
    • Oh dear, and I had such respect for you until you said that. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "the highest for any pair of opening batsmen" – is this the highest average for English openers or for those of all Test sides?
    • All teams. Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Following their success in the trial match, the selectors named Hobbs and Sutcliffe in" – to avoid ambiguity I think I'd redraw this as "Following their success in the trial match, Hobbs and Sutcliffe were selected for"
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "they may have won the series" – they "might" or "could" have won the series?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "he finished second in the batting averages … Critics believed he remained the best batsman in England" – you will have gathered that I am no expert on cricket (though keen on it) so you'll excuse what I fear is almost certainly a stupid question, viz, if he was the the best batsman in England why did he repeatedly come second in the batting averages?
    • Vagaries of cricket at the time. With a good run of scores and a few not outs, anyone could come top (then or now), but more so as someone who had only played a handful of matches was more likely to have a higher average than a batsman like Hobbs who had played up to 40 games. Some very odd people came top of the batting averages. For this reason amongst others, critics were less bothered by averages in Hobbs' day, and judged on the number of runs, the quality of their scoring, and who they came against. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• End of career
  • "the matches were, or should have had, first-class status" – perhaps "the matches had, or should have had, first-class status" or "the matches were, or should have been, of first-class status"
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "to pass the record total of Grace" – perhaps worth making it clear that Grace scored his total for the Gentlemen?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

End of part two. More to come. I'm enjoying this. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Last lot from Tim

• Style and technique
  • "critics judged him to be the best batsman in the world" – this is the seventh incidence of the phrase "best batsman" and it begins to outwear its welcome. Having said that, I can't think of any better phrase. I mention the point and leave it for your consideration.
    • Tried some more variety. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "E. W. Swanton described him" – I think a date here would add weight.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Neville Cardus suggested that Hobbs was the first batsman to adopt a technique to consistently succeed against googly bowlers..." – Three points here: first, I'm not sure about "suggested"; such a tentative action doesn't sound like Cardus; secondly, "adopt" seems not quite right, and I wonder if "develop" would be more accurate; thirdly, though the superstition about splitting an infinitive is silly, many otherwise sensible people still hold it, and I find it best to avoid splitting if it is possible to do so without twisting the prose into knots.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hobbs moved the focus of batting from aesthetic off side shots to leg side play more suited to swing and googly bowling" – the equivalent sentence in a music article might read, "A theme can be expressed on the simple tetrachord of Mercury or on the more elaborate disdiapason, with the familiar four tetrachords and the redundant note." That is to say, only an expert could make head or tail of it. But there are times when one has to be brutal and decide that only the technical expression will suffice, and the layman must cope, and if this is one such, then so be it. You may like to ponder.
    • Hmm. I think I'll leave it for now as there is no obvious way to make it more accessible without either dumbing down too much or making the prose rather cumbersome and contrived. But I'll certainly ponder. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hobbs frequently was out deliberately soon after reaching a century" – you've told us this before.
    • I wonder if we might need it twice; the first time was when he began to do it, but this is more about his general batting and how many of his centuries were "thrown away". But if it's a problem, it can go. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "R. C. Robertson-Glasgow suggests" – trouble with tenses: you have "Cardus suggested" earlier, but for Robertson-Glasgow (who is just as dead) you maintain the present tense.
    • I tend to tie myself in knots over this. Went for past tense. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "on occasion, Hobbs targeted the main bowling threats from the opposition." – I'm not sure what this means. Isn't that what all batsmen try to do?
    • Not always; some of them try to avoid the best bowlers. And Hobbs tended to attack the leading threat to hit him out of the attack. I've tried to clarify, but is there a better way? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Cardus suggested that" – Sir Neville being suggestive again
    • Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "and 98 of his centuries and 26,411 of his runs (at an average of 58.62) in first-class cricket after reaching the age of 40" – are you missing "he scored" or suchlike at the start of this bit?
    • Got this above, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "negatively impact on" – sounds like management-speak for "harm" or "detract from"
    • Good grief, what was I doing??? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "these would often be followed by very sharp fielding which often produced a run out" – two "oftens" in one sentence
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Another idiot question: didn't Gents-v-Players matches count as first class? If they didn't, your sentence is fine, but if they did it reads a bit oddly.
    • Yes, that was a bit of a mess. Fiddled around with it now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Reputation and legacy
  • You make no mention of Wisden's "Five Cricketers of the 20th Century", in which Hobbs was the only English player of the five. Up to you, naturally, but I was surprised by the omission.
    • Er... "More recently, Hobbs was selected in 2000 as a Wisden Cricketer of the Century"! But I've beefed this up (and realised it was unreferenced too). Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "In comparison with other batsmen" – is this phrase needed here?
    • Nope. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "remains the fifth" – remained, in 2013, the fifth? WP:DATED
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Family life
  • "in a prosperous area of London" – you might name it, perhaps
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "was extremely popular and the players famous" – that construction works only if both nouns are singular; for the plural "players" you need "were" in front of it.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "ghostwritten books" – you offer us a wide range of options during the article: "ghost writer", "ghost-written" and "ghostwritten". Best to standardise for consistency. I see the WP article is "ghostwriter", and I'd be inclined to follow suit here. The blue link to that article ought to come at first mention, I think, in the second para of "End of career".
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "to private school" – "to a private school" or "to private schools"?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "died on 21 December 1963" – it's usual (and I think helpful to the reader) to add "at the age of…"
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That's all from me. The article is long, but I honestly didn't notice its length while I was reading it. I think loud and sustained applause is called for. – Tim riley (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and kind words. I think I've got or responded to everything now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

I don't follow cricket, so please bare with me. This looks like a very interesting article and it drew me in from the lede alone. Due to the length, I will make a few visits, so here is the first batch. Please consider these comments, but no insistence my end to impliment.

Childhood and early cricket

• "Hobbs was raised in a poor, run-down area of the town..." -- What town? Cambridge is a city and is the only place mentioned before this claim.

• Oh dear. Thanks for that one, fixed! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hobbs' father, a lover of cricket, changed his career to become a professional cricketer..." -- So is this Jacks grandfather, or is this John? I would use the full name of whoever it is to avoid confusion on this mention.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why have we got a piped link for "Cambridgeshire" when the link takes us to the Cricket Club? I am not familiar with the sport so find the club being named after its geographical location somewhat strange. Would using the full linked title really be that much of a problem?

• The only problem with this is that it would result in every county team being named (e.g.) Surrey County Cricket Club, which becomes quite cumbersome after a while. The convention in cricket articles is to link in this way, as the teams are literally named after the counties. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fine, thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Francis Hutt, a former friend and colleague of his father contacted Essex County Cricket Club to request a trial for Hobbs. That county never replied..." -- This looks like a semi-colon could be used instead of the full stop as the second sentence reads like a continuation of the first.

• My only worry there would be an overlong sentence, as we would have a dash and a semi-colon. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, yes I see what you mean. I only mentioned it as I am not a fan of short sentences. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Surrey cricketer

• "...on a basic wage during the season of 30 shillings per week" -- made clunky by the "during the season". I would just say "...on a basic wage of 30 shillings per week."

• Unfortunately necessary as his pay dropped to 1 shilling in the winter. This is in the note, but I think we need that "during the season", unless anyone has a more elegant solution. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do we really need to link football?

• I would say no, but whenever I don't, someone says it needs linking to avoid confusion with the rugby, american and australian varieties. And I like a quiet life, so I link it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Cool, either way you can't win I suppose. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• " "Club and Ground" Eleven" -- Why is Club and Ground in inverts? also Eleven has a capitalisation, why is that? If this is the name of a team, I would drop the inverts.

• OK, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First class cricketer

• "But a combination of fatigue from continuous cricket and the pressure of first-class cricket adversely affected his form, and he struggled for the remainder of the season even as the county tried various measures to help him" -- I'm not convinced that starting a sentence with a conjunction is a good thing.

• Personally, I've no problem with it, and much prefer it to "however" at the start of a sentence. But I'll change if others think it needs it (see what I did there?!). Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Haha, very good! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• " In all first-class cricket in the season, Hobbs..." -- Is this worded correctly?

• No! It's inelegant at best, so I reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Surrey averages, and eighth in the national averages" -- Repetition of "averages".

• I'm not sure this is avoidable. The "averages" are the name of the lists of batsmen, ordered by batting average, and there are county averages and national averages. If anyone has a solution, I'm happy to tweak, but I can't see one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He was one of only three men to pass 2,000 runs; he was second to Hayward in the Surrey averages, and eighth nationally." Possibly? -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Better! Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First appearances

• "Hobbs made his Test debut on 1 January 1908 at Melbourne." -- Again, Melbourne would suggest to me Melbourne the place and not the cricket ground. I had to click off to check if it was the cricket ground and not just Melbourne.

• Changed to the cricket ground. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Hobbs was homesick for much of the tour,and missed his wife..." -- When did he get married? This is the first mention of this.

• As above, this is a bang-head-against-wall issue. Taken it out now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I guessed this was down to the separate "Personal life" section, and was meant to delete it for that reason. My personal preference is to have everything chronological order, but no grief if you choose differently, either is good I hear. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and it is always invaluable to have the eyes of non-cricketers. Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Second lot

Dominance in South Africa

• "The cricketing conditions were challenging: matches were played on matting pitches unfamiliar to English players..." -- I am wanting to say The cricketing conditions were challenging: matches were played on matting pitches which were unfamiliar to English players, or even putting a comma after pitches would do I think.

• Went for the comma. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Success against Australia

• "The 1912 season was unusually wet, which resulted some very difficult pitches for batting." -- "The 1912 season was unusually wet, which resulted in some very difficult pitches for batting."
• "Why do we use inverts for Triangular Tournament?

• Both these done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "As the first two games between England and Australia were drawn, the final match between these teams was designated as the deciding match for the tournament." -- Remove redundancy: "As the first two games between England and Australia were drawn, the final match was designated as the deciding match for the tournament."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Years before the war

• "In the winter of 1913–14, the MCC sent a strong team to South Africa. Against a South African team lacking effective players..." Slight repetition of South Africa. I know they are in separate sentences, but I am sure we can avoid it somehow?

• Got this one somewhere above. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First World War

• "...to play in the league in 1916. He continued to play for Idle in 1916..." Do we need to be reminded of the year so soon?

• I think the second one is more necessary, so cut the first. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Resumption of cricket

• "Hobbs finished second in the national batting averages for 1922..." -- There is a heavy use of his name, where I think pronouns would do. This will need going through at some point and skimming.

• I think this is another after-effect of heavy trimming. I've de-Hobbsed this section, and, as Tim suggests above, will look for more instances of this throughout. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am just as guilty. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Partnership with Sutcliffe

• " the highest for any pair of opening batsmen as of 2013."[notes 7][181][77] -- check for ref order.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...and won the match by an innings." -- Is the plural correct? Excuse my lack of knowledge.

• Yes, it is correct in cricket. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the wives of professionals were not usually permitted to tour" -- "the wives of professionals were not usually permitted on tour"

• In cricket speak, either would work correctly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Peak of popularity

• Could we link "Liberal"? It may help explain his political allegiance.

• Linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unlikely I know, but "this remains a Surrey first wicket record in 2013", may get forgotten about in 2014, 2015, 2016, etc.., leaving the reader to assume otherwise in those years. I would use "As of 2013, ...."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "During the fourth Test, he assumed the captaincy when the England captain, Arthur Carr withdrew from the match owing to illness" -- redundency of "England captain". I think one could assume Carr was the captain from the captaincy mention.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Final Tests

• "Scoring his hundred at the age of 46 years 82 days, he remains in 2013." -- Again here. Is there a likelihood that this could be beaten?

• Although unlikely, there is nothing to prevent this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

End of career

• "Hobbs openly criticised the English tactics, in newspaper columns and in a book." -- Obvious question, which book? Is one he had written?

• Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He did not play every game, and the Surrey committee allowed him to choose which matches to play, and more centuries later in the season took him to 196 in his career by the end of the season..." Repetition of season. In fact, the entire sentence look like it could do with being reworded: "He did not play every game, and the Surrey committee allowed him to choose which matches to play. More centuries followed later that season, which took him to 196 in his career, fuelling anticipation that he would reach 200 centuries." (Possibly).

• Adopted this wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...February 1935, he announced his retirement. There were many tributes and a public dinner was held in his honour in 1935". Could we dismiss the second 1935?

• Yes, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Style and technique

• "For much of Hobbs career," -- "For much of Hobbs' career,"

• Some kind soul got this one for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This was the time when the public regarded him with the most respect and affection, and 98 of his centuries and 26,411 of his runs (at an average of 58.62) in first-class cricket after reaching the age of 40." -- This doesn't make sense to me. Is this worded correctly? (I'm thinking the second half of the sentence).

• My mistake; corrected above. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Family life

• "Hobbs married Ada Ellen Gates, a Cambridge cobbler's daughter, on 26 September 1906. The pair first met in 1900 at an evening church service held in St Matthew's, Cambridge. The relationship was slowed by Hobbs' shyness and devotion to cricket, but the pair eventually wed at the church in which they met." -- For me, the chronology is out here, and has some slight repetition. First they marry, then he meets her, then they get married again.

• The only way to prevent this is to cut the first mention of the marriage, but then it sounds like a mystery: who is this woman he meets?? I think I prefer the current wording, but will ponder a bit, and certainly change it if others comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• How about: "In 1900, Hobbs met Ada Ellen Gates, a cobbler's daughter, at an evening church service held in St Matthew's, Cambridge. The relationship was slowed by Hobbs' shyness and devotion to cricket, but the pair eventually wed on 26 September 1906 at the church in which they met." -- Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Adopted this wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The pair remained very close for the rest of their lives." -- Is the adverb necessary? Also, I would say that this is redundant information, seeing as they remained married. This would only have some relevance if they separated and then remained close.

• Cut the adverb. On the closeness, I think there were many cases at the time (and perhaps still are...) where married couples were not really close. Hobbs and his wife were unusually so, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK --Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hobbs so disliked being separated from his wife..." -- Again, adverb is unnecessary I think.

• Without it, the remaining sentence does not make sense, and would require recasting in a rather cumbersome "to the extent that" form.

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. --Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...although not as poor as he had been during his childhood, the family were not initially financially comfortable." Is this before the offspring, or with them? Also, the second half reads a bit awkwardly. I would say "initially, the family were financially uncomfortable."

• During the children, if you like! It was a gradual thing with the 1913 date sort of crucial. I reworded the first part to avoid some repetition. I think the second part is OK: financially uncomfortable does not sound quite right to me, whereas "not comfortable" reads better when referring to finances. But I may be wrong, and will change if others agree with you. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hobbs wages increased..." -- "Hobbs' wages increased..."

• The same kind person got this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "After several years of moving from one property to another, Hobbs was able to buy his own house in 1913, in a prosperous area of London." -- pronoun here I think.

• OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "By the middle of the 1920s, cricket in England was extremely popular and the players were famous" maybe?

• Got this one above. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Check that "ghostwritten" is not written earlier (it is in Style and technique). Link on first mention.

• Got this above. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Retirement and final years

• "Following his retirement from cricket in 1934, Hobbs continued to work as a journalist, first with Jack Ingham then with Jimmy Bolton as ghostwriters." -- Who were ghost writers, Ingham and Bolton or Ingham, Bolton and Hobbs?

• Clarified I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hobbs served in the Home Guard." -- Do we know where?

• Added. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...and his wife moved to live in Hove." -- Redundency in moved to live. Either one or the other I think.

• Yup. Got this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Ada's health continued to deteriorate, and the couple spent some time in South Africa to assist her." -- I may have missed something, but why would moving to South Africa assist her with her health? Was she living in South Africa seperatly to Hobbs? Or, did they move to South Africa to help with her recuperation?

• Recuperation. Clarified this now (this was quite common at the time, I think). Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• "She died in March 1963. Hobbs' health began to fail shortly afterwards and he died on 21 December 1963." -- "She died in March 1963. Hobbs' health began to fail shortly afterwards and died the same year on 21 December ."

• This would read that his health died the same year! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• ha, what about adding "he" before died? --Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually think the repetition is justified here as he is the focus of the article and I think we should give the date in full. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That's it. A really engaging article, and one I would be happy to support should you take to FAC (which I'm sure you will!) Thanks for taking the time to write this. It has educated me a lot about a sport I knew nothing about previously. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat (talk)

• I'll be along shortly for full comments, but in the meantime, footnotes 75, 78, 269 and 299 have one p. where there should be a pp. Pip pip! - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, good eyesight! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Peak of popularity: "He ended his season an innings of 266...". Should have "with" before "an".
• I see several places where references follow em dashes. I've seen them go directly before the dashes in the past; did the MoS change recently? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note 3: Typo in "constrast". That's about all I saw in the rest of the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: With the wealth of comment you have received, I have held back thus far, but have begun reading and will post comments over the next few days. Here are a few to be getting on with:

• Footnote: "Some sources credit Hobbs with 61,237 runs and 197 centuries" - cite at least one. They tend to be older sources, before the last couple of centuries were "discovered".

• Actually, the centuries have always lurked, and even Hobbs expressed an opinion on their status when some apparently suggested they were first-class. Source added. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "His partnership with Sutcliffe remains in 2013 the most effective in Test history." The word "effective" is rather subjective; maybe "prolific" would be more factual? And are you certain about all Test history, rather than English Test history?

• Prolific would be wrong as it would imply most runs; theirs is the best in terms of average for any Test opening pair. Clarified as average partnership, and yes it is for all Test history. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...he did not stand out as a cricketer: no coaches or teams approached him..." Puzzling. He must have been playing for someone - who was it? For which team did he score his first century?

• I think it would clarify things if, instead of "At the time, he did not stand out as a cricketer..." you said: "He played for various local clubs, although he did not initially stand out as a cricketer..." Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, took your wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Surely, one or other of Hobbs's many biographies gives details (date, exact score, etc) of this first century? Incidentally, the scoring of this century is recorded twice in your text.

• These two points hopefully addressed. At the time Hobbs basically played for any team which would give him a game. Ironically, his first 100 came when two of "his" teams played each other. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am unclear what is meant when you say he "represented Cambridge". What was the nature of this team? Was there a representative cricket team for the city? I see later in the paragraph a reference to "Cambrigeshire"; is this the same as "Cambridge"?

• Two different teams; this was a kind of representative city XI which only played this one game. I've tried to clarify. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hobbs' father, having helped to arrange his appearance in the match, died from pneumonia a week later." This is inappropriate linking of unrelated events. Better: "Hobbs' father, who had helped to arrange his appearance in the match, died from pneumonia a week later."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• One final point on the "Childhood and early cricket" section: "...he was invited to play as an amateur for Cambridgeshire, albeit with little success" suggests that he refused the invitation rather than that he played with little success. Thus: "he was invited to play as an amateur for Cambridgeshire, albeit although he achieved little success".

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More: – not nearly done, though (it's a long article)

Surrey cricketer

• "To achieve qualification, he moved to London." Since you've just said that, to qualify, he needed to live in Surrey, this may confuse some readers.

• Tried to clarify, but may have made it worse! Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "His sudden improvement brought about his return to the Cambridgeshire team..." This reads as though he had left Surrey. I would say: "His sudden improvement brought about a temporary return to the Cambridgeshire team, for which he remained qualified by birth. His batting was praised..." etc

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Test match cricketer

• "...sea-sickness, a condition which afflicted him throughout his life" – presumably only on sea voyages?

• Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He played just twice" is a bit misleading. "He played in only two of the early matches..." etc

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Jones was injured and did not play" – in fact, Jones didn't play in any of the first three matches of the series.

• Took Jones out of this part altogether. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominance in South Africa

• "Rhodes, a defensively-minded batsman who excelled at taking quick runs" sounds contradictory. Would "quick singles" be clearer?

• I considered this, but went for runs as he did not just have to run one; he could have run a quick two! But on reflection, I take your point about the confusion and went for singles. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Success against Australia

• "...after bowling Australia out for 184 in the first innings, the visiting team faced a target of 219 to win in the fourth innings." That won't make any sense to the less cricket-minded, and the "fourth innings" may puzzle many. How about: "after bowling Australia out for 184 and taking a first-innings lead of 81, the visiting team eventually faced a target of 219 to win."

• Took this wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Ranji Hordern": You know my feelings about this use of cricketers' nicknames as though they were actual names. I don't care if that is how they are talked of in pavilion bars or in cricket magazines. This is an encyclopedia, and has different standards; cricketers should not be an exception. Not that Wikipedia's cricket articles are consistent: we don't have "Beefy Botham", "Father Marriott", "Stork Hendry", "Tiger O'Reilly", etc, and I personally got rid of the ludicrous "Dodger (sic) Whysall". The correct course is to give Hordern his proper name, with the nickname appended if you wish, e.g. "H.V. 'Ranji' Hordern". And then to change the name of the Hordern article (which I am quite prepared to do myself)

• OK, changed to this. I haven't touched the Hordern article yet, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have moved the title to "H.V. Hordern" and left a rationale on the talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to leave it there for the moment Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Next instalment

Years before the war

• "...and critics believed him to be at his peak. As the war began, Hobbs reputation was at its peak;" The repetitive phrasing should be avoided.
• "McKinstry notes that..." is hardly appropriate wording; he can't "note" that Hobbs had dazzled in a way that he was never to do again – that is a strong statement of opinion.

• Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

First World War

• Clarify in what season Hobbs averaged 36.63.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hobbs never publicly commented on the matter, but was instrumental in recruiting Frank Woolley to play in the league". Not sure that the connection between these two statements warrants the "but" conjunction.

• It is there as the only indication of Hobbs' opinion on the controversy. The source would allow this to be more explicit if you think it needs to be. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Resumption of cricket

• Although I don't suggest you give a present-day value for Hobbs's £400 salary (I'd much rather you didn't), it might be worth mentioning, if the information is available, how this figure compared with the average professional cricketer's salary at that time.

• The best I can do is what I found about Constantine; he earned £500 in 1929 but that was in the northern leagues. I have nothing equivalent for the south, or for county cricketers. I believe (and can source) that the football maximum wage in the 30s was £386, but would it be synthesis to include this? Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the Constantine or footballer comparisons are particularly useful. I note from my Larwood article that Harold started at 30s a week in 1924 - but he was a rookie. I see you have discussed Hobbs's income and middle-class lifestyle further on, so maybe enough said for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Best avoid over-the-top adjectives, e.g. "extremely"

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Johnny Douglas? This looks particularly unapt, given "C.A.G. Russell" later in the paragraph. Why lose the opportunity to parade Douglas's splendid initials?

• OK, added his (admittedly fantastic) initials. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "very effectively" should be just "effectively", for neutral tone. Watch for other examples of this

• Got this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Partnership with Sutcliffe

• "Having signed a new contract worth £440 a season,] Hobbs' form recovered in 1924..." The return to form was surely not a consequence of signing the new contract; the statements should be separated.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hobbs also established an opening partnership with Yorkshire's Herbert Sutcliffe" is followed closely by "Over the following six years they established an extremely effective partnership", which is somewhat repetitive. Also (as earlier), I advise against "extremely".

• Reworked this a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Peak of popularity

• "extremely" again

• Changed to "particularly" as I think we need to distinguish that his form was good even by his own standards. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Passing comment. I have never understood why equalling Grace's record was treated as a matter of such great moment, while passing it seems almost to have gone unnoticed.

• No I don't know either. Different times, I suspect. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• You don't "stand as a Liberal MP", you stand as a "Liberal parliamentary candidate".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why is "final game" redlinked?

• Requested by Crisco above, on the grounds that it was a notable match. I'm not bothered either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• It looks odd, and incomprehensible to the casual reader. I can't imagine what article will serve the link – "Notable final cricket matches"? I don't think so. I don't think this link will survive FAC scrutiny. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "played to a finish with time no object" – are the last four words necessary?

• Probably not. Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "enormously"? Not neutral.

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "positioning him first" is ugly noun-verbing. Suggest rephrase.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "he played in the last two of three Tests played against the West Indies, playing their first Test series"; needs attention

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Final Tests

• "the other selectors declined." The transitive form of the verb needs an object, e.g. "declined his suggestion".
• It might be useful to note that Hobbs played only intermittently in 1933, hence his relatively low aggregate.

• Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not much more – will try and finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Last bits Style

• First para could lose a bit - Patrick Murphy quote says nothing not fully covered by the others.

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "His pad-play was controversial: it removed any possibility of dismissal but was regarded by cricket authorities as negative and unsporting." Hmmm, perhaps some cricket authorities? (and I'm not completely sure who you mean by "cricket authorities". Experts on the game? Administrators?)

• Added "some", but left "authorities" as it really does mean a mixture of everyone: press, coaches (well, the Eton type of coach) and the MCC chaps. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He played every type of shot so effectively that he did not have a "signature" shot like other batsmen, and he selected his strokes very effectively" - repetition

• Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Too many "captains" (seven) in the short final paragraph

• Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reputation and legacy

• The first sentence is pretty much the same as the opening of the previous section. Maybe begin: "Hobbs was twice selected..."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1963, Neville Cardus chose him as one of the best six cricketers of the previous century..." The "past 100 years", otherwise there is ambiguity.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would say "one of five Wisden cricketers of the 20th century", and drop the caps. The 20th century bit is important

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "his achievement in showing that professionals could bat as well as amateurs" - not his achievement alone, surely? There were plenty of good professional batsmen - Hayward, for example - whose record exceeded that of most amateurs.

• Clarified this a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Haigh also suggests that Hobbs, through his example and demeanour, raised the respect in which professional cricketers were held" is followed later with "Wisden described him in 2000: "More than anyone else, he lifted the status and dignity of the English professional cricketer." – which is more or less the same thing.

• Cut Haigh's version. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

• "The pair remained close for the rest of their lives". Not necessary to say this; it is implied by the surrounding text

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1946, Hobbs became the first professional to be elected to the Surrey committee, but he and his wife moved to Hove..." when did thy move? The implication of the "but" is that the move stymied Hobbs's committee duties. Is that the case?

• No; not too sure what I was thinking, so changed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Master's Club" should perhaps be in quotes.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...a group of Hobbs' friends who met regularly to toast Hobbs. Hobbs remained active..." Two much Hobbs in a short stretch of prose.

• Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hobbs had an unusually long career at the top, so a longish article is to be expected. I didn't find many instances of overdetailing (I've mentioned the odd case in my comments); there may be a few opportunities to trim the prose, but I don't see this as a serious issue. A well-constructed article about an important figure in the game. Let me know when it goes to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Giro d'Italia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this to GA or possibly FA status. I just need someone to read through it and point out any errors he/she sees for me to fix. Also suggestions of stuff to add would nice as well; I know I'm a little lacking on the mountains section. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 21:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Greed (film)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like another review specifically for FA status.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to bring it up to featured status. It has already had one fairly comprehensive PR, but I think it still needs some outside eyes. I am specifically interested in the reviewer's opinion of the proportionality of coverage. Are the various background issues covered in their due share? Too much, too little? Is there too much detail, or too little in the article. I fear that I have worked on it for too long to have a fair idea of what an outside reader would like to see covered.

Thanks, Peregrine981 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've commented re the section on Islamic aniconism at the talk page - Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Islamic_tradition_-_Aniconism_section. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've now reworked the aniconism section in response to Johnbod's comments. Thanks for the input! Peregrine981 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

---

LeBron James

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for GA status. I would like the whole article to be reviewed, but am particularly interested in the NBA career and References sections.

Thanks, Ktmartell (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Mammalian target of rapamycin

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

this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, Hakkinen2013 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Real (Ivy Queen album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently passed as a GA quality article. I would like to nominate the article in the future for Featured article status, so please be very critical with your review.

Thanks, DivaKnockouts 18:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Headings

• Rename "Composition" to "Music and lyrics" to differentiate from "Recording and production".
• Move "Music and lyrics" before "Release and promotion".
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

General

• You don't need to say "Ivy Queen" every time you address her, "Queen" by itself should work fine in the article.

Infobox

• Is there a particular reason the title needs to be sourced? I'd imagine the covers alone will suffice.
  • There is an eight track EP that was released by Queen as a vinyl in 2005 under the name Real Streets with the same cover except it was pink and used different graffiti. Just as a precaution?
• The 2007 re-release cover looks pretty similar to the original, I'm not sure it meets the fair usage policy.
• "March 2004 — September 2004" You can remove the first 2004.
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

• Wikilink "studio album".
• "Real is the fourth studio album by Puerto Rican reggaetón recording artist Ivy Queen. It was released on November 16, 2004 through Universal Latino. Initially to be Queen's debut full-length English studio album..." could be rewritten as "Real is the fourth studio album and first English-language album by Puerto Rican reggaetón recording artist Ivy Queen. It was released on November 16, 2004 through Universal Latino."
  • It was initially to be Queen debut English-language album. — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• "It became her first and only studio album to be labeled and shipped with the Parent Advisory Warning label." could be "It is her only album to date that carries the Parental Advisory label". (I'd link Parental Advisory in the article.)
• "Lyrically, the album departs from the lyrical content that characterized Queen's musical style, now detailing hood life in Puerto Rico among other subjects such as love while not going into too much detail." Remove "lyrically" and "now"; replace "such as love while not going into too much detail" with something like "such as briefly discussing love".
• "...many praising Ivy Queen's raspy vocals and production quality." should be "many of whom praised Queen's raspy vocals and production quality."
• "number 25... number four" Pick one or the other, but don't use both.
• "'Dile' was able to peak..." Shorten to "'Dile' peaked".
• Start new sentence about "Chika Ideal"'s lack of success.
• Unlink Ivy Queen in second paragraph, replace with "Queen's".
• "...and other albums by Daddy Yankee and Tego Calderón while becoming one of the most sold reggaetón albums of 2005 along with her fifth studio album Flashback when sales of both albums went "through the roof"." Divide into a couple sentences, it's a run-on as is.
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Background

• "After the failed commercial success of Ivy Queen's first two studio albums, Queen was dropped from the Sony label and took a hiatus from her musical career in 1999." Rewrite as "After the failure of her first two studio albums, Queen was dropped from the Sony label and took a career hiatus in 1999."
• "Throughout the next few years" to "In the following years".
• "Queen began appearing" to "Queen appeared".
• "spawning hits like" to "spawning hits including".
• "In 2003, Queen then released her third studio album" to "In 2003, Queen released her third studio album".
• The following sentence can be split in two to avoid run-ons.
• "Then in early 2004" to "The following year".
• "an platinum edition" to "a platinum edition".
• "She then embarked on recording her next album". to "She then began recording her next album".
• "Her fourth studio album was originally planned to be Queen's debut full-length English language album after she received recording contract offerings from multiple record labels including Sony." Saying "initially" sounds like the album never became her first English project, so I'd directly say that it was her first English album.
  • It became her first English project but the tracks she recorded in English remain unreleased as the project was abandoned.
• "Though, she was concerned with her English pronunciation, she was not afraid to take the challenge." to "Despite her concerns over lack of English pronunciation, she continued with the project".
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Recording and production

• "September of that year" to "September".
• "inlisted" to "enlisted".
• "produces seven of the 19 tracks" to "produced seven of the nineteen tracks".
• "thus explaining the rest of the collaborations" I'd remove, I don't think it adds anything to the sentence it's included in.
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Release and promotion

• "The album was released on November 16, 2004. The album's original release date was set for September 2004, however this was later pushed to the release date of November 26." to "After originally being scheduled for release in September 2004 and later November 26, Real was released on November 16, 2004."
• "The album was also released in "edited" and "clean" versions." "Edited" and "Clean" mean the same thing, do you mean "Explicit" and "Clean"?
• "after being invited to do so." Remove.
• "The album jacket for Real differs from Queen's previous albums. Containing sexually explicit photos of Queen and incorporating graffiti writing, the album's jacket is more sexually provocative. Queen's midsection of her body from her neck to her thighs are emphasized, hypersexualizing her body. Overtly sexual, the viewer is looking down into Queen's cleavage area while on previous album covers, Queen is usually centered frame. She admitted that the bigger breast, which were enhanced from a B cup to a C cup, were not real and said the album's concept is not coming from the image of the album, but rather from the music you will listen to of her style of singing." Lots of use of the word "sexual". How about something less wordy like "Uncharacteristic of Queen's previous albums, the album artwork for Real features increasingly provocative photography. Her midsection and thighs are emphasized to create a more sexual image. She stated that her breasts were digitally enhanced from a B-cup to a C-cup, adding that the packaging described the style of music on the album."
  • Her breasts weren't digitally enhanced, she got breast implants. — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The album title 'Real'" to "The album title Real".
• "This is also attributed to Queen responding to the criticism she has received in the past for looking like a tomboy, wearing baggy pants and larger shirts, from the Puerto Rican press, middle class and members of the older generation..." to "This is also attributed to Queen responding to the widespread Puerto Rican criticism she previously received for looking like a tomboy, wearing baggy pants and larger shirts..."
• Lots of uses of "attributed", I'd mix it up and switch up the vocabulary.
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Composition

• "lyrically blessing her audience" Like actually saying a prayer? Could you clarify a little bit please?
• "exploring who she is within the genre of reggaetón" Like introspection? I'd clarify that as well.
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reception

• Often times I see critical reception listed before commercial performance, just something to consider.
• Remove the review box, since there's only one review in it that's already covered in the text.
  • I've been told by several other users to add the box even with only one review. — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Real peaked number 25" to "Real peaked at number 25".
• "the album peaked at number" Number what?
• "as it reached number eight" to "reaching number eight".
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Track listing

• "25 seconds longer" to "twenty-five seconds longer".
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Personnel

• Unbold the liner notes statement.
  •  Done — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

• I'd suggest writing out the dates, instead of XXXX-XX-XX.
  • Will get to this. — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done — DivaKnockouts 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them! Regards, WikiRedactor (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review! Best. — DivaKnockouts 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Social history of viruses

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been writing this article, on and off, for about two years. Originally it was too broad in scope, so I moved substantial sections to History of virology, Viral evolution and Animal virus. It has recently been promoted to GA, following a thorough, productive and enjoyable review. I plan to nominate it at FAC but I would appreciate a peer review beforehand. I would be grateful for any comments. There has been some debate about the title, so I am open to any suggestions. Thanks, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to review the article again, but I shall list some points for improvement.

• The article's title must be changed. My own suggestion is "Economic and cultural influence of viruses".
• A paragraph on rubella would be helpful.
• The integration of separate vaccines into MMR should be mentioned.
• A brief description of childhood vaccination programmes would be helpful.
• Try to update old references where appropriate.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these points. Unfortunately, your suggestion for the title does not include the word "history" – which is the main theme of the article – and implies only contemporary influences. I will add a paragraph on rubella and mention the introduction of the triple vaccine and include a little on other childhood vaccination programmes to prevent viral infections where appropriate. Rotavirus may be need a mention, but it might be too early to say what social changes the relatively recent introduction of the vaccine has brought about. I will check the older references, but I doubt whether the historical material I have used from "Hepatitis Viruses of Man" (1979), for example can be bettered. Graham Colm (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also human papillomavirus and its vaccine. Oncogenic potential of some viruses, notably HPV and possibly others such as Epstein–Barr virus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already prepared a section on this for the History of virology article (where EBV is already mentioned): User:GrahamColm/Sandbox/Warts We are in danger of losing focus here. This article is about the social history, it is not about virology, clinical virology, or the history of virology. Much of what you suggest does not belong in this article.Graham Colm (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

As a non-scientist I am finding the article full of interest, a fascinating extension of my knowledge. The prose is reader-friendly, though there is a general problem with punctuation, particularly the use of commas. I have been fixing these as I read through, rather than listing them, and I have made a few other small prose fixes that seemed necessary - details in the edit history.

I am about a third of the way through my reading, and will try and make some further progress this evening. Meantime, here are my observations to date:

• "Origins" section: although there are two main article links, I think the text here needs a little more detail, to justify a main section in this article.
• "Prehistory": You say "Smallpox ... first emerged among agricultural communities in India several thousand years ago". Later you say that "In about 9000 BC ... the population became dense enough for the virus to maintain a constant presence". That's eleven thousand years ago at least, and the word "several" seems inappropriate, since "several" usually implies no more than half a dozen, at most.
• "In antiquity":

• "One measles infection...": "one" can mean either "any single", or "one particular". I think you mean the former, but perhaps clarify.
• The sentence about America and Australia might be better placed in a later section, rather than "Antiquities"

• "Middle Ages"

• The short first sentence is unnecessary
• Clarify that the life expectancy figures refer to Europe.

• "Early modern period"

• "It was probably influenza..." - "It" needs defining
• "we cannot be sure" - the prose should remain impersonal (encyclopedic neutrality and all that) Likewise "We read of...", and maybe other instances
• Location (Mexico) of the Aztec capital would help many readers
• Four pics in the section is over-imaging, particularly as positioned to cause squeezing of the text. I'd recommend dropping at least one, and repositioning.

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Brian. I have acted on your advice on all of these points. Graham Colm (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another segment:

• "Discovery of vaccination":

• In the context, "but survived" is perhaps stating the obvious.
• You could link the "Prince and Princess of Wales"; that would be the future King George II and Caroline of Ansbach
• At what stage did variolation become known as "inoculation"? I note that you later revert to the use of "variolation"

Variolation refers specifically to smallpox. Inoculation is a generic term for vaccination. I did not want to use "vaccination" because this is a later word (circa 1800). In this article, for all intents and purposes, the two terms mean the same thing. "Inoculate" is the earlier term, first used in this context in around 1722. (Earlier it had horticultural meanings such as grafting buds on to plants). "Variolate" meaning to inoculate specifically with smallpox matter was first used in English around 1792. Graham Colm (talk)

• No source is given for the supposed present values of £5 or £10. Present-day values of ancient (in this case 300-year-old) sums of money is a minefield; some editors place their faith in Measuringworth.com, that offers a theoretical basis for calculating present values which is highly complex and produces many implausible findings, e.g. that an income of £4 in the 1890s equates to an income of £1600 in 2013. I don't recommend that you use this source. I would say that the British economies of 1713 and 2013 are too dissimilar for any comparisons to be meaningful, and suggest you simply drop the equivalent amounts.
• Isn't it a slight overstatement to say that "At the time nothing was known about viruses or immunity"?

Certainly nothing was known about viruses. I have linked immunity to immune system because nothing was known about this too. Graham Colm (talk)

• What is the source for the parenthetical statement that Jenner "was probably not the first to do so"?
• In what year were the Anti Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed?
• I'm not sure I understand "As a result..." As a result of what?

• "Louis Pasteur and rabies":

• "In France during the time of Louis Pasteur..." You need to specify when this time was.
• "Aware of the extreme danger..." - I don't think "extreme danger" has been established; perhaps "potential danger"? Also I'd delete the words "...worked on what he knew would be a challenge, and..." as unnecessary padding
• I'm afraid I got awfully confused by the story of the dried spinal cords. I think the second paragraph of this section requires further attention to clarify exactly what was done to what animal(s) and with what result.

• "20th and 21st centuries":

• "Two others – measles and poliomyelitis – could be": What does "could be" actually imply?
• "our efforts" is too personal. Delete "our"

• "Smallpox eradication":

• "it had killed 300 million people since 1900" - you need to specify a date, e.g. "by 19xx it had killed..." etc
• Give a few more details of the death of Janet Barker, and the reasons for the suicide of Henry Bedson
• Why did the 9/11 attacks prevent the planned destruction of the smallpox virus?

• "Measles"

• No specific points. A couple of prose/punc fixes

• "Poliomyelitis"

• "During the summers of the mid-20th century, parents dreaded the annual appearance of poliomyelitis..." Do you mean parents everywhere, or just in US, or UK, or other specific places?
• "1–2 percent": Is this representing between 1 and 2 percent, or half a percent?
• Can you briefly amplify the reasons for the murders in Pakistan and Nigeria?

I have but I might have opened a can of worms. Graham Colm (talk)

Hopefully I'll finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Brian for these astute observations. I have addressed these points. Graham Colm (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My final comments

• "AIDS"

• Would it be possible to begin this section with a very brief differentiation of "AIDS" from "HIV"? Many non-specialists treat the terms as interchangeable, an idea strengthened by your: "over 36 million people had HIV or AIDS". Are they one and the same?

• "Influenza"

• No comments

• "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses"

• Does the section need to start with "The..."?
• "More than 100 of these viruses..." → "More than 100 of such viruses..."

• "Hepatitis viruses"

• It is a bit confusing to read that hepatitis A and hepatitis B were named as such in 1947, but then: "The first virus discovered that could cause hepatitis was hepatitis B in the 1960s. Hepatitis A virus was not discovered until 1974."

• "Epizootics"

• The section title is unexplained in the text. What does it mean?
• I think "Vladimir Lenin" could be just "Lenin", and I'm not sure that he "passed" laws. He may have "approved" them.
• "Influenza is mainly a disease of pigs and birds, but not humans" - Am I reading this correctly? Or am I a pig? (or a bird?)

• "Agriculture"

• "The disease was first recorded in 1894 and outbreaks of the disease occurred in eastern Africa throughout the century..." - presumably you mean throughout the 20th century?
• "The sweet potato whitefly ... can cause damage that costs millions of US dollars". And, presumably, millions of other currency units, unless it is confined to the US.
• "25–50 percent": I think "between 25 and 50 percent" is clearer
• "Such disasters occurred when human intervention caused ecological changes by introducing crops..." I think: "by the introduction of crops"
• I'm afraid that terms like "the highly efficient aphid vector" mean nothing to laypersons like myself and, at the very least, need a link.

• "Emerging viruses"

• "it was all over" seems slightly casual language in a scientific article

• "West Nile virus"

• "febrile woman": use this link, or the more familiar "feverish"
• Phrases such as "principal bridge vector" may be problematic for the general reader, although I appreciate it is not always possible to avoid scientific language.

• "Friendly viruses"

• I'm not sure that everyone will know what number "10³¹" represents. They will know it's large (a billion trillion trillion I think), but it might be an idea to be more specific.
• Link archaea
• "...novel ways of combating bacterial infections are sought." Should be "are being sought".

• Ref formats: I haven't checked these in detail, but I noticed a couple of spaces missing, in the are refs for r.6 and r.17
• Other issue: I think the lead ought to be expanded, so that it is truly a summary of the whole article. I also think the lead image is unimpressive; several of those used in the main article would serve the purpose better.

I think this is an important article, and am sure that with a bit more polishing and finalising it will make an excellent FA. It may be as well, however, to get it checked out by someone with expert knowledge. Subject to that, I look forward to its appearance at FAC - I'd be prepared to give it a final readthrough before you nominate, if you like; just ping me when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Brian, thanks times 10³¹ for this review. Your are right about the Lead (always the most difficult to get right in my experience). I will address all these issues in due course. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have incorporated these suggestions. I am working on the Lead in my sandbox. Thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The Age of Plastic

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to get up to GA status. I would like to see if there could be any sources on this album that can be used here, with info on developing the album, production, recording, and mixing info other than what's currently included on the article, and the album's sound, musical and lyrical content, and any other critical reviews or published opinions on the album etc. I would also like to know if there could be any copyediting, spelling, and/or grammar fixing, if any images could be included, and if the article is well-written, neutral, and broad.

Thanks, EditorE (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

James Moore (Continental Army officer)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for FAC, but am concerned about it's perhaps unorthodox nature. This figure was a very important military figure in the American Revolution in North Carolina, but did not live long, and not much is written about him in modern scholarship. I believe I've been able to dig up a comprehensive array of sources on his life, yet still there's a lack of information at points (and a lack of illustration at times, including no pictures of the subject himself), and I was hoping to get the community's thoughts. Also looking for issues with structure, citations, etc., and possibly a spot-check. Thanks, Cdtew (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ian Rose

Speaking as one of the reviewers for this article at MilHist A-Class, I don't see why this shouldn't be suitable for FAC. Although I'm not an expert in this particular area, it seems logically structured and sufficiently detailed for Featured status (if I happen to review at FAC, I'll obviously recuse myself from delegate duties). I recall mentioning at ACR that I'd make a spotcheck of sources if I had time, owing to subject-matter ignorance, but this may not be required at FAC; it's standard practice for first-time nominees (and periodically for old hands) but I realise now you've been there before and had a spotcheck that didn't reveal major issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments: looks like a well constructed article. I mainly looked at minor presentation issues:

• date format inconsistency: "Retrieved February 5, 2013" v "Retrieved 2009-04-03"

• Done.

• in the Bibliography, publisher location/abbreviation inconsistency: "Madison, Wisconsin" v. "Greensboro, NC"

• Done.

• in the Bibliography, the majority of your titles are presented using title case, but the Ashe 1905, Clark 1906 and Wright works do not employ this;

• Fixed for Ashe and Clark, but not done for Wright, as that was the way the title was presented as published, and given that it's a long descriptive title of the speech he gave, rather than an official title. Let me know if you think this will be a problem

• are there pages numbers that could be added to the Bibliography for the Clark chapter in the Ashe work? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done.

Thank you for the comments, Rupert! I've added my responses in italics below yours. Let me know if you see anything else! Cdtew (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Jack Stivetts

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this first through the GA process, and if I'm abitious enough, eventually through FA.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 20:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

---

24 (TV series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach featured article status. I've done a fair bit of work on it over the years but would appreciate as much feedback as I can get on how I can improve it further to get to featured status.

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Agriculture

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Mesoamerica

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Metric system

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is one of Wikipeida’s 1000 Level 3 vital articles. I believe that it has reached or is near the level of a good article, but reviewers for this class of article are few and far between, so it has not yet been graded as a “B” article. I would like the reviewer to firstly grade this as a Class “B” article (if appropriate) and to make comments of work that is needed to make this into a Good Article

Thanks, Martinvl (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I (User:Martinvl) have taken the liberty of numbering the paragraphs to simplify the subseqent response:

1. I think the article is more or less B-class, but WikiProject Measurement employs one of those detailed B-class grading systems where giving a B grade is practically giving a GA review. The only B criterion that this was failed on last time was the referencing, which seems solid overall but has some points that people could quibble about, which I detail below. So I haven't given it a B rating though I think it deserves it (yeah, I'm gutless and hate decisions).
2. I think it's near to satisfying the essential requirements for a good article—it seems to use some of the foremost sources and to cover the main points of the subject quite well—but there are some issues that would probably come up in a GA review. For instance, the use of newsgroups as reliable sources is likely to be challenged. If the author of the relevant post in the newsgroup link is a respected expert on measurement systems or something like that, you can probably defend the source based on that expertise, in the same way as scientists' blogs are sometimes used as sources. But if not, you'll probably need to find a substitute source.
3. There are also a few cases where statements are obviously not supported by citations because they're at the ends of paragraphs. Some of them probably count as subject-specific common knowledge, but I doubt all of them do (I'm pretty sure the sentences at the end of the paragraph preceding "Original metric system" don't). A citation at the end of each paragraph isn't a hard requirement for a GA, but it's probably preferred, so you might want to look over other uncited passages and see if you can find sources to support them.
4. There are other small issues with the "clear" GA criterion. Overall I think the article is clearly written, but sometimes terms that need definition don't have them. "Mise en pratique", for instance is not a widely understood term and needs to be briefly defined right after its first appearance in the article. On a similar but less significant note, I feel that people's names should generally be given in full when they're first referred to in the text. To me, the use of surnames alone on first reference gives a text a slight feeling of being written for insiders. I found only a few seriously awkward spots in the writing, which I've tried to reword; let me know if I've screwed up the intended meaning of anything by doing so. One that I found but wasn't sure how to change: "Initially (1908) multipliers that were positive powers of ten had Greek-derived prefixes such as kilo- and mega- and those that were negative power of ten had Latin-derived prefixes such as centi- and milli-." Why "(1908)"? If there was some conference that year, I don't see it mentioned elsewhere in the article. From what I understand, that rule about prefixes dates to the invention of the metric system and wasn't broken until 1935, so I'm not sure why 1908 is here.
5. There's one persistent Manual of Style issue. I know it's comparatively minor and not essential for GA, but dashes should be consistent; see WP:MOSDASH. Right now, hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes are used with no consistency at all.
6. Finally, the references are messy. Page numbers are sometimes abbreviated with "pg." and sometimes with "p." and "pp.", and elements of citations are sometimes jumbled, saying things like "Retrieved 26 March 2011Text version of Malaisé's book" and " 's Gravenhage and Amsterdam: de Gebroeders van Cleef." That may not be a GA issue in itself, but science GAs are supposed to follow the scientific citation guidelines, one of which is a consistent reference style. I think the references are trying to follow a consistent style, but between the different document types you're citing and the jumbled look of so many citations it's hard to tell. And I wonder if putting the two most frequently cited sources at the top and then referring to them in short form in the inline refs, while other things have full inline citations, is a consistent style. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this issue—I've worked out one citation system for my own articles, and I stick to it. If you know more than I do, please ignore me, but if you don't you may want to consult somebody who knows reference styles, at the help desk or somewhere.
7. I do think this is on its way to being a GA, and I'm glad there's progress on such a fundamental subject. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. A. Parrot (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I will answer each point here as I address them.

• (§2) The newsgroup citation could be removed with minimal loss of quality - however I haved chosen to add and Wikilink the name of the poster.
• (§4) First names of all people added on first mention (apart from Napoleon Bonaparte).
• (§4) Removed reference to 1908 - it was not particularly important anyway
• (§4) Mise et practique defined in-line. Martinvl (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• (§3) Citations have been added (or moved) to the end of each paragraph apart from one (which I believe is a case of the "Sky being blue").Martinvl (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• (§6) Two references at top of reference list have been merged into list. Martinvl (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• (§6) I have amended the text "Retrieved 26 March 2011Text version of Malaisé's book". The note about Malaisé's book was incorrect.
• (§6) The text " 's Gravenhage and Amsterdam: de Gebroeders van Cleef." looks OK to me. "'s Gravenhage and Amsterdam" are two Dutch cities - 's Gravenhage is also known as "Den Haag" or (in English) "The Hague". The book publishers were "de Gebroeders van Cleef" (van Cleed brothers). Martinvl (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• A few other countries in the world have not adopted the metric system; many sources cite Liberia, Burma and the United States as the only countries not to have done so. - seems a bit convoluted and involved for the lead and a bit hearsay-ey. Just list the countries and leave this for the vody of the article. The lead is pretty long as is.

• The metric system was designed to be universal, that is, available to all. - just leave one of these in - labouring the point.

• I wonder if the history section would read better as the first section under the lead. Seems odd as hisotry is touched on in universality subsection. I think it'd give a better narrative and make for a more engaging read overall.

Response from Martinvl

Hi Casliber, Thank you for your comments.

• I take on board the first two comments and have amended the text accordingly.
• I have extended the existing paragraph to emphasise that the "history" bit in the section "Universality" was sufficiently important as it showed that, in the beginning at any rate, the French Revolutionaries were actually trying to put their philosophy of "universality" into practice. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Nazi Germany

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It may not be helpful to give detailed comments while the article is undergoing extensive editing, but one area that will definitely need attention is the infobox. It is far too long and has far too much information in it, a great deal of which relates not to Nazi Germany itself but to countries occupied or annexed by Germany. All those flag displays are especially confusing. The purpose of an infobox is to give simple headline information that can be quickly absorbed, not to try to summarise the article – that is the function of the lead. A considerable reduction of the infobox content would greatly improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. That's a good observation and I will deal with it later. -- Dianna (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments I'm getting in rather late here, but hopefully some comments will still be useful. Firstly, I'd like to congratulate all involved for taking on such a big and important topic. The following should be seen as being mainly focused on areas of potential improvement rather than criticism per-se.

• The first paragraph is an outstanding summary of Nazi Germany, and a textbook example of WP:MOSBEGIN in practice
• "The return to economic stability gave the regime enormous popularity" - from memory, Richard Evans argues that while the Nazis were generally popular in the 1930s, there were significant limits on this. As such, 'enormous popularity' seems too strong.
• "All opposition to Hitler's rule was ruthlessly suppressed, with the leadership killed, imprisoned, or in exile" - the rank-and-file of opposition movements were also persecuted and murdered
• Modern historians such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans emphasise the immorality of the Nazi regime's decision to fight the war to the bitter end (a very high proportion of all German casualties and war damage took place from late 1944, after it was clear that the war was lost), and the brutal tactics which were employed to this end. I'd suggest including a flavour of this in the final para of the lead.
• "Many voters decided the NSDAP was capable of restoring order, quelling civil unrest" - but never a majority. Even in the 1932 election they failed to reach 40% of the vote.
• "In the election held on 29 March the NSDAP received an overwhelming 98.9 per cent support." - while it's obvious that this wasn't a free election, it should be stated explicitly
• The history section should have a much stronger emphasis on the economic performance of Germany during this period - Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction is outstanding, and Richard Evans also provides good coverage.
• In particular, the coverage of the war is much too strongly focused on military events - I'd actually suggest de-emphasising this given that this is a history of Nazi Germany as a country, and focus instead on the impact of the war on the German population and economy.
• The material on the invasion of Poland notes that Jews were forced into Ghettos at this time - the large scale killings which accompanied the invasion should also be noted.
• "Against the judgment of his many of his senior military officers, Hitler ordered an attack on France and the Low Countries in May 1940." - Hitler ordered this attack to be made much earlier that this; it was delayed repeatedly
• " By 1943 the convoys were accompanied by merchant aircraft carriers, which helped turn the Battle of the Atlantic in favour of the Allies." - breaking the German codes and the availability of long-ranged aircraft were also critical (the code-breaking is generally considered the key factor). Also, it's not really the case that the Germans were winning the Battle of the Atlantic at this time - while they'd had a few good months in early 1943, the Allies were generally doing better and the overall loss rate for shipping was low.
• "The Germans did not build any aircraft carriers during the course of the war, and shortages of key materials kept U-boat production to far below the planned targets." - no need to mention aircraft carriers (the Germans couldn't have feasibly employed them even if they had existed), and a vast number of U-boats were built. After mid-1943 this construction program was a waste of resources as the fleet was ineffective due to the success of Allied countermeasures, and massive design and quality-control problems with the supposedly 'advanced' types of U-boats which were developed in the final years of the war.
• There's no need for three paras on the melodrama which marked the end of Nazi Germany
• "Political courts called Sondergerichte sentenced some 12,000 members of the German resistance to death, and civil courts sentenced an additional 40,000 Germans." - you should also note the roving military court martial tribunals which were responsible for thousands of deaths in the last months of the war (see The End by Ian Kershaw for excellent coverage of this)
• The 'Government' section should note the vast mess of Bureaucratic empires which developed during the war (especially in its last years) - this is hinted at, but its a big deal.
• The 'Military and paramilitary' should note the regular military's active role in the Nazi war crimes - at present only the SS is identified in the last para
• "Speer produced a dramatic rise in production" - Adam Tooze strongly disputes this, arguing that while Speer was competent, he inherited an already-enacted program of improvements which lead to the greater output
• "From 1933 to 1938, hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated" - can you provide the figures here? From memory, a high proportion fled, though many tragically only went as far as France or the Netherlands.
• "with the government seizing any property they left behind" - the Jews were prohibited from taking much with them
• Hitler's key role in the decision to launch the Holocaust, and the approximate timing of this decision, should be noted
• The material on Nazi food policies is written as if these were never implemented - they actually were, resulting in a huge number of deaths in eastern Europe (see Hitler's Empire by Mark Mazower and The Taste Of War by Lizzie Collingham)

(up to the 'Health' section) Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D and thank you for your valuable comments. I have been undertaking a total re-write of the article, so yeah, some of your comments (particularly regarding changing the focus of the History section) would have been a lot more valuable earlier on. I have not yet done any work on the sections Health, Women, Culture, Environment, Legacy and hope to get through them by the Core Contest deadline of Sunday the 12th. I will incorporate as many of your ideas as I have time for before the contest deadline and will continue afterwards, as we do not have Tooze locally and I will have to bring it in on inter-library loan. -- Dianna (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comments:

• The material on the Allied air raids is mainly focused on precision bombing - the deliberate British focus on attacking civilians from about 1942 onwards should be noted, as should be the fact that the USAAF's 'precision' campaign was not very precise really.
• The 'Health' section should probably note the notorious medical experimentation program, and the relationship between the medical system and the euthanasia programs (from memory, most medical staff strongly opposed this and tried to save their patients)
• The lengthy section on the role of women and family is a good idea
• "The regime sought to restore traditional values in German culture" - were these genuinely 'traditional' values, or the Nazis interpretation of such?
• I'd suggest focusing on how the Nazi era is remembered by modern Germans in the 'legacy' section - it continues to have profound effects on the nature of the German government (for instance, the strong emphasis on protecting civil rights) and how Germans see themselves.
• To be really pedantic, Germany also lost a tiny proportion of territory to the Netherlands at the end of the war (see Dutch annexation of German territory after World War II). Territorial evolution of Germany#Belgium also implies that a trivial amount of territory also permanently became part of Belgium. I don't think that either country is worth noting in the infobox though!

I hope these comments are helpful - I'm sorry that I didn't see this PR earlier. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks again Nick-D for your helpful comments. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Casliber (belatedly)

• Hitler made a pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II. - I'd use a different verb to "start" here, such as "trigger", "precipitate" or even the more colourful "ignite"....am just thinking of engaging prose...
• The Germanic peoples—who were also referred to as the Nordic race—were considered to be the purest representation of the Aryan race, and therefore the master race. - if there is any way of reducing the number of "race"s in this sentence all the better....
• On 12 March the Wehrmacht entered Austria, to be greeted with enthusiasm by the Austrian Germans - confused, does this mean the Austrian people (as they speak German) or....
• Link Romani at first instance.
• Looks good - I do wonder whether politics and military material are better reworked into a longitudinal history section as this might streamline some material
  • Thanks Casliber! -- Dianna (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Boson (belatedly):
  • The lede looks a bit too long and detailled to me, and could better summarize the rest of the article. I would prefer 4 more focussed paragraphs. Perhaps words like Führerprinzip could be introduced later.
  • The background could perhaps be better explained (in the Background section). Later, violations of the Treaty of Versailles are discussed, and it is mentioned that electors thought the Nazis could restore order but the situation of civil unrest at the beginning of the period is not really explained.
  • The seizure of power could perhaps also do with some more explanatory narrative. For instance, "the NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung (coordination) to rapidly centralize their power and control over Germany" does not really say what was involved. Perhaps a sentence or two could be added.

--Boson (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your valuable observations -- Dianna (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Palak Muchhal

Previous peer review

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

I have significantly improved article during last one month. Any drawbacks? Thanks, neo (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I asked for a peer review back in 2011 and got some feedback. Since then, the article has undergone several more revisions. I'm a Wheel watcher and would love to see this get to GA, so I'm curious as to what else it may need.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Frieda Ekotto

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm a fairly new editor and would like feedback on improving my article.

Thanks, Thorgodofwar (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

---

List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FL status. Look forward to your comments and suggestions for improving the list.

Thanks, —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment
• "...the second appearance of the regular Foreign Oscar award". This phrase is not perhaps the best way to describe this. Please re-word in a more easily understandable/better way.
  • Reworded —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• "...however, between 1947 and 1955, the Academy presented Honorary Awards to the best foreign language films released in the United States. These awards were not competitive, as there were no nominees but simply a winner every year that was voted on by the Board of Governors of the Academy." I think this is too much detail for the honorary award that is not the topic of this list, and that too in the very first paragraph of the lead.
  • I forgot to mention that this list is being modeled based on the Japan and Germany lists. Though India started sending entries only after 1957, this part is vital to present the fact that the award was presented in some form (honorary) before 1956. In some way it gives an additional information to the reader. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• That there was a honorary award before can definitely be mentioned in the lead. But such greater detail (who voted etc) is undue in the first paragraph of the lead of this article. The case of Japan is different as some Japanese films actually won that honorary award. The Germany article does not have this info in the lead. The unneeded prominence of this honorary award in the first paragraph of lead actually is distracting to the core topic.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• If not in the first para, where would it fit? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• "...nominated among four other films" Among is probably not the suitable word here. I am not sure.
  • Replaced —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Since 1984, they have missed out on only a single year in 2003, when they controversially chose not to send a film as they felt no film would be in a position to compete with films from other nations". Who are they?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Still not clear; the sentence starts with "India"; India, in this case, cannot be they.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• " In 2011, it was reported that the jury of ..." Who reported? You can name the source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Suggested first paragraph of the lead:
• India has submitted films for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1957, a year after the incorporation of the category. The award is handed out annually by the United States Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to a feature-length motion picture produced outside the United States that contains primarily non-English dialogue. The Best Foreign Language Film category was not created until 1956; however, between 1947 and 1955, the Academy presented a non-competitve Honorary Awards to the best foreign language films released in the United States.
• I removed the last sentence as well as that was redundant; the Best Foreign Language award has already been described at the outset.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. Thanks for your comments so far and let me know if you have more. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Tirumalai Krishnamacharya

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

Thanks, Ewj001 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks

Previous peer review

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. Please review the article and provide input as to how it can become good enough to be a Featured List. I would like to believe the article is complete and ready for FL but I am sure others will find issues to address.

Thank you, Rejectwater (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt

1. Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect is not supposed to introduce its own sourced info, but rather have no citations and be a summary of the rest of the sourced page. Perhaps fix this by adding a Background sect, and moving the cites from the lede intro sect there?
   1. The lead has been separated out into a lead and a History section. All sources are in the History section. Both the lead and History require expansion. Rejectwater (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
   2. Done. Perhaps some feedback on the quality of the lead and the History section? Rejectwater (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
   3. After having reviewed this further I am not sure it is absolutely necessary to do this. See, for instance, List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks. Also, WP:LEAD does not require that the lead be unsourced: "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Rejectwater (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. There are a total of twenty-one (21) images used on the page. That will presumably require an image review to make sure all the images check out alright.
   1. I am not familiar with the process of image review. Rejectwater (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
   2. I will go ahead and call the images done as all but one have been deleted by another user due to their getting in the way of the table. Agreed. Rejectwater (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Table. There is a huge table with no inline cites. Not clear to the reader where that information is sourced to? Appears to fail WP:V, at least at present time? Usually with these lists there is a column for "Notes" or "References" with an inline cite to confirm info. All six (6) cites are in the lede intro sect, which is a bit of a problem, both per WP:LEAD and per WP:V for the information in the table.
   1. I will address the Lead in responses to comment one, and the References in responses to comment five. Rejectwater (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
   2. Table is done.Rejectwater (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
   3. Table is now more done as it has no empty cells. Rejectwater (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Portals. Consider adding portals to the bottom of the page, using {{Portal bar}} ?
   1. Done. Rejectwater (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
5. References. General. Perhaps if we could see more clearly which references are confirming what info in the table, that would be more helpful for the reader. Maybe adding them as part of the legend at the top, with set initials, and a column denoting which one was used?
   1. This has been partially addressed, although still at the bottom. A new column will need to be added for goaltenders with statistics as each will require an inline citation. Rejectwater (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
   2. The format for this is complete. I found that all players with NHL experience will need inline cites to verify the information in the table that goes beyond what is found in the general references such as "Played entire career with Red Wings", etc. Dionne and Yzerman are extra special and have been fully sourced, a few others are sourced, it's just a matter of adding the links for the rest. Rejectwater (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
   3. Done. Rejectwater (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Formatting. I really like the uniformity and standardization of the formatting throughout, including the tabular design.
   1. Thank you. Rejectwater (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall, nice work so far. Thank you for your efforts in this quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Cirt, for your kind words and your input. I will be looking into your suggestions shortly. Rejectwater (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great, keep us posted here. Good luck with the quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

SR protein

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, MChapman5 (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• First of all, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia (even though yes I know it is your assignment).
• One thing I noticed while looking at the lead of the article: "In addition, SR proteins contain a RNA recognition motif (RRM) region. In some cases a protein may lack the RRM domain, but is able to interact with RNA through other means. These proteins are called SR-related proteins." Might this information be condensed into one sentence? Currently, the first sentence logically contradicts the second, so the wording could be improved. I expect to have more suggestions for improvement later. Biosthmors (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• The WP:First sentence currently says "involved in RNA splicing". I think that the world "involved" is general and that the sentence could be improved. How are they involved? Is it worth mentioning their location in a cell? The first sentence should be a good stand-alone definition of the subject. Can we add more detail? Biosthmors (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• This edit removed some unnecessary citations, but it also removed citations I believe are helpful for readers who might check for WP:Text-source integrity. For example, the paragraph that begins with "RNA polymerase II moves from initiation to elongation once pTEFb kinase phosphorylates Ser5 and Ser2" had citations to Zhong and Long. I would have left the citations at the first two sentences, then put one at the end to Zhong to support the last three sentences. The second sentence derives from Long (right?), but now readers don't know which part of the paragraph comes from which of the two sources. Removing unnecessary citations is great, but I don't think sacrificing text-source integrity is desired. Biosthmors (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian's comments

-linked metazoans. -I think the last line of the lead could be put else where.

---

Sholay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, looking for all kinds of suggestions. Specifically, content improvement, and prose enhancement suggestions will be highly helpful.

Thanks, Dwaipayan (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• I did not understand this line; "Also, a set of jail was constructed outdoor near Rajkamal Studio in Bombay, and uniformity of natural lighting was maintained in film sequences." Are they supposed to be different sentences?
• "Kuthe Kamine, Main Tera Khoon Peejaunga". Not worth noting?
• Not much is written about the comedy scenes. "Angrej Ke Jamane Ke Jailor", the Mausi-Jai wedding proposal scene, Veru water tank scene, Soorma Bhopali's scenes are kinda considered quite popular in comedies. Maybe not as much as other fight sequences or other comedy scenes from other films of that era.
• I don't know if this could be added; but the 1991 film 100 Days has a song "Gabbar Singh Ye Kehkar Gaya, Jo Dar Gaya, Wo Mar Gaya". Maybe there are many such examples, but then one or two could go in.
• Isn't the title track part of soundtrack, old or new?

• Other than that i don't have any comments on the current content. But i have some stuff which you guys can probably verify from reliable sources and then add them. All these things i have heard from other people and are analogies and could easily be made-up stuff. So not sure. I also don't know where you will look for it; but maybe the books on this film could have them.
  • In the train sequence, there is a scene where Jai is in the last compartment, kinda open. A dacoit shoots a bullet and Jai ducks down. The bullet hits a small poster on the compartment. The train and the horse-riding dacoit are still moving and second bullet comes which again Jai dodges by ducking and the bullet hits the same poster at that same spot again. Its said that dacoit's good aim is shown through this scene. A closeup of the poster also follows indicating that this wasn't some fluke shot but most probably written that way. (Ofcourse, one could say that the dacoit was dumb enought to not change his aim such that Jai wouldn't escape it.)
  • Same train sequence. Jai/Veru shoots a dacoit and the dacoit falls down from his horse. But the horse is still shown running with same speed. I don't remember now, but i guess this is shown more than once. It kinda indicates the loyalty of that horse towards its master; even if he is dead, the horse still follows the train. Also, the time for which the running horses are shown is quite considerable and not like something that goes between the shots. (Ofcourse, one could say that the horse was not loyal at all and did not even care if his master was dead or what.)
  • The scene of Jai's funeral shows Radha in background looking at the pyre from a window on first floor of the house. The frame shows two windows on the wall, one already closed and the second one through which she is seeing the pyre. She then closes this second window also. The first closed window represents her life with her husband which is over and now this second part with Jai also ends.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Dharmadhyaksha

• As a summary response to your input, I have a feeling we can have a section named "Sequences" or "imagery", or, "notable sequences". In this section, famous scenes can be discussed. Problem is of course references. In newspapers, and some books, we have discussions on some of the scenes. I think we should start that sequence in a sandbox, and let it grow there, even if in a haphazard way. Once we reach a substantial size, the section should be incorporated into the article.
• On the three anecdotal imagery that you listed at the end, I doubt we have any reference for those. I read Anupama Chopra's book a few years ago (and have lost the book now), and don't remember anything mentioned about those.
• On the song from 100 Days, firstly thanks for reminding the song! I completely forgot that song. However, I don't think we can add that song. There are so many references to sequences from Sholay, some even more notable (such as Kajol doing a Gabbar Singh in Baazigar), that including one and excluding others would be difficult. A summary that Sholay is repeatedly referred to in later-day movie/TV shows etc is there in Legacy section.
• In summary, IMO, we may build up a "Notable sequences" section. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• here is the sandbox for developing "Notable sequences" section. If it looks promising, we would include it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not too sure that this is gong to be possible. These kinds of things always balloon out of control as everyone wants to add their own favorite scenes and homages. "I like the suicide scene re-enactment in HAHK", etc..etc... There is room in the cast section for more one or two line descriptions of minor characters and scenes like I added for the jailer. BollyJeff | talk 01:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am more agreeable with Bollyjeff's opinion, especially after I started the sandbox. Such a compilation of scenes probably would get out of control, or, at least, become very large in size. Even then, keeping the sandbox alive for now, in case some other suggestion comes up.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well sure. You guys decide. It was just a thought. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

• Casting: Mention Sanjeev Kumar's love for Hema, which is also mentioned in the context Dharmendra playing Veeru
• Censor Board also changed the ending. In the original, Thakur kills Gabbar. In the current format, Thakur hands him to the police. Not mentioned.

There is a section called "Alternate versions" that has this. BollyJeff | talk 23:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Characters and dialogues of the film continue to be referred to and parodied in popular culture" and "Major and minor characters continue to be used in commercials, promos, films and sit coms." Characters repeated.
• "In the years that followed, Sholay has received more honors..." goes in Legacy, not awards IMO. Not really awards.
• Themes digresses in some places. Talk about borrowing from Western genre is more about inspiration (Origin 2nd para is similar). "The character of dacoit Gabbar singh ..." is more about reception than themes.
• Missing the iconic "But the showpiece of the set was Amjad Khan's Gabbar Singh whose terror, it is rumoured, is still invoked by mothers to put their children to sleep" http://web.archive.org/web/20110805124020/http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/imagineasia/guide/poll/india/01_sholay.html

Put where Gabbar is discussed.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are asking for. Maybe a slight amount of repeat is necessary to set context in another section? Feel free to make some changes yourself. BollyJeff | talk 01:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• the initial release was 188 minute, and directors cut 205 minute. Then what is this 198 minute DVD version? Is it a typo?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is some more investigation needed here. Open source 1, click on Video and Feature. Under video it has 205 and 188, but under feature it has 198 by Eros. I thought that source 26 explained the statement in this section, but I don't see that now. More digging needed. I hope you like the new poster. I really wanted one that actually said the word Sholay. BollyJeff | talk 12:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

These two sources [3] [4] speak about 204 and 198, the former backing up text from this (alternative versions) section, and the latter implying that 188 is wrong and 198 is correct. Of course, these sources may not be usable under WP:RS. BollyJeff | talk 15:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think one eighty eight minutes is wrong, it should one ninety eight minutes. I just checked the youtube version of Sholay, it is 198:25 minutes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So what is this from the BBFC link? "Video 188m 28s Orson Video 16/12/1988"? BollyJeff | talk 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, really don't know. But the film runs for 198 minutes, I just saw it in youtube. And the 198 minute version does not have Gabbar getting killed, so cannot be the director's cut. Indeed it makes more sense that Gabbar getting killed and a few additional scenes (Sachin-killing, family massacre etc) would take about 5-6 minutes rather than 16 minutes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok so, BBFC shows "three" runtimes!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that BBFC page kind of explains this, "When a film is transferred to video the running time will be shorter by approximately 4% due to the differing number of frames per second.". So perhaps the non-directors cut was 198 minutes, and got shorter to 188 minutes when transferred to video. Then again came back to 198 minutes when done on DVD? Because the BBFC page also says that "When submitted to the BBFC the work had a running time of 198m 6s." This is a really weird problem :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on everyone who was working on elevating the article. I also think it s good to archive the URL's to avoid link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Eyeshield 21

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's almost prepared for a GA nomination. However, before of nomination I want someone to check it again since Baffle gab1978 did a copy-edit but recommended that I came here.

Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

DragonZero GA review

I'll review it as if I'm reviewing it for GA.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Plot has a lot of useless side details that will confuse readers.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Issues

• First paragraph, concision. His attending of the school because of Mamori Anezaki is unnecessary detail. Combine Sena's abilites sentence with Yoichi Hiruma's notice sentence. Riku does not need to be mentioned. After trimming, you can combine it with the second paragraph.
• Overall concision in the plot section
• Source the director change. The links themselves don't give episode numbers or anything.
  • You can just source it with the episode credits if its there.
• Ref 3, 18, 29 are dead. Why isn't 29 in a citeweb template?
• Be consistent with date style
• "but before its completion, the streaming service was shut down" Source doesn't say that? Source confirms it shut down though.
• Citation needed in CD. You can source them primary I guess. From my experience, I usually find a theme song list from the anime's site.
  • Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Best Album reference in CD is in all caps, decapitalize all but the first letter in each word. Search the article for more all caps.
• "which appears to have the rights to produce" Wording suggests OR.
• There are some double spacings in the article. I started noticing them in the Video game section

Suggestions

• |Lead=yes in nihongo
  • Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Personal preference on my part but you can add spaces to citeweb/book so its easier to navigate

Comments

I guess I fixed all issues you pointed:

• I have concised the plot even discarding some fait divers.
• I cannot find a reliable source for the director change since the only sources I have is the Japanese Wikipedia and the Anime News Network (the encyclopedia).
• I archived all of them, and I removed the former 29 source.
• I guess all dates are in the "M D, Y" format.
• I cannot find a reliable source for this, and my only source is Toonami Jetstream article, so I removed it and put new information from reliable sources.
• I's like the plot, the source is the own series; but if really necessary, the TV Tokyo site lists the opening and ending themes, although the site only show the currently (or the last) op and end theme, in other words it wiil be necessary to use the Web Archive, and cite in pairs, that will result in a lot of sources.
• Done.
• I rewrote it.
• I guess I fixed all spaces. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

When you reply, can you put them under the points so I know what you're replying to? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's all I found. It would be what I consider level GA. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you to review. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you analyze if the removed text can return? Baffle gab1978 removed the part referenced by DVD Talk, saying it seems a non-reliable source but YuYu Hakusho, a GA, use this source. What do you think about? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It should probably stay removed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you again. Can someone finish it? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean you want to close the peer review? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You already did the review. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Close it when you feel like it. You can keep it open for other editors if they wish to participate. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right; I see no problem to keep this open. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Dan Savage bibliography

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Note: Joint collaboration with The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), my list mentor for this quality improvement effort.

I modeled this list after WP:FL quality page, George Orwell bibliography.

Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Dan Savage bibliography, User talk:The Rambling Man, User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies, User talk:Koavf. — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Non-feedback I know how hard it is to work a lot on an article (or list) and beg for feedback and then not get it. It's frustrating. I don't have anything to add substantial, though. Good job, Cirt. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for the kind words, I really appreciate it. This is a good form of feedback, however, acknowledging the quality improvement efforts that have been put into this particular project. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Minor comment I found it interesting and thorough. The one thing that did stick out to me was the space that the ISBN, OCLC and LCCN numbers took in the tables they were present in. Putting those in separate columns as you did is certainly logical, but I can't help but wonder if there's a way of reorganizing and/or reformatting them that would decrease their emphasis. Some options include removing the "ISBN", etc., from the column values, merging the three columns into a single column for identifiers, or perhaps something I hadn't considered. Anyway, a thought. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the acknowledgement that it's thorough and interesting. I think your suggestion of the option to make them all just in one column "Identifiers" is the best one, I'll work on implementing that. — Cirt (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've implemented the helpful recommendations by Joe Decker (talk · contribs), above. Thanks again, good ideas, — Cirt (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Peer Review text per "automated tips" from User:AndyZ/peerreviewer:

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. — Cirt (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Per WP:LEAD, lede/intro sect is of appropriate length as it summarizes the entirety of the page.
2. I've checked usage of the contractions, "Don't", in the page, and they are only used in direct quotations or article titles, so this checks out okay.
3. Done some copyediting per suggestions above, and checked over the relevant criterion.

— Cirt (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Adhesion-GPCRs

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, Flemingrjf (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• Thanks for all your contributions here! My job is to try and find things that can be improved.
• Right now, the WP:Lead is very long compared to the article. Everything in the lead should be stated later in the body of the article. So nothing should only be said in the lead. Can we move some (a lot) of that content below, into the body of the article, perhaps? We could have a "Background" section.
• The WP:First sentence should concisely define the subject, if the subject is definable. I think it can be defined. Currently it reads: "GPCRs represent the largest superfamily of receptors in the human genome". I understand this text is trying to give background, but we could create a background section for this sort of content to go to, in the body of the article, for readers who want more background context. I'd probably start off with "Adhesion G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are..." because I would spell out GPCRs on the first instance.
• The word "recently" is discouraged, as is "currently". These words are vague and can go out of date. Remove and reword? One can put dates on things if necessary. But Wikipedia is most concerned with facts. If you want to write a history section that is fine but dates about the development of the knowledge belong more there.
  • Also, a 2002 source is used to support "Recently, formal G protein-coupled signalling has been demonstrated for a number for adhesion-GPCRs". That doesn't support problematic text anyhow.
• In the first sentence the word "superfamily" is used. In the current version of English Wikipedia, Superfamily (molecular biology) redirects to protein family. Is there a clear definition for the word "superfamily" that the literature agrees upon? If so, maybe we could provide it. If not, maybe we could just use large protein family or one of the largest family of proteins or something similar.
• "metazeons" is not spelled correctly. It seems to me to also be an overly technical word for the lead because I doubt an average lay-reader would know what it means. Use a more accessible term? The lead is supposed to be accessible.
• The "Classification" section lists as WP:Prose the 33 human receptors. But I think this would be better presented within a WP:Table. Maybe like this:

Human adhesion-GPCR groupings

• Group 1: ...
• Group 2: ...
• Group 3: ...
• ...
• Others: ...

• Once this is done, one can delete the "Human adhesion-GPCRs" as I assume this is duplication?
• In "Classification" notice the duplication: "As the vertebrate superfamily can be phylogenetic grouped into five main families the GRAFS classification system has been proposed Glutamate, Rhodopsin, Adhesion-GPCRs, Frizzled/Taste2, Secretin has been proposed." Is it fairly well adopted?
• In the middle of sentences, I've corrected a few instances of "Adhesion GPCRs" to "adhesion-GPCRs" for consistency. Check throughout?
• I see the article Class C GPCR exists. Should a background section mention alternative classification schemata?
• I hope you have found these suggestions helpful! Thank you again for your work here, and thank you for sharing your work and knowledge with the world. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

from Biolprof

• as a follow up to the third point above, should the title of the article be changed to "Adhesion-G protein-coupled receptors"? Biosthmors, your input would be appreciated. If it is changed, don't forget to include a redirect.Biolprof (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Anne Rice

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I first took this article through a GAN a little less than a year ago, and took another look at it recently, pleasantly surprised to find that it was about as good as I'd remembered. It is something I wouldn't mind taking to FAC in the future, but I imagine there is still work to be done. If anyone has any input on anything at all — overall structure, specific prose issues, referencing, or anything else, I would love to hear about it. Thanks in advance for your time! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

John Till Allingham

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

I've been editing a number of pages recently, adding the Authority Control template, and missing LCCNs and VIAF numbers, and adding the 'DNB Poster' to the articles where it applies, but this is the first of several dozen where I've done all of several things. I'm just hoping for some quick 'Wikipedia Style Guide' type feedback that what I'm doing is correct, esp. as far as changing the way the references are done. From what I can tell, like this is 'current practice', but there seem to be leftover bits of other ways of doing it.

Thanks, Revent (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Nice job so far, but the page needs a good deal of work with standardization and uniformity. I'd suggest comparing it to similar topics of articles from WP:Featured articles. Instructive pages that might be helpful for you to review include: WP:CITE, WP:CIT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:Article development. — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  

---

List of historic schools of forestry

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate feedback and suggestions for improving it prior to consideration for Featured List status.

Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

These links may be useful for expansion of the list.

• Category:History of forestry education
• Category:Forestry education
• Category:Forest research institutes
• Category:History of forestry
• Template:Catscan2
• http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php

Also, the list might be converted to a sortable wikitable, with a few important aspects selected for the column headings. See Help:Table/Sortable tables.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt

1. Cites could use a bit more standardization for uniformity.
2. You might find it helpful to use cite templates at WP:CIT, also WP:CITE would be instructive.
3. Agh, unfortunately there are some cites that are just bare links to other language Wikipedia articles like here http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilckens_Henrik_D%C3%A1vid -- that's really inappropriate for sourcing standards.
4. There are several entries on the list with no cites, per WP:V, this is not the best standard, makes it difficult to confirm the information.
5. Best to move the Wikimedia Commons link into a new sect for External links, instead of the See also sect.
6. I like how there's a Further reading sect, but making it part of the References sect makes it confusing for the reader as to whether or not these are just suggestions for further reading, or also sources that were used in the article as references.
7. The lede/intro sect is a bit small, per WP:LEAD, lede/intro sect should adequately summarize the entire article's contents and provide a good introduction background for the reader.
8. Haven't checked over the image usage but those could use a double check for image review standards.

Thanks for working on this quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Super Mario (series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm trying to get the Mario series articles to GA, and would like this to be checked over, especially references. Thanks, Darrman1 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If I put this in the wrong section, sorry, by the way. On Mario 64's talk page, it said it was an everyday life article for V.1.0, so I put it here. Darrman1 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"would like this to be checked over, especially references" So are you looking for a technical check, like a copy edit? If so, you'll want to take this to request a copy edit at GOCE first. PR is usually for creative advice like what sections can be bolstered and with what kinds of information. Checking the verifiability of references is usually technical work that the editor can do without a copy edit or peer review (the former done for technical style, the latter done for creative). I noticed you haven't touched the article yet—you may want to start by doing the reference checks yourself (unless you want some specific ref advice). Once you're comfortable with its state, I'd be happy to talk more about how the article can be improved before taking it to GAN. Sound good? czar · · 21:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the refs, and no. 8 looked funny. I checked about the 3-up moons, but there were no sources. That's just the tip of the iceberg, mind. Anyway, start the peer review please! Darrman1 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you hit it with a {{copy edit}} tag, I'll hit it when I free up later in the week and will double back for the peer review. czar · · 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Added copyedit tag. (I changed my username, by the way.) Darrman (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Review from Czar

General

• I did these edits offline, so I wasn't able to check certain proprietary spellings. I've noted what I was unsure about below and inline where easier
• Would be worth mentioning Mario's role in the development of the platformer genre, and a sentence in lede
• Check all sources against WP:VG/RS. I'm offline while editing, so I can't check credibility on sites like "Super Mario Galaxy Central" or "Miyamoto Shrine" or "The Mushroom Kingdom"
• Some refs are inconsistent. I suggest to standardize all of them to the same format, archive with webcitation.org, remove unreliable sources
• Removed lots of OR, where possible
• I don't understand the boundaries for what makes a game fit this article: both "Super Mario" in title and a platformer? Because there were lots of other Super Mario titles that come close. What RS treat this series differently from the rest of the Mario franchise, and is this just split because Mario by itself is too unwieldy and Mario Kart already required its own spin-off? This article is bound to get lost
• Add brief level two, summary-style "Characters" section (see cmt in Games below), section could have one "Mario characters" illustration at its top
• Many of these concepts could use illustrations
• Many inline notices to resolve (see hidden categories)
• No section really connects the Super Mario series to the larger Mario franchise, would be helpful to have more of that near the reception section if not in its own section
• Also not enough on how the Super Mario series contributed to the video game industry, Nintendo's longevity, or how Nintendo releases landmark Super Mario titles alongside each console
• Why doesn't Super Mario link here? (With the current Super Mario made into a disambig.) The series page is the obvious primary topic—all the disambig links refer to it
• Consider further trimming the External Links section to conform to the guidelines (not sure if Mario wikis are considered of a substantially stable history)

• The most glaring omissions are Development and Legacy sections. Development should cover the macro-level decision-making at the series level, or decisions that higher-ups made about where the series was going, and only cursorily dive into the development aspects of the character himself or the individual games (only if notable to the series, like the idea of adding a new signature "Mario" feature [e.g., three collectible coins in each level, Tanooki suit, why he wears suspenders, why Luigi is green). Legacy should cover the cultural impact of the series (remember this article is just about the video game series, not the franchise itself), things like the SMB sound effects used in blockbuster movies, the invincibility star music used in other games, Cory Arcangel's Super Mario Clouds, "It's-a me, Mario!" in other contexts, the whole reason why the Super Mario and Mario dab pages exist at the top of the page: the indelible mark the series and its popularity left on video game and global culture. Honestly, these two sections could easily be subpages (separate articles, summarized within this main article because there is so much content for the subpages). Side note: do keep in mind that the Mario (franchise) article covers the details of all non-video game Mario media (though it can be mentioned that the video game was the progenitor for the franchise and its multimedia goodies).
• The article is hurting for references. It's going to need a whole lot of sources to verify the unverified stuff: every other sentence if not every sentence.
• Development should be the first heading because it informs why the series was made (the need it fulfilled) and the history of its development, both of which are necessary for understanding the rest of the article. The "Origins" section can be merged here. The rest of the order is fine, I think, up to you.
• The List of recurring Mario franchise enemies should be worked in as a little section with a "main article" link, same goes for other Mario nav box mentions that can be related back to the video game series (this article isn't everything Mario—that's the franchise article)
• Is there a reason why Super Mario Kart isn't mentioned? (I ask based on the title—I know it's not a platformer.) Or did it cease to be in the Super Mario series after it got its own series? It also marks a time where the Mario franchise started splitting off in new, self-sustaining directions
• Incorporate more (relevant) free media from commons:Category:Mario (video game series)
• This article sees so many junk edits—consider requesting WP:WHITELOCK protection (similar to that of the Sonic series's article)
• I found a reliable source for the 3-up moon: [5] I know it first showed in Super Mario World, which would be cool to include if you can find backing print sources.

Lede

• Restructured, solved content issues
• If possible, move citations into body text. Lede should be repeat/summarize the body, which should be referenced. (E.g., "critically acclaimed" is already ref'd in the text, so there's no need to source it in the lede.)
• Worth mentioning how SMB influenced gameplay (outside just the series)?
• The Super Mario games focus on Mario's adventures in the fictional Mushroom Kingdom: is this true? What about SML?

Gameplay

• Consider using a little video or animated GIF instead of the gameplay image, which would demonstrate the idea better
• Link "screen scrolled" in caption—I can't look up the link
• Link first use of 2D and 3D
• I would have changed much of the phrasing in the gameplay section, but the wording is going to follow the sourcing
• Gameplay's first paragraph needs to be a better overview of the section
• All jargon ideas (that aren't self-explanatory to an initiate need to be spelled out on their first use
• Expand section to explain what happens during gameplay, e.g., move to the right and jump, moving platforms are introduced, difficulty ramps, then add what successive games added (not by name, but by concepts that carry through the rest of the series), then the next sections discusses those major concepts in some sort of order (doesn't necessarily need all the subheadings, though)
• Need sections on warp zones
• Link "overworld" on first use
• Link "extra lives" in 1-Up section
• Add citations and sentences on how the overworld differs within the series
• This section has more on the overworld than the actual physical gameplay (moving mechanics, friction of running)
• Keep language consistent. I know that levels/courses/stages are the same thing, but the reader won't unless they're introduced as synonyms
• All of the individually discussed gameplay items need illustrations
• re: jumping—include Jumpman history
• I'm on the fence as to whether the subheadings are useful. If they're used as anchor points and expanded summary-style, maybe. They're also completely unsourced right now. Much of it is currently dismissible as OR.
• Dropped the "Recurring" heading and pushed all subheadings up a level (note to self: check for broken links from Power-up)
• While in Super form,—is this the correct phrasing?
• Mini Mario—what about this? or Fire Mario or Ice Mario
• Choose Super Star or Starman and stick with it
• Link the first instance of collectible
• "Course tokens"—is this phrase in wide use? Jargon needs to be synchronized
• re: flying—how did flying evolve over time? It isn't worth listing the item names, but talk about how the ability changed over time
• The flying section needs TNT. I was going to transplant it here, but it's not fair to the rest of the watchers. Needs complete restructuring to be less of a list and more informative about how the gameplay of flying works and how it affects the series.
• Might want to mention plumping with the warp pipes, if there's a connection
• Likewise, there's little about the history of the development of these power-ups. Would be interesting and important.

Settings, Music

• How do "most games take place in the Kingdom" if they're listed as other places in the list?
• So much OR. If I were to delete it, there'd be nothing left.
• All of these sections need serious expansion. They should be telling how the topic connects back to the series as a whole. Music does a better job, but there's so much to say about the popularity of the music and why Nintendo internal chose to reuse the tunes.
• Last sentence in Music looks like blatant OR. Salvage what you can and burn the rest.
• Origins/Development sect needs expansion

Games

• I believe sidescrolling is "side-scrolling" but I can't check
• The first paragraph should summarize all core aspects of the original game. It's vague as it is
• This section could use a prefacing "Characters" section to introduce Mario, Luigi, Toadstool, Bowser, Koopas, etc. before mentioning them in the games section
• What is the purpose of this section? If it's to introduce every game in the series, it should go into summary-style depth including the main characters, key gameplay concepts (described for a layman), story, any notable impact on the rest of the series, critical response, noteworthy additions in the context of the series, etc. As it stands, the section is essentially a list of games with some information on levels but little on how it contributes to the series as a brick in a wall
• I only copy-edited this section for style, not content (based on the above)
• Japanese SMB2 (Lost Levels): console isn't mentioned. Make sure every paragraph is consistent.
• Lost Levels: The original NES version was...: what's the difference between the original NES version and the All-Stars version? If it's worth differentiating, it's worth explaining
• SMB2: note whether Doki Doki Panic was actually released as its own title before it was converted to a Mario game, and describe DDP's difference if it's worth mentioning (otherwise it's just a name-drop)
• Add illustrations and many citations
• SMB3: "Raccoon Mario"? This is the official term?
• I'm not sure the number of worlds matters for each game. More important are the concepts that matter to the overall "Super Mario" series (the subject of the article)
• Remember that new terms should only be wikilinked once in a section (if not in an article altogether, at its first use) unless their continued linkage is especially helpful
• Use "{{as of}} X 2013" instead of "to date", which could cause later confusion
• Consider adding sections to organize the games, such as one for SML/SMB/3D, if appropriate—could make it easier to read, but not if the divisions make no sense
• Was M64 also the first to use any voice acting in a M game? Voice acting needs more coverage in the article
• How is spinning while jumping different from the previously mentioned Spin Jump? Make more connections between entries in the SM series
• Is 2.5D also associated with other entries in the Mario series like Yoshi's Story?
• Compare M64's Power Stars to SMS's Sprites and SMG's Stars upon mentioning their similarity
• May be worth making a section on objectives below the Games section, which can go into detail on the stars and whatnot (moved from section above)
• 3D Land doesn't cover connection to series? Continuation of SML or something else?
• 3D Land 3D is different from M64 3D (needs clarification)
• Did any Mario games not release to critical acclaim? Worth noting.
• NSMB2: use better sources (not pre-release information when release information is available)—aspects can change in the dev process
• Remake/rerelease section needs work—can be more encyclopedic by explaining why the titles were rereleased as they were instead of just listing the titles.
• Are there no sources that even as the series' popularity exploded, the games saw strikingly few rereleases? Like, haven't Sonic and other series seen more? Try to find sources on this?

Reception

• Table: why is WIIU spelled that way? (Wii isn't capitalized)
• {{VG Series Reviews}} could use years (or just added to the article, if not the template)
• Is Gamecubicle reliable?
• Why is Sunshine getting so much weight? Some games aren't mentioned at all but its ¶ is as long as M64's, which simply glows for the same length, in comparison
• Worth mentioning that most of the series is critically acclaimed instead of saying it individually about each title
• Sales table needs to be updated
• Text has to be careful when ranking games ever or of all time because who is making the definitive list, and has Angry Birds pushed Mario down in the rankings? Every ranking mention needs a citation from a reliable source
• Again, much attention goes to showing that the series is ranked the best and that it sells consoles, but not enough time is spent reflecting on the series' global impact (see General comments above)
• Added "See also" section, but it may not be necessary (though Portal links would have to go elsewhere)

Response

Okay, that's a wrap. Took much longer than I had expected. I did the review offline (with a copy edit as I went), so I reconciled any differences once I came back online, but didn't have a chance to do as much wikilinking as I would have liked. It's at least a very good start, since I've put in many hours. The above are more general comments for where the article can go rather than a Good Article review with issues that need to be resolved right away. There are lots of tiny things to address, bigger projects like sourcing most of the article with truly reliable sources, and structural issues like entire missing sections. If you'd like my input on the article in the future, try the article's talk page and ping me so the discussion is in a central place. Please comment below instead of inline, if you'd like (otherwise it gets messy). czar · · 03:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The Girl (2012 HBO film)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review ahead of an FAC nomination. The article passed GA earlier this year, and has undergone an extensive copyedit. Is there anything else it needs before it goes forward? Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Jane Joseph

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Jane Joseph's music is not generally well known. It might have been, if she had not spent so much time ministering to the needs of her guide and guru, Gustav Holst, and if she had lived longer. She was only 34 when she died. Nevertheless, she lived a fulfilled and active life in the musical world of the teens and twenties last century, and was beloved by her many friends. Not an overlong article: please comment as appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • First para – two closelys in close proximity. Losing the second one wouldn't harm the sense I think.
  • "her relatively short professional life" – I think you would be better without the adverb here.
  • "oeuvre" – I think I'd italicise this. (I reckon any word that requires me to reposition my palate, vocal chords and lips from their usual position is foreign.) Quite prepared to be told I'm talking rot. Unlike Uncle Tom Travers I am not a beginner at talking rot, and I do it dashed well.

• • I'm not fully convinced about the italicisation, though I have linked it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Linking it to the set index page oeuvre is not helpful, though; I suggest to link to Wiktionary: [[Wikt:oeuvre|oeuvre]] giving oeuvre – or write "works". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure I agree that the Wiktionary link is better. The original link goes to a definition: "An oeuvre (or œuvre) is a work of art. It can also refer to the complete body of an artist's work", which is definitely helpful. Wiktionary translates the term as "a work of art" and "a complete body of work", thus saying neither more nor less. In the circumstances I think it's best to stick. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• • "There are no commercial recordings of Joseph's music" – is there a WP:DATED consideration here? Chandos or Naxos might very well make a liar of you by issuing something of hers at any moment. Possibly something like "in the eight decades after her death there were no commercial recordings…"?
• Family background and early childhood
  • "in the family firm" – possibly in his family firm?

• • I have reworked the first line, but after some dithering I think I prefer "the" to "his"

• St Paul's Girls' School and Gustav Holst
  • "a Foundation scholarship" – two points here: first, capital F really wanted? Secondly, I'm a bit hazy about what a foundation scholarship is, and I bet most of your readers will be too. I'd be inclined to blue-link it (if there is something to link it to) or possibly just say "a scholarship".
  • "sight reading" – the OED hyphenates this
  • "she composed "The Carrion Crow"" – A Proustian moment: I wonder if this is the setting I was taught at my primary school, circa 1959? I must see if the BL has a copy of her setting and check. I digress.
  • "He became a music teacher … in Bloomsbury" – sentence really relevant to the Jane article?
• Student, scribe and teacher, 1913–18
  • "For the rest of her career Joseph remained" – perhaps just "she" rather than reiterating her name?
  • "one of Holst's most regular amanuensis" – plural wanted here
  • "Unsurprisingly" – true, but editorialising a bit perhaps
  • "Adolph Borsdorf" – he has an article of sorts to which I've added a link. You may therefore wish to remove his dates from JJ's article. I have met Mr B before, when overhauling the LSO article. My sources call him Adolf, not Adolph, but this probably doesn't matter enough to fret over.
  • "womens'" – I think this should be "women's"
  • "with the daughter of Thaxted's vicar, Conrad Noel" – this reads oddly: one is expecting the name to be that of the daughter. Perhaps "with Ermintrude, the daughter of Thaxted's vicar, Conrad Noel"
• Teacher, facilitator and composer, 1918–28
  • "conducting lessons from Adrian Boult" – reluctant though I am to discourage links to that absolutely excellent article on Sir Adrian, I feel bound to mention that you have linked to him in the previous section. And I question the relevance of JJ's personal remark about Boult's features (quite apart from its doubtful accuracy, though of course JJ had not the advantage of meeting Michael Gove – the last six-words being a phrase never before uttered and unlikely ever to be uttered again).
    • I included the "chinless" comment because Jane's image is otherwise so pure and angelic as to verge on the annoying. One mildly bitchy remark ever so slightly redresses the blance. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair point. Grudging acquiescence. Tim riley (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "These lessons were to enable her to conduct…" – two possible meanings here, and I'm not sure which you intend: (i) the purpose of the lessons was to enable her to conduct… or (ii) the result of the lessons was to enable her ditto.
  • ""Theory with Jane is ripping"" – Oh, can't you hear Imogen's voice saying it! I chuckled at this (not unkindly, I hope).
  • "she had weaved" – quite prepared to receive the soldier's farewell here, but "weaved" looks wrong to me: I'd expect "woven".
  • "the youthful Malcolm Sargent" – from my sexagenarian viewpoint, 30 (as Flash Harry was in 1925) is youthful, but viewed objectively, "young" is OK but "youthful" is perhaps pushing it.
  • "which amusingly reflected" – a touch judgmental; perhaps "humorously"?
  • "the librettist Steuart Wilson" – is this the odious Steuart Wilson who stabbed Boult in the back in the late 1940s, and later waged a campaign against David Webster and "the influence of perverts in the world of music"? If so, holding your nose, you ought, I fear, to blue-link to him.
• Illness, death and tributes
  • "The Coming of Christ, commissioned by George Bell, then Dean of Canterbury, and written by John Masefield." – I wonder if this might flow more smoothly as "The Coming of Christ, by John Masefield, commissioned by George Bell, then Dean of Canterbury." Merely a thought.

• • • Well, commissioning comes before writing, so I thought I'd better leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• • "she was buried in Willesden Jewish Cemetery" – her father's middle name in the opening of the biog is a pointer, and plainly her race and/or religion didn't loom large, but perhaps some passing mention that she was of a Jewish family might be appropriate earlier on.

• • • Done. It seems that the family was secular, Jane particularly so, or she would perhaps not have associated herself so closely with "The Coming of Christ", or written tunes for a Christian hymnal. However, to explain the reference to the Jewish Cemetery, I have said early on that she came from a Jewish family. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Music
  • "were mainly of songs" – is the "of" wanted here?
  • "presage of Holst's" – I think (somewhat tentatively) that the "of" isn't wanted here, either.

I enjoyed this article very much, and learned much from it – not only about the lady herself but about Holst too, despite all our joint delving a few weeks ago. If there is available to all on the internet any article on JJ one half as good as this I shall be mightily surprised. – Tim riley (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Done as you suggest, except as noted. Thank you for these comments, and for the numerous typos that you picked up and corrected. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• Excellent short work, very little to comment about besides that:

Lede

• "acted as his librettist" Why not simply "was his librettist"?

Student, etc.:

• "Under the Cambridge University regulations then applying—not fully repealed until 1948" Given that we are told the regulations are no longer in force, is the "then applying" truly necessary?
• Did Joseph participate in any war-related activities while at Cambridge?

• No information in sources on this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "became a part-time welfare officer in Islington." Perhaps a connection could be drawn to the war effort. Did it free up manpower for the trenches?

• Although not explicitly stated in the sources, I think it is implicit that all women's war work, whether on the land, in factories or elsewhere, helped to release manpower for active service. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Teacher etc.

• "a means of promoting the interests of women musicians" It is, after all, the Society of Women Musicians. Suggest even a slight textual variation.

• I really struggled with this, seeking alternative wording that didn't sound forces. I'm not sure that what I have now is any better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unbidden Riley oar coming in: this redraft seems much more felicitous to me. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the Joseph home in Kensington" I may have missed it, but with whom did she dwell as an adult, or at least following her father's death? Is this the house of her birth? As you gave the location as Notting Hill and are now calling (I assume the same house) Kensington, those unfamiliar with London geography may be puzzled and not understand you are talking about (in all likelihood) the same place.

• Notting Hill is indeed within the Borough of Kensington, and I have clarified this. I've also clarified that Jane lived in the family home all her life. I can't be absolutely certain that this home remained the house she was born in; it is possible that her parents (or mother) moved to another house in Kensington at some point, but ther is no source information on this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Illness, etc.

• "she was buried in Willesden Jewish Cemetery." I suggest some mention of her religion in the family background section. It should not be left for her interment (and, I see, a category) to mention it.

• Tim raised this - see my answer above. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "at an open-air production of Holst's The Golden Goose, a special performance of his St Paul's Suite was played in Joseph's honour." Perhaps include the venue where this occurred?

Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Except as noted I have followed your recommendations. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: I can't find a lot to nit-pick here. This is a sad little story, very well told.

• "Jane was the fourth child of the marriage, having three brothers the youngest of whom was seven years older than she.": Should this not be "than her"? (And in either case, it sounds a little awkward.)
• I can't help noticing that she was a school contemporary of Percy Fender, who was at the St Paul's Boys school!
• "and won a prize for sight-reading.": Although my musical ignorance doesn't stretch quite so far, I wonder if this could be linked to sight-reading, to avoid any readers imagining her reading from an optician's letter chart?
• "Jane encountered the then emergent composer Gustav Holst,": Should "then emergent" be hyphenated?
• "Holst had earned his living as an organist and as a trombonist in various orchestras": Could we avoid the repetition of "as a/an"?

• They are separate things: "an organist", and "a trombonist in various orchestras". I have added a comma after "organist" to clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "while awaiting recognition as a composer": Perhaps "critical recognition"?
• "Edwin expressing concern about Holst's health.[44] When following his health breakdown": Repetition of health in quick succession.
• Although I suspect it would be included if it existed, is there anything about her personal life other than the "lonely" comment?

• There is nothing beyond what I included, and I doubt that further information exists. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Except as noted I have made the necessary fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Minor fare for you to consider:

Family background

• "Jane was the fourth child of the marriage, having three brothers the youngest being seven years older than she": should there be some punctuation between "brothers" and "the"?

• I have revised the slightly awkward wording to something better. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Girton

• CUMS. Is there any need for the abbreviation? She could have "sung alto in the society's choir" just as well

• Good point: lets get shot of the alphabet soup. Brianboulton (talk)

Excellently done, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks – and also for your invaluable ellipsis check which, as always, I continue to oerlook. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Circulating microvesicle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor. Thanks, Maximus155 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• Thanks for your contributions! I will look for things that I think could strengthen the article.

• Thank you for your assistance throughout this entire process.

• I think the WP:First sentence should begin as "Circulating microvesicles (cMVs) are..." and then define the subject. That is the purpose of the first sentence, in that it defines the subject of the article. Currently, we have "The identification of small, membrane-bound vesicles has opened a new era in the understanding of cell signaling and the process of molecular communication between cells." This does well to introduce context, and this type of context could help define the subject. I think "opening a new era" is a bit essayish in that it is not simply stating facts, which is more an encyclopedic/Wikipedia style. Reword?

• I have reworded the lead paragraph into what I hope is a better introduction.

• There's nothing in the WP:Lead about what cMVs contain or what characterizes their surface proteins. I imagine the rest of the article elaborates on this. Can we have at least a sentence in the lead (which is supposed to summarize the entire article} on this?

• I included additional information into the lead paragraph

• I hope these comments have been helpful so far. I should be back to make further comments. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Under "Atherosclerosis", the sentence "This results in altered local cell communications, resulting in pathology" doesn't make sense to me. (There are two uses of the word result in the sentence also.) I don't know what it means to result in pathology.

• I have fixed this section into something that is hopefully more clear.

• Per WP:Headings there is no need to repeat the title in any section. Currently we have "Circulating microvesicle formation and contents", which can be shortened to "Formation and contents".

• I have corrected the repetition.

• Should one create a redirect to endosome out of endocytic vesicle?

• I think they may be synonymous.

• Phrases like "have been shown" or "studies have demonstrated" are unnecessary. We can just state the facts.

• Done

• Generally speaking, one links once in the lead and once in the body. I notice endosome keeps getting linked which qualifies as WP:Overlinking.

• Thanks for picking that up.

• Thrombosis and thromboembolism are sometimes practically synonymous in terms of disease. Are the sources are drawing distinctions between the two?

• I wasn't very familiar with the topic, I fixed the sections to combine the two.

• And that's all I have time for for now. Too bad I can't help more. I know you've worked hard! Thanks! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Maximus155 (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Glutathione S-transferase

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, Jnims (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• Thanks for your contributions! Sorry I didn't get comments up for you sooner. I hope these comments help. I'm going to be looking for ways to improve the article, so I'll share my thoughts that will hopefully guide you to making improvements to the article.
  • Thanks!
• The WP:First sentence is supposed to be a concise definition, if possible. Could we reword to define the subject, by perhaps including some characteristic function and/or mechanism of the protein family? Currently we have: "The glutathione S-transferase (GST) family of enzymes (previously known as ligandins) are composed of many cytosolic, mitochondrial, and microsomal—also known as MAPEG—proteins." Is it also necessary for us to introduce the concept of MAPEG proteins in a definition? My guess is that that could wait. Also, why include "microsomal"? I see from the Wikipedia article that those are only laboratory created "organelles". (see also my comment below that starts with "I now see")
  • I have edited the first sentence (and paragraph) substantially, following your recommendations.
• In the WP:Lead I see that the sentence "GSTs can constitute up to 10% of cytosolic protein in some mammalian organs" is cited to a 1989 source. Could we get something much more recent? Or at least cite a recent secondary source if this is an important primary source you would like to preserve?
  • I have added a secondary source.
• Could we clarify and link that glutathione is the reducing agent in the reaction? Right now we have "reduced glutathione", which reads a bit awkwardly to me. In my mind, it implies that glutathione has to be reduced first before it can be used in the reaction.
  • Done.
• Would the word "isoenzyme" be appropriate for the first sentence/definition? What about the word "isoform"?
  • Done.
• Does the literature use the terms Alpha, Mu, Pi, Theta, Zeta and Omega. My guess would be that the letters themselves predominate. If so, can we include the symbols or replace the words with the letters?
  • Most of the sources I've found use the Latin letter abbreviation (e.g., "p" for pi) rather than the Greek letter, so I chose to use the full name for the letter.
• I now see "Protein sequence and structure are important additional classification criteria for the three superfamilies (cytosolic, mitochondrial, and MAPEG) of GSTs". I'm not sure what's what here. Clarify?
  • I hope my previous edits have clarified this; I'm not sure what's unclear about this sentence, but would be happy to change it if you could provide more detail.
• Well that is all I have time and energy for at the moment! I hope these comments have been helpful and that these ideas might give you insight on how to improve other parts of the page. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! Jnims (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian's comments

-Would it be good to add the organs? "GSTs can constitute up to 10% of cytosolic protein in some mammalian organs"

---

History of AT&T

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a relatively new article that was created to detail the history of the two AT&Ts, AT&T Corporation and AT&T Inc. This is a confusing topic, but this is a start. It seems like a relatively good article, but I think it needs work. Any suggestions on what to do with it would be appreciated. Perhaps I could eventually help get this up to good article status. RGloucester (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Wnt signaling pathway

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

I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, Gpruett2 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• Thanks for your efforts! I will try and find things that can be improved.
• The first instance of "Wnt" is italicized but nothing else. Can we make things consistent throughout?
  • Fixed
• The WP:First sentence (which should be a definition) says "is a network of proteins that passes signals from receptors on the surface of the cell through the cytoplasm and ultimately to the cell's nucleus where the signaling cascade leads to the expression of target genes". But that could be a definition for many signalling pathways, right? The first sentence should define the Wnt pathway. Can we include some Wnt-specific information so that the first sentence is a good definition?

• I changed the entire leading section

• The WP:Lead appears WP:Underlinked. Consider piping (see WP:Cheat if necessary) links on terms such as receptors (with Cell surface receptor) and conserved (with Conserved sequence).

• I changed this entire section and I believe I added the appropriate number of links

• In the section "Discovery", shouldn't "which" be something like "who" or "whom"? It currently reads "previous research by Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus, which...".

• Fixed

• In the section "Foundation of Wnt signalling", should "Dsh are" be "Dsh is" or "Dsh proteins are"?
  • • Fixed
  • With "Upon activation of the receptor and co-receptors" I was a bit confused as a reader because co-receptors aren't always needed, I thought, so remove "and co-receptors"?
    • Removed co-receptors
  • With "DIX domain, a central PDZ domain, and a carboxy-terminal DEP" the three letter acronyms seem overly-technical. Are they needed? Might they be wikilinked to something? Or explained briefly? I don't know what they mean.
    • Provided links and breakdown of the acronyms
• Should "Planar Cell Polarity" be lowercase? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters provides guidance.
  • Fixed
• Statements of where things are published or done "Researchers at Stanford School of Medicine" or "Research published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry" aren't generally appropriate for an encyclopedia. Try to just state the facts. "A publication from the American Society of Hematology extended the previous study". I hope studies build upon each other. =) Sometimes they do contradict and that's all well and fine too. It seems the prose here could be trimmed a decent bit. Can we cite to secondary sources and just summarize the main facts? Generally speaking, it's not good form to devote a paragraph to a study. And then another paragraph to another study. Imagine if we did that for every study that came out! We want to summarize the current field of knowledge and present it plainly to readers. We don't want a historiography of the field unless we're writing a history section. Does that help?
  • Changed the entire section and these references were all removed
• That is all I am able to help out with for now. Thanks again for your contributions. The article is looking good. I hope this review has been helpful. If you have any questions you might ask at my talk page so I am notified. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your suggestions and I hope you continue to enjoy the article. Gpruett2 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Plant disease resistance

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor. I am not looking for edits on the "Plant breeding for disease resistance section" down to the "Epidemics and population biology" section because these areas were not part of my contribution and are outside of the scope of this assignment.

Thanks, MChapman5 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• First of all, thanks for your contributions! I will look for things that can be improved about the article.

Thank you for your time.

• The WP:First sentence should define the subject, but right now we have "is crucial to the reliable production of food, and it provides significant reductions in agricultural use of land, water, fuel and other inputs." This describes the subject's importance, but it does not define the subject. (As a reader of Wikipedia, at this point I am left wondering what the article will be about.) Improve?

Done.

• I don't think the plant cell picture in the WP:Lead helps readers understand anything. I recommend removing it or placing it in a relevant section with a caption that helps readers, if such a section exists.

I agree. It has been removed.

• Per the bullet points in WP:Headings, the subject heading of Common mechanisms of plant disease resistance[1][2] should neither repeat the subject (remove "plant disease resistance", as it is implied) nor cite references. Citations belong behind the facts they support.

Corrected.

• • Might the section itself be better presented as WP:Prose instead of a list?

I agree prose could be better. I did not contribute this section to the wikipedia article, but I am willing to try and work on it in the future if time permits.

• I hope you find these comments helpful, and I hope to be back to make further comments. Biosthmors (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• The prose "pre-formed defenses such as PAMP-Triggered Immunity (PTI; also known as MAMP-triggered immunity or MTI) and Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI) and from infection-induced responses mediated by the plant immune system" in the lead seems to be too technical. And I don't think effector triggered immunity should be capitalized as it shouldn't be considered a proper noun. In general, the WP:Lead should only summarize points made in the article and not state anything not stated again. Also, this sentence seems like it is too specific and detailed to be accessibly written for the lead. The lead should be easier to get through for lay-readers. Technical detail belongs more in the body of the article. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edited the lead section. Thanks for help! MChapman5 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this article to WP:FA. With that, I would like another peer review on the article. The last WP:FA review is located here.

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

2012 Chicago Bears season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been considering sending this page to GAN, and since I don't really want to screw up my first GAN, I think a peer review can help me out a lot more than a GAN.

Thanks, ZappaOMati 02:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to review this. I know nothing about American football, but I'll try my best. Lead is fine. Offseason: Organizational changes has one-line paragraphs. Try merging them. In 2012 draft class, the first line goes on about 2011. I'll remove it. Points 3 and 4 of the individual season records need refs. The third point of the career records also needs one. I'll continue later, because the computer is a bit slow. Sorry, Darrman (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Charles Babbage

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't think how I missed spotting this until now in the list for PR. I'll read it tomorrow and come back to this page with any comments. At first glance I think I'm going to enjoy this. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is a very well-written article, well laid out (with one exception, to which I shall come later) and in prose that is a pleasure to read. It gets a bit technical here and there (deltas and Ds and thereabouts) but I doubt if you could make these bits more accessible to innumerates like me without dumbing down.

• General
  • –isation/ization etc – inconsistent forms within article. As this article uses English rather than American spelling I'd go for the usual (admittedly unscholarly) modern English "–ise/isation".
• Headings and paragraphs
  • There are a great many headings and sub-headings; I think this spoils the flow of the article without adding all that much. For example, you could combine the first three sections into "Early years" or some such title. See Pierre Monteux, Richard Nixon, Charles Darwin – all FAs that follow that layout. You also favour short paragraphs to an extent that I find breaks the flow of the prose from time to time: for instance (and by no means an isolated one) the first two paras of "Background on mathematical tables" would be better as one.
• Lead
  • As a rule uncontentious info in the lead that is repeated with citation in the main text does not need a reference.
• Birth
  • "In 1808, the Babbage family moved into the old Rowdens house in East Teignmouth, and Benjamin Babbage became a warden of the nearby St. Michael's Church." – a lot of information here – rather too much, perhaps. What does it tell us about Babbage to know the name of the house or the fact that his father was a churchwarden?
• After Cambridge
  • "his father's attitude to his early marriage" – first we've heard about a marriage; details needed at the appropriate point in the narrative
  • "he met Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany" – unclear why this fact is worth mentioning
• The British Lagrangian School
  • Does the citation at the end of the first para cover all the statements in the three sentences (most particularly the emphatic first one)?
• Academic
  • There's a bit of editorialising in this section: "Not in the slightest", "quite unacceptable", "never in fact"
  • "inclusion of manufacturers as stakeholders" – in what?
  • "missing out by some 500 votes" – this is the second "miss out"; to my eye it is a touch colloquial for an encyclopedia, but then I'm nearly as old as Babbage, so allowance should be made
  • Note 56 – unclear what it is that we are invited to note; as you have two citations for this statement why add this evidently dubious one?
• Publishing
  • "of exposing the trade's profitability to outsiders" – I think the sentence would be stronger if you omitted "to outsiders"
• Later life
  • "focussed" – "focused", please! It's one of those words like "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited" that disobligingly have a single letter where any reasonable person would expect a double.
• Cryptography
  • "Joseph Henry later defended interest in it, in the absence of the facts, as relevant to the management of movable type" – not clear what you mean here. Is it that JH, ignorant of the facts, defended interest in it, or that he maintained that as nobody knew the facts, interest in it was defensible?
  • "wasn't" – "was not" would be more appropriately formal
• Public nuisances
  • "Michael Thomas Bass, Jr" – As with Grand Duke Leopold earlier, it isn't clear what mentioning this personage adds to the article. If it had been Gladstone or Queen Victoria it would be noteworthy, but Mr Bass?
• Death
  • "favoring"? – sudden burst of Americanism
  • The second para has too many instances of Babbage's name. The "Charles" is not wanted at the first mention and the third "Babbage" should be "his"
• Computing pioneer
  • "the Treasury lost confidence in Babbage" – perhaps "the Treasury lost confidence in him" would flow better.
• Background on mathematical tables
  • Unexpected encore for the blue link to Royal Society here
• Ada Lovelace and Italian followers
  • As with the Grand Duke and Mr Bass, mention of Fortunato Prandi seems to me of doubtful relevance here
• Legacy
  • Trouble with tenses here (see WP:DATED). I think I'd make "they will" into "they announced that they would" or some such, and I'd be inclined to look at "They hope", too.
• Family
  • I think it highly unsuitable that "Family" is tucked away below borderline trivia stuff as Babbage's appearance in the video game Civilization Revolution. It should surely go immediately above "Death", with the opening statement about the marriage taken out and put in the biographical narrative after the Cambridge paras.
• References
  • You offer us the full set of options for page ranges: ref 5 has "84–87", ref 45 has "122–3", ref 82 has "629-653", ref 89 has "228–32" and so on. As well as standardising the number of figures after the en-dash you should check that it always is an en-dash. It isn't at ref 82, for instance.
  • There is a naked url link at ref 155 which needs to be turned into url/title/site/date format.

That's my lot. I hope some or all of the above is useful. Happy to discuss any point further if wanted, but I don't watch PR pages and you'd best leave a note on my talk page if you want further comment from me here. I seem to have come up with a great many quibbles, but, I repeat, this is a fine article, and I greatly enjoyed it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

---

MTORC1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, Flemingrjf (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• Thanks for your work here! I will go through and try to find things I think can be improved.
• We have "nutrient/energy/redox" in the first sentence. Wikipedia style discourages the use of slashes like this. Can we reword to present a WP:First sentence and definition with plain prose? (And reword throughout?)
• The second sentence uses "mTOR Complex 1 (mTORC1)..." to begin. But the abbreviation is already used in the first sentence (and the title of the article), so we can just simplify this to the abbreviation.
• In the second sentence, "recently identified" is said. But Wikipedia avoids terms such as "currently" or "recently" because they are vague. If you feel you should specify a date in a Wikipedia article, you can give the date or say "as of...".
• Stating "by functioning as a nutrient/energy/redox sensor and controlling protein synthesis" in the third sentence is repetitive as it is taken from the first. I suggest removing it and stating that the properties of the complex is based off of the properties of mTOR. Though this begs the question: what do the other proteins do? Please summarize at least a half-sentence or so from the WP:Lead about that aspect of the complex, as I assume it is covered in the article.
• Per WP:Headings, please make section titles lowercase. For example, Upstream Signalling should become Upstream signalling.
• In the Function section,
  • TSC1 can be linked, even if it is WP:Red. Red links are good. One can also link TSC2 upon its first occurrence in the article.
  • I don't comprehend why "Thus, many of the pathways that influence mTORC1 activation do so through the activation or inactivation of the TSC1/TSC2 heterodimer." logically follows the preceding text. Many pathways weren't discussed, were they?
  • The sentence "The active Rheb-GTP activates mTORC1 through unelucidated pathways" should, I think, either be removed or dated with an "as of 2012" because tomorrow it could be elucidated and published. We don't want to write things that can be easily made false with further research. We want to summarize the facts that don't appear to be so time-dependent.
  • "TSC2 is a GTP-ase activating protein (GAP). Its GAP activity interacts with the G protein called Rheb by hydrolyzing the GTP of the active Rheb-GTP complex, converting it to the inactive Rheb-GDP complex." seems like it could be copy-edited to read "TSC2 is a GTP-ase activating protein (GAP) that hydrolyzes the GTP of the active G-protein Rheb complex to the inactive Rheb-GDP complex." or something similar. Try to use as few words as possible.
• In Amino Acids, I recommend removing the "studies have shown" part. It's how all of this knowledge is generated. =)
  • The sentence fragment "Rheb needs to be in its active GTP-bound state" is missing the portion that should says it needs it for what purpose.
• In the Wnt pathway section, I'm not sure things are stated well. We have: "The Wnt pathway is responsible for cellular growth and proliferation during organismal development; thus, it could be reasoned that activation of this pathway also activates mTORC1". Is everything in this section something that is published (and not WP:OR)? We don't publish novel ideas. Because later we have "Since the Wnt pathway inhibits GSK3 signaling, the active Wnt pathway is also involved in the mTORC1 pathway." Does the latter sentence I quote contradict the first by stating it as fact whereas the first sentence makes it sound purely theoretical?
• Well this is all the time and energy I have for now! Maybe you can use my comments to also help strenghten the text I didn't directly comment on. I hope this review has been helpful. Thank you again for your contributions here. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian's Review

-There are some differences with the bold font for titles of sections and I think they should be fixed.

---

Sea

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges,, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by LittleJerry

I think we could use more information on the Pacific Islanders when discussing the history of navigation. The Polynesians in particular were known for their vast seafaring and colonization of several islands. They didn't just hug the coast like Europeans did. LittleJerry (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I have added some information on their seafaring skills. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to help take this article to GA as with Sonic Adventure. Any feedback or suggestions on how to improve the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Czar

Copyedited section by section, didn't verify refs. Didn't flag for {{cn}}s. Responding inline will be messy, so address what you'd like in a separate list?

• Hatnote: since this page is off the beaten path, linking to the 2006 game is extraneous; consider using that space to link to the disambig, which is far more useful (links to the character, series, other games)
• Re: 8-bit/16-bit disambig: do you know why this was done this way? Do any other games besides Sonic 1 and 2 use this disambig? Do you know how the dev team and initial reviews referred to both? That could help.
• Consider using list-defined refs—it'll make reading and editing the markup easier
• The refs are a mess. Some are missing supporting information. Their date formats need to be consistent. Ideally archive them with WebCite. Make sure all sources are reliable.
• Lede:

• Consider Doctor Eggman → Dr. Robotnik. Article uses the American version of everything else, and he was Robotnik in America. If not, it's okay since it's prefaced it as "series' antagonist"
• Lede says six Chaos Emeralds, #Gameplay says seven
• "ordered its AM-8 team": jargon—clarify what this is (their best team, their lazy team, etc.) or simplify it and only mention in article
• "a mascot for the company": this is vague as to whether AM-8 was charged to come up with a character and came up with Sonic itself or was given Sonic (and by whom?)—clarify that point
• Consider adding what else Sega wanted from the game. E.g., did they want it to be their Mario?
• "increasing the popularity of Sega's 16-bit console": weren't the effects more dramatic? Also isn't "Genesis" preferred here? (16-bit is jargon)
• "mascot character": redundant?
• "success" used twice

• Infobox:

• Box art: mentioned on the talk page that the current cover is very dark and over-saturated, I recommend replacement; also kind of hurts the eyes when at that size, too, and long in the length consider downsizing to compensate? (no rules about 250px in WP:VGBOX afaik, 225px per Sonic 3 could be nice)
• All facts not reiterated within the article needs refs, no?
• Platforms aren't listed in same order as release dates (also they don't line up)
• Consider collapsing the platforms list per SMB
• Consider removing the platforms line breaks once collapsed—I think it looks bad (only keep them when the list looks funny without them)

• Gameplay:

• "split up into zones": how many?
• explain the difference between zones and acts (zones as a theme, acts as variations within the theme, how does gameplay change in each?)
• "The game is split up into zones, each of which is split into three acts.[1] The player must navigate through each zone to progress." → "The player progresses through X zones, each..." (it is a platformer, navigating to progress is implied, but the point of this can be spelled out:)
• Add that the player moves from left to right, and why (see wording in SMB article)
• On structure, I'd present the overview of the basics in the first paragraph, and expand into what each zone entails, how Sonic dies, in the subsequent paragraphs
• Rings should be in first paragraph—iconic
• Mention of how rings affect dying should go with info about dying
• "The player must also avoid rows of sharp spikes, bottomless pits, and other obstacles.": repeated
• "the player loses a life": and restarts the level, no?
• "view the good": define good vs. other outcomes
• Consider organizing this section into like parts: the basic premise of the game (Robotnik, the story, running to the right, collecting rings, the acts, the final boss, the breakneck speed should go in here), how the gameplay works (side-scroller, spinning, attacks, dying, life/health mechanics, losing rings), levels (add more about the level themes and how gameplay evolves, describe Special Level here [still unclear if Special Stages are just for dying without lives or if they're a reward for having lots of rings at the end of a level]), describe the endgame
• Explain why Robotnik is in vehicles?

• Dev:

• See lede comment about what AM-8 is and who was tasked with creating/designing the mascot
• How did they choose the hedgehog? How? This is a juicy story!
• Who made up the team? What other projects did they work on?
• Did the order involve Mario? How?
• Who were the execs who wanted a mascot? What exactly did they say? To whom?
• What happened during the dev process that made Yuji Naka dissatisfied? Incorporate this fallout.
• Add dates for milestones in dev process. Did they meet milestones? Run behind?
• What did each of those mentioned devs do?
• What kind of software and tools did they use? How experienced were they? How did the process go? Surely there are some retrospectives on their dev process.
• I removed the hyphens from AM8. Replace if necessary.
• What was AM8's reputation in the company? How were they chosen?
• "to use clear cutting lines": clear-cutting or clear comma cutting? don't have the source available
• "neatly" and other three quotes: does the quote end the sentence? the quot marks usually go inside (on WP) otherwise
• Don't think all of the band members need shoutouts
• Don't forget source for track listing
• Need more info on how the music was composed, the influences, tools used
• I'm not sure these composers are chiptune musicians per se—they saw themselves as composers, no? I don't know if they see themselves as chiptune musicians ex post facto, but it probably isn't the best title.
• Investigate that Western changes claim?

• Could use a Release section here, which would include marketing and release date info, hype leading up to it, magazine previews, commercials, how the game was anticipated
• Consider moving Reception before Alternative versions and ports, or move Alt versions after Legacy. It's out of place where it is.

• Alt versions:

• Really need screenshot comparison, or, better, video comparison (for both music/visuals) between 8- and 16-bit versions
• Section should enumerate all main differences between the two versions (dev process, final level designs, music differences, gameplay, how it was custom built for handheld vs. console, if it was)
• Again, I'd avoid the 8/16-bit ordeal as jargon, if you can
• The Master System and Game Gear versions are written to sound different—if they are indeed, that should be explained
• GBA game: slightly zoomed in—does this relate to the Game Gear's zoom?
• If the GBA game was panned, more than one source is needed
• Talk:Compilations in the Sonic series#Title
• The individual comp titles may not be necessary here if they're all in the main article—consider listing the platforms and any major differences
• "had sold 8 million paid downloads": total, or on iPods alone?
• The article has a Tiger electronics tag—should the Tiger version be in this article or the series'? I'm thinking the latter.
• Explain differences between digital releases and original?

• Reception:

• Should separate initial response from later response. First ¶ should focus on 1991, follow-up can expand into remake reviews
• How many did it sell at the time/what money did it make on Genesis before this porting business?
• "EGM gave the game a 9...": not worth repeating what's already in the box
• Needs way way more paraphrasing action. This section could easily be four good paragraphs in critical response alone, not including the sales (money and units) figures.
• May be worth briefly including how the 8-bit version was received, as well
• How was the marketing received?
• How exactly did the game impact consoles sold?
• This goes with the theoretical release section, but were there any custom consoles or bundles, and how did they effect sales
• Reception box should link directly to reviews, currently a number of them lazily link to the GameRankings page
• Needs more commentary on criticism about going really fast and skidding to a halt

• Legacy:

• "eventually replaced": when?
• Are these stats coming from the same place? Is the 65% mention twice necessary?
• Last sentence of first ¶ needs additional refs (bolder the claim, stronger the refs needed)
• Change one of the 16-bit mentions to fourth gen
• Refs for second ¶ will greatly change how it's currently phrased, which seems like OR right now
• "mascot-based platforming games": the refs here should verify the claim that Sonic influenced this wave, or that a post-Sonic wave existed, not that the games themselves exist (we already know that—they're wikified)—the current sources don't appear strong or reliable enough to make such a claim
• The last section reminds me that much more space can be dedicated to the Green Hill Zone. It could be its own section. How did these remakes compare to the original Zone? What did they have in common?
• Lots of shaky sourcing in this section
• Realistically, this section can be three times its length. It could use more: on how it fueled the Nintendo/Sega wars, about how critics stacked Sonic against Mario as characters or mascots, about the copycats that followed, notable hacks, elements from Sonic 1 that persisted to later games (other than core gameplay, things like style, attitude), commentary on how Sonic changed the genre of platformers, how it changed the platformer lineup on Genesis, leave off on some broader facts about the Sonic franchise it helped start

• (Why is Sonic wagging his finger in the title screen?)
• File ideas: image of sales comparisons for Legacy section, clip of audio for soundtrack section, GIF of "Sonic Band" if available, screenshot of rings scattering, photos of dev team or photos of any of the main devs, early Sonic prototypes if the section is expanded, applicable Sonic fan art, video idea mentioned above
• Again, didn't check ref verifiability or reliability. Also lots of unsourced statements need sources, but that isn't an immediate GAN concern. At least it's copyedited now and on its way.

Response

All right! That's a wrap. That was... kind of a long review. Anyway, only respond inline where necessary (otherwise respond below), and I'll take a look. I'm excited to see where you'll take this. czar · · 08:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no way I can take on all of that, but some random thoughts/comments:

• Regarding the titling, the problem is, like a lot of games from this era that had both games had the same name, but were completely different games. Much like games like Perfect Dark and Perfect Dark (Game Boy Color). As you can see, much of the time, the system is the simplest disambiguator. However, the issue is that, you can't really label "Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit)" as "Sonic (Game Gear)" because the same game was released on the Game Gear and the Sega Master System, and "Sonic the Hedgehog (Sega Game Gear/Sega Master System)" is unwieldly and against naming convention. I agree its not great, but I haven't come up with, seen a suggestion, that would be better, yet. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I get that, but my logic is to disambiguate the game with its common name, so if the game's primarily associated with Game Gear (not saying it is) then it makes more sense to pair it with that than 8-bit, even if the latter is more technically correct. That said, I don't really have the inertia or interest to fight for such a change unless others agree. czar · · 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the development section needs to be expanded upon. For an example of what a development section should look like in a GA, see the development section of the Crash Bandicoot article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Sex effects of water pollution

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be a heavily biased discussion of the subject, with article references to questionable / pseudoscientific sources. Might be worth deleting if other pages cover the topic sufficiently.

Thanks, —Hobart (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: If you have basic issues with the article you should first raise these on the article's talkpage, or directly with the article's main editors. You could also ask for an appraisal from an appropriate WP science project. Peer review is not a means of resolving disputes or of making the kind of assessment you think is necessary. I am closing this review as inappropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

BrickFair

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review as I want to see if there is any copy-editing to do that I've missed, or anything else that I could add. If you have any other comments or suggestions, please give them. Whether or not you know about lego conventions or even lego whatsoever, I'd appreciate a look at this article. Thank you.

Regards,

ɱ (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Jeopardy!

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because it has just been rejected for good article status, and some of the issues that it seems to have appear to be impossible for me to solve. There were a number of dead links in the rejected revision, all of which I have since taken care of - most by offering archived versions available at the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" (with the exceptions of two such links for which I could not retrieve legible archived versions; in their cases, I simply removed the links but retained the basic citations).

When the article was quick-failed, it was addressed that there were numerous paragraphs without any citations. I responded to this by taking care of some such paragraphs, but it concerns me that many of the problems with this article are possibly the responsibility of anonymous IPs who do not understand, or care about, our verifiability and reliable sources policies. Please discuss what specific measures can be taken to help ready this article for good, or even featured, article nomination in the future.

I would gladly appreciate the time and cooperation of anyone who is willing to be involved in this discussion. Seth Allen (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• I would suggest going over "Gameplay" and making sure everything is sourced that needs to be. Things like "If a non-tournament game ends in a tie for first place after Final Jeopardy!, the tied players become co-champions, retain their winnings, and return for the next episode." and "In tournament play, the contestants involved in the non-zero tie will be given one final clue, and the player who responds correctly to the final answer will advance to the next round; however, players cannot win by default." should be sourced. If a rule of that sort has been explicitly mentioned on-air, then a {{cite episode}} should suffice.
• "Regular Tournaments and Events" should be copy edited. Every paragraph is "In [year], blah blah blah happened." Maybe combine some sgments.
• "Theme music" seems like it'd be impossible to source the current key changes. In fact, I'm not sure if even the older ones are relevant. If you can't find anything discussing the theme's musical arrangement, then this section could probably stand to be removed.
• Also, the themes for the Fleming version need to be sourced.
• There were two Animaniacs episodes with Jeopardy! plot lines, one of which was a Pinky & the Brain short. Think those should be added if sources can be found?

Those are just the things I noticed so far. It'd really be nice to get this to GA along with the Wheel of Fortune article, which I've been working on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Enamorada de Ti (album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to FAC soon.

Thanks, Jona^{talk to me} 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Tito Dutta (contact)

• It was released posthumously on... (second sentence, lead)

— For the readers who don't know about Selena's death, it'll take some time to understand. And the readers who know about it don't need to be told that it released posthumously since Selena died in 1995 and the album released in 2012.

• • Other articles mentions the same thing (Michael (album)), and if readers who do not know her can always click on her article and read more about it. Lastly, there is a link in the article to her murder. jona^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• After performing to an enthusiastic crowd in Bolivia, A.B. decided to continue recording music

— When? Information available?

• • It says "three years ago" (from 2012) so I added "In 2009,". jona^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Enamorada de Ti (English: In Love with You) is the second remix album by American singer Selena.

— I think of American singer Selena sounds better! "By Selena" sounds she did all the works for the album!

• • Well she did record all of them that's why its her album. Not to so say that she did produce, arranged, mixed and did some programming. However, every album article on Wikipedia follows this style. jona^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Most probably there is an MoS rule which states article content should not be collapsed!
• In Enamorada_de_Ti_(album)#Track_listing if there will not be no "Notes", that column may be removed!
  •  Done. jona^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Credits are taken from the album's liner notes

— You have linked "overview"page, the credit page can be linked directly too!

• •  Done. jona^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• I can not see any citation in Chart positions and Certifications sections! 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Each chart position and certs have a source. jona^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    

---

University of Edinburgh

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, I've listed this article for peer review because I don't feel the article is up to scratch compared with many other university articles.

Thanks, MikeJamesShaw (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Lemonade51

First of all, thanks for your work on this. I've only been able to skim read the article, so I do apologise in advance if it is comprehensiveness that you are looking for. I think this is a fairly neat article, but one which needs attention to detail and correct referencing should you wish to take this to good or featured standard.

• For inspiration and to get some idea of what a good article requires, take a look at ones related to your topic. Some of the featured articles since its time of evaluation do not necessarily pass today's guidelines, but their prose and comprehensiveness is of better quality than most.
• A good lead must provide a summary of the main article, and be able to entice the reader into wanting to read more. Could you say the same about this? For the reason that it is a summary, it is considered good practise to move references away from the lead; anything included will be expanded upon the body and should be correctly cited. Have a look at WP:LEAD for more pointers.
• "The University of Edinburgh, founded in 1583, is a public research university in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland.", this part is redundant. What is the significance of it being the capital of Scotland? I suggest trimming it down to: "The University of Edinburgh is a public research university in Edinburgh, Scotland. It was founded in 1583/Founded in 1583, it..."
• In the first section alone there is dubious language used. "The university began life as a College of Law, founded by the Edinburgh Town Council on the south side of Edinburgh using part of a legacy left by Bishop Robert Reid of St Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall, Orkney, after his death in 1558" is a mouthful. It could easily be cut down to two sentences. Another line "The fact that its funding was granted by the Town Council makes it in many ways the first civic university", reads very much unencyclopedic.
• Referencing is crucial; there is next to none under the Development section. So it is hard to know whether it is factual stuff or just hearsay. For instance "The university is responsible for a number of historic and modern buildings across the City, including the oldest purpose-built concert hall in Scotland, and the second oldest in use in the British Isles, St Cecilia's Concert Hall; Teviot Row House, which is the oldest purpose built Student Union Building in the world; and the restored 17th-century Mylne's Court student residence which stands at the head of Edinburgh's Royal Mile." – that's a very lengthy sentence and has no references.
• "Along similar lines, all teaching is now done over two semesters (rather than 3 terms)" three terms even.
• Be consistent with timespans, is it 2011–2012 or 2011–2012? Ideally it should be the latter, in the form of 2011–12.
• References 40 to 58 need to be correctly formatted. Reference 59 needs work/publisher information. Newspapers which are used as references need work parameter, not publisher. Its name will therefore become italicized – The Guardian, for instance. There are some dead links moreover.

As I said before, prose can do with much work and given this is a storied university, I'd imagine this article could be more comprehensive. Should you need any more feedback, feel free to contact me on my talkpage. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

---

1924 Rose Bowl

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking about taking this article to FAC, and I want to have it reviewed before taking it there, to make it easier for me to fix issues that are brought up during the FAC review. Any type of review would help.

Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As a fan of American football and the Pac-12—although not a UW supporter, I have to admit—I'd be happy to review. I see a few things already, and I'll post some notes a bit later. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, I've finished reading through. All in all a ripping yarn, well-written, and so far as I have checked, scrupulous use of sources. I compared it to the FA 2008 ACC Championship Game, and I see this follows the same structure. There is quite a bit less detail here, but I think that's to be expected of a game played 84 years previously. Most of my notes relate to copy-edits, although I did find one apparent factual discrepancy (the MVP) and a few issues where more (or less) detail could help the reader. Let's go!

Infobox

• Who won MVP? In Statistical summary it says McKee, but here it says Tesreau.

• Clarified, it was McKee.

Introduction

• Use en-dashes "–" to separate ranges and scores, rather than hyphens.

• Added en-dashes to lead, going to add to the rest of the article. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Added en-dashes to entire article. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a different paragraph split; the second paragraph is about half season-in-review, and half first two quarters of the game. Perhaps it would be better to make the split here? Then the game summary seems as if it should be one paragraph.

• Split and fixed paragraphs.

• Phrases "two yard run" and "twelve yard touchdown pass" probably should be hyphenated; throughout the article, similar constructions involving numerals are so hyphenated. Also, should "twelve" be "12" considering it is over 10?

• Switched "twelve" to "12", added hyphens and dashes in lead and team selection. More to come.

• Spelling: "scorless" → "scoreless"

• Corrected.

• Probably best to change "touchdown run the next drive" to "touchdown run on the next drive"?

• Changed

• I see that field goal is wikilinked, but not "touchdown" or "interception". I don't know if the first instance of each should be or none should be, but just one seems out of place.

• Linked touchdown and interception in lead.

Team selection

• Wikilink "Navy" to United States Naval Academy to mirror wikilink around "University of Washington"

• Linked.

Team selection#Navy

• Remove period after "ties" and before "(5-1-2)."

• Removed.

• Wikilink "Penn State" to Penn State Nittany Lions football

• Linked.

• Consider a wikilink "Saint Xavier" to Saint_Xavier_University#Athletics (there is no dedicated article about the football team).

• Link added

• Spelling: "congressman" → "congressmen"

• Corrected.

Team selection#Washington

• Wikilink Pasadena Tournament of Roses to Pasadena Tournament of Roses

• Link added. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-game buildup

• Repetition of "the game"; at least 3 instances, including two sentences in a row.

• Changed three wordings out of four occurances.

• Per WP:TENSE I think the conditional mood of "The game would be the first" should be avoided; rather, the game was the first (Rose Bowl, right?) broadcast on radio.

• Changed.

Pre-game buildup#Navy

• I think "considered to be weak" would be just fine as "considered weak".

• Changed wording.

• Suggest rephrasing "had issues with stopping pass plays" with "had trouble defending pass plays" to avoid repetition.

• Rephrased. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Game summary

• Any reason given for the kickoff time being moved back 16 minutes? Seems an odd detail without context.

• Clarified.

Game summary#First half

• "both of the teams mascots" → "both teams' mascots"

• Corrected.

• The detail about there only being 40,000 in attendance is repetitious of Pre-game buildup, and this time without context of the rain. Maybe this doesn't need to be here?

• Changed.

• "The Midshipmen had controlled" → "The Midshipmen controlled"

• Fixed.

• "The next play," might read a bit more cleanly as "On the next play,"

• Altered

• I see one occurrence of "8-yard line" which should probably be "eight-yard line" per my note about the introduction?

• Switched to full spelling.

Game summary#Second half

• Suggest "before having their first incompletion" be replaced with "before their first incompletion".

• Fixed.

• Here we find a left guard named just "Bryan", however below we get his full name, James Bryan. I think this should give his full name on first mention.

• Clarified

• Suggest "to erratically throw the ball" should be "to throw the ball erratically" to avoid the split infinitive.

• Changed

• Same issue with Ziel as with Bryan; seems odd not to give full name on first mention.

• Added first name.

Statistical summary

• Who won MVP? In the infobox it says Tesreau, but here it says McKee.

• Clarified. It was McKee.

• Should "out threw" be "outthrew"? Dictionary.com seems to recognize "outthrow" as a word.

• Changed to outthrew. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Similar to the conditional tense note above, "The tie would give" should probably be "The tie gave".

• Wording changed.

• Similarly, "Washington would go" might be better phrased by letting readers know we're talking about the next season at the start of the second paragraph; the same issue occurs again. You may actually want to seek a third opinion on this; I can see the utility in a paragraph with slightly complicated tense requirements, but I do think it's generally not preferred.

• Changed the tense in all occurances I could find.

• First sentence of third paragraph either needs another comma after "subsequent ones", or strike the first one.

• Removed the comma.

• Lowercase "Stadium" in "Rose Bowl Stadium"

• Lowercase now.

• The phrasing "with the Tournament only provided with" being slightly awkward. Can't think of something better for the moment, just pointing it out.

• Rewrote the sentence.

References

• Kudos on the notes about disagreeing sources. I really like these kinds of notes.

• Thanks. The disagreeing information in sources really bothered me while I was researching the game, so I decided to include the info in the article.

And those are my notes. Good work! I'd be very happy to discuss anything further as you work through my suggestions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I knew that the prose was very sloppy in some parts, so this review is of great help, especially since this is the first time one of my peer reviews has been reviewed in months. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I enjoyed this. Great work! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

C-SPAN

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking it through the FA process very soon, and I would like a third party to review it for any issues I may have missed. Because I work on a consulting basis with C-SPAN, and because I wish to follow Jimbo's "bright line" advice for editors with a paid COI, I should probably not make any direct edits here (I have not directly edited this article since late 2011). If you post a suggestion here, I can always seek another editor to help implement such changes, if you the reviewing editor would prefer not. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Imzadi1979

A couple of brief comments in skimming the article:

• This article should use the American-style date format, namely Month DD, YYYY, and not DD Month YYYY. The topic is an American TV network after all.
• Citations to newspaper articles should include page numbers where possible unless an online edition is being cited. Even in the case of articles with URLs given in the footnotes, I personally prefer to locate the page number information as frequently as possible to allow readers the choice of verifying the information with either the print or online editions as desired.
• When the newspaper's name does not include the city of publication (or university in the case of a student paper), the location should be provided to aid readers seeking out those sources for potential verification.
• There is some inconsistency in citations whether or not the website title is rendered c-span.org or C-SPAN.org and whether or not C-SPAN is listed as a publisher. Pick a style and use it consistently, please.
• Footnote 24 has the newspaper's name out of italics, and what I assume is the name of a regular column/feature in italics. {{cite news}} has a |department= parameter for such regular column/feature names, and The Wall Street Journal would then be the |work=. (Also note that the paper's name does include The in the title; please check other paper names for consistency and accuracy on this matter.)
• Footnote 26 has a few words missing in the title... "C-SPAN's Letter to Speaker of House Representatives" probably should be: "C-SPAN's Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives" (additions in italics)? I would also prefer if |format=PDF were included as not all readers' browsers will display the PDF icon for various reasons, so a more explicit indication of that format would be wise.
• Footnote 42 has "The Associated Press" as a work, when it is not. That should be inserted into the |agency= field of the template, and note that the AP doesn't include the The in their name. Footnote 72 has the same issue, but it correctly uses the wire service's same.
• Footnote 55 is showing up with an error on my screen; if there isn't a URL defined for a source then there is no need to define |accessdate=. At the moment, this may be one of the error conditions that does not display by default, but I am seeing it because I have the hidden error conditions visible. In the future though, this will likely be revealed to all editors and readers, so it should be fixed. Ditto footnotes 61 and 65. Either the access date is removed or a URL needs to be added.
• Footnotes 119–122 incorrectly give either amazon.com or Google Books credit as the work. If you're citing the actual books, please cite the actual authors and publishers of these works, not a reseller or electronic delivery service.

While citation formatting is a minor part of the presentation of the article compared to the actual information in the article, accuracy and consistent formatting goes a long way toward giving a reader a polished product. Please work with someone to update these issues before you nominate the article at FAC, or they're liable to be repeated there, potentially under an oppose !vote.

Comments by groupuscule

Thanks for acknowledging your COI and requesting peer review.

• The first intro paragraph seems factual and neutral but it's currently a little difficult to read. Maybe the sentences are a little long.
• End of second paragraph does read as a little promotional (e.g., describing fee as "small") though I would agree that 'C-SPAN is not funded by government or politicians' is a sufficiently important fact to include in the lead.
• Digital links for any more of these sources? It's difficult to evaluate fidelity to the source without knowing how to access it. Relatedly, I've never seen routine TV broadcast cited as a source for a Wikipedia article. Is TV a reliable source? (Commentary, not C-SPAN ;-) ) Is this a verifiable claim if verification requires access to Fox News tapes from 2004?
• Great picture of C-SPAN2 launch in 1986.
• Section on "organization and operations" is surprisingly small. Any more info out there? Budget? Dollars? Consultants? (We know they hire at least one!) PR?
• Glad this FAIR study is discussed by the article. Any updates since 2005? Also the URL seems to have died. (More info) The exclusion of third party voices seems like a major issue that's not currently mentioned. (This search suggests possible recent improvements in that field.)
• "Must-carry" section still a little unclear. Were there changes in the must-carry rules that allowed providers to drop C-SPAN?

Looking through a Google News search suggests some other issues that might be in the article:

• C-SPAN: Electronic Sunshine (by the way, what's the status of recording candidates now?)
• C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd
• "C-SPAN Barred From Covering Obama's First Gridiron"
• C-SPAN Squelches Dodd's D-SPAN
• C-SPAN: Don't Blame Us For Not Airing GOP Revolt

... and some articles, not behind paywalls, that might be used to source (and expand) existing claims:

• "March 19, 1979: House Proceedings Air Live on C-SPAN"
• Copyright "C-SPAN alters copyright over Pelosi flap"
• "C-SPAN Asks Sites to Pull Colbert"
• "C-SPAN's Spotlight Brings Quiet Corners of Campaigning Into View"
• "C-SPAN has a lot to celebrate about"
• "C-SPAN seeks a wider focus on the House"

... and, yeah, plenty more, just go ahead and look at that search.

On a side note—and I know the tide seems to be against it—using citation templates really increases the load time of the article and makes it difficult for people with slow connections to access. Simple handmade citations solve this problem as well as some of those listed above. Though I know it's a huge pain in the neck to go back and redo, and I certainly wouldn't demand something like that before "approving" an article or whatever.

OK, that's it for now. In general, a good article, well written and well sourced.

---

Voivode of Transylvania

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a second peer review because comments on its comprehensiveness and neutrality may contribute to its further improvement in order to reach FA status.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Beautiful Store

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article page is about non-profit company in korea.

We are welcome all about advise for our article.

Thanks, HaeYoon (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Majura Parkway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I wish to improve it even further but need some ideas on how I could expand upon what is already written.

Thanks, Nbound (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Lie Kim Hok

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring this to FA and I'd like to hammer out any remaining issues (particularly grammar).

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "and Dutch – he was unable" perhaps "and Dutch, though he was unable …"

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "after his wife died Lie quit this position." being picky, it could be Van der Linden's wife meant. Perhaps "; Lee quit these positions after his wife died." Positions should be plural. Two periodicals.

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and grammar Malajoe Batawi. " Perhaps "Malay grammar". Grammar by itself is not clear.

• Then we'd have Malay -- Malajoe. How about "grammar book"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is it van der Linden or Van der Linden. My understanding on Dutch names is that the "van" is capitalized if there is nothing before it (that is, Hendrik van der Meer, or Dr. van der Meer, but if it's "he went to see Van der Meer", it's capped.) We have plenty of Dutch speakers you could check with.

• W. R. van Hoëvell was written by User:Drmies, a native Dutch speaker, and it uses the miniscule v. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies follows Dutch practice here. Even looking at "Van" with a capital V gives xem a headache. Honestly, I don't know anymore what the US style guides etc. say... Wehwalt may well be right about seeing Van der Meer, though. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, there's this. But odd how all my English sources are using the miniscule v and d (The vernacular press and the emergence of modern Indonesian consciousness, Studying ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's what we were repeatedly told in doing Natalee Holloway, though not necessarily on wiki ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... I think we'll leave that question for FAC. The usage is quite mixed on Wikipedia, and a discussion at the MOS here suggests we should follow the sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Infobox: I don't think the number of children is what that field is for, it's for naming them.

• Documentation says "Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• "schools for Europeans" perhaps "either" before "for".

• Trying... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie received his formal education, including the sciences, language, and Christianty" I'd either add an "in" before "the sciences" or else say that the curriculum included these things.

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the religion" perhaps "the religious training". I'd say "influenced" rather than "affected".

• Source doesn't tie it explicitly, have reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie and his family returned to Bogor in 1866." Yes, but they were there so briefly it's not worth the word "returned". It was not their dwelling place, they were there on a temporary basis before, to have help with the birth. Possibly "moved" or "relocated".

• The elder Lie's family was originally from Bogor. Clarified — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and until his death Lie was unable to speak Chinese." In the lede you say he was unable to understand it. There can be a difference.

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "When Sierk Coolsma opened a missionary school on 31 May 1869, " In Bogor?

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the Sundanese students, mostly Muslim, had transferred to the new school for fear of being converted" to Christianity?

• Yes. Made explicit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1873 Coolsma was tasked to Sumedang " "tasked" is with a project or a job, not to a place. Perhaps "transferred" or "reassigned"?

• Done.

More in a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Teacher

• "began assisting" assisted

• Alright

• "the missionary's printing press" The missionary's van der Linden, right? You have as yet only called him a teacher. Now that it's been mentioned, going back to the previous section, wouldn't this have undermined the school's apparent appeal to those not wishing to come to Jesus?

• Added "by fellow missionary" above. It did, hence the big migration away from the school when an alternative opened up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "but followed through under his parent's urgings" Perhaps move "parents" to previous sentence, i.e., "Lie was told by his parents …" Then this can be reduced to :*"but obediently followed through" Or perhaps better "but obeyed".

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"their first child; the baby" I'm not sure the semicolon is needed or a good idea, it might be better to bridge with "but" or "though".

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Following these deaths Lie sold his school to Oey Kim Hoat and left his position at Zending Press to ensure his family's financial stability" Selling your business and quitting your job does this how, exactly? Apparently it doesn't, judging by "Lie was unable to take care of the child"

• Reworded, missed a bit of info which was quite important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gadok" Link?

• Added a point of reference. Looks to be a very small village even today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then you may want to give the reader a general location, province name, or the like. I assumed it was a significant town.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Southeast of Bogor (we've put Bogor in West Java already) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Three years later" than 1881 or 1886?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "works by other authors and reprinting some of Lie's earlier works;" repetition

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Judging by Lie's purchases, his books must have sold well. Can that be said?

• Not in the sources explicitly, but Tio's purple prose (the bit about the bright star below) implies it. We could say his works did well, but no solid figures and I don't think the sources support identifying which ones sold well. Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't have any as don't have the sources. In my view there's a slight disconnect, Lie is presented as very poor and then suddenly he's pulling off these major purchases. There needs to be some hint to the reader that Lie is not that poor anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ah. Clarified (another piece of information I thought was there but wasn't) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The publishing house was moved to Batavia soon after and, beginning in mid-1886,[c] Lie's publishing house was credited as printer." Hm. Maybe "Beginning in mid-1886, Lie's publishing house (which he had moved to Batavia) was credited as the newspaper's printer."

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "While busy with the press" This sentence is too long and should be split. You cannot have two semicolons in a sentence.

• Split. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• " the following year." This is a little bit loose, because you are actually talking about a time period here, not the year 1887. But it's "He spent the next three years" which really becomes a problem. After 1887 or 1888?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "began work" would say "began to work" or "started working" or "began working". "Began work" has a sense of working on a project.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would be good to know what he did at the rice mill. Presumably it wasn't arduous.

• All the source says is "managing the rice" ("mengurus beras"). Added, for what good it does. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie was forbidden from leaving the house and his condition steadily declined." At some point, the restriction became superfluous, given that he was dying. I would omit the part about forbidden leaving the house.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• Are the first two sentences really a part of his legacy?

• Couldn't think of anywhere better. Moved above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "notes that Lie's entry into the press sparked an increase in Chinese presence in the Dutch East Indies," Does this mean he caused additional immigration?

• No, the Chinese already in the Indies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Tio does not record" suggest attaching this to the previous sentence, prefaced with a though.

• Good idea, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "to lead a troupe of teenaged actors," perhaps "for a troupe of teenage actors".

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• You use "marginalised" twice in the final paragraph. You should make it a bit clearer the relationship between bazaar Malay and low Malay for those of us who know nothing about it.

Added a sentence, hope that helps. Two "marginalised"s in a paragraph of this size doesn't seem to be overkill. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

• The word "work" is overused in the first paragraph.

• Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "plot elements in both stories are the same, although some elements " delete second elements

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "found" is used as the verb in two consecutive sentences.

• Think I got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's about it. Generally quite well done and I'm sure it will do great at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro:

Lead:

• "In the mid-1870s Lie married and edited two periodicals published by his teacher and mentor D. J. van der Linden; after Lie's wife died he quit this position": This sounds like the editing was a one-off event in the middle of the decade. And I don't think these two things can be mentioned in this way in the same sentence as they are not really connected. Also, no position is mentioned, just an action ("edited" rather than "he was editor"). And it could be pedantically read as written, that after his wife's death, he quit his marriage.

• Reworked completely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• "grammar": Could we find a link for this? The use of "grammar" in this sense is perhaps not widely known today.

• "A grammar of the English language" has numerous ghits, although most are from the turn of the century. Added "book" as we don't have an article yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• "a newspaper based in Batavia (now Jakarta) and moved to the city": What moved: Lie or the newspaper?

• Lie and his printing press

• "working various odd jobs": I would prefer this to be more formal. "Working jobs" does not sound right in an encyclopaedia; neither, really, does "odd jobs".

• Any suggestions? Perhaps "lines of work"? "Uncertain employment"?

• What about "employed in a variety of jobs"? Maybe too pompous, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• A little... trying "lines of employment". Or is this an Americanism? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie has been considered influential in the colony's journalism": Rather an awkward construction.

• To, perhaps?

• "he is best remembered for his contributions...": Remembered by who?

• Added a source, attributed in text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Several of his writings saw multiple printings": "saw" remains a pet hate of mine!!

• Is received better?

• Fine, but I think I'd go for "were printed multiple times", but no big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Went with your wording, as I had used "several" at the beginning of the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "his work has become marginalised": I think "was" or "is" may be better here.

• Not sure on this one. "Has become" implies that a) it was a process and b) it's lasting until now, and c) it may change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This conclusion has been debated by several critics, who have found evidence of innovation in Lie's writing style and handling of plots": Maybe "Other critics, though, have found..." or similar.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Early life:

• "The well-to-do peranakan Chinese[a] couple was living in Cianjur at the time but had gone..."": Is there any reason this could not be simplified to "lived in Cianjur at the time but went..."?

• No, no issue here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "At age ten he was enrolled": Would "Aged ten, he was enrolled..." be simpler?

• Feels... odd... to me. Can't put my finger on it. Perhaps it's the lack of continuation between young and "Aged ten".

• Probably an ENGVAR thing, so no problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if it's common in British English (which is the language ostensibly taught in Indonesian schools) it should be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Studies resumed, using Malay as van der Linden was unable to speak Sundanese": Something a bit off here. I'm not sure studies can use a language. What about "Studies resumed in Malay; van der Linden was unable to speak Sundanese". (I think the comma is a little ambiguous)

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The two would work together at van der Linden's school": Why "would"? Perhaps "later worked together"?
• "the traditional theatre": Why the definite article?

• Done and done. Forget why I included it (perhaps as I'm used to doing it for persons?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Teacher and publisher:

• "Lie had a considerable command of Sundanese and Malay": "Considerable" is a bit vague, and I would prefer something more precise. Good command? Average command? Considerable could be these, or several others.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Similar with "fair Dutch", although this one is probably as precise as we can get.

• It's also all that's supported by the sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie assisted van der Linden with the missionary school": Can you assist with a school? Perhaps "at the missionary school".

• Was thinking "with the operations of", but "at" works even better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "operated his own for poor children": General school, or missionary school?

• General school, clarified.10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie likewise worked for the missionary's printing press": Likewise? What are we comparing to?

• Nuked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is a space before ref 13 that I am too lazy to fix!

• Got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The pair soon grew close, and the following year they had their first child, but the baby died soon after birth": Too much going on here, and needs trimming somewhere. Perhaps "The pair soon grew close; the following year they had their first child, although the baby died soon after birth."

• Took your wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1881 Oey Pek Nio gave birth to another child, but died soon afterwards.": Without following the link, it may not quite be clear who has died here, the child or the mother.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1881 Oey Pek Nio gave birth to another child, but died soon afterwards. As Lie was unable to take care of the child, the baby was sent to live with Lie's father-in-law in Gadog, a village to the southeast of Bogor, but died in 1886": We have, in quick succession, "child...child...baby"; even with some pronouns, I think this could be rewritten to avoid the need for this repetition. Also, there are two cases of "but died". Again, I think this could be avoided.

• I'm in a pickle here because the sources do not give a sex or name (which could be used to determine the sex). Indonesian does not have male/female pronouns, so that's also useless. I'm very, very, very hesitant to use "it" when speaking about a human. So pronouns are out, unless we use the singular "they" which opens another battlefield. How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1984 Lie published his first books": I'm assuming the year is a typo.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• How did he come to publish the books? This seems to come from no-where.

• That's how the sources present it. Added a bit of information further up, about how he would create his own poems, but the sources don't mention any formal or non-formal training. He likely borrowed from his time as a magazine editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Beginning in mid-1886": Possibly better as "From mid-1886..."

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Two pieces were pieces of nonfiction": Pieces...pieces

• Removed one "pieces". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Two pieces were pieces of nonfiction, one a collection of Chinese prophecies and the other detailing lease laws.": If the sentence is in this form, it should be "...the other detailed lease laws", but I'm not sure "detailed" is the correct verb here.

• Outlined?

• Better. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie would not work as a publisher again": I think "did" rather than "would".

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "spent the next three years working a multitude of jobs": As above, I'm not sure how encyclopaediac "working jobs" is.

• Better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• We still have "working jobs", but that may be another ENGVAR thing as it doesn't sound formal to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Taking". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tiong Hoa Hwe Koan, translations, and death

• "managing the rice": How does one manage rice?? By exercising firm discipline??

• Sources aren't clear on what exactly his duties were. Trying again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Better. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The following years saw him translate": Saw again.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lie caught ill": I think "became ill" is more formal.
• "while THHK schools throughout the city flew their flags at half-mast": I'm not sure this connects well enough with the rest of the sentence to justify "while".

• Done and done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• "notes that Lie's entry into the press sparked an wave of peranakan Chinese writers to enter the newspaper industry as editors": entry...enter

Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Adam finds Lie's works": "finds" was used a few sentences previously, so a different word may be better.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• A few more "saws": "saw multiple printings" and "which saw some success"

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which was being performed by Miss Riboet's Orion": It's not too clear what "Miss Riboet's Orion" was.

• Added "theatre troupe" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Chinese Malay literature, written in "low" Malay, was steadily marginalised and declared to be of low quality": low...low

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I got the last few issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Parasakthi (1952 film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

i have started this peer review because I want the article to become as good as it can be. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have not read the full article; the structure looks ok. Following are some random sampling:
• "A. V. Meiyappan's newly established AVM Productions which was on a high, having produced a series of hits as Nam Iruvar and Vazhkai planned to make a film, later titled as Parasakthi in 1952 with a newcomer Sivaji Ganesan, who had earlier dubbed for Telugu artist Mukkamala Krishnamurthi in the Tamil film Niraparadhi." Complex sentence, please fragment.
• " sightless sister" --> blind sister.
• The role of the "loving brother" in this drama was played Sivaji Ganesan. Why loving brother in quote? Brother would be enough.
• "However, Parasakthi did not begin well for Ganesan. The directors, Krishnan and Panju, worked hard with the newcomer and after a few thousands of feet were canned, Meiyappan and his crew viewed the rough-cut footage and were disappointed, feeling that Ganesan was not the right choice. Meiyappan suggested that the hero be replaced by K. R. Ramasami. But producer P. A. Perumal was not convinced. He had great faith in Ganesan and was not ready to heed Meiyappan's advice. Therefore, he stopped for quite a while and Ganesan had no option but to undergo long stretches of intense mental agony, and insecurity, until Perumal decided to continue with him". Heavy copyright violation from this article.
• "Made at an impressive budget ..." What does that mean?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix all the errors by today afternoon. Abt the last statement, an old editor wrote it. I find it insignificant, so I'll remove it. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nearly everything here has been fixed. Pls check nd review. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The above concerns (by me on 27 March) seem to have been addressed. However, now the article has a huge quote in "production" section. That needs to properly paraphrased. It's too large to remain.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any rewriting software, that can reword or improve writings? I haven't found any yet, and that is the only thing that can help satisfy ur request. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no re-writng software that I know of. An editor has to manually re-write that, taking care it is not so close to original as to infringe copyright (close paraphrasing), and also not so much deviated from the original as to constitute original research!--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Can u do it at least a little? Please. Rewriting is a big challenge for me, and even if I do so, I need someone by my side to help. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done the para-phrasing. Since I do not know much of the background, there may be information missing in the re-write. Moreover, I removed many names (I felt those names were actually related to the other film, En Thangai, so not needed in this article). Add citations. See what changes you feel are necessary.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok now that Production is done (who knows, we can do better), can we please shift to the box office section for now? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because "box office", "release" and "critical reception" (which has extra text, can be further reduced) are small sections/subsections, all of those can be merged in one section (name it "Reception").
• Any more box office data available (money?)? I understand it may not be available.
• That link to a blog should be removed from text. It can be retained in "External links" section though.
• "Ganesan's debut film as an actor was actually Poongothai, which was released as his sixth venture" If it was his debut, hw come it was his sixth venture? Does that mean he did work in some non-actor capacity in previous five ventures?
• It seems from reading the article so far that the film might have had impact on succeeding films/productions. Fancy a section named "Impact" or "Legacy", if you have sufficient references?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My facebook account has the images of a professional magazine article (9 pages long) describing everything about the film before and after release, check here: [6] additionally, if the link I mentioned in box office section is not acceptable despite being the only source, the box office section can be renamed to legacy or reception, taking info from the link I have just mentioned. Critical reception may be renamed to reviews. Believe me, I could have taken info from the magazine if someone sat by my side, but no-one did. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not see the magazine, the link is not working for me. If the magazine has such wealth of information, you should defenitely go ahead and take data from there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Through my Photobucket account, I think the images can be seen now: [7]; if u can see it this time, pls add at least a little info from one page minimum. for u r a veteran editor, I'm not yet. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the article through your photobucket account. It is high quality article, so you should use it definitely as a source. Bye the way, why do you need someone sitting beside you when attempting to use that magazine? You can easily do it yourself. My suggestion would be add staffs from that article, and then we can continue PR.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, u can take a well deserved break. To answer ur question, anyone sitting beside me could tell me wat all to add to the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Massive changes have happened. someone pls review them. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Parasakthi was a popular Tamil play written by Pavalar Balasundaram, a Tamil scholar." Give the year of publication/first enactment of the play. Otherwise we don't know when are these things happening.

Reply: can't find the year of the play, not even in online books. can asking a film historian personally (like Randor Guy, Mohan Raman or Theodore Baskaran) get the job done? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "who convinced Meiyappan to retain Ganesan in the film, to which Meiyappan relented." Remove the clause "to which ... relented" Unneeded.

Reply:  Done ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Ganesan was paid a monthly salary of 250 (US$4.60) for acting in the film". That conversion is at today's rate. At that time (1952) Rs 250 would convert to a different value of US dollars.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply:  Done. please check. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• The critical reception section begins with the sentence "Contemporary reviews for Parasakthi have been mostly positive." But the very next commentary by Randor Guy is from 2011. Contemporary reviews, in this context, means reviews around the time when the film was released. So, this needs to be re-worded.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "contemporary" mean "present day"? pls check everything else. Kailash29792 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I also had the same impression previously (that contemporary means present day). actually, it (and also the word contemporaneous) means "occurring at the same time". --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• "After months of shooting and preparations, Parasakthi was released on..." Either mention approximately how many months, or, you can simply remove that clause (After months of shooting and preparations).--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply:  Done. "contemporary" replaced with "critical", and "after months..." line removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The film's status in Dravidian movement deserves a mention in the lead.

Hard to put. must ask someone. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have not read the plot, but the plot outline in the lead reads poorly.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

but is the plot section well written? the plot for the lead was taken from IMDB, with a few additions. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the ploy outline of lead.

The plot section of the article seems to be a touch longer than needed, the story line is not much complicated (not a thriller) even though many incidents happen. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The peer review has been closed, i can get better suggestions through a GA Review. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---